There Watching

The United States Federal Government has been collecting a plethora of information about their citizens. They can track where we eat to what we spend our money on. Getting this information would be illegal if the Federal Government conducted these investigations. This is because the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution protects all U.S citizens from the Federal Government eavesdropping or electronic surveillance, however, there lie a loophole.  The U.S Feds can purchase or obtain information about their citizens through third party companies. Facebook, Google, and Microsoft are a few examples of companies that sell information about their customers to the United States Government.

      After the horrific acts that took place on 9/11, the citizens of the U.S were scared. During this time frame, the United States Government passed the “USA Patriot Act.” This bill gave the FBI the ability to send National Security Letters. These letters are sent out to companies inside the United States and request intelligence, such as personal information about their customers. This is the loophole that the federal government uses to obtain a huge amount of data on the citizens of the United States.

 The United States government does not have the right to spy on their citizens, and should not have the right to purchase this information from a third party company. The idea of buying information is almost as worse than the United States conducting their own surveillance. This encourages major corporations to compete to collect the most information. Corporations will do anything that will earn them money, or anything that will help their relationship with the United States Government. The United States loves to buy the information and the corporations love to sell it. The group that is losing out is the consumers. Programs like Siri and Cortana are prime examples of programs that will take your personal information and store it to a database.

The United States Government is using the “USA Patriot Act” to violate our fourth amendment rights. The future is scary in this subject, with private companies being able to film anyone in public; it could lead to constant surveillance in public areas.  This would be a world where everything you do or say will and can be tracked. The only way to prevent this future of happening is to vote for candidates that are against public surveillance.

Sources:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/04/do-you-want-the-government-buying-your-data-from-corporations/275431/

http://www.alternet.org/story/155628/america%27s_spy_state%3A_how_the_telecoms_sell_out_your_privacy

https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters

Is Sweden Doing it Right?

America is known as the free country and one of the main freedoms is that American citizens have been the right to bear arms. Every state has their interpretation of this amendment. With liberal states like California having very strict gun laws and very conservative states like Texas having but a few gun regulations. 

With the increase in public shootings in the past years, it’s causing more people to question if we should have more gun laws. This is causing the country to be split into two, with one side wanting more gun control laws and the other side interested in maintaining gun freedom.

So will more gun regulations lower the violent crime rate? This is the question everyone is asking. There is research supporting both sides. People who are in favor of gun control look at the Northern European countries like Sweden and Finland and so how they handle guns. These countries are regarded as some of the safest places in the world. The Bureau of diplomatic security  reports that  “The homicide rate in 2014 remained unchanged from the rate in 2013 with 87 cases reported both years. This was up from 68 cases reported in 2013.” (source.) With only 87 homicide reports, a year and Sweden having about 9.59 million citizens, it goes to show how safe the country is.

Obtaining a gun legally in Sweden is a difficult task. With the only way to get a handgun is to participate in a gun club for six months. Getting a rifle requires an individual to pass a gun and hunting test. This is almost the polar opposite than how it is in the United States. To be honest, these kinds of regulations would not sit well with the American people. Many Americans have a huge passion for guns and would not stand for any gun rights being taken away from them.

After taking a look at countries like Sweden, Finland, and Norway, it’s easy to notice how a couple smart laws can help prevent crime. These countries show a good example and countries like American need to how they succeeded in lowering their crime rate.

Sources:

1.       http://www.sweden.org.za/gun-laws-in-sweden.html

2.       https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats

3.       http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/

The Death Sentence

    The death penalty is a tricky topic to talk about and this ad is not changing that notion. Benetton an Italian clothing company released this ad as well with 26 other ads with different inmates that are on death row. This caused Sears to cancel their contract with Benetton and a lot of negative publicity.

     The most capturing part of this ad is the inmate just looking at you dead in the eye. This connects to you on a more personal level and raises the question on how did he get there. It also makes someone think why is he waiting to die and I’m just living my normal everyday life. This is what Benetton exactly wants you to think, they want you to ponder about the reality of the death sentence. With bold, black words saying, “SENTENCED TO DEATH” it really hits home about the brutality of the death sentence. The font used helps the viewer see how simple the punishment is, none of that life in prison with or without chance of parole but just death. In the bottom right corner of the ad, there is the inmate’s name, birthdate, crime, and sentence.  This is another way for the viewers to get a more personal connection with the convict, and maybe you even share a birthdate.  Benetton puts its full companies name on the right side of the ad, in white font and accompanied by a green background. This is to make sure that you notice and can read the companies name, because why would they make these ads if their name was not on it. The contrast of this picture makes the background really dark, and dull. This is to make your eyes go to the inmates face and look directly into those eyes.   Benetton does a good job in making an effective ad that will make everyday people question the fundamental principles of the death penalty.

Do Fries Kill?

Context: This is an advertisement released by the American Heart Association titled “How deadly is your diet?”
    The American Heart Association created this ad with the purpose to raise awareness but not to point fingers.  The first thing I notice was the red french fry container because the bright red really pops out compared to the background. This container is representing McDonalds due to the fact that the color and shape mockingly resembles’ the fast food chain’s fry container. Based off that idea many people would say that this ad is directly attacking McDonalds, I would say that there is more to it. McDonalds is the epitome of fast food, and when some company or individual wants to represent the fast food industry as a whole they use MacDonald’s to represent it. That is why I see the fry container as a symbol to represent the fast food industry and not a direct attack on McDonalds. The second thing that catches my attention is the bullets and how new and shiny they look. This makes me feel that the bullets were just prepared and are ready to be served to the next customer. These bullets main purpose though is to represent French fries, and how harmful fast food is to your body; which is the core concept of this ad. The AHA is trying to make you question what you are eating. This message is made even more evident with the quote on the bottom left saying “How deadly is your diet?” When I first read that, it made me think about my diet and what kind of food I put into my body. Surprisingly my initial reaction was to not blame the fast food companies and to think about all the problems their food causes. This is because the ad uses the word “your” and it really shows that you are the one that decides what food you eat. The contrast definitely plays a big part in the ad. The bright red and the shiny bullets make the middle the first place you look. The background is white and brown which emphasizes the fry container and bullets even more. Overall I see this ad is effective on making an everyday person question what they eat.

The Same Sex School Paradox

Single sex education is something we don’t see a lot of. However in the past couple of decades it’s been picking up in popularity. “Across the nation, the number of public schools exclusively for boys or girls has risen from 3 in 1995 to 241 today…” This topic is very polarized with strong evidence on both sides. 

            There seems to be this tug of war going on. Males will usually outperform females in science and math, and girls will outperform males in reading and writing. When the class rooms are unisex then we see an interesting trend. Girls will do just as well in science and math compared to their male counterparts. Same goes for boys performing in reading and writing. This almost makes it an even playing field in academics.  Isn’t this what society wants, equality? Well ironically enough single sex schools promote gender stereotypes.

            The effects of unisex schools and classrooms have some consequences as well. “Research shows that segregation promotes stereotyping.” (How Can Single-Sex Schooling Be Harmful?). The conclusion I came to when reading about this, is to never segregate unless you have to. Whether it's segregation by race, sex, or religion, it always leads to something bad.  Another big con is that it “Doesn’t prepare students for work or family life. “(Single-Sex Education: Pros and Cons). This is a great point since; the rest of the world is not going to be divided up by sex. It’s interesting how much we value diversity and mixing everyone together. When something like same sex schools are becoming more popular as time goes on.

            Society is stuck in this equality paradox where same sex schools promote equality in terms of academics, but at the same time it will encourage gender stereotypes. Which ones more important? Well there is no clean cut answer.  I wish there was a way where we could have our cake and eat it too.

Sources

http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/singleeduc.pdf

https://thesanfordschool.asu.edu/acces/evidence-based-answers-0

Women in Combat Roles

            By January 1 of 2016 all combat roles will be made available for women in the United States. This decision has been met with much controversy.  Many people are saying that women are not physically capable of handling such roles. In response the United States Marine Core has conducted tests with all male squads against mix gender squads. The test results showed that the all-male squads outperformed the mix gender squads in every category. Now does this mean that women should not be allowed to enlist into the Marine Core? Well, no. We cannot base everything off of one test; there are too many variables in play, one of them being experience. “…many of the male study participants had previously served in combat units, whereas female participants, by necessity, came directly from infantry schools or from non-combat jobs.” (Narula). This is a clear advantage. These test need to be as even as possible for any conclusion to be made. Luckily these tests have not changed the United States Military’s decision of letting women enlist into any combat role.

The real test should be the training. If a woman can pass through boot camp like another guy, then is there a reason not to let her serve in a combat roll? One concern is that co-ed combat squads will suffer from gender bias and stereotypes. “There is no level playing field established for men and women in terms of respect, conduct…” (Germano). This is why we should encourage women to serve in combat roles; women need a chance to earn the respect they deserve.

Other countries are already leading the way. Nations like Germany, Romania, Canada, and Demark have let females enlist into combat roles for over a decade now. Some of these women have even been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, to serve their countries on the front lines. Sweden in particular has seen great success with their female troops in Afghanistan. “Swedish military women work well with local Afghan women, the study noted, and have been able to lead units to discover makeshift bombs before they exploded and locate suicide bombers before they could strike.” (Fantz). Many of these traits would be extremely useful for ground troops that are deployed overseas.

Women can play a key role in any part of the military.  We as a society have to take that leap and let women show us what they are capable of.

                                                                                    Sources

1.      http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/20/us/women-in-combat-globally/

2.      http://qz.com/499618/the-us-marines-tested-all-male-squads-against-mixed-gender-ones-and-the-men-came-out-ahead/

3.      http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/08/20/should-women-serve-in-combat-roles/make-the-standards-for-male-and-female-marines-equal

           

The U.S Vs. China in Education

The Chinese education system was founded from an idea that every student can succeed in every subject. I take this as a way of saying there is no excuses for failure if the student applies himself. Now compare this to the way we do things here in America. If a student is having trouble in a math class, then we say “Ehh, he is just not good at math.” You can see why China has a way better results in reading, math and science compared to the U.S. Instead of looking at a classroom filled with individuals, they see the class a whole. If a student in China is falling behind he/she will spend extra time with the teacher. The students are expected to put in the extra effort needed to keep up with the class’ pace. In America we get this idea if we are failing then we will just drop into a lower level class, and our problem is solved. This is a great example why the education system in China will outclass the United States’ Education system any day of the week. One of the many reasons the U.S can’t use an education system like China’s is because most students in the U.S really don't care that much about school. Of course there are the students who get perfect GPAs and try to do everything they can to get an advantage, but that is only a small fraction of students. The American education system is trying to have its cake and eat it too. The U.S can’t be the best in academics, when it is ok to quit whenever you want. We as Americans thrive off of short term rewards. So if a student is failing a class, would he rather work extra hard get A’s for the rest of the semester or just drop down to a lower level class: you can see why this option can be so appealing to so many students. This mentality of never give up, no excuses, is helping China to have the best education system in the world. The U.S is trying to up their game but there is so much you can when you are this behind.

Cites

1.Http://sitemaker.umich.edu/vanschaack.356/comparison_of_teachers_and_teaching_strategies

2. http://www.degreematch.org/economyed/

3. https://www.kpmg.de/docs/Education-in-China-201011.pdf