Benjamin Felder addresses a very controversial issue on his editorial When I say Muslim, you say…. He talks about profiling by The Department of Homeland Security, and how Muslims/Arabs are the targeted demographic. The article is well written and it’s pretty easy to move through it. Certain comments though are ambiguous and a bit extreme and racy. "No one here illegally should have the same rights as U.S. citizens." this comment was rather disturbing when I first read it. As I finished reading the article I was left with the idea that the author was against profiling but all for kicking anybody suspicious or not to date with their papers out. Lets take a moment to think about the facts, most terrorists at least up to now turn up having legal papers, as opposed to illegal immigrants how usually come here not with the dream to destroy the place but rather to be saved by it.
Another thing that puzzled me is how the article states that is doesn't approve of profiling but it understands why it’s being done. The author says that in the last ten years the majority of terrorist attacks have been by Muslim/Arabs, and thus it is understandable why they are being targeted. This idea seems contradictory and is very confusing.
“Would you rather have a proactive Homeland Security that does their best to save American lives by inconveniencing some foreigners or a reactive government that responds after an attack by going to foreign soil where the potential of many more innocent foreigners may die?” This one really caught my eye. The author seems almost insensitive to foreigners, and then goes on to say its for the best that way the US doesn’t have to go and invade your country.
To recollect, the article is well written and it’s an easy read. Certain ideas and thoughts explored in it are rather vague and ambiguous. I’m assuming the targeted audience was US citizens, because as a foreigner myself I found it hard to relate or understand.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Is the US govenrment becoming to rational?
When I think about the United States of America, I think about one big bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is: management or administration marked by hierarchical authority among numerous offices and by fixed procedures. Max Weber, a famous sociologist, was the first person to write down the proper characteristics of a fully functional bureaucracy, this is called an ideal bureaucracy. On paper (the constitution)the US has an ideal bureaucracy and everything in it is understood as being rational.
The goal of human governments is to reach rationality,the state were everything and everyone acts in a understandable, predictable and "safe" manner. People want rationalization because it brings an increased efficiency, predictability, and calculability. The goal is to increase the ability of man to manipulate his environment, to adapt, to conquer the chaotic elements of life so as to obtain a quality of life that can be considered ‘better’ than previous times. If we look closely at the way the US government works though we find that not all its actions are rational. According to George Ritzer, rationalization is growing out of control.
So how can it be explained why the US government even though it has its guideline for a perfect bureaucracy is not able to achieve it? According to George Ritzer, the US government suffers from the paradox called "irrationality of rationality." This means that even though it works in a strictly rational environment many irrational events or tasks occur. An example are the camps created for Japanese Americans during the second world war. Even though these men and woman were indeed Americans the bureaucracy allowed for their rights to be suspended. The procedures and the paper work all followed a rational path but the outcome was irrational, the deprivation of rights of American citizens.
The paradox of "irrationality of rationality" is something to keep in mind. As the US government becomes more and more rational, the possibilities for irrational outcomes become greater and greater.
The goal of human governments is to reach rationality,the state were everything and everyone acts in a understandable, predictable and "safe" manner. People want rationalization because it brings an increased efficiency, predictability, and calculability. The goal is to increase the ability of man to manipulate his environment, to adapt, to conquer the chaotic elements of life so as to obtain a quality of life that can be considered ‘better’ than previous times. If we look closely at the way the US government works though we find that not all its actions are rational. According to George Ritzer, rationalization is growing out of control.
So how can it be explained why the US government even though it has its guideline for a perfect bureaucracy is not able to achieve it? According to George Ritzer, the US government suffers from the paradox called "irrationality of rationality." This means that even though it works in a strictly rational environment many irrational events or tasks occur. An example are the camps created for Japanese Americans during the second world war. Even though these men and woman were indeed Americans the bureaucracy allowed for their rights to be suspended. The procedures and the paper work all followed a rational path but the outcome was irrational, the deprivation of rights of American citizens.
The paradox of "irrationality of rationality" is something to keep in mind. As the US government becomes more and more rational, the possibilities for irrational outcomes become greater and greater.
Friday, October 17, 2008
McCain and his eye
So there I was looking for a good blog article to comment on. So I went and visited AMERICAblog.com. I quickly scanned the blog and saw many of the usual headlines, Economic turmoil, Joe the plumber, the world is f%$#@ you know the usual stuff. But then I saw, possibly the best piece of news reporting I have ever laid eyes upon. “During a period of just 60 seconds, McCain blinked 104 times” I mean this really got my attention. Just as I was about to click on this article, a thought went through my mind. Why the hell do I want to read this? And it got me thinking about some stuff that I heard in my government class. Here is this blog page filled with good articles that talk about the government and the economy, they posses good maybe even vital information. Yet I am drawn to this one that talks about the blinking habits of McCain. Well I’m ashamed to admit I examined the article with fierce interest and also saw some follow up articles. Before I knew it I was tangled up in this conspiracy theory that something had happened to McCain, his left eye was being lazy, he just recently had hired a new make up artist, is McCain hiding something? What is he not telling us? Is McCain a transformer is he more than meets the eye?
This blog is obviously aimed at Obama supporters that’s for sure. There is more to this blog though. I am new to this country; I don’t have particularly any sort of favoritism to any one of the candidates. You could say I don’t really care. Hell I can’t vote, what is the point in picking one. But boy if I could vote, after reading this article I would vote for Obama. Why? Well because this little piece of media planted a seed in my mind. Now when I think of McCain I think of the guy who hides something behind his twitch. This article possesses no scientific, political or valuable information, yet it exists. Why? Simply to get people like me and brain wash them. This is exactly what I was thought in my government class. This is a useless article that distracts people from real useful information. This article exists only to plant a bias idea into the minds of people. It shows no viable evidence, it’s illogical and it’s dull. I can’t disagree with the fact that McCain has an eye disorder, but I do disagree with the fact that people use valuable time to create this type of blogs and they post time as “useful information.” Making people focus on this type of stuff when there are more important matters at play is simply irresponsible.
This blog is obviously aimed at Obama supporters that’s for sure. There is more to this blog though. I am new to this country; I don’t have particularly any sort of favoritism to any one of the candidates. You could say I don’t really care. Hell I can’t vote, what is the point in picking one. But boy if I could vote, after reading this article I would vote for Obama. Why? Well because this little piece of media planted a seed in my mind. Now when I think of McCain I think of the guy who hides something behind his twitch. This article possesses no scientific, political or valuable information, yet it exists. Why? Simply to get people like me and brain wash them. This is exactly what I was thought in my government class. This is a useless article that distracts people from real useful information. This article exists only to plant a bias idea into the minds of people. It shows no viable evidence, it’s illogical and it’s dull. I can’t disagree with the fact that McCain has an eye disorder, but I do disagree with the fact that people use valuable time to create this type of blogs and they post time as “useful information.” Making people focus on this type of stuff when there are more important matters at play is simply irresponsible.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
What's Up With Sarah Palin?
As I sat on my couch last Thursday afternoon, I noticed my TV was on. Well let’s just say, if it would have been up to me I would have watched Heroes. Some holy force beyond my control though thought it was funny to hide the remote control from me. So there I was, on my couch, watching the vice-presidential debate much to my dislike. Don’t get me wrong, I like the presidential debates but who really watches the VP debates? Well I really don’t. This time was a different story though.
To my luck I found an editorial in the New York Times that basically embodied my views of the debate. I'm no political expert or anything but in my humble opinion and pardon me if I offend you, but Sarah Palin lost. The editorial begins to talk about the many flaws that Palin exposed during the debate. Initially the article talks about how well she avoided "election-defining gaffe." From my point of view, I think its true. She rambled on about the same thing over and over again. She tried the strategy of going around in circles never answering anything to a full extent and coming back to the same place in the end of her argument.
Personally I’m not inclined to either the Democrats or Republicans, but I believe that is not the case of this article. I didn’t have to go through it to long before it seemed pretty one sided. I do agree with it, but I believe that only attacking Sarah Palin isn’t right. I would have liked some more information on Biden. After all, the article is called The Vice-Presidential Debate, not Sarah Palin crashes and burns.
That being said, I believe that article is absolutely correct. This debate shined a light on the lack of lack of experience that Plain has. Sarah Palin has little experience with howWashington
After finishing the article you are left with this question. This after taste really makes you question why Sarah Palin out of people? Since I am no expert, I looked in the internet for positive info on Sarah Palin and believe me I found it. So I believe it is safe to say that this article is bias.I do agree with what is says but none the less it is pretty one sided.It's a good read for any Obama supporter, which is obviously the intended audience.
To my luck I found an editorial in the New York Times that basically embodied my views of the debate. I'm no political expert or anything but in my humble opinion and pardon me if I offend you, but Sarah Palin lost. The editorial begins to talk about the many flaws that Palin exposed during the debate. Initially the article talks about how well she avoided "election-defining gaffe." From my point of view, I think its true. She rambled on about the same thing over and over again. She tried the strategy of going around in circles never answering anything to a full extent and coming back to the same place in the end of her argument.
Personally I’m not inclined to either the Democrats or Republicans, but I believe that is not the case of this article. I didn’t have to go through it to long before it seemed pretty one sided. I do agree with it, but I believe that only attacking Sarah Palin isn’t right. I would have liked some more information on Biden. After all, the article is called The Vice-Presidential Debate, not Sarah Palin crashes and burns.
That being said, I believe that article is absolutely correct. This debate shined a light on the lack of lack of experience that Plain has. Sarah Palin has little experience with how
After finishing the article you are left with this question. This after taste really makes you question why Sarah Palin out of people? Since I am no expert, I looked in the internet for positive info on Sarah Palin and believe me I found it. So I believe it is safe to say that this article is bias.I do agree with what is says but none the less it is pretty one sided.It's a good read for any Obama supporter, which is obviously the intended audience.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Congress: The best friend of the disabled since 1990
As I searched the New York Times website I came across an article which particularly grabbed my attention. The name of the article is Congress Passes Bill With Protection for Disabled. Why did this capture my interest? Well simply because I consider the subject of disabilities a very sensible and controversial one. The article goes on to narrate the events that took place in congress and some background history on this piece of legislation.
Last Wednesday congress provided its final consent, to what the New York Times describes as a major civil rights bill. The bill expanded protection for people with disabilities and it overturned many recent Supreme Court decisions. One interesting thing that popped out is the fact that the bill was passed in the senate by unanimous consent. This is something that rarely happens. The bill was approved by the House of Representatives as well on a voice vote, leaving the final say on President Bush. According to the White House President Bush will approve this bill just like his father approved a similar bill named Americans With Disabilities Act back in 1990.
The article goes on to explain the feud between Congress and the Supreme Court over this decision. According to Representative Steny H. Hoyer, the Supreme Court misinterpreted their objective back in 1990. The Supreme Court had eliminated protection for many individuals whom congress wanted to protect with the Americans With Disabilities Act. So to clarify things this new bill was passed, which allowed for a broader coverage.
Why was this broader coverage needed? Well the article ends explaining this. It goes on to say that the better people are able to handle their disability the more likely they will no longer be covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act. For example here in Texas a federal judge said a worker that had epilepsy was not to be considered disabled because he was taking the proper medication to reduce his attacks. The bill’s idea is to protect people like this, who are disabled but are able to control their disability. Just because they are disabled in a “controlled environment” doesn’t mean they are no longer disabled.
Articles URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/washington/18rights.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=washington&adxnnlx=1221857776-8l+QcpBqJqOzFZ1Ig7at4g
Julio Fonseca
Last Wednesday congress provided its final consent, to what the New York Times describes as a major civil rights bill. The bill expanded protection for people with disabilities and it overturned many recent Supreme Court decisions. One interesting thing that popped out is the fact that the bill was passed in the senate by unanimous consent. This is something that rarely happens. The bill was approved by the House of Representatives as well on a voice vote, leaving the final say on President Bush. According to the White House President Bush will approve this bill just like his father approved a similar bill named Americans With Disabilities Act back in 1990.
The article goes on to explain the feud between Congress and the Supreme Court over this decision. According to Representative Steny H. Hoyer, the Supreme Court misinterpreted their objective back in 1990. The Supreme Court had eliminated protection for many individuals whom congress wanted to protect with the Americans With Disabilities Act. So to clarify things this new bill was passed, which allowed for a broader coverage.
Why was this broader coverage needed? Well the article ends explaining this. It goes on to say that the better people are able to handle their disability the more likely they will no longer be covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act. For example here in Texas a federal judge said a worker that had epilepsy was not to be considered disabled because he was taking the proper medication to reduce his attacks. The bill’s idea is to protect people like this, who are disabled but are able to control their disability. Just because they are disabled in a “controlled environment” doesn’t mean they are no longer disabled.
Articles URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/washington/18rights.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=washington&adxnnlx=1221857776-8l+QcpBqJqOzFZ1Ig7at4g
Julio Fonseca
Thursday, September 4, 2008
The Test post YEAH!!!! EXTRA EXTRA
If you are seing this post then boy ohh boy you are one curious person. To give you a treat for your curiosity look at a physics proyect I dide in my younger years. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqp2pUqHed4 its worth watching if you have a couple of free minutes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)