Friday, November 29, 2013

A Shameful Display


The Black Friday shopping spree was marked, yet again, by ignorant, self-centered idiots. Shoplifters were shot, thieves ran rampant, a store was evacuated, and one woman had the nerve to spit on another woman's child...over baby clothes?

There are so many things wrong with this scenario that it is making my head hurt.

Why try to steal from people/store with all those witnesses? Yes the employees are distracted but there is (presumably) heighten security because of that (at least in a mall setting). But lets say there is no increase in security, why take the chance that the three hundred people in the store won't say anything? Why is Black Friday your preferred day to shoplift and rob people on their way home or to their cars? What is wrong with the other days of the year? People buy TV's every day. Better yet, why can't you just not steal and work for what you want, so you can deserve it?

How did American society get to the point were people think it is okay to call in bomb threats? Or (which is truly pathetic) spit on a child, because of a disagreement about clothes...clothes? You traumatized that kid for absolutely no good reason. Grow up people.

It's just a sale, if you didn't get what you wanted big deal. Again, become an adult. Just wait a few days and it will be back on the shelves again. Maybe not as cheap, but deal with it. You've still got plenty of days till Christmas.

If you're making a big deal about clothes or a TV then you've forgotten about the meaning of Christmas (and the forsaken Thanksgiving) allegedly has.

It hurts my head thinking about how people can be belligerent and thoughtless over material things that don't even matter.


References:

11/29/2013

http://news.msn.com/us/fights-store-evacuation-mar-black-friday-shopping



Monday, November 25, 2013

Recommendation to the Mexican Government


In some regions of Mexico, the public safety situation is so bad that citizen groups have joined together and armed themselves. This groups are attempting to physically keep the several gangs that extort their towns out.

Under Mexican law the actions they are taking to protect themselves are illegal. So far, it would appear that Mexican law enforcement and the military have largely ignored them. Not surprising. If they did not have the will or manpower to stop the gangs then they wouldn't stop the citizen groups.

In my opinion, if the Mexican government ever gets the means/will to bring law back to these lawless lands then they should do a few things:
  1. Create a commission for every town or region that is being rehabilitated to oversee the transition and review the actions taken by the citizen groups.
  2. Help the citizen groups transition back into their normal lives.
  3. Grant amnesty to all citizen groups members (assuming they haven't committed any crime that was wasn't necessary to protect their families and property).
The reason being is that every living thing has the right to protect themselves and their families and if the police force in any country is non-existent or so dysfunctional then citizens should be allowed to become their own police force till property order can be restored.

_________________________________________________________________________________

If anyone has an information/articles related to this topic then please comment in the comment section below. Comments (of any kind) are welcome. Also, if you are feeling brave, subscribe.

References:

http://news.msn.com/world/mexicans-form-self-defense-groups-to-fight-lawlessness



Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Transition

I'm currently moving my blog posts from a previous blog site, so if some things look out of date/weird that is why.

Also the blog did have pictures initially but no longer.

Thank you.

But aren’t we friends?

 


The developing story about the National Security Agency’s surveillance, specifically of the United States allies, seems to fly in the face of any constructivist thought that there is no security tension between the United States and the Western European world. The idea that increased interdependence through trade, involvement in IGO’s, and general agreement for global economic policies lead to a never-before-seen level of trust between these countries. One would expect that the United States would focus just on Middle East countries (where the terrorist threat is much greater) or China (which is increasing in military strength and sports the second-greatest military budget).

It is weird to think that some focus was placed on those countries who are suppose to be United States allies.

Other reports indicate, however, that did not only the United States spy on Europe but so did Europe spy on the United States.

Why would either side spy on each other though?

Fear of domestic terrorists attack the allies of their home countries? This would seem more likely in Europe but then why would the NSA be compelled to tape the German chancellors cell phone? Did the United States think the leader of Germany would directly exchange words with terrorists?

Perhaps either side was worried about the development of economic policy that could effect either side in a negative why? I see that as a possibility but can’t help think that is not the case because that type of information (very unlike military/intelligence information) is much more readily available.
In theory, the scope would have to include, not only European leaders, but also European financial institutions and business leaders (as far as I know it does not; I’m not sure).

In the end there is no clean understanding as to the scope of the surveillance or its’ purpose. Which is not surprising given that all the relevant parties take credit for some things, deny some things, and all the reports have not been made available.

To conclude, there is some wiggle room to be given, to both the United States government and the European government, when it comes to spying on each other. For two reasons.
First if they both do it, then there is hardly room to complain on either side. (At least when it comes to the government in aggregate).

Second, trust between people is easier because the damage that comes from a break in that trust is limited. Whereas when in comes to trust between governments, a break in the trust could affect millions of people. (i.e. A surprise military attack could cost thousands of live).

As always, feel free to comment, subscribe, fact-check, spell-check, call me stupid (but give a reason), give me cookie, etc…

Thank you for your time.

References:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allan-topol/friends-spying-on-friends_b_4212534.html
http://www.newser.com/story/176709/nsa-we-didnt-spy-on-europeans-europe-did.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57609833/nsa-chief-we-didnt-spy-on-european-citizens/
http://www.infoworld.com/t/hacking/uk-spy-agency-uses-nsa-attack-hack-slashdot-linkedin-users-230591
http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-US-Doesn-t-Agree-to-a-quot-No-Spy-quot-Pact-with-Germany-399648.shtml

What the United States Should Consider before Striking Syria.

Posted on

In has been all over the news recently about Syria’s civil war and the Syrian government escalating the conflict by allegedly using chemical weapons against the rebels and civilians. The evidence that this was the case is growing everyday. U.S. President Barack Obama said that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government would be crossing a “red line” and the United States government would react to that transgression.

Now that Syria has crossed the line, the president and other U.S. officials (although not all) are considering military action against Syria. The pressure from international law and from other countries to punish Syria for its’ actions is also mounting. President Obama has said however that putting boots-on-the-ground is off the table. The only thing being considered, thus far, is targeted strikes from naval ships.

There are five things that the United States before it does anything with regards to punishing Syria.
  1. It should make sure that any attack against Syria is devastating. The main justification for attacking Syria is not only to punish its’ government but to show the international community that actions such as this will not be tolerated. When this is considered, anything anyone does to punish another country should be strong enough to prevent the problem from every arising again.
  2. The scope of the attack should only be to punish Syria for its’ use of chemical weapons and not to purposefully turn the war in the rebels favor.
  3. The punishment should not purposefully include any civilian targets and genuine care should be given to avoid civilian casualties.
  4. The United States should not be the only one in involved in the punishment, other countries must not only give their vocal support but also should give resources. If it is an action to protect international norms and laws then it should be an international effort.
  5. Once the message (attack) is finished the United States and other countries should have no further military contact with Syria. (No occupation forces).
This is just a list of some things I think the United States should consider before doing anything in Syria and is not representative of whether or not I think the United States should do anything at all.
If you have any comments/additions/omissions you wish to note, please do so in the comments section and as always feel free to subscribe.

Why Someone Should Not Have the Duty to Retreat

Posted on

Defense of life is the right of every living human being. A person has the right to defend themselves and others against any aggressor. Forcing some to have to try and retreat before they can use force unjustly infringes on that right to defend life because it gives the aggressor an undesired advantage.

The aggressor already has an advantage over the victim because they have the benefit of knowing what their intentions are, to cause harm to the victim. The victim is at a disadvantage because they don’t know what the aggressor is planning or what the aggressor is capable.

The victim therefore should not have to give the aggressor another advantage by leaving themselves vulnerable by retreating.

I’m by no means advocating a shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality. If you believe that your life is in danger and you are armed, staring down an unarmed aggressor, with a good amount of distance between you, there is no need to use deadly force. However, if the aggressor lunges at you, it is your right to use force to defend yourself.

In my opinion it doesn’t matter that you could of walked away, because if the attack was willing to attack when you were still, then it wouldn’t be a far leap to say they might still pursue you even as you retreated. Especially since, an apparently unarmed assailant could actually be armed. Knife, firearm, whatever; they are dangerous. Furthermore, the aggressor (if they knew you had the duty to retreat) would be less threaten and deterred by the fact that you are armed.

It would also be important to remember that the aggressor could of walked away to.

Everyone needs to know that when the time comes they can defend themselves and their families without the risk of being brought to either criminal or civil courts.

Rhetoric That I Find Annoying.

Posted on

There is something that I see that particularly annoys me when I read/watch the news, read other blog’s, and read comments on social media. The thing that annoys me is when people label Democrats and Republicans in certain derogatory categories such as communist or racist, respectively. This includes when people form sentences that have being “liberal” or “conservative” present in negative undertones. I get that politics seems sometimes to be a game of rhetoric, make the other guys/gals seem bad and make your guys/gals look good. But unless it is true, is it not productive.

Not every Democrat is a “die-hard” liberal, or a communist, or a “gun grabber.” Not every Republican is a racist, or a misogynist, or greedy.

Undesired stigma is unnecessary. The Democratic and Republican party are filled with a diverse people who have a variety of different beliefs. There are various degrees of liberalism and conservatism. Some people only consider themselves apart of a particular party for a specific issue area, and don’t even care for the others. Being a member of a political party does not mean that an individual believes in everything that party believes in, or takes to the extreme their general beliefs.

It would be far more productive to actually listen to what people and lawmakers have to say then to just make assumptions and demonize a specific group of people.

What is a Legitimate Government?

Posted on

Why (Most of Us) Don’t Really Have to Worry About the NSA

Posted on

I’m sure most of us have already heard about the NSA Scandal. Either from your friends, from the news, co-workers, etc…

This being said I will recap in case anyone reading is not familiar. Basically, an NSA contractor, Edward Snowden leaked information about a secret government surveillance program called “PRISM.” This program was allegedly collecting electronic data on a massive scale. The data collected was on not only on United States citizens but also foreign citizens. [1] According to President Obama the program has stopped over 50 terrorist plots (this is contested however) and was supervised by the courts. [2]

But now for the real reason I am writing this blog entry. I keep hearing things from my friends and my co-workers how the NSA is watching them through their web cams, don’t buy the Xbox One because the NSA will use the Kinect to watch you. Some people say it as a joke, others say it like it’s true.

For arguments sake I’ll just talk about United States surveillance. It is not possible for the NSA to watch everyone all the time. It would take a significant amount of main power to hack every web cam on every computer in the United States, to go through the millions of e-mails, to go through the millions of facebook statuses, to go through the millions of tweets that are sent and received?
Not to mention the United States government wouldn’t even care to. Regardless of what it might seem the United States is run by rational individuals. They would see no utility in listening to the day-to-day conversation of ordinary citizens. Think about it this way, do you see any benefit from stalking everyone of your facebook friends? Or do you just stalk those of particular interest to you?
The government’s people of particular interest are those that wish to do the United States harm. They are looking for terrorists. The data they collect is filtered to look for keywords, and they look at those who use enough keywords.

Granted, it is very possible that the government gathered many pieces of data that included your day-to-day conversation but chances are, if you are not talking about bombs or such, that the government has not even looked at it.

At any rate, I guess that’s all I have for this tirade. Comments are encouraged whether you agree or disagree and if you like what you read or you don’t but still want to hear more (because you love to hate) then feel free to follow my blog.

Thank you for reading.

Sources:
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
2: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-lives-saved-nsa-programs-114733804.html

Why the Governemnt Should Keep Secrets

Posted on

Think about why you keep secrets. Embarrassment. It's your own private business. You'll wait for the right time. Obviously not an exhaustive list.

Governments keep secrets for one reason: Security.

Now when I talk about a government I mean the government as a whole. I'm not talking about a senator who would like to cover up a infidelity or a less-then-ethical president.
So why should governments keep secrets? Simply because every government has enemies. Even a small, stable government with little international interaction still will have a least one individual that would like to see it toppled. But of course a government's enemy does not have to be just one individual, it could be few, many, or even another government. Not every enemy of a state will express its' dismay in a peaceful manner and it would be irresponsible of anyone to assume that they will.

Since governments have enemies and they should not all be assumed to be peaceful then a government would need to be ready to use violence against any violence done onto them. Part of being a government is having a near-monopoly on the legitimate use of force (I say near-monopoly because individual's have the right to self-defense).

Now lets get to why government can/need to keep secrets. There are four main reasons, that I see, with some possibility for overlap.

Firstly, a government's enemies are keeping secrets. Why give your enemies the advantage of knowing what your going to do, who your looking for, what your looking for? Your enemies will operate in the shadows and if you want to avoid giving them an advantage, you have to operate in the shadows as well.

Secondly,  a government has to provide security to its' people and it self. Part of being secure is your enemies not knowing your capabilities. If your enemies do not know what you can/will do then that mystery can either deter them or be a much needed surprise when your adversaries do attack.
Thirdly, governments and their enemies are engaged in a game of secrets. But it is not a game for fun. When one side finds out, or if they fail to find out, the others secrets, people either go to jail, or they die. If the government uncovers a secret terrorist plot, those terrorists (ideally) go to jail. If the terrorists are not found out, or they find fatal holes in a security plan at an airport or military base, property gets destroyed and people die.

Fourthly and finally, people sometimes don't really need to know. Unless you work in the particular area do you really need to know everything? Do you really need to know every person that the United States ambassador or president is talking to? Are you an expert on foreign policy or a military strategist and can provide meaningful commentary to the specifics of such things? Are you willing to trust everyone with sensitive information? Now the argument can be made, in the United States at least, that the people would want to stop the government from doing stupid things. Seems reasonable enough, if it weren't for the fact that you did (or had the option to) vote those decision makers into office. There are many people who work in government and who are not elected but high level policy making positions are appointed by those who were elected, other positions are given those who do well on competitive merit exams or have a great deal of experience in the military (so how are you better qualified?)

That being said, I would say (and for the sake of transparency) that once the secret has served its' purpose that it could and should be made public.

The End.

If you wish to comment your are more then welcome to do so, and if you like what you have read (or even dislike but respect my opinion) then please choose to follow my blog.

Thank You.

North West? The person?

 


After reading a news article about the name that Kayne West and Kim Kardashian named their baby (I don’t usually read articles about celebrities but I had to look this up after hearing about), I was appalled.

North? And no middle name? Making her full name North West? That is the name they decided to give their first born daughter? North is not a name, it is a direction.

I respect the right of individuals to handle their own private affairs but this is either a display of disgusting attention grabbing or stupidity and the child is going to suffer for it. [1]

After reading the article on MSN Entertainment News I could not help think that people should not be allowed to do such things. That being said, I am torn between wanting to protect the personal rights of parents and the need to protect children from becoming walking puns. The need to protect children is slightly winning at the moment.

It reminds me of an article I read a while ago about the government of New Zealand and how it has been handling “…parents who too often see naming like a good joke, rather than a responsibility.” New Zealand has a list of banned names and will ban any name that will “make a fool of a child.” [2]

The names that people have tried to name their kids, in New Zealand and around the world, is disheartening. [3] People, knowingly, try and set up their to be bullied, reticulated, and undoubtedly have to go to court  to get their name legally changed. It is just wrong in my opinion.

Granted one could have a worse name then North, but you can’t tell me they were thinking about the child’s best interest when they were giving her that name. But as a parent that is your job, like it or not, you have to take care of your kid. That includes giving your child a name with meaning (the meaning being something, meaningful and not a joke).

Or at the very least just a name that isn’t a joke.

Sources:
[1] http://t.entertainment.msn.com/kim-kardashian-and-kanye-west-baby-name-revealed?toc=celebs
[2] http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Family/Modern-Parenthood/2013/0502/Banned-baby-names-New-Zealand-struggles-with-what-s-in-a-name-as-do-we
[3] http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/blogs/yahoo-lifestyles/10-illegal-baby-names-194006397-3.html

My Thoughts of the “Merry Christmas Bill

 


On June 6th of this year, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed into law a bill that would allow religious holiday celebration in public schools. This includes protecting menorah and nativity scenes.
Governor Rick Perry is quoted as saying “Religious freedom does not mean freedom from religion.”  
 
I agree with that sentiment. It would be impossible for people to freely express their religion if other people were free from that person’s expression. 

However, when it comes to government institutions, like public schools, people should be free from religion. Now does that mean that teachers and students can’t say “Merry Christmas” to each other?

No. They are just individuals. Individuals who, by themselves, do not represent the school as a whole.

But when your school sets up a nativity scene this conveys a different type of feeling. Even if you add some other religious symbols (which the law does stipulate as a requirement) there will still be an obvious preference. The only way to seem completely objective is to display symbols of all religions in the same manner with the same attention to detail and in the same amounts. This would have to counter natural human bias, which I don’t see happening easily especially when it comes to something as powerful as religion. It is also counter to many religions call to only worship one god and having to set up multiple religious symbols/scenes might make those who have to set them up feel like they are worshiping another god.

I feel like it is just the safer and more constitutional method to keep religion symbols/scenes out of public schools.

Sources:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/14/perry-signs-merry-christmas-bill-into-law/ 

Transition

Little PoliticalGuard News:

I am currently transitioning my blog posts from my blog at Wordpress to this blog. So if some of the blogs seem dated or otherwise unusual that may be why.