Multiple companies have been attacked by supporters of WikiLeaks's actions following the arrest of its founder Julian Aasange. A banking company called PostFinance's website was knocked down for most of the day, as well as MasterCard's site. Paypal, Amazon, Twitter and Facebook have also been victims. The attacks stem from an online hacker group that loosely congregate on a site known as 4Chan. They are going by the name of Anonymous, which, as a group, has also led charges against the Motion Pictures Association and the Recording Industry (of America). The "online mob" does not affiliate itself with any political party; in fact there is disagreement in the group over which side to pick. According to Dean Turner, a Symantec Corp. security researcher, the attacks work very simply: volunteers log onto a computer program and enter in the company's name, and the number of requests sent to the server, which is eventually overwhelmed by all the information. There is no convienient way to distinguish these attack requests from real requests, so it's a difficult problem to block. Another security researcher, Jeff Bardin, says these attacks are no surprise to him. "I bet this was premeditated by Aasange," he says. "...[his] hacking past is leveraging his ties to the hacking community."
I am also not surprised at the attacks that have stemmed from the WikiLeaks supporters. While I doubt that Aasange told his fellow WikiLeaks people to go and take down big corporations in the event of his arrest, it makes sense that his sympathizers would want to 'avenge Aasange' for being detained by any government. What I find amusing is that they cannot agree on any sort of political agenda; it seems to be sporadic and erratic. It's not as if they are attacking REPUBLICAN websites, or INDEPENDENT websites, it's almost like they're just hitting anybody that they suspect needs hitting. So while they can stand united against the unreasonable, unfair, irrational imprisonment of the founder of such a brave website, they can't agree on anything else.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Pressure Rachets up on WikiLeaks Founder
The founder of a "whistle-blower" website, WikiLeaks, is now being hunted all around the globe. This sudden increase in interest comes almost directly after more than a quarter of a million classified documents were released onto the site. The articles expose the dealings in diplomacy between countries and the thoughts of the U.S government concerning the growing issue of North and South Korea's hostility. Diplomats and politicians around the world are outraged at the leak of these documents. The warrant that is out for Julian Aasange's arrest is officially charging him with two cases of rape. His lawyer denies that Aasange is in hiding from the international police (Interpol) and insists that he has gone underground because of multiple calls to assassinate him.
While some up these documents were classified for a reason, I have to wonder: do any of the American people ever stop to think about who watches the world governments? I mean, the government is supposed to deal out justice, protect the people, and diplomatically resolve conflicts. But if the government is the one watching for problems, who watches the watcher? That's why I think that maybe not all of the leak is bad... certainly there are documents like the ones involving 9/11 that should be kept private, but to be able to call the governments out on deals made "under the table" is very empowering to the people. If the government would come down hard on civilians that attempt illegal actions, it is only fair that the government be privy to the same consequences. Rule of law; nobody is above it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40467957/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40469846/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/
While some up these documents were classified for a reason, I have to wonder: do any of the American people ever stop to think about who watches the world governments? I mean, the government is supposed to deal out justice, protect the people, and diplomatically resolve conflicts. But if the government is the one watching for problems, who watches the watcher? That's why I think that maybe not all of the leak is bad... certainly there are documents like the ones involving 9/11 that should be kept private, but to be able to call the governments out on deals made "under the table" is very empowering to the people. If the government would come down hard on civilians that attempt illegal actions, it is only fair that the government be privy to the same consequences. Rule of law; nobody is above it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40467957/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40469846/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
S. Korea fires warning shots at disputed border
The uneasy border between the two Koreas is getting uneasier. On Wednesday, a N. Korean fishing boat crossed the sea border of S. Korea. After warnings via intercom were ignored, the S. Korean navy fired shots at the boat and it quickly left the international waters. It was the latest incident in a history of tense coexistance. North and South Korea historically do not trust each other and live in an edgy armistice. This particular episode comes just a few days after the no man's land between the countries also experienced shots fired.
From all that I've heard, North Korea is not a stable country at all. I don't know exactly how much is exaggeration of the media, but I have heard some really wierd stuff about the current dictator of N. Korea, Kim Jong Il. Again, don't know how much is Western embellishment, but if half of it has a shred of truth, the Korean borders are definately not a good place to be. It seems that these two countries are like a pair of siblings; they refuse to negotiate and they don't want to agree on anything. I'm hoping that these are just accidents, unrelated "oopsies" that have no lasting effect on the two country's relations.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39983651/ns/world_news-asiapacific/
From all that I've heard, North Korea is not a stable country at all. I don't know exactly how much is exaggeration of the media, but I have heard some really wierd stuff about the current dictator of N. Korea, Kim Jong Il. Again, don't know how much is Western embellishment, but if half of it has a shred of truth, the Korean borders are definately not a good place to be. It seems that these two countries are like a pair of siblings; they refuse to negotiate and they don't want to agree on anything. I'm hoping that these are just accidents, unrelated "oopsies" that have no lasting effect on the two country's relations.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39983651/ns/world_news-asiapacific/
Monday, October 25, 2010
Bullying in New Jersey
Following the very public suicide of a University student, New Jersey is looking into a new anti-bullying bill. The suicide in question involves a young man who was attending the Rutgers University and committed suicide by jumping off of a bridge. His roommate had filmed him and another man having intimate contact and posted the video online. New Jersey has since placed much more importance on this bill. The bill that was previously in place didn't require anti-bullying programs in schools instead of requiring them, and citizens and Senators alike don't think it's doing enough. Bullying is getting more and more common, particularly harassment directed at gay students. That was originally what inspired this bill. While not yet officially named, the bill is completely finished. It includes anti-bullying programs to be mandatory--in it, there are requirements for public and private schools or universities. Schools would need to have preventative programs and have a more hands-on way of dealing with bullying incidents.
Yes. Yes, this bill needs to be passed. Without a doubt, with all certainty. I used to think that bullying was sort of an urban myth, something that didn't really happen in my schools. After all, I'd never been seriously bullied. It's sad that that is the opinion so many people, previously including me, have. Bullying truly is a dangerous problem--I've seen firsthand how nasty some of the insults can get. And the fact that so much of recent news-worthy bullying has been directed at gay kids? Heartbreaking. People are people; everyone has the right to be respected. That student's roommate should be severely punished. It's not so much that he filmed it in the first place; that was bad enough, but then he had the gall to go and post it on Youtube??? That is none of his business! This bill can't guarantee the complete elimination of all bullying, but if it prevents even one kid from being harassed, I think that makes it worth passing.
Yes. Yes, this bill needs to be passed. Without a doubt, with all certainty. I used to think that bullying was sort of an urban myth, something that didn't really happen in my schools. After all, I'd never been seriously bullied. It's sad that that is the opinion so many people, previously including me, have. Bullying truly is a dangerous problem--I've seen firsthand how nasty some of the insults can get. And the fact that so much of recent news-worthy bullying has been directed at gay kids? Heartbreaking. People are people; everyone has the right to be respected. That student's roommate should be severely punished. It's not so much that he filmed it in the first place; that was bad enough, but then he had the gall to go and post it on Youtube??? That is none of his business! This bill can't guarantee the complete elimination of all bullying, but if it prevents even one kid from being harassed, I think that makes it worth passing.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Federal Budget
#1 War Dollars
The President is granted the power to command the army by the Constitution. This title is one of commander in chief. This allows the President to have major influence in how the U.S's wars are fought. Congress also has some power--it and the President have to come up with a federal budget which Congress is authorized to approve. Congress can influence how much money goes to which interests, such as homeland securtity.
This is called the "power of the purse" and can be used to limit the amount of money spent on war and war efforts. Some people are of the opinion that Congress should use its influence on the purse of America to pull out of Iraq. Congress would do this by refusing to fund the war efforts any longer. However, the other side of the arguement is that the President say that Congress should stay out of such decisions and let the President handle wars. Congress and the President are not always of the same opinion and critics believe that such an image will encourage war enemies. They hold the belief that the President should have the power to make war policy decisions only to prevent this disagreement.
commander in chief- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_in_chief#United_States
power of the purse- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_the_purse
The President is granted the power to command the army by the Constitution. This title is one of commander in chief. This allows the President to have major influence in how the U.S's wars are fought. Congress also has some power--it and the President have to come up with a federal budget which Congress is authorized to approve. Congress can influence how much money goes to which interests, such as homeland securtity.
This is called the "power of the purse" and can be used to limit the amount of money spent on war and war efforts. Some people are of the opinion that Congress should use its influence on the purse of America to pull out of Iraq. Congress would do this by refusing to fund the war efforts any longer. However, the other side of the arguement is that the President say that Congress should stay out of such decisions and let the President handle wars. Congress and the President are not always of the same opinion and critics believe that such an image will encourage war enemies. They hold the belief that the President should have the power to make war policy decisions only to prevent this disagreement.
commander in chief- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_in_chief#United_States
power of the purse- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_the_purse
The problem I have with the war dollars is this: the executive and legislative branches can't agree. The longer a country involves itself in a war, the more debt it accumulates. The United States is already something like $13 trillion dollars in debt. I think the President should not have the only say in how these war dollars are spent. It's harder for a large group of people (Congress) to all have the same personal agenda than it is for only one person (President). I'm not saying that Obama had his own personal reasons for staying in Iraq or that Bush had ulterior motives for going into Iraq, but if the funding for armies or homeland security is in the hands of one person, that leaves plenty of room for corruption. The stereotypical politician is sleazy, shady, and fraudulent and only wants power. Now, I know there are some politicians out there that fit that description perfectly. However, there are also many politicians who are looking for ways to improve the country and help citizens. It's irritating to have to put up a safeguard for cheaters when the majority are honest, but that way the U.S is safer from being overtaken by the will of a single person. This is why I think that Congress should have the most influence when it comes to war funding. War is expensive, and it is much harder to convince an entire house of people to think exactly the same way. This method would let more opinions into the mix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act
Opinon on issue #3: social security: http://rachelrachrachel.blogspot.com/2010/10/topic-3-social-insecurity.html
Another shooting
Yet another shooting spree has taken place in America. The one in question was in Flordia, where a man shot and killed one person while wounding five others. The victims and shooter were seemingly unrelated and police are still searching for a motive. At the moment, it seems like a random shooting. He was driving around the Gainesville neighborhood sniping victims that seem to have no particular connection. After the man was pulled over and apprehended by the police, he committed suicide.
Incidents like this are the perfect example of why I want to look into the Criminal Justice field for college. I want to be able to prevent things like this; I want to protect citizens and be the superhero that saves everyone. There is something very sad about the fact that shootings are something of a normality now. Ten years ago, a random shooting would have thrown the entire state, if not parts of the country, into complete shock. Now its more of a "oh, that's too bad" kind of reaction. Isn't there something a little perverse about such an easy dismissal of a life? Especially one not related to a war, or some kind of risk.
Incidents like this are the perfect example of why I want to look into the Criminal Justice field for college. I want to be able to prevent things like this; I want to protect citizens and be the superhero that saves everyone. There is something very sad about the fact that shootings are something of a normality now. Ten years ago, a random shooting would have thrown the entire state, if not parts of the country, into complete shock. Now its more of a "oh, that's too bad" kind of reaction. Isn't there something a little perverse about such an easy dismissal of a life? Especially one not related to a war, or some kind of risk.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Pre-Existing Condition
President Obama's healthcare plan has an extra cherry on top that's falling off the sundae. There is a dramatically lower number of people who have signed up for this plan. The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance plan is for people who have had trouble getting insurance or medical help because of a previous medical condition, such as diabetes. If someone gets into the plan, they can recieve health insurance at the same price that a normally healthy person would pay. This particular plan will last until 2014--then a new law requiring acceptance of all applicants regardless of any medical conditions comes into play. However, some state officials have pointed out some potential problems. 1) It may be too expensive 2) The requirement that an applicant has to have been uninsured for at least six months is not actually met by a large number of citizens--it is very hard to locate papers that state they've been turned down by an insurance company 3) The high annual deductible. Anyone in the plan needs to pay approximately $2500 a year before they can recieve coverage for prescription drugs.
I think in theory this is a good idea! It is ridiculous that someone who needs help cannot recieve it because they have diabetes, or once had a yeast infection. Insurance companies need to do their job and give the assistance they are pledged to give. Obama is on the right track with trying to give insurance to everyone regardless of any other conditions they might have, but if the "experts" think this isn't going to work, now what? Perhaps these brilliant minds can come up with ways to smooth out the three problems mentioned above. This is a GOOD IDEA. It is despicable that someone with cancer must face the decision to either undergo chemo or go into debt. Their life with financial ruin or no treatment and a greater chance of dying? What kind of country are we that we would be okay with forcing someone to make such a decision? The officials and experts that are pointing out all the holes in this plan would do well do offer ways to patch them so this can become an affordable reality.
I think in theory this is a good idea! It is ridiculous that someone who needs help cannot recieve it because they have diabetes, or once had a yeast infection. Insurance companies need to do their job and give the assistance they are pledged to give. Obama is on the right track with trying to give insurance to everyone regardless of any other conditions they might have, but if the "experts" think this isn't going to work, now what? Perhaps these brilliant minds can come up with ways to smooth out the three problems mentioned above. This is a GOOD IDEA. It is despicable that someone with cancer must face the decision to either undergo chemo or go into debt. Their life with financial ruin or no treatment and a greater chance of dying? What kind of country are we that we would be okay with forcing someone to make such a decision? The officials and experts that are pointing out all the holes in this plan would do well do offer ways to patch them so this can become an affordable reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)