Given the alternative of future attacks, more technology to fight back has to be better than less.

Few technologies make people as uneasy as surveillance cameras installed by governments and private companies, which come increasingly close to capturing everything that goes on in public. Even though like Neil M. Richards said its “something that abuses our civil liberties and would be something like having police officers with perfect memory on every street corner”. But the analysis can’t be as simple as “surveillance bad, privacy good”; and at least in some situations, camera systems can promote both security and liberty.

I wish everyone would think this through more carefully. No police state can prevent every last attack its just not possible. But it can ruin a society while no one but the cameras are watching. And just with the Boston Marathon Bombing Attack, in my opinion it would have taken more to find out who were the ones that placed the bomb. Boston is one of the less wired cities when it comes to cameras surveillance, but still authorities relied a lot from footage from Lord & Taylor department store near the scene. Just not this week at my job somebody tried to steal something from use, but we caught it in camera and were able to get the person that was doing it. The other way I see it is that even though just like Richards say “cameras are expensive. They are costly to install and maintain, and in a time of limited budgets, they could be mistaken for an adequate substitute for human police officers on the street.” This can also bring out jobs for unemployed people. And don't agree that it will be a substitute for human police, it would just be something that helps the law to solve crimes.

We live in an age where where Internet usage and data content is available for anyone to see via our IP addresses coming from our computers, our personal information on social media sites are all out there for anyone to see. The point I'm trying to make is that there are FAR more privacy concerns in the 21st century information age than a few extra cameras on the street and we are already on private video all the time without our knowledge as we saw in Boston.

Am not saying that is justifiable to violate certain of our civil liberties. All am trying to say is that when it comes to national security, where we are able to find criminals or detect threats that can eventually bring harm to the people in a more faster way. And as long as they are not in my house,if so yes them that would be violating my privacy.

Colleague Commentary On Blog Stage 6

In response to Government: Past and Present Blog Post

I once saw a TV documentary called "The Most Hated Family in America" from Westboro Baptist Church Topeka, Kansas and I was amazed on how this family could do such things as to protest on fallen soldiers funeral just for being gay. By calling them horrible things, if their saying that they had sinned, wouldn't they be sinning as well by standing there at the funerals doing that. I stand in your opinion, the government is not to decide on who we can marry. I'm Catholic even though is not something openly accepted by the church, still I was tough to love and respect everyone above anything no matter what their believes or decisions where in their lives as long as they are happy. If they love is with the same sex, is because they are happy. Most of them don't have the support of their families still, and having people that talk bad about them me myself really don't like it. It makes me really sad that we have to go go through something like this. God created the man and then women so the man wouldn't be alone, for him to have someone to live with and love. But to love their is no gender to whom you want to spend your life with, and us we have the freedom to decide that. 

T.S.A. administration Good or Bad

The Transportation Security Administration(TSA) has announced that they will remove restrictions on blades under 2.36 inches and narrower than a half inch. That's right, effective April 25 of this year passengers are now allowed to carry on board  their pocketknives or any blade that fits the new regulations by the TSA. The Administration has said that after analyses they have deemed them as a non threat item.

I believe that the new regulation should not have been approved. The TSA Administrator Jhon Pistole has declare that " A small pocketknife is simply not going to result in the catastrophic failure of an aircraft". And yes maybe a blade does not have the potential to create huge damage to an aircraft, but it certainly can be consider as a weapon with the potential to create damage to a person. There is always the risk of misuse for a blade, because that kind of artifact can easily be use to damage flesh and arteries which can be lethal on cases. There could be a group of people that get together and plot to attack at the same time and that making it a little bit more harder to defend each other when there is a lot of people trying to attack.

Unions representing employees from  various branches of the field have already presented their opposition to the new regulations showing that the people who is on the air on a regular basis do not feel safe knowing that  blades are allowed to be carry on board. As a potential passenger, I can absolutely say that it definitely does not agree with me having to worry when am flying about the possibility of someone using a blade with malicious intentions.

It is understandable that they want to focus more on the detection of explosive devices, the ones with the potential of causing mayor destruction, but at the end of the day it looks like they going after the big monster by sacrificing the little and seemingly nonthreatening little one. We have to remember that in the world we are living now days there is no small enemies, we have to look out for the little things that have the potential to become a big issue with just a little room for a chance.

http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=462748

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/opinion/dont-let-knives-back-on-planes.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Is it O.K if corporations do it?

On March 4,2013 The New York Times  Published Mooching Off Medicaid  by Paul Krugman, to those who have a firm believe on how the conservatives are on comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted, about giving to the ones who have already have a lot. Them having a cynical view on the current state over medicare. Medicaid being a very successful program which helps provide health insurance to lower income Americans, which is getting and will get bigger based on the Obama care health care plan. As we know the republican are of less government spending, buy still will agree to the expansion of the Obama health care plan, why? For the main reason that it would mostly run through private insurance companies.
Krugman states by them wanting for it to run through private insurances it tells us a lot in what the Republicans really want; which at the end of the day it would be beneficial a lot towards them. He points out the Florida case where governor Rick Scott made his fortune in the health industry. In which he also pleaded guilty on criminal fraud charge paying $1.7 billion dollars in fines based on medicare. Elected as a fierce opponent of he Obama care plan and went to the supreme court in order to base it unconstitutional. But now why did he shockingly declared his support for medicare expansion. But on the sole condition only if after he received a waiver letting him run medicaid through the private insurance. Yeah right only after gaining something out of it. Raw Political Power-letting the medical industry continue to get away with a lot overcharging was in effect one of the prices that Obama had to pay for the plan to pass. If it meant tens of millions would receive insurances.
I agree that even though the conservatives party talks and talks saying a lot, about having low tax rates for the big companies and only looking out for the rich, but at the end they would always give in-only if their is something profitable for them.

"As long as the spending ends up lining the right pockets, and the undeserving beneficiaries of public largess are politically connected corporations, conservatives with actual power seem to like Big Government just fine" 

Why not be all Fair...!!

Why is it that the middle class and the poor have to pay up on high taxes when the rich pay very low tax rates??? 

That is a very good question is in it. On February 21, 2013  Published an Editorial on  Why Taxes Have to Go Up. On why it is crucial for a new and a need for a tax rate increase, that it is a needed step in order to achieve near term budget goals and for a healthy budget in the future. That we need a policy that it does not only benefits the rich, but brings equal standards for the middle class and the poor. In which I believe it makes sense, when it states that there are still people benefiting from the Bush-era Tax cuts  and that from then on we have been through deficit on and on for the last ten years.  It is true that we need to raise the tax rate on high-income Americans, in order for the Country to have fairness. Saying that 39.6% being the lowest tax rate being paid by the high income Americans (Historically Low ) in which they will preferably resist cut on spending, but which once again will bring a harsh cut on other things that are needed by those who don't  meet the standards that the rich have being bringing down on education, health and environment funds. We know that education funds has been dropped a lot from the last two years, but it is something that has always been happening, since the Republicans are for high tax but lower tax on mayor companies. Obama's justification to drop the deficit by mainly curbing the tax breaks which the high income Americans have, but why ? as always the Republicans don't want to give in. 

"But there will never be a consensus for more taxes from the middle class without imposing higher taxes on wealthy Americans, who have enjoyed low taxes for a long time."

Which would be a great set of standard, having the same taxes based on our income, or having the rich pay more.? As long as one day comes where the rich have a rise on their tax rate and so for the middle class and the poor to feel more at ease, for those that have the feeling that pay  more of what they make. 

Makers, Takers, Fakers..!!! The Republican Party

             On January 28, 2013, the New York Times Published an article titled Makers, Takers, Fakers   Krugman, starts by pointing out that in the past Republicans would just shout out "Class Warfare" and scare all the rest of the parties and point out being better than any of them.But lately they have notices that they really have to change their image, meaning changing their sales pitch rather than their product, something they are not that willingly to do. Mr Jindal, a republican takes his speech “We must not...be the party that simply protects the well off so they can keep their toys. We have to be the party that shows all Americans how they can thrive.”, where he really didn't explain how and what can be done to demonstrate that they are really not all about letting the rich keep their toys (money), but claiming that their policies are the best.  But mean while back in Louisiana he is pushing for the states income tax to be cut off, something that falls heavenly on the poor and middle class. Not affecting them, by saying they will pay for it themselves. Having a reverse Robbin Hoodism- taking from the middle class and giving to the rich, by making it look something good but being bad truthfully.Paul Ryan made a transparently dishonest attempt saying that when he spoke of takers living off of the makers " that he didn't mean the people getting social security aid.They declare being a Populist party, but in reality they are not. Its something where people is just seeing what truly is that they want out for themselves mostly than the concern for the middle class.