Find an article that relates in some way to the things we have been talking about in class. Summarize the article, then respond to it in some way. Agree, disagree, or other. Why did you pick it? How does it connect to our class?
Include a link to the text. Should be about 250 words in length.
Professor Ramos' Blog 
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/14/17465662/sarah-sanders-family-separation-bible-sessions
As immigrants are crossing the border illegally with their family they become separated. Fathers and mothers are sent to detention centers and children place in center which they too are held behind bars. Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated it was not cruel or usually to separate the children from their parents and went as far to say separating parent and children was not only the law but it was in the Bible. Sarah Sanders during the press conferences was asked if she agreed yet she did not make it clear if she agreed with separating parents and their children she did agree with according to the Bible one must follow and do what the law says.
Reporters hit a core with Sanders when they asked, as a mother herself, if she did not have empathy for the families. In class we discuss to two emotions from a Ted Talk which was empathy and disgust. Reporters mention to Sanders the families who are being separated have less than her and are frighten from where they are coming from only to be given more fear by separating the families. Sanders avoiding the questions and comments. She blame Democrats for not fixing this separating family “law”. Reporters also tried to bring to her attention their was no law in which allows families to be separated. Perhaps Sanders does not show empathy towards the families due to the disgust she has. Is the disgust toward the families looking for a better life, to the Democrats refusing to do their work, or to herself. Being a mother of three and married, how would she feel being separated from her family. Traveling miles upon miles only to be thrown in a box and label as a criminal. Is looking for a better life a crime? Or is the real crime is making up a law and using the Bible to make your wrong doings justified?
LikeLike
The article I have chosen is about the latest news on the new law against immigration and Jeff Session’s response. In this article, it is simply stating how the law regarding immigration is being passed is separating and tearing apart families and Sessions defense was that he was following the bible. He states that, “Persons who violate the law of our nation are subject to prosecution, because the bible says we must submit to authority” referencing a Romans 13 biblical verse. I feel like I chose this article in particular is because he is using a fallacy. He is saying that because of a bible verse that says we as people must submit to authority, he is allowed to go through with separating immigrated families. This is actually an irrelevant correlation. I feel he took the Bible out of context and certain aspects needed to be examined first on a case by case basis, before using the Bible verse as a defense. This is coming into contact with what we’ve discussed on fallacies and how in our media, people use fallacies everywhere. It gets you to think how many of the times we are unaware of it. If I was just reading this without the mindset of finding things related to our class, I would feel as if his fallacy might work and not even notice it as being a fallacy.
I also feel this pertains to class due to when discussing about our own beliefs. The bible was written in the time of that context and many misinterpret things from the Bible. In my understanding of this, I feel that the Bible is stating that we should indeed submit to authority, but we have to look at things on a case to case basis. Tearing apart families are not things that God like at any way. In my belief of the bible, I believe it is not something to follow exactly word for word nor is it a handbook. It is a portal that you look through and by reading the Bible to me is listening in a conversation with Jesus.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/15/17467772/jeff-sessions-bible-passage-slavery-romans-13
LikeLike
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/12/indiana-high-school-accepts-teachers-resignation-over-transgender-policy.html
An orchestra teacher in Indian was recently fired from his position after refusing to call several transgendered students in his class by the names they wished to be called. The teacher is of the Christian faith but he claims that he did not want to be a part of encouraging students to engage in a harmful lifestyle, citing the very high suicide rate among the transgendered community. The school district forced him to tender his resignation until the 29th of may while the situation could be reviewed, and he could have a chance to change his mind. After having a change of heart, the teacher attempted to regain his position on the 25th, but found that the school district had already accepted his resignation, 4 days before they had agreed on. He is currently fighting to regain his job.
The more I research this situation, the more I side with the teacher. When the trans students wanted him to use the names they wanted, instead of blatantly refusing, he started calling all of the students in the class by their last name. He didn’t single anyone out or make fun of the students, he simply did the best he could to find a middle ground between respecting his students and following his beliefs. In my opinion he did an excellent job. The students, however, called him out for trying to find a loophole in the issue and he was punished for it. Even after agreeing to use the students desired names, he was fired days before the deadline he was given, without notice. He wasn’t discriminating against the students, he didn’t promote hatred towards them or even try and convert them with his beliefs. He simply refused to call them by names which he felt would hurt them in the future. Now I know people will use the argument that he doesn’t have the right to decide what’s best for them, and I agree with them, however, peoples motives are very important and I believe his were completely benevolent.
LikeLike
I have always been a huge fan of animation. I want to be a 3D animator when I “grow up”. When new Disney, Dreamworks etc. films get announced I’m usually pretty excited. Well, not too long ago the trailer for How to Train Your Dragon 3 dropped. It looks great! The main character has matured, the threat is interesting, it looks like an all around good film. Not everyone thinks so, however. In the trailer it is revealed that the protagonists dragon friend “toothless” will meet a female of his species. A species that, mind you, everyone thought he was the last of. Nature does as it does and the two of them look as though they’re going to hook up. Some upstanding ladies and gentlemen of the internet saw this and decided to share their enthusiasm by calling it “forced heterosexuality”. There are comments I’ve seen on forums saying that people are going to literally throw their feces at the screen or that the film makers “have to make it hetero for the kids.” They’re animals, the last two of their kind, if they don’t get together their species will die. Why is this so hard to understand. I get it, homosexuals have gotten the short end of the stick for awhile now, but these comments are monstrous, and toward an innocent childrens movie that is ultimately just that, it’s not the end of the world. For people who claim to be about love and tolerance, these people sure don’t act like it. It’s a touchy subject, of course. Obviously I don’t pin the acts of these particular people on the homosexual community as a whole, but my question is why does sexual orientation have to be a politcal agenda? Be with who you love and let others do the same. Also leave the poor cartoon dragons alone, they’re adorable.
LikeLike
https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankmiller/2018/06/05/in-religious-freedom-case-supreme-court-calls-for-tolerance/#390f5c8c2180
The article “In Religious Freedom Case, Supreme Court Calls For Tolerance” it analyzes the compelling beliefs of both parties in the infamous case of the Colorado cake bakery owner refusing to make a cake for the same-sex wedding. The ruling overall sided with Jack Philips, the bakery owner with a jury decision of 7-2. Court ruled in favor of Philips due to pre treatment of the bakery owner before the case occurred and that the circumstances do not rule out as “discrimination” due to the justification/reasoning of religion. Because of the court outcome, the case overall raises questions for future cases of beliefs vs rights, which side has the power to rule or justify actions of those who may do “unpopular” choice of actions. The case exemplified the right of religious freedom vs free speech, but who can claim where the line is drawn?
Religious beliefs overall significantly impact our lives, from shaping our reach for spiritual guidance and support to an impact on our everyday actions. Essentially, religious beliefs are often strictly chosen and set in stone for many, creating difficulty to convert to any other God or belief. Religion is not a secret concept, for everyone is aware that various beliefs are around the world. Religious beliefs do have the power to make us bias since religion is not a simple subject to switch from time to time. Religious beliefs go beyond a matter of opinion, often the base of our morals and values. To discredit someone’s beliefs because of difference of views disconnects and creates the inability for our minds to expand with other individual views. No ideal is presume as 100% “right” therefore we must always consider this before we dismiss other ideas that are not our very own.
However, the First Amendment does exercise our right to free speech, even hate. Objections to any views, including gay marriage are protected under this amendment. At this time, various concepts are more socially accepted and or are publicly expressed as acceptable (i.e. LGBTQ) Because of the awareness and acceptance this generation has paved for these individuals, more traditional views are viewed as nothing more than being described as intolerable. Each and every argument shall be reviewed for clarity and tolerance, being that each side should be reviewed for main points as well as not attacking the opposite side because of differences. We often jump to radical conclusions due to delivery or context of opposite views. Many individuals listen to speak but we need to listen to understand.
During class, we were establishing tolerance and what shapes our morals and values. Religion is one of the top factors that shape our character and way of being. The key concept is to be open to difference of opinions or agree to disagree, otherwise we are only separating ourselves from experiences or knowledge only possible with an open mind.
LikeLike
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/13/us/california-three-states-initiative-ballot/index.html
LikeLike
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/13/us/california-three-states-initiative-ballot/index.html
LikeLike
I found an article this week covering the choice two parents made to raise their children with no religion. The article explains the various pros and cons of raising kids with or without religion. There seems to be a fair amount of pros and cons on both sides presented in the article. The main idea of this article is to promote thought around the subject of religion forced on children at birth and the idea that this should be a conversation expecting parents should consider having. I found this article interesting as we discussed a similar topic in our quick write this past week. This idea of raising children without a forced or pushed religion challenges them to live life by their own blueprint. It also is a way in which they are able to shape their own morality and values without justifying it with religion that could potentially be contradictory to another person with a different belief. I also found it interesting that the article stated that one fourth of Americans do not identify with a religion and the number is growing. I think with all of the radical religion examples we are seeing in the recent years people are starting to become more critical of religions as a whole. Being a person of faith and not religion, I can understand how parents see this as an important decision worth considering. When something is forced, regardless of your age, you will eventually rebel against it. Raising children with a religion in a chore like fashion can actually prevent them from the idea of faith or a higher power. It would be interesting to see long term studies on these children and have them answer our quick write about how they think their beliefs have been shaped from birth.
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/16/618217795/teaching-children-to-ask-the-big-questions-without-religion
LikeLike
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5739547803001/?#sp=show-clips
Before we talked about it in class, Purdue University said their asking for students to not use the world man. Because some people might find it offensive, instead they’re asking for us to use the world person, human, or synthetic (instead of man made), and she goes on to say women/woman should be changed to person. Just leave the man or men out of the human language. They don’t want people to feel uncomfortable and want everyone to feel like they are included and not just talking to the male gender. They even want to go so far as to rename city’s such as Manhattan, New York; Manchester, Vermont. Tucker the interview says why stop there when not change the world mail as in letters and junk we get in the mailbox, but Cathy the Professor over at Purdue says that one is okay because it is spelt a and i, not an a and e. Purdue is says things need to be updated, and that if something offends somebody even if you’ve never met them personally. You need to change it cause you are offending a group of people.
I full heartedly disagree with this Professor and Purdue University. People are taking feels of them being offended and that words can hurt way to far. Yes men way back when were the ones in charge and making decisions, but in this day in age we don’t need to take it out on them we are letting feelings trump logic.
LikeLike
For this weeks Journal I read the article “How to Win Your Next Political Debate”. I chose this article because I felt it was an extension of the Johnathan Hadit Ted Talk. This article gives 5 tips on how to properly debate with someone about politics. Step one “forgetting facts”, the article says that facts don’t necessarily matter because people will form their opinion then look for facts to back their opinion, instead of looking at all the facts and then forming there opinion. Step 2 is letting the person hang himself. This mean that if you let somebody talk then the speaker will start to see holes in their logic by themselves. Step 3 suggests to “Not Be A Dick” it’s not what you say but how you say it. Once someone starts acting like an asshole they lose their credibility. This point stands out because it ties in directly with Aristole’s triangle, specifically Ethos. Step 5 in the article says that Liberals and Conservatives value different things. This means that to persuade someone first think about whats important to them. Then play up to what you both can agree on.
LikeLike
https://www.thecut.com/2014/05/how-to-win-your-next-political-argument.html
LikeLike
A live interview with President Donald Trump was held on Friday. In which the president was caught lying several times. Several issues were discussed, but four of them stood out. He lied about how the FBI was acting against him during his campaign; his disbelief on the inspector’s general report conclusion from the FBI being unbiased; moreover, he protects himself by saying that the IG demonstrated he did nothing wrong regarding a possible collusion with Russia, and he stated that Comey was a criminal. All of these issues were carefully investigated, and no evidence seems to connect logically to Trump’s statements.
This reminded me of the class of Aristotle’s Rhetorical Triangle. Trump uses in advantage of his political authority, ethos, to persuade the public that he is correct. People that don’t follow the news often are more prone to believe him just by being the president, whereas does who read the news and still support him, might be because people decide on what it is convenient for them to trust (what fits their ideals). People that are neither left or right-wing, might see the lack of integrity of the U.S. president by lying constantly in the media. I think he acts this way as a pretext to save his ego at the moment, but I do not see a need or great benefit from it in the long run. From the interview report, it appears as if he knew everything that happens, and everything seems to be related to him; a narcissistic attitude. As the president, he acts as if only his will matters, and he does not care much if there is disagreement with the validity of his actions.
I am not saying that his actions are always bad. I am only saying how I perceived his performance on Friday and related that, to the attitude that I have seen people have when he discusses something on either mass or social media.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/trump-told-4-lies-about-the-inspector-general-report-in-one-short-fox-news-hit/ar-AAyH9e5
LikeLike
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-california-could-become-three-states-cal3-ballot-measure-2018-6
I chose an article that details the hypothetical plans to split California up into three different states. It talks about the Cal 3 campaign, details surrounding the three Californias, and the kind of impact three Californias could have for Congress. The article goes on to say that the probability of California being split up is highly unlikely, and I agree. This article ties in to when we spoke about how divided our nation was after the 2016 presidential election. When the idea of California being split up first surfaced, my Liberal friends went wild. They were excited by the prospect of (“Democratic”) California having more pull in the Electoral College, and hopefully having a bigger influence on future elections and votes. This campaign has rapidly gained support due to the 2016 election, and how divided our nation became as a result. Liberal Californians were outraged at the results, and saw the splitting of their home state as a viable solution. Yet, this goal is monumentally huge and would need large amounts of financial backing and political support. I can see why people support this incentive: California is huge and it is unfair that we are represented by the same amount of senators as much smaller states. However, I think people are letting their political views and frustrations cloud their judgement. There are many reasons why splitting California isn’t a good idea: out of state tuition for someone living in LA to attend a Bay Area school, issues dividing assets and debt, and a whole bunch of legalities just to name a few. I think California needs to seriously weigh the pros and cons of this movement before they vote for it on the November ballot.
LikeLike
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5798489994001/?#sp=show-clips
LikeLike
There was recently a post from The Today Show stating that “It’s proven that VIOLENT games like Fortnite increase aggressive behavior and a lack of empathy in players. Will you let your kids continue to play?” in the quick two-minute video that is still posted on their Twitter account it Sandy Rea(a today Psychologist?) explains that with over 130 evidence based pieces of research that “violent games” cause an increase in aggressiveness, angry thoughts, and aggressive behavior. Following there are 116 research reports that state that these violent video games affect the structure and performance of the brain. She continues that these games are not bad and can be continued to be played as long as it’s monitored. these games affect the pleasure center of our brain or the frontal lobe, we need to be mindful of how these games impact our behavior. It lowers our empathy, it’s goal is to kill, hurt, maim. Lastly she ends with that children will not go out and kill people but “what we do know that children who are exposed to these games for long periods of time unsupervised are a cheap babysitting excuse.
I could not for the life of me find the entire video. It has been taken down from the Today website and it’s nowhere to be found except for this 2-minute clip from twitter. Now what I found interesting is that to me it sounds like that she went into a full circle and began to contradict herself. She starts there are X amount of research and X amount of evidence-based research as to why kids shouldn’t be playing these violent game. However, she almost immediately tells us that these games are not bad and can be played as long as it’s monitored. WHAT? Then at the end of the video she says tells us that children will not go out on killing sprees because of these violent video games, however prolonged unsupervised exposure is just cheap babysitting. So all this 2-minute clip told me was a bunch of scary problems that violent videogames can cause to end with just don’t be a horrible/lazy parent. To get your kids to do other stuff than play videogames. To me she just basically killed her own argument by ending with that statement. I wish I could find the rest of the video and watch full interview to see what else she has proof for.
LikeLike
http://www.firefighternation.com/articles/2013/09/the-role-of-ethics-and-morality-in-the-fire-service.html
In 2003, members of the fire service participated in an exercise that identified their most important values. The four most important values found were trust, honesty, integrity, and teamwork. These core values are what the fire service stand for and make up its foundation. Firefighting is constantly considered the most trusted and respected profession. In their time of need, the public trusts that the firefighter knows what they are doing and is there to help. Integrity plays a key role in public’s perception and runs the firefighter’s ethics and moral compass. It’s what drives them to put their fears and feelings aside and do what is right for others.
I agree with this article 100% because there is no other profession you can trust in your home at any time with no questions asked. Firefighters continue to sustain that trust through their dedication and sacrifices to integrity. My Fire Tech. instructors would constantly ask what integrity meant to us and why it was so important. They did this because it is the most basic principle of the job. I chose this article because it explains what it means to have integrity and why it is so important. This relates to our class because whether it is an article for our research or a being a critical thinker, integrity means being honest and following your ethics.
LikeLike
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/391811-rubio-rips-media-for-hypocrisy-in-coverage-of-trumps-meeting-with-kim
This article from The Hill is about Republican senator Marco Rubio’s criticism of the media for what he claims to be a negative portrayal of President Donald Trump’s meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. This relates to class because senator Rubio calls out the media for being hypocrites and questions the media’s integrity and bias. On Tuesday June 12, 2018, Rubio tweeted the following statement, “Presidents [Trump] meeting with [Kim Jong Un] exposed incredible hypocrisy of many in media. When Obama did these things, he was described as enlightened. When Trump does it he is reckless & foolish. [one year] ago they attacked Trump for leading us towards war, now attack for being too quick for peace.” He elaborates on the comment referencing an opinion piece published by the New York Times commenting on the outcome of the Trump-Kim Jong Un meeting resulted in Trump conceding “a huge concession” in exchange for “astonishing little”. That “huge concession” being the suspension of military exercises with South Korea. He also mentioned how the media portrayed President Trump as reckless and foolish for meeting with the North Korean leader but does not recall any criticism when Obama met with Cuban leader Raul Castro back in 2016. The right wing has always had issues with the media, most recently President Trump claiming any new that portrays him unfavorably as “fake news” in an attempt to undermine his role as president. It is well known that the media is biased. News outlets such as CNN a known to favor liberal points of views and a Fox News is known to favor conservative points of view. And both a are known to view with disgust the other side; demonizing them.
LikeLike
Early in his presidential campaign, when tensions began rising between the United States and North Korea, former president Obama said that we would like to meet with the enemy specifically the leaders of North Korea and Iran. Obama received a lot of criticism especially from a number of talk show hosts from Fox. Fox news detests such a idea, stating that Obama likes talking to dictators and enemies and bowing to them. On the other hand, when president Donald Trump does something very similar, For example, accepting to an invitation to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jung Un, Fox praises his intentions. They give him glory and all the credit. They claim that Trump is “the chosen one”. As big as Fox News is, they claim to be “fair and balanced”.
This is a pretty fine example of hypocrisy. Fox News claim that meeting with America’s enemies is a mistake and criticizes those who do so. However when president Trump does the exact same thing, Fox News praises and celebrates the decision. This not only reveals the one sided thoughts and opinions towards Obama, but also shows the obvious support they have for Donald Trump. Fox News seem to be very avid Trump supporters. In reality, it is dangerous to receive news from a sources that claims to be reputable and have solid integrity, but fall short of these moral standards. These news sources can corrupt a critical thinkers mind and form a biased opinion towards people with open minds.
http://theweek.com/speedreads/761358/fox-news-incredible-obamatrump-hypocrisy-1-damning-video
LikeLike
https://nypost.com/2018/…/immigrant-border-officials-took-my-baby-as-i-was-nursin…
A Honduras woman who was awaiting trial due to illegal immigration stated that when she was nursing in a detention center, federal staff took her daughter from her arms. When she rebelled, she was handcuffed. According to the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy, all illegal immigrants caught will be sued by the federal government. This woman is one of them.
I could not to feel how sad for this mother, only for political reasons, separate babies from mother, this is inhuman. I research an age at which they would not separate immigrant children from parents, I could not find it, there is no limit.
Today is Father’s Day, all families are celebrating, but my thoughts turn toward all those children who have been separated from their families and sent to all over the country. Which law protects them will not be getting physical and mental harmed by “zero tolerance” policy? This practice of separating parents and children being challenged!
LikeLike
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/russia-football-world-cup-rising-homophobia-180612165056187.html
The article I have chosen this week is “Russia, football World Cup and rising homophobia”, by Saba Aziz. The article briefly introduces the presence of homophobic beliefs and acts that are often observed in Russia. The heart of the article is dedicated to the impact that homophobic activities have on LGBT soccer fans and that FIFA has taken steps to prevent discriminatory actions at soccer events, especially such an event as the World Cup. LGBT fans are advised to avoid publicly expressing or revealing their sexuality while traveling to the World Cup. To combat discriminatory behavior a new anti-discriminatory monitoring system has been implemented for every 2018 World Cup game. Three observers tasked with the objective to monitor discriminative behavior. If the discriminatory behavior continues despite warnings referees can suspend or abandon the game. LGBT fans are calling for FIFA to do more to combat discrimination in football.
Personally, I am not a soccer fan; however, I am aware that soccer is the game of the world. From my understanding of the history of the game: soccer is a sport that has brought nations and people together since its creation and it is the most popular sport on earth. Such a game must have officials act to ensure that all fans can enjoy the game free of discrimination. There is no room for discrimination in the game of soccer both on the field and in the stands. The World Cup is a tournament that brings all the world together in celebration of soccer. I picked this article because the World Cup is an important to many people and it is a common subject that comes about in the conversations around me, and this article explains a problem that such an important even must face.
LikeLike
The article I read was in the New York Post, called “Waitress Fired, Booted From Air Force Reserves Over Racist Video” by David K Li.
Tabitha Duncan was with two friends having beers on a dirt road when they coaxed her into saying 4 words that would would ruin her career. One male said “are we going ngger hunting?” The other friend chimed in, “yea we’re going ngger hunting!” “We’re ngger hunting right now!”, the first guy exclaimed! “You get them nggers!”, Duncan snickered. Her small remark was highly offensive to many people and the video went viral. Although Duncan claims not be racist, she chose to risk her military career and her waitress job for a cheap laugh.
In these situations, I believe that ignorance is the issue, not racism. In states like Missouri, where minorities are a lot less common, people don’t get much chance to build person relationships with people of other races, which causes a downhill roll of negativity. I feel the hateful intentions towards others is pretty much inherited in areas like that. Im not saying it’s acceptable or okay at all, but I’m having trouble finding a solution to this problem other than understanding it as ignorance and progressing pass it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2018/06/16/waitress-fired-booted-from-air-force-reserves-over-racist-video/amp/#scso=uid_IbAnW4jaDbPc9AOY0KXgCQ_0:7
LikeLike
This is a clip from Adam Ruins Everything. In it Adam explains how taking vitamin supplements are bogus and really needed if you eat a relatively normal diet. The whole idea of needing to take vitamin pills came from a chemist named Linus Pauling. He was the only person to be awarded two solo Nobel Prizes which essentially made him a science celebrity. He eventually became abscess with the idea of living forever and that vitamins were the answer for everything. in other words he went a little crazy, but since he was this two time wining Nobel Prize, celebrity scientist, no one really questioned him. He eventually died of cancer, something he claimed vitamins can cure, and to this day a lot of people still think you need to take extra vitamins.
I think this video hit on a lot of the things we were talking about in class this week. A chemical scientist came up with this far fetched idea and everyone believed him because he had already won two Nobel Prizes. We all Believed him to be a credible source of information and so we assumed that his research was good. It wasn’t until years later that other scientists started to question the validity of his work that they found out that it was a fallacy. the same thing happed with the cold cure “Airborn”. I’m sure we all saw that ad on TV and its claim to cure the common cold faster ohttps://youtu.be/29v6rNFjlLIr even to prevent you from getting it in the first place. Then it was found out that it did non of that and they were sued for millions of dollars. We just assumed that since it was on TV it had to have been made by real, reliable and credible, scientist. after seeing this video it makes me want to take a good hard look at everything now and not just take it for face value.
LikeLike
sorry, I just noticed that I put the video link right in the middle of a paragraph.
LikeLike
https://www.wired.com/story/ajit-pai-man-who-killed-net-neutrality/
The article focuses on Ajit Pai, who is seen as the “Nemesis of Net Neutrality”, and the most reviled man on the internet. Before I continue, WIRED is a politically center-left magazine. Although the majority of their articles are centered around technology, they occasionally post about political topics that involve techonology, such as Net Neutrality. This particular article was written by a politically-left liberal, but the majority of it is fact-based, fact-checked, and informative of Ajit Pai and his background. He (Pai) comes from the small town of Parsons, Kansas, his parents both Indian-born doctors that practiced at a county hospital. He graduated from Harvard in 1994, and later continued his law school at the University of Chicago. The political atmosphere around Pai at the time and growing up shaped politically-Republican stance today. In 1998 Pai joined the Justice Department as a junior attorney in the antitrust division. Around the late 90’s and early 2000’s was the boom of the internet, and his job was to handle cases like the Sprint and WorldCom merges, which attempted to become a major power of control over internet agency. The concern with the internet in its infancy was that the company that owned the pipes could also manipulate the flow of data, and this control could lead to abuses such as blocking access to websites and “throttling”, or deliberately slowing, of connections. Enter Net Neutrality, introduced by young law professor Tim Wu in 2002, which framed the issue of control, and suggested standard internet regulations. Fast forward to present day, and Ajit Pai is head chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. He has pushed and pushed for the deregulation of the internet, which would cause major cable companies like Comcast and Verizon to take over and control the very thing we as a people hold dear: the internet. I agree that he is a nemesis of net neutrality. Despite his education and political background, despite his “understanding”, I believe he is an enemy of the internet. The article does not paint him as an evil person, but as someone who uses the world wide web every day, I cannot help but oppose his policy of repealing Net Neutrality. As a people we utilize the internet and its resources daily, if not for most of our lives now. I would not be able to post or communicate with friends across the world in real-time were it not for that kind of connection. This website would not be here, this blog, these words. The information and history and future of the world… all in our hands. This issue relates to the class in that it relates to our connection with the rest of the world through the internet.
LikeLike
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-baer/the-same-sex-marriage-debate_b_5800482.html
In the article ,” The Same Sex Marriage ‘Debate” is Based Upon Ignorance and Inaccurate Information,” it talks about Judge Martin L. C. Feldman. A Judge for the federal district court of the eastern district of Louisiana. Feldman was the first federal judge to uphold a ban on same-sex marriages. Judge Feldman refers to homosexuality as a “life-style choice” and explains that the supreme court has never defined sexual orientation as a protected class. The author of the article stated that Judge Feldman should have not been so close minded in his decision, Feldman stated that since sexual orientation is not a protected class, discrimination against the gay and lesbian population is fair game. Most federal decisions against same-sex marriage has been ruled unconstitutional. Essentially the ones who are against same sex marriage are the ones who wrongly believe homosexuality is a “life-style choice.” This article relates to our class by speaking on the controversial topic of same-sex marriage and close minded ignorant people with false information. People have beliefs about things they know nothing about, and saying homosexuality is a lifestyle choice is extremely ignorant. I picked this article because of how it related to our class and its something i believe people need to be more educated on. Especially if they are going to be ruling in certain things that affect the LGBT community. This judge seems to be very close minded to the topic and set in the ways of the constitution.
LikeLike