Coincidental Date for Obama NSA speech

Yahoo News reports that it's merely a coincidence that President Obama's speech on NSA reform was scheduled on the anniversary of Dwight Eisenhower's speech that warned American's of the threat of the military industrial complex.

This is quite the coincidence.

In his speech, Eisenhower is famously quoted by saying this in his farewell address:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

This was January 17th, 1961. Fifty-three years later, it is evident that this was true, based on the speech Obama is about to give.

The military industrial complex is the combined interests of the military establishment and industry that creates products used by the military. Eisenhower warned of the growing influence it exerted on US foreign and economic policy. As these corporations grow larger from the sales of their products, they gain more power over the US decisions in war that require them to purchase these products.

Edward Snowden exposed that there indeed was a "disastrous rise of misplaced power," although not quite in the way that was predicted. They claimed that all of the spying and wrongfully gathered information he exposed was for the war effort- to fight against terrorists. 

Obama's speech is tomorrow. How do you think the NSA will change? Do you agree that the NSA is part of the military industrial complex?

Assisted Suicide Legal in New Mexico

According to CNN, a New Mexico judge ruled that terminally ill patients have the right to ask a doctor to end their life. The patients must be mentally competent and fully able to come to the decision on their own.

New Mexico Second Judicial District Judge Nan Nash was asked the question of whether or not fatal prescription drugs should be administered to a terminally ill cancer patient who requested her life be ended. The Judge decided the patient had that right.

In 2010, a film crew in Switzerland was invited to record an assisted suicide. 
The video is the ideal scenario- the women peacefully passes away while talking with friends. If you would like to see it is, the video is here.

As long as the ruling is not appealed, New Mexico will become the fifth state to allow assisted suicide, following Oregon, Washington, Montana and Vermont. Oregon was the first state to do so in 1997, and the topic has been widely debated since then, mainly due to stories more similar to this one.

After becoming paralyzed up to his head, Timothy Bowers woke up and told his family that this was not what he wanted. He didn't want to live the rest of his life in that state, and wanted them to remove his breathing tube (because his paralysis did not allow him to breathe on his own). They complied and he passed away. This case has been discussed by medical ethicists and lawmakers because many say that he did not have enough time to make a thoughtful decision and acted out of shock from his injury. Many people who are in this situation are given a month or two to adjust and then end up changing their mind.

Judge Nash gave this statement about the ruling: "This Court cannot envision a right more fundamental, more private or more integral to the liberty, safety and happiness of a New Mexican than the right of a competent, terminally ill patient to choose aid in dying." 

This topic really comes down to the question of how far our personal rights can go, and which are overridden for certain causes. In the past, supreme court (Washington v. Glucksberg, and Vacco v. Quill.) has ruled that the government's interest in preserving life and preventing intentional killing outweighed the patient's interest in the liberty to choose to die. I disagree with that. In the quote above, he says that assisted suicide is a fundamental and private right to the "liberty, safety, and happiness" of citizens. This is seemingly parallel to the unalienable rights listed in the declaration of independence: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. (listed in all versions of the document!) I think that not giving people the choice of assisted suicide violates these rights.

How do our unalienable translate to modern circumstances? How do you interpret the quote from Judge Nash? 

Corvette Stingray is North American Car of the Year

This is the seventh generation Chevrolet Corvette. (With the other six in the background) It's was announced almost exactly a year ago, and appeared at dealerships this summer. Last night, it won the North American Car of the Year award at the Detroit Auto Show. According to this article by USA Today, General Motors also won the truck of the year award. 

These awards are extremely coveted in the auto industry, and represent General Motors climb back to the top, since the government bailout in 2009. 

The corvette especially showcases this. It's designed to compete in the class of the Porsche 911. Both the Corvette and 911 have been around for decades. 

Here are some specs of the Porsche:
350 HP, 0-60 in 4.6 seconds, 27mpg highway, and it retails with a starting price of $84,300.00

Now the Corvette:
460 HP, 0-60 in 3.8 seconds, 29mpg highway.

Oh yeah, and it starts at only $51,995.

That is the American way. We'll be more powerful, faster, and more fuel efficient than our German competitors, and do it for a fraction of the cost.

What I am even more excited about, is that the 2015 Z06 Corvette was leaked by Jalopnik yesterday. (My favorite auto blog, check it out if you are interested in cars!) The Z06 is essentially a beefed up, even faster version of the Corvette. It supposedly will come with 620hp, as opposed to the base models 460. That's really fast. A Ferrari 458 Italia has only 570! (And it costs $233,509). We are taking down the Germans and the Italians!

One last thing.... traditionally, the Corvette comes in three trims: The stingray, then the Z06, and finally the ZR1. Chevrolet has not said a word about the ZR1 yet, but it is supposed to be the fastest of them all. If the specs on the Z06 are correct...this car will be an absolute monster


Any other car enthusiasts in our American Studies class? Comment your thoughts on the cars of 2013!

Teen Sexting=Child Pornogrphy

This article states that a 17 year old girl was found guilty of distributing child pornography after being caught sending explicit images another girl her age. She was using the pictures to bully the girl, because she was her boyfriend's former girlfriend.

She was charged with distributing child pornography because the girl was also under 18.

The article suggests that she might have received the harshe sentence in response to recent suicides of Rehtaeh Parsons and Amanda Todd which have prompted nationwide cyberbullying awareness campaigns and calls for tougher laws to prevent Internet harassment.

Convicting sexting teens as child pornography is controversial. This girl is a criminal and deserves to be charged as such, but is "Child Pornography" the correct sentencing? I think it is unjust to say that teens sending naked pictures of themselves and actual pedophiles who enable the abuse of children have committed the same crime.

In this video that summarizes the case, the lawyer of the accused states that they will be taking the case back to court because "if adults can legally send naked pictures, it is unconstitutional to convict minors of doing so."

Although I disagree with the ruling, this is not why. There are many things that adults can do and kids can't. This should be of those things.

Do you think minors should be allowed to send explicit messages? And if not, should "child pornography" be what they are charged with?

I call dibs!

If you've ever driven through Chicago neighborhoods after a snow, you'd immediately notice the multitude of old chairs and other household items lining the streets. This is "Dibs." The Dibs system is simple. After a large snowfall, people who put the work in to shovel out a parking spot mark it with an item to claim it as their own. This way, you won't have to spend time shoveling out a spot just to have it taken by someone who didn't do any work.

However, every system has it's flaws. Dibs has flaws because some people are jerks. You might come home to find that your chair had been moved and a car sitting in it's place. What would you do?
John Kass of the Chicago Tribune says that "Any Chicagoan knows what happens when dibs is disrespected. The offender's car usually gets bleeped up."

This is why "Dibs" is controversial. Dibs isn't a new thing, either. My mom remembers placing chairs in her spots when she was in college. (And she's old!)

There is also the fact that it's possible you might find an empty spot and park in it, not knowing that someone had come before you and moved the chair. Then you come back and find your car with it's tires slashed.

John Kass ends his article with "Don't disrespect the dibs. So let it be written. So let it be done."

But is there a better system? If you have lived in Chicago, what are your experiences with the system?

Not just your phone: Is your car spying on you too?

According to Business Insider, new vehicles made by the American automotive company "Ford" know more about you than you think. At CES yesterday (a huge electronics trade show) Ford's Global VP/Marketing and Sales, Jim Farley, said that "We know everyone who breaks the law, we know when you're doing it. We have GPS in your car, so we know what you're doing." He then added, "By the way, we don't supply that data to anyone."

At first I thought it was a mistake for him to say that and that Ford would receive a lot of backlash. However, some further research revealed that, according to Yahoo Autos, all new cars made after September 1st, 2014 are required to have these capabilities. It's also important to note that 96% of cars currently being made already have this feature.

It's called a "black box" and it mostly used for post accident data, e.i. how fast your car was traveling at the time. Although that's all it's used for now, I can imagine a time in the future where cities looking for more money from speeding tickets would take this data to give speeders tickets without needed police to see them.

Do you think this is an invasion of privacy? How do you think the data will be used?

A "black box" that will be in every new car. Photo by Harris Technical Services

Self Driving Cars by 2050

An article on AutoBlog jokes that humans themselves are becoming obsolete, because a study by IHS Automotive predicts that almost all cars on the road in 2050 will drive themselves. Here is a video example of one of these cars to demonstrate what this means:

As a car enthusiast, I have mixed opinions about this news. It's really hard not to see all of the benefits this will bring. In the video, a blind man is "driving" a car. Without this technology, that would be unheard of. Having computerized cars on the road would eliminate accidents, reduce insurance costs, eliminate traffic. However, I'll be sad to leave behind the days of shifting through gears manually, and blasting off from every stoplight.

Do you think that once self-driving cars have widespread availability, humans will be barred from driving cars themselves?