Spy Game
The United States does not by any means claim to spy on its allies, which is why it is such big news that the NSA has been caught doing exactly that. Although president Obama has yet to speak about the alleged tapping of chancellor Merkel's cell phone, it is safe to assume that these allegations are true. After witnessing the massive breach of trust witnessed in the recent IRS scandal I am beginning to feel less and less secure about the United States government. Scandals like these make our government out to be a scruple less hound that has no reserves about lying through its teeth. Considering that Germany is a well established ally, world power, and has even shown interest in anti-spying pacts it is ghastly to consider that the NSA was eavesdropping on Merkel. I have never been one to trust shady, three-letter acronym, government organizations, (especially after binge watching a bunch of Burn Notice) and while incidents such as this reinforce my opinion even more; I wish I could say it surprised me. The simple fact is that the United States government has a serious control problem. If our government does not have control over anything, then it at least wants to know everything about it. This obsession is what causes international fiasco that the NSA and CIA have come to be known for. Perhaps if our officials could learn to trust our allies our government would not have made such a fool of itself. I highly doubt that this mistake will alter the U.S.'s policy on spying at all. Should an type of anti-spying pact be formulated I would merely expect our level of spying to be cut down, but certainly not extinguished. Perhaps I just like to think that our government in more conniving than it actually is, however I think the NSA would have trouble letting go.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Ethnic Riots and Russia
After recent riots in Russia, based on the premise of a man from the Caucasus region stabbing another Russian; it is difficult not to claim that there will be a significant impact in Russia. While this riot may have been relatively minor, it was fairly isolated and was quickly put down; it may represent feelings that have been repressed amidst the Russian population. This is not unlike ethnic/race based conflict that has been seen in other parts of the world. One example would be the Newark race riots of the 1960s which, although less minor, ultimately had a significant affect on domestic policy in the United States. Should more riots sprout up in the wake of this, we can certainly say that this issue has struck a chord in Russian society. Somehow the animosity between Russians and the various other migrants has to be put to rest. The only question is what type of role the government will take in ending this feud. As noted by Alexey Navalny. there is a laundry list of government institutions that could accept blame for this riot. So, if there is so much blame to go around, then is it possible to create effective, civil reform without uprooting the whole system? Based on the effectiveness of the United State's Civil Rights Act of 1964 there is certainly the possibility that legislation could help. The fact is though, that legislation, even with proper enforcement, will do little good unless the mindset of the people change. There is no doubt that the United States has become a more tolerant as a nation since 1964 which is why legislation was effective. In order for the tension to ebb, Russia must not only legislate against ethnic prejudices but also advocate a change in the mindset of the people. The Russian government could offer seats of power to select, elite migrants in order to improve trust between the natives and the migrants. Without a more tolerant and open-minded attitude, Russian officials will have no choice but to ban migrants. This scenario would be extremely disappointing and shed light on the current vulnerability of the human condition.
After recent riots in Russia, based on the premise of a man from the Caucasus region stabbing another Russian; it is difficult not to claim that there will be a significant impact in Russia. While this riot may have been relatively minor, it was fairly isolated and was quickly put down; it may represent feelings that have been repressed amidst the Russian population. This is not unlike ethnic/race based conflict that has been seen in other parts of the world. One example would be the Newark race riots of the 1960s which, although less minor, ultimately had a significant affect on domestic policy in the United States. Should more riots sprout up in the wake of this, we can certainly say that this issue has struck a chord in Russian society. Somehow the animosity between Russians and the various other migrants has to be put to rest. The only question is what type of role the government will take in ending this feud. As noted by Alexey Navalny. there is a laundry list of government institutions that could accept blame for this riot. So, if there is so much blame to go around, then is it possible to create effective, civil reform without uprooting the whole system? Based on the effectiveness of the United State's Civil Rights Act of 1964 there is certainly the possibility that legislation could help. The fact is though, that legislation, even with proper enforcement, will do little good unless the mindset of the people change. There is no doubt that the United States has become a more tolerant as a nation since 1964 which is why legislation was effective. In order for the tension to ebb, Russia must not only legislate against ethnic prejudices but also advocate a change in the mindset of the people. The Russian government could offer seats of power to select, elite migrants in order to improve trust between the natives and the migrants. Without a more tolerant and open-minded attitude, Russian officials will have no choice but to ban migrants. This scenario would be extremely disappointing and shed light on the current vulnerability of the human condition.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
The Next Golden Age of Television
The past 15 years of television have been undeniably remarkable. In this time we have seen the redundantly loveable sitcom style of the 80s and 90s be tossed aside. Premium and standard cable channels everywhere are now airing long, intricate series based on complex characters that deal with deep-cutting societal issues. However, it is not hard to see that we are reaching an end of an era. With the legendary Sopranos long gone, and the end of AMC's Breaking Bad; it is not hard to tell that a change is coming. What exactly will this change encompass? Due to the immense popularity of HBO's Game of Thrones, I highly doubt that there will be a departure from the long, sprawling storylines that have come to be commonplace on cable. The way the shows are viewed will change. Since the demise of Oz, The Sopranos, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, more and more Americans have forsaken cable in lieu of a more convenient method: the internet. Netflix, Hulu, and various other streaming sites have become increasingly popular. This can be seen again by examining Games of Thrones; which has arguably the strongest underground following of any show ever. Among other accolades, it was estimated to be the most pirated show of 2012. Despite HBO's knowledge of this illicit activity it does little to shut it down because of the hype it creates around the show. Such easy access is key to determining television's new direction, because many of these shows are not even being viewed on televisions anymore. Without ratings and standards to adhere to, the internet allows for even greater creativity as shown by Netflix's recent original series' House of Cards and Orange is the New Black. While House of Cards makes use of the typical male anti-hero seen in The Sopranos and Breaking Bad, Orange is the New Black projects clearly where I believe TV is headed. The show's crudeness is on par with HBO and Showtime, however it's lead character, a woman criminal; is very new. Not to mention the scenarios that take place around her at an all female penitentiary. While still controversial, the internet allows Netflix and other production companies to put out whatever they choose for viewing without interference form cable companies. If Game of Thrones and Orange in the New Black are any indicators, then long, controversial plots viewed online are the next chapter in TV's history.
The past 15 years of television have been undeniably remarkable. In this time we have seen the redundantly loveable sitcom style of the 80s and 90s be tossed aside. Premium and standard cable channels everywhere are now airing long, intricate series based on complex characters that deal with deep-cutting societal issues. However, it is not hard to see that we are reaching an end of an era. With the legendary Sopranos long gone, and the end of AMC's Breaking Bad; it is not hard to tell that a change is coming. What exactly will this change encompass? Due to the immense popularity of HBO's Game of Thrones, I highly doubt that there will be a departure from the long, sprawling storylines that have come to be commonplace on cable. The way the shows are viewed will change. Since the demise of Oz, The Sopranos, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, more and more Americans have forsaken cable in lieu of a more convenient method: the internet. Netflix, Hulu, and various other streaming sites have become increasingly popular. This can be seen again by examining Games of Thrones; which has arguably the strongest underground following of any show ever. Among other accolades, it was estimated to be the most pirated show of 2012. Despite HBO's knowledge of this illicit activity it does little to shut it down because of the hype it creates around the show. Such easy access is key to determining television's new direction, because many of these shows are not even being viewed on televisions anymore. Without ratings and standards to adhere to, the internet allows for even greater creativity as shown by Netflix's recent original series' House of Cards and Orange is the New Black. While House of Cards makes use of the typical male anti-hero seen in The Sopranos and Breaking Bad, Orange is the New Black projects clearly where I believe TV is headed. The show's crudeness is on par with HBO and Showtime, however it's lead character, a woman criminal; is very new. Not to mention the scenarios that take place around her at an all female penitentiary. While still controversial, the internet allows Netflix and other production companies to put out whatever they choose for viewing without interference form cable companies. If Game of Thrones and Orange in the New Black are any indicators, then long, controversial plots viewed online are the next chapter in TV's history.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
It is hard to believe that our government has been left no possible alternative than to shutdown. Understandably, the idea of breaching the debt ceiling is frightening as well, the idea that our government is technically "closed" at the moment is reassuring either. What I find most astounding is that Congress's salary has managed to be written into law, therefore Congress receives pay regardless of whether or not the government has shut down. Yet, it has not been written into law that congress must provide funding for our government. Political pressure is the only incentive Congress has right now to get the government back up and running, and scarily there are Tea party members willing to ride out a long shutdown just to make political gains. It should be criminal for politicians to use a shutdown as a negotiation strategy. At this time there are currently an extra 800,000 government workers who are unemployed, America's tourism industry is seriously hindered, and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention is stopping it's seasonal flu program. America is in a weakened state at the moment, and it is simply because Congress cannot pass a new stopgap that will not last even a year. What is the route of all of this chaos? The answer: A vast chasm in the Republican party. Several years ago the Tea Party mustered strong emotions from both Republicans and Democrats, and it still is doing so today. I don't believe that most Republicans believed just how serious the Tea Party was at the time of its conception, and it certainly has gown stronger and more conservative since then. Although I personally found myself agreeing with many Tea Party arguments, my personal opinion on the Party has shifted to one of disgust. Their cut-throat, uncooperative methods are not what America is looking for right now. This is a time where compromise is far more effective and achievable, and for Tea Party leaders to believe that the American public will put up with such extreme power plays is absurd. Americans will blame the Republican party for not being able to control their more extreme members, and they will take the blame for the shutdown. This will probably lead to the Republicans losing the House. Because of the Tea Party's efforts, I think it is safe to say that the Republican party will not being seeing very many votes in the next couple of elections.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Kenyan Mall Attacks
Nobody can deny the horror of the attack that occurred on September 21 at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya. Such incidents have unfortunately become common place in this tumultuous, religiously torn part of the world. The number of religiously based terror attacks that have occurred in Kenya over the past ten years is absurd, most of them perpetrated by al-Qaeda and al-Shabab. Many of the other incidents are similar to the mall attack; ruthless massacres in which there are many unarmed civilians of all ages. As noted by many survivors of the mall attack, it seems as though these attackers are being brainwashed from a very young age in order to carry out these killings. Now the biggest question is whether or not the United States needs to intervene in order to stop such horror, and the simple answer is no. The reality is that there is no way for the United States to intervene that would cause less damage. In the eyes of the extremists who committed these atrocities, the U.S. is perhaps the greatest enemy of all. If we sent troops or CIA operatives, they would only serve as a knew target. This would potentially endanger even more civilians. Frankly, the CIA doesn't have a very good reputation when it comes to taking down extremist factions either, and it is not particularly difficult to imagine a CIA sponsored coup ending in a civil war or a similar tragedy. The best thing the U.S. could do is to stay out. Even sponsoring a government from afar would do more harm then good, because anybody receiving U.S. aid would immediately become a new target. So, although it is very difficult to sit by and allow such tragedy to transpire, the United State's hands are tied.
Nobody can deny the horror of the attack that occurred on September 21 at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya. Such incidents have unfortunately become common place in this tumultuous, religiously torn part of the world. The number of religiously based terror attacks that have occurred in Kenya over the past ten years is absurd, most of them perpetrated by al-Qaeda and al-Shabab. Many of the other incidents are similar to the mall attack; ruthless massacres in which there are many unarmed civilians of all ages. As noted by many survivors of the mall attack, it seems as though these attackers are being brainwashed from a very young age in order to carry out these killings. Now the biggest question is whether or not the United States needs to intervene in order to stop such horror, and the simple answer is no. The reality is that there is no way for the United States to intervene that would cause less damage. In the eyes of the extremists who committed these atrocities, the U.S. is perhaps the greatest enemy of all. If we sent troops or CIA operatives, they would only serve as a knew target. This would potentially endanger even more civilians. Frankly, the CIA doesn't have a very good reputation when it comes to taking down extremist factions either, and it is not particularly difficult to imagine a CIA sponsored coup ending in a civil war or a similar tragedy. The best thing the U.S. could do is to stay out. Even sponsoring a government from afar would do more harm then good, because anybody receiving U.S. aid would immediately become a new target. So, although it is very difficult to sit by and allow such tragedy to transpire, the United State's hands are tied.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)