BLOG POST 7: GOOGLE EMAIL ADS VS. ADVOCACY GROUPS

Conclusion claim (thesis statement):

Google will finally put a rest to all of the invasion of privacy accusations from advocacy groups.

Premise claim 1 (evidence):

Even though Google is “on the defensive, struggling to convince overseers and its users that it protects consumer data” it argues that “the [wiretap] law is stuck in the past and has failed to keep up with new technologies” (Miller 2013).

Premise claim 2 (evidence):

Google continues to discredit that allegations against it and, “Google’s alleged interception of email content is primarily used to create user profiles and to provide targeted advertising — neither of which is related to the transmission of emails” (Miller, 2013).

References

Miller, Claire . “Google in battle to shed email ‘wiretapping’ tag.” The Times Of India. The Times Of India, 2 Oct. 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-10-02/internet/42614780_1_gmail-ads-user-data-google>.

Blog Post 6: Google Email Ads vs. Advocacy Groups

Conclusion claim (thesis statement):

 

Advocacy Groups will finally force Google to stop “invading” the privacy of its users through email scanning and and data collection.

Premise claim 1 (evidence):

 

Google’s new policy would make it easier for Google to cross-reference users’ activity data culled from its most popular services, including search, Gmail, Google Apps, Google+, Picasa and YouTube and EPIC’s executive director Mark Rotenberg stated, Google went way over the line in a variety of ways. (Acohido, 2012)

Premise claim 2 (evidence):

 

“Rotenberg contends that Google is repeating deceptive practices that got the company into hot water in early 2010 when it launched Buzz, a new social network that was intended to be part Facebook, part Twitter” (Acohido, 2012).

 

References

   Acohido, Byron . “USA TODAY.”USATODAY.COM. USA TODAY, 8 Feb. 2012. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-02-08/google-privacy-ftc/53014496/1>.

 

blog post 7: fast food strike for minimum wage increase

What was the triggering event of the conflict?

                On February, August 25, 2013, President Obama gave state of the union address. He stated, “Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour” (Obama’s state of the union address, 2013, pg. 6, para. 6). This motion to increase wage had employees more than ecstatic and consequently caused strikes nation-wide.

On Thursday, August 25, 2013, thousands of employees of popular fast food chains organized the largest strike to hit the fast food industry. Employees in over 50 cities protested for higher wage and the right to unionize. Obama’s address was the seed, and the strikes were the bloomed flower.

Employees know that these fast food industries would refuse to be put out of business, so if the owner’s will not bend a lot, they will at least bend a little to keep their employees and hire future employees. PolicyMic, stated that Hostess didn’t go out of business because of poor dietary, but behind their foreclosure was a protest from their employees. Resistance can either result a good consequence or a bad one.

 

Fossett, K. (2012). NYC fast food workers strike, showing the cost of neglecting minimum wage. Politics. Retrieved from: http://www.policymic.com/articles/19783/nyc-fast-food-workers-strike-showing-the-cost-of-neglecting-minimum-wage

 

Obama state of the union address. (2013). Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/us/politics/obamas-2013-state-of-the-union-address.html?pagewanted=6&_r=1

Blog post 6: Fast Food Strike for Minimum Wage Increase

What do you claim was the direct cause of your conflict?

                The government stopped keeping up with the inflation of minimum wage in 2007, the last year the wage was increased. Minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 since 2007 and does not correlate with the rising cost of living. As said in PolicyMic, minimum wage would be at $10.55 if kept up with inflation.

Obama’s 2008 pledge to raise minimum wage by $2.50 by 2011, was not kept as a priority. Because the rise of wage stayed quiet for many years, business owners stayed mum about raising wage. But, low class workers refused to keep working 40+ hours a week for low wages.

The issue is larger than just the fight for higher wages. Business owners are in fear of foreclosing their businesses and economists fear a much more crippling recession. An even worse recession than the one we’re still recovery from will only make the economy weaker. A weak economy is a vulnerable and hungry economy. The will cause a global conflict. “The premise that considering employees’ needs is damaging in a recovering economy demands a critical re-evaluation” (Fossett, 2012, para. 11). Will there be a compromise between employees vs. economy?

Fossett, K. (2012). NYC fast food workers strike, showing the cost of neglecting minimum wage. Politics. Retrieved from: http://www.policymic.com/articles/19783/nyc-fast-food-workers-strike-showing-the-cost-of-neglecting-minimum-wage

BLOG POST 6 + 7 – BART Police Shooting of Oscar Grant

         Officer Mehserle shooting Oscar Grant is the actual triggering event of the BART shooting of Oscar Grant, pretty self-explanatory. However, the direct cause is much deeper. The direct cause of this conflict is simply police brutality. There have been many incidents where policemen could have blood all over their hands and still get off easy or completely. This conflict blew up and was dragged on because there has been so many “accidental killings”, majority of African American males at that. Like many other officers, Officer Mehserle claimed to have been reaching for his Taser to tase Grant, not his gun to shoot him. Mehserle’s attorney Michael Rains backs the officer up on his accidental claim and says “In California … we know that police officers have made this same accident in nine other cases, there have been no other criminal prosecutions. This was an accident, not a crime.” (Rains, 2013, p.1). By attorney Rains saying that, it’s clear that both Mehserle and his attorney went in to the court room almost positive he would get off easy just because other officers in the past has. Others have walked free why not his client? By officers not being punished for their actions, it’s like giving officers the okay to just murder people if they say that it was just an innocent mistake.

Steigerwald, L. (2012, May 10).”Bart cop who shot Oscar Grant in the back wants his involuntary manslaughter sentence overturned” . Retrieved from http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/10/bart-cop-who-shot-oscar-grant-in-the-bac

 

              In many recordings by witnesses from that night, officer Mehserle and other officers on the scene were shown abusing their power and heard threatening Oscar and his friends. Abuse of power by police much known as police brutality is the direct cause of this conflict. There was a lot of unfairness on the scene that night. Oscar Grant and his friends were saying curse words and showed that they were upset for being singled out and harassed by the officers. However, they never tried to fight back, only a few resisted arrests. Oscar Grant on the other hand, was one of the few who did not resist he in fact was trying to explain himself respectfully with both hands up where officers could see them. As videos show and witness explained, officers use Oscar’s softness as a demonstration in a way to his friends. Oscar was not a threat to the policemen, so they used him and punched him repeatedly, kneed him in his back and neck to show his friend that they were serious. They did it to prove themselves; also safe to say that Oscar lost his life to prove that the police meant business that night. A paramedic from that night, Sheehan Gillis decided to do an investigation that night. Mainly because, the paramedics were not given word that Oscar Grant was shot. None of the officers applied pressure to the wound to stop the bleeding or anything. Oscar was left there until the officers were ready for him to be treated. Even when reached by the paramedics, only one of two wounds was treated properly. Even after Oscar was shot, he wasn’t treated fairly. The officers on the scene that night didn’t care if he lived or died. Because of how race maybe or even just because some of his friends were talking back to the officers, they left him to die. After paramedic, Dr. Gills realized the mistreatment, he decided to investigate. Not too long after, he was ordered to stop his investigation. What were officers trying to hide? The paramedic still didn’t keep quiet about his suspicion. He pay then started to become lower and some weeks he wouldn’t even get paid at all. Dr. Gills eventually left for financial reasons. This is proof that the BART policemen are in fact hiding something and they drove the one inside person who was willing to speak and investigate it away.

Horne, P. (2011, June 20).”Paramedic whistleblower alleges oscar grant cover up; evidence of system – wide racism:indybay”. Retrieved from http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/06/20/18682479.php?show_comments=1

Redmonde, R. (2009, March 25). “The cold-blooded murder of Oscar Grant”. Retrieved from http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/cold-blooded-murder-oscar-grant

 

Blog Post 6 & 7: Monsanto vs. Farmers

Blog Post 6 

Monsanto will have to keep their seeds separate from Farmers and have to properly and honestly label foods as GMO or Organic. The contamination of crops causes a decline in vitamins and nutrients needed in the body (Smith, 2013). Genetically Modified foods increase metabolism and allergy causing change in human health and putting them at risk, also people can not tell the difference between GM foods and Organic foods (Mount, 2013).

Mount, R. (n.d.). Genetically modified foods affect health and body – Oprah.com. Oprah.com. Retrieved from http://www.oprah.com/health/Genetically-Modified-Foods-Affect-Health-and-Body

 

Smith, j. (n.d.). Spilling the Beans: Unintended GMO Health Risks. Spilling the Beans: Unintended GMO Health Risks. Retrieved November 10, 2013, from http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/

 

Blog Post 7

Farmers will have to make a independent decision on whether or not they want to purchase genetically engineered food seeds, because the government feels its beneficial to the economy. Legislation was released to extend the Monsanto revolution which protects GMO sellers from law suits (Alman,2013). Law suits filed by Organic farmers against Monsanto are being thrown out because of lack of evidence. Farmers are saying that their crops are becoming contaminated because of Monsanto (Monsanto secures victory over organic farmers,2013).

Alman, A. (2013). ‘Monsanto protection act’ to expire, won’t be part of continuing resolution.The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/24/monsanto-protection-act-expire_n_3985673.html

 

Monsanto secures victory over organic farmers – RT USA. (n.d.). Monsanto secures victory over organic farmers – RT USA. Retrieved November 10, 2013, from http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-patent-lawsuit-court-544/

 

 

Post 6&7 (Egypt)

The Egyptian government should become a true democracy where the power lies with the people. According to Ali Ahmed interview, the Government must make social and political changes. Ahmed says “The social objectives of the revolution have not been achieved. Economic empowerment, freedom, and social justice… where is the constitution that represents us?” (Rudat, 2013) In his interview Ahmed talks about separation of church and state because the Muslim Brotherhood tried to force their views on all of Egypt (Rudat, 2013).

Egyptian Government gives full control to the Military. The Egyptians would be happy that the MBH is not involved. According to Issandr El Alrani the MBH takes advantage of democracy rule because they insert themselves in government (Alrani,2013). The only way to properly repress the brotherhood is to give full control to the military.

El Amrani, I. (2013, August 14). Blog. RSS. Retrieved October 20, 2013, from http://arabist.net/blog/2013/8/14/it-only-gets-worse-from-here
Rudat, S. (2013, July 7). Egyptian Revolutionary Youth Inspires With Solutions. Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved November 5, 2013, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephanie-rudat/egyptian-revolutionary-yo_b_3555805.html

Blog Post 6&7: Affirmative Action

In the heated controversial topic Fisher V. University of Texas holds that affirmative action in schools is necessary to promote diversity. For many years minorities have been discriminated against and more likely to be at a disadvantage because of past events. As an illustration to this Grutter V. Bollinger and affirmative action act has been used to ensure equality.

Grutter V. Bollinger caused my conflict because it allowed schools to consider race as a factor in achieving racial diversity in schools. The Supreme Court held that “The equal protection clause does not prohibit the law schools narrowly tailored use of race in admission decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body”. The court explained the reason in using race as a factor is to make sure that all factors which will contribute to diversity is considered.

Grutter V. Bollinger. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.Oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_241/

Affirmative action caused my conflict because it is a policy which “gives opportunities to minorities, women, and any group that has been subject to discrimination in the past”.

Affirmative action pros and cons. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools/affirmative-action-pros-and-cons

The Jim crow laws and Plessy V. Ferguson court case allowed my conflict to be what it is today because of past discrimination that happen in the past.

Jim Crow laws are what allowed discriminating against African Americans okay. Jim Crow laws are what said to be what “legalized segregation between blacks and whites”. I believe this caused my conflict because public institutions designated to African Americans including schools were not equal to white public institutions.  

Jim Crow Laws. (n.d.).Retrieved from http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/history/jim-crow-laws.html

Plessy V. Ferguson was a case that “based their decision on the separate-but-equal doctrine, that separate facilities for blacks and whites satisfied the fourteenth amendment so long as they were equal”. This shows that blacks and whites wasn’t always consider equal because this court case was later overturned by Brown V. Board of education.

Plessy V. Ferguson. (n.d.).Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1895/1895_210

 

 

 

Blog Post 7: Tibetan Autonomy

Conclusion Claim:

A desirable outcome for China in this conflict would be that their control over Tibet would finally become solidified without problems.

Claim 1:

Working in China’s favor no country, such as the U.S. has recognized Tibet as an independent nation. (Book 2012, p. 38-44)

Claim 2:

China has evidence that does have Tibet was and is a piece of China. (Dhussa 2009, p. 1-6)

 

References

Bork, E. (2012). Tibet’s transition. World Affairs, 175(3), 38-44

Dhussa, R. (2009). Tibet: A nation in exile. American Geographical Society’s Focus On Geography, 52(2), 1-6.

Blog Post 6: Tibetan autonomy

Conclusion Claim:

A desirable outcome for Tibet in this conflict would be that Tibet would finally achieve its independence.

Claim 1:

Once they achieve their independence, Tibetans could finally embrace their human rights without issue. (Klein 2011, p. 115-165)

Claim 2:

The bloody violence between China and Tibet could finally be cast aside and peace could happen between them. (Ortolani 2012, n/a)

References

Ortolani, A. (2012, Fed 27). Why violence in Tibet is getting worse. The Atlantic. Retrieved from: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/why-violence-in-tibet-is-getting-worse/253627/

Klein, R. (2011). An analysis of china’s human rights policies in Tibet: China’s compliance with the mandates of international law regarding civil and political rights. ILSA Journal Of International & Comparative Law, 18(1), 115-165