Thursday, February 14, 2008
According to the report, the gunman said nothing, and no motive could be found. Tragedies such as this seem to be happening more and more often throughout the years. Before, an incident such as Columbine seemed like a single anomaly. Now, looking at wikipedia's list of notable school shootings, it seems as if we've had 6 in the past week, not to mention the "deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, the Virginia Tech Massacre. Maybe I just haven't really paid too much attention to news like this before, but that still seems rather high, especially compared to past years.
Gunman at Illinois College
Part of what worries me about this trend (obviously besides the increased danger in colleges and the deaths of the victims) is that they may turn the spotlight to gun control laws. Now, it seems rational that increasing gun control would decrease the violence, but from the statistics I found in past research, restrictive gun control laws don't have a positive if any effect on violence rates. Being a fan of firearms, I'm sure I'm a bit biased, but the evidence I find still supports my opinion. What do you guys think?
On a happier note... Happy Valentines Day!
(Is today a romantic holiday or "a holiday invented by greeting card companies to make people feel like crap") ^^
Also in the House today: high drama over the reauthorization of the FISA law and whether it should include telecom industry immunity. So much spin! I'm dizzy.
In atheist China, flowers may be confiscated - but observance of the day catches on regardles
This photo, among other photos on the BBC News website, caught my attention. The caption says that flowers used to celebrate Valentine's day are confiscated. Police, confiscating flowers seems a little strange to me.
Likewise in another photo on the website, protesters in India distrupted Valentine's day festivities claiming that the holiday went against Hindu culture. Perhaps these people are extremely pious people, have justifiable reasons to fight against Valentine's Day, or just being ridiculous.
Do you think that people-or police- can "ban" Valentine's Day?
Do you think that those who oppose Valentine's Day have logical reason to do so, or are just anti-Valentine's Day?
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Personally, I think this is a good move on the side of the government (not the Senate part). After all, they asked the telecommunication companies to invade people's privacy, they should be the ones to take the responsibility, not the companies that helped them. Of course, there's the argument that they should have disobeyed the order, but realistically, what company is going to ignore an order from the government? I don't see the telecommunication companies as having done anything terribly wrong, and I hope they can either get the immunities clause passed, or the defendant changed to the government.
What are your opinions?
FISA Bill Article
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Obama sweeps Maryland, Virginia, and D.C.
Personally, I think this is a great outcome. Besides enjoying new episodes of my favorite TV series (Heroes, Lost, etc.), the writers will now be paid for all of their work.
The fact that an entire industry came to a standstill for three months truly shows the large effect of digital distribution. All sorts of media are beginning to become digitally distributed, and in general, it's becoming a larger and larger issue. The obvious pros are the ease of obtaining media and the lack of a need for giant, cabinet filling cases. On the other hand, digital distribution brings up the issue of piracy. With movies, music, and games all already in an easily accessed digital format, it becomes even easier for anyone to distribute it illegally from their own computer. In turn, the distributors must add various copy-protection software which can, and sometimes will, harm computers (see: StarForce). In any case, hopefully a solution will soon be found.
The article on the writer's strike.
State Rep. John Read (repub.), one of the bill's three authors, says he wasn't trying to offend anybody. "I was trying to shed a little light on the No. 1 problem in
Steve Holland, the Democratic chairman of the House Public Health and Human Services Committee, saidhe will "pocket veto" the bill. "It's dead on arrival at my desk."
Although he appreciates the "efforts of my fellow House members to help curb the obesity problem in
About one-third of Americans are obese (30 or more pounds over a healthy weight), and 66% are overweight or obese. Even so, obesity experts are outraged by the bill.
"And what about civil rights? It's totally unenforceable, and you'd be alienating people. Most people who are obese don't want to be that way."
J. Justin Wilson of the Center for Consumer Freedom, a group financed by the restaurant and food industry, said in a statement: "This is the latest example of food cops run amok. Are waiters supposed to carry scales around the restaurant and weigh every customer? Give me a break. What's next? Will waitresses soon be expected to make sure we eat all our veggies?"
Do you think this bill is ridiculous as well?
Do you believe that obesity can be considered a civil rights issue?
Monday, February 11, 2008
When asked the question "Would you make it a priority in your first year of office to reinstate Net neutrality as the law of the land? And would you pledge to only appoint FCC commissioners that support open Internet principles like Net neutrality?" Barack Obama replied,
"The answer is yes. I am a strong supporter of Net neutrality."
Visit http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9806707-7.html for more information on Obama's views
"Supporters worry that if the government does not enact net neutrality legislation, free speech, innovation, and fair business practices will all be left in jeopardy.
Opponents of net neutrality legislation, including Senator John McCain, say that regulating Internet providers threatens not free speech or fairness, but free market principles."
And for other candidates views on Network Neutrality visit
As an network dependent generation what are your views on network neutrality?
Sunday, February 10, 2008
According to Democratic party rules, the following people are superdelegates:
The individuals recognized as members of the DNC (as set forth in Article Three, Sections 2 and 3 of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States); and,
The Democratic President and the Democratic Vice President of the United States, if applicable; and,
All Democratic members of the United States House of Representatives and all Democratic members of the United States Senate; and,
The Democratic Governor, if applicable; and,
All former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable, and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee.
Superdelegates were created in the 80's in response to party leaders feeling a loss of control after the upswing in primaries; however, they never really worked out that way, as no recent candidate has won a nomination without winning most of the primaries. (Howard Dean was a superdelegate favorite...) Many say that if the superdelegates decide the nominee, it will be undemocratic and the party voters will be dissatisfied. Of course, the counterargument is that party leaders should have some say-it's their party, after all. As of now Clinton has a fairly good lead among superdelegates, but that could always change-there are no official pledges, and they can change their minds at any time. No matter what happens, the Democratic National Convention will probably end up as more than a four-day infomercial...