Should we shun people for being into bondage?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/fashion/bondage-domination-and-kink-sex-communities-step-into-view.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&src=dayp&

There are many people out there that love in different ways. Some people like to take things slow and easy and others are almost animalist when it comes to sex and relationships. We all know it and everyone has a different opinion on it but normally just say, "to each their own." What I don't understand is why people judge others on the extent of their sexual preferences. Like people into bondage or domination. What is wrong with someone liking to get a little freaky, why are these choices being thrown against them in custody cases and such. Isn't that against freedom of expression

"The human right to freedom from any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on sexual orientation, gender, race, colour, national or ethnic origin, language, religion, political or other opinion, age, or any other status, which has the purpose or effect of impairing the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms; and the human right to effective protection against such discrimination." taken from http://www.pdhre.org/rights/sexualorient.html

 Parenting has nothing to do with your sexual choices and it should not make a difference what your preferences are. Why are people losing friends and family members because of their sex life. I don't understand what the difference between people that regularly go to strip clubs and use their private rooms, and people who go to bondage clubs or are into it privately? As long as no one is being hurt, more than they are asking for, then what's the problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/us/to-lower-suicide-rates-new-focus-turns-to-guns.html?pagewanted=all

Do we need stricter gun laws? I think yes. But what? The federal and state gun laws don't always protect the ones who need it most. Our children. I am against guns for myself. I would not care if they were banned completely, however I realize that cannot speak for someone else. I know that there are responsible people who are gun owners. I don't think that every gun owner should make that decision on their own. I know people who have guns and think they are responsible, but I have my doubts. I would like to see mental health evaluation for any one buying a gun, new or used. I would also like to see mandatory training and laws that hold them responsible if they do not follow the proper safety measures.

Go for Gold!

Gold production has become very popular in the past few years. Of course everyone has always tried to find gold for oneself, but a few countries are really hitting the jack pot with gold production. I found it interesting that Russia is the fourth-largest gold producer in the world, after China, Australia and the US. Russia produced 254 tons of gold in 2012, including a heart shaped nugget weighing 2.4 pounds! Russian production has also increased year-on-year gold production by 8.3% and has higher numbers for 2013. 

When other countries see how well Russia is at producing gold it makes for good competition, because it proves that there is still so much gold to be found. Russia is not only good at production but they stockpile gold as a hedge against international financial instability. In 2007 the Russian government held 443 tons of gold in its strategic reserves; by fall the number increased to 1,028. The more gold found between the countries, the more we can use gold to fix not only our American economy but the worldwide economy as well.

 

Americans forced to leave the country to be with the one they love

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/02/18/us/doma-audio-slide-show.html?ref=us
For straight couples if you fall in love with someone that was born in another country, you can apply for a green card based on your relationship. For same sex couples they do not have the same rights even if they are legally married. Many couples are being forced to make a very hard decision; Give up on the love of your life, or to leave the country they have always called home. Is this wrong? This subject has been causing a lot of controversy. In my opinion I think that no one should be able to tell anyone else that they are wrong for loving someone. If you don't like it then maybe you should not worry about it. Years ago women were not aloud to vote and had very little rights. Was that right? Of course not. I believe that as a country we need to stop worrying about the petty little things and start worrying about more important things, like the people out there killing each other. The states legislatures have been going back and forth on this issue for quite a while now. President Obama's proposal, which was followed by a bill was brought to the house of representatives this month and is introduced to try and help resolve making people choose their loved one or their beloved country.

Guns Destroying Society?

Another gunman kills four people. We have been seeing headlines like these for months now. Because of these twisted people who continue to take innocent lives, the federal government is currently debating enacting restrictions of an assault weapons ban. Which could also be seen as taking away our 2nd amendment rights. Various states already have their gun laws into place, however with these recent events the federal government is "taking the matter into their own hands" in a sense. What I wonder is, is it really gun control that we need? Isn't the problem that there are so many people out there that have serious mental or emotional issues and are not getting help? I'll agree that guns are not that hard to come by, however neither is any other weapon. We should be looking at why people in our society have these issues.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/us/shooting-spree-in-california.html

Final Blog: Episteme, Techne, Phronesis and Metis

I enjoyed professor Ellerman's class for Law and Society. The open discussions really helped me become aware of issues outside of my own life and understand how other people from different backgrounds see things. I took this class before at Cosumnes river college a few years ago and noticed big differences. Basically, the class I took at CRC was boring and I noticed that Professor Ellerman really wants his students to participate in the class and express their opinion. This may be why I lost interest in the class at CRC and dropped it. For the record, I never missed one day of law and society this semester so I suppose there is a reason why.

 I think Ellerman's approach for this class was effective and proved to teach things that people may not realize exist in their daily lives. Most of all, in this class you can see how laws clash with society and Vice versa when you and others are creating/discussing laws. Every person in society has a different idea of how things should work yet, whether or not we agree we still have to abide by these laws. Discussing these things with others helped me realize why these laws are in place to begin even though I may not personally agree with them.

Episteme: I learned a lot about relevant law subjects that are controversial currently such as "stand your ground", Structures of government, and stupid laws (California:No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour?). I also got a better understanding of what the constitution consists of and why it makes it great to be a citizen in this country as opposed to other countries.

Techne: I was surprised that I never missed a class. Did I learn to be punctual? I have had years of work experience and with that being said I have worked with many people but it was different than a work environment because at work we are not suppose to talk about issues that people feel strongly about. Many people feel so strongly about these issues that it creates problems and people simply can't work together. The subjects that are not allowed to be brought up at work are allowed in class and I appreciate the fact that everyone in class was polite and respectful to others opinions both in class and on the blogs. It is interesting to see people speak freely about their opinions on these confusing and troubling issues that cannot be spoken about outside of class.

Phronesis: When we watched "This emotional Life" I could feel many of the people's passion and heartache. It is interesting to see how much other's go through all over the country (and world). Sometimes I would begin to think "Do these people know how great they are?' or "Does this person realize how much they are hurting themselves/loved ones?". Some of the tragedies really hit home and I could imagine that at one point or another everyone in the class felt empathetic for the people on the show.

Metis:I think there should be more to do with the Nation state game. Given that the subject to learn is street smarts I think that there should be more reasons to trade and more reasons to go to war. After all, life consists of many battles to fight and many things to be gained so it would be good if perhaps there were a little bit more going on. I liked the natural disasters and the efforts groups had to make to build a wonder but once these things have been taken out there is no motivation to trade or go to war.

looking back......I enjoyed the class and would take it again if I could. It was both enjoyable and a great opportunity to learn about current events, laws, nature of government and the people that make society.

CISPA

Before I choose to return to college, this past fall 2011, I already had a fairly poor opinion on what and how our elected government officials, from local all the way to the president of our country, did the jobs we (US citizens) elected them to do. Since my return to college several of my courses have opened my eyes even more to politics. Now things like:  falling asleep to infomercials and late night TV, dreaming up new wonderful things to add to my “happy place”, the phrase “make the bad people go away”, and pondering things such as: is our nation empire going to fall in mine or my kids life time, why did I have kids, what countries might I be interested in moving to and so on, are a part of my daily life, AHHHHH!!!! Thanks a lot college! All kidding aside though, I am truly clueless as to what to do and what to think.

When I turned 18 and could vote I didn’t understand why my mom and dad pushed and pretty much insisted that I register to vote as well as actually doing it. I thought it was stupid because how could my one vote really make a difference and if what or who I voted for didn’t win then I was still stuck with something I didn’t want in turn leading me back to the 1^st argument of what did my one little vote count for anyway. I had a bad attitude, like many Americans, close to my age and era did and I believe still do.

“One of the most critical ways that individuals can influence governmental decision-making is through voting.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted unanimously by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, recognizes the integral role that transparent and open elections play in ensuring the fundamental right to participatory government. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 21 states:
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his/her country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot or by equivalent free voting procedures.” (University of Minnesota Human Rights Center)

CISPA, SOPA, PIPA sound like words a 3 yr. old might make up while eating alphabet soup but they are federal legislation bills that Congress has been trying to pass. SOPA and PIPA were bills that Congress attempted to pass with the stated intention of stopping reproduction of copyrighted materials. CISPA, a new and similarly scrutinized bill, which takes away our online privacy (supposedly to protect Americans against “cyber-crimes”) has passed through the House of Representatives and is on its way to the Senate. 

If passed, CISPA would amend the National Security Act of 1947  to allow government agencies to swap customer data from Internet service providers and websites if that data is a threat to "cyber-security." On a basic level the bill is meant to provide a means for companies and the government to share information with one another to fight against cyber threats. We already had a perfectly functional model that's been in place for 15 yrs for law enforcement to share 'Cybersecurity' info with companies. ”In 1997, long-time FBI agent Dan Larkin helped set up a non-profit based in Pittsburgh that “functions as a conduit between private industry and law enforcement.” Its industry members, which include banks, ISPs, telcos, credit card companies, pharmaceutical companies, and others can hand over cyberthreat information to the non-profit, called the National Cyber Forensics and Training Alliance (NCFTA),which has a legal agreement with the government that allows it to then hand over info to the FBI.Conveniently, the FBI has a unit, the Cyber Initiative and Resource Fusion Unit, stationed in the NCFTA’s office. Companies can share information with the 501(c)6 non-profit that they would be wary of (or prohibited from) sharing directly with the FBI.”(Hill) This means, either that the Congressional authors and supporters of this bill were completely ignorant of this or CISPA is really meant to sneak through something worse. Neither makes CISPA or its supporters look very good.

One of the more concerning aspects of CISPA that sets it apart from SOPA/PIPA is the number of technology companies that support it; one of the key points that backers of CISPA have made throughout the debate on the bill. Facebook re-pledged its support, however has stated that the bill needs to be fixed to address privacy concerns. It would make more sense to pull your support until the bill is fixed instead of re-pledging your support.  Similarly, Microsoft is now admitting that there are some privacy concerns with CISPA and has softened its stance on it slightly, while not completely pulling its support. Declan McCullagh at CNET reports, “In response to queries from CNET, Microsoft, which has long been viewed as a supporter of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, said this evening that any law must allow "us to honor the privacy and security promises we make to our customers." Microsoft added that it wants to "ensure the final legislation helps to tackle the real threat of cybercrime while protecting consumer privacy." What sparked significant privacy worries is the section of CISPA that says "notwithstanding any other provision of law," companies may share information "with any other entity, including the federal government." It doesn't, however, require them to do so.

Professor Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the world wide web, is warning consumers of his creation against Google and Facebook, as well as the government’s attempts to censor the Internet. In his interview with the Guardian he is quoted, "[It] is threatening the rights of people in America, and effectively rights everywhere, because what happens in America tends to affect people all over the world,” he says of CISPA. “Even though the SOPA and PIPA acts were stopped by huge public outcry, it's staggering how quickly the US government has come back with a new, different, threat to the rights of its citizens."(rt.com) Rep. Ron Paul, warned on April 23 that CISPA represents the "latest assault on Internet freedom" and was "Big Brother writ large."

One of the dozen amendments the House added right before passing the bill is: H.AMDT.1022 to H.R.3523 Amendment to limit government use of shared cyber threat information to only 5 purposes: (1) cybersecurity; (2) investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes; (3) protection of individuals from the danger of death or physical injury; (4) protection of minors from physical or psychological harm; and (5) protection of the national security of the United States. (The Library of Congress) Reps. Rogers and Ruppersberger say their bill is necessary to deal with threats from China and Russia and that it "protects privacy by prohibiting the government from requiring private sector entities to provide information." In addition, they stress that "no new authorities are granted to the Department of Defense or the intelligence community to direct private or public sector cybersecurity efforts." Previously, CISPA allowed the government to use information for "cybersecurity" or "national security" purposes. Those purposes have not been limited or removed. Instead, three more valid uses have been added: investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crime, protection of individuals, and protection of children. Cybersecurity crime is defined as any crime involving network disruption or hacking, plus any violation of the CFAA. Somehow, incredibly, this was described as limiting CISPA, but it accomplishes the exact opposite.

This is violating our4^th Admendment rights because it offers a simple, warrantless means to acquire personal data and using the data to investigate and build cases against American citizens without regard for the laws that would normally protect their privacy. The government would be able to search information it collects under CISPA for the purposes of investigating American citizens with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a "cybersecurity crime". The government could do whatever it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone was in danger of bodily harm, or that children were somehow threatened. CISPA is now a completely unsupportable bill that rewrites (and effectively eliminates) all privacy laws for any situation that involves a computer and is now an explicit attack on the freedoms of every American.