Phoenix T
Nevada Union unveiled the remodeled school cafeteria last school year, to a variety of reactions from students. I don’t often venture into the cafeteria myself, but on the rare occasions that I do, I am always met with the same discomforting experience. As any student who buys lunch from the cafeteria is aware, students are required to enter their ID numbers into a small terminal, thus identifying themselves and linking the information related to their purchases to their respective school accounts.
I contacted Paige Moore, the Budget and Finance Coordinator for the district, to find out the reason for the practice. She told me that the reasoning behind the system has to do with funding. Nevada Union participates in the National School Lunch program, which entitles them to compensation based on the number of free, reduced, and paid meals served, provided the school reports the number of meals served.
“Every four years we are audited by the State and have to prove that we have a system that accurately records what students are receiving meals. Their main concern is to be sure we are not over-reporting,” says Moore. “This system also allows parents to go online and add money to their student’s account and monitor what they are purchasing.”
Aside from allowing parents to access their children’s accounts, there is no reason for students’ names and accounts to be tethered to the number and types of items bought in the cafeteria. Says Moore, “As a district, we are not interested in the individual purchase of the students. We only total the meals served and report it.”
Essentially, students’ names are not attached to the reports to the state, but the school has a record of each student’s purchases from the cafeteria, and that makes me a little uncomfortable.
It is true that as minors, most of us have far fewer rights than adults. When we set foot on campus, those rights are even further abridged, so there is no real legal basis for the abolition of the current system. I believe it, however, to be a gross invasion of my and my fellow students’ privacy. If the state does not need this information for the audit, I don’t believe there is any reason for anyone, let alone the school, to know what I eat, how much, and when, if I don’t choose to share it.
It was explained to me by Moore that, “If we don’t keep track by students, there would be no way for us to prove that we only claim one meal per student.” While I understand the reasoning, I can’t help but be a little disappointed that it seems to have crossed no one’s mind that perhaps people can be trusted to keep an honest tally after all. Beyond this, however, there are certainly alternative methods of tracking the number of lunches sold other than tethering each student’s purchases to his or her record.
Besides the apparent lack of trust for those who run the cafeteria, the principle of the issue remains clear: we are old enough to make some decisions on our own, and if we choose to keep certain aspects of our lives private, we should not have to forfeit access to a school service designed to be accessible to everyone. Regardless of our constricted rights on campus, this is an unnecessary invasion of privacy.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Alleged 9/11 mastermind's trial set
Phoenix T
On November 13, General Eric H. Holder, Jr., announced that the self-proclaimed mastermind behind the September 11 attacks would be tried in federal court, just blocks from the site of the 2001 bombings. Gen. Holder has said that the prosecutors will be instructed to pursue death sentences for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the four alleged co-conspirators who will be tried alongside him.
While the general consensus is that it is time for the horrific crimes of 9/11 to be atoned for, there have been objections to the decision to bring the trial to the United States. Many believe that those responsible for the attacks do not deserve the protections of the U.S. legal system, and some say that holding the trial in New York may provoke another terrorist attack.
Says Representative Peter King, a Republican from New York, “We should not be increasing the danger of another terrorist strike against Americans at home and abroad.”
Another consideration is the choice to hold the trial in a federal court rather than using a military commission. Many civil liberties and human rights groups are satisfied; Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the decision “an enormous victory for the rule of law”. Some, however, are worried that holding the trial in a federal court is not only a threat to security, but will not provide the defendants with an unbiased jury.
Many people, including the families of victims of the attacks, support the decision to hold the trial in New York and some family members have even indicated interest in witnessing the trial.
“It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered,” said Michael R. Bloomberg, New York City Mayor.
Others believe the decision to be a positive reflection on the United States itself. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is a Democrat who believes strongly that the Obama administration and Gen. Holder have made the right choice.
“By trying them in our federal courts,” Leahy said, “we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on Earth also trusts its judicial system.”
The detainees will not be moved immediately, as Congress requires a 45-day notice before prisoners at Guantanamo are moved to the U.S.
Defense lawyers are expected to argue that the CIA illegally tortured the defendants during interrogation, as the CIA has already admitted to using waterboarding, a simulation of drowning classified by the US as torture. Holder is confident, however, that the five detainees will be convicted.
Said the general on Friday, “Today’s announcement marks a significant step forward in our efforts to close Guantánamo and to bring to justice those individuals who have conspired to attack our nation and our interests abroad.”
Quotes collected by the The Los Angeles Times and the New York Times.
On November 13, General Eric H. Holder, Jr., announced that the self-proclaimed mastermind behind the September 11 attacks would be tried in federal court, just blocks from the site of the 2001 bombings. Gen. Holder has said that the prosecutors will be instructed to pursue death sentences for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the four alleged co-conspirators who will be tried alongside him.
While the general consensus is that it is time for the horrific crimes of 9/11 to be atoned for, there have been objections to the decision to bring the trial to the United States. Many believe that those responsible for the attacks do not deserve the protections of the U.S. legal system, and some say that holding the trial in New York may provoke another terrorist attack.
Says Representative Peter King, a Republican from New York, “We should not be increasing the danger of another terrorist strike against Americans at home and abroad.”
Another consideration is the choice to hold the trial in a federal court rather than using a military commission. Many civil liberties and human rights groups are satisfied; Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the decision “an enormous victory for the rule of law”. Some, however, are worried that holding the trial in a federal court is not only a threat to security, but will not provide the defendants with an unbiased jury.
Many people, including the families of victims of the attacks, support the decision to hold the trial in New York and some family members have even indicated interest in witnessing the trial.
“It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered,” said Michael R. Bloomberg, New York City Mayor.
Others believe the decision to be a positive reflection on the United States itself. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is a Democrat who believes strongly that the Obama administration and Gen. Holder have made the right choice.
“By trying them in our federal courts,” Leahy said, “we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on Earth also trusts its judicial system.”
The detainees will not be moved immediately, as Congress requires a 45-day notice before prisoners at Guantanamo are moved to the U.S.
Defense lawyers are expected to argue that the CIA illegally tortured the defendants during interrogation, as the CIA has already admitted to using waterboarding, a simulation of drowning classified by the US as torture. Holder is confident, however, that the five detainees will be convicted.
Said the general on Friday, “Today’s announcement marks a significant step forward in our efforts to close Guantánamo and to bring to justice those individuals who have conspired to attack our nation and our interests abroad.”
Quotes collected by the The Los Angeles Times and the New York Times.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Patriot movement gaining momentum
Phoenix T
About a decade ago, a group of U.S. calling themselves the members of the “Patriot” movement faded from public attention, due largely to the election of George W. Bush in 2000. The “Patriot” movement was made up mainly of tax-defiers, self-proclaimed “sovereign citizens,” and members of paramilitary antigovernment militias and emerged as a result of dissatisfaction with the government. In the months since the election of President Barack Obama, the movement has been gaining momentum once more, fueled by rampant conspiracy theories and propaganda spread by the media and political pundits.
Although it is true that the members of the “Patriot” movement do not nearly constitute a large enough portion of the population to pose a threat to American security, there is an unnerving number of militias and training groups forming around the country. A single law enforcement agency uncovered fifty new militia training groups, and, while these groups have not acted yet, many believe violence could explode at any moment.
"They're not at the level we saw in '94-'95," says one law enforcement officer who wished to remain anonymous. "But this is the most significant growth we've seen in ten to twelve years. All it's lacking is a spark. I think it's only a matter of time before you see threats and violence."
Bart McEntire, the supervisory special agent for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives in Roanoke, Virginia, agrees. "You see people buying into what they're saying. It's primed to grow. The only thing you don't have to set it on fire is a Waco or Ruby Ridge,” he says, referring to the incidences of violence in Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in the 1990s.
The main concern of the members of the “Patriot” movement is what they see as the inevitable eventual takeover of the United States by a tyrannical government. Former FBI agent Ted Gunderson told a gathering of “Patriots” that the government is hiding 1,000 internment camps across the country, along with 30,000 guillotines and a half a million caskets in Atlanta, Georgia, for the days when the government declares martial law and comes to “round up dissenters.” “They're going to keep track of all of us, folks,” he warns.
An especially prominent Patriot group, the Oath Keepers, is made up of military men, veterans, and law enforcement officers, and swears to defend the Constitution by whatever means necessary. The group was founded by Stewart Rhodes, a Yale Law School graduate and former aide to U.S. Rep. Ron Paul. Rhodes is particularly worried about the potential for a dictatorship in the U.S. and told radio host Alex Jones, “"We know that if the day should come where a full-blown dictatorship would come, or tyranny … it can only happen if those men, our brothers in arms, go along and comply with unconstitutional, unlawful orders.”
The calls for violence among these “Patriots” are growing louder and more frequent. The Idaho Citizens Constitutional Militia recently posted an opening for a “field sniper.” In Washington, a man was charged with keeping an illegal cache of weapons that included a machine gun, four silencers, and two guns made by a local gunsmith and inscribed with "Christian warrior" and “NObama.” In Nebraska, a member of a conspiracy group called the Prophecy Club was found to have been hiding dozens of containers of explosive powder, fuses and other components that could be used to make up to 93 grenades.
It is unlikely that the various organizations and groups under the umbrella of the “Patriot” movement will ever rally enough support to overthrow or even significantly influence the government. It is unfortunate, however, that there are those with so little faith in our system of government as to believe that violence is the only solution to the problems we all face every day.
About a decade ago, a group of U.S. calling themselves the members of the “Patriot” movement faded from public attention, due largely to the election of George W. Bush in 2000. The “Patriot” movement was made up mainly of tax-defiers, self-proclaimed “sovereign citizens,” and members of paramilitary antigovernment militias and emerged as a result of dissatisfaction with the government. In the months since the election of President Barack Obama, the movement has been gaining momentum once more, fueled by rampant conspiracy theories and propaganda spread by the media and political pundits.
Although it is true that the members of the “Patriot” movement do not nearly constitute a large enough portion of the population to pose a threat to American security, there is an unnerving number of militias and training groups forming around the country. A single law enforcement agency uncovered fifty new militia training groups, and, while these groups have not acted yet, many believe violence could explode at any moment.
"They're not at the level we saw in '94-'95," says one law enforcement officer who wished to remain anonymous. "But this is the most significant growth we've seen in ten to twelve years. All it's lacking is a spark. I think it's only a matter of time before you see threats and violence."
Bart McEntire, the supervisory special agent for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives in Roanoke, Virginia, agrees. "You see people buying into what they're saying. It's primed to grow. The only thing you don't have to set it on fire is a Waco or Ruby Ridge,” he says, referring to the incidences of violence in Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in the 1990s.
The main concern of the members of the “Patriot” movement is what they see as the inevitable eventual takeover of the United States by a tyrannical government. Former FBI agent Ted Gunderson told a gathering of “Patriots” that the government is hiding 1,000 internment camps across the country, along with 30,000 guillotines and a half a million caskets in Atlanta, Georgia, for the days when the government declares martial law and comes to “round up dissenters.” “They're going to keep track of all of us, folks,” he warns.
An especially prominent Patriot group, the Oath Keepers, is made up of military men, veterans, and law enforcement officers, and swears to defend the Constitution by whatever means necessary. The group was founded by Stewart Rhodes, a Yale Law School graduate and former aide to U.S. Rep. Ron Paul. Rhodes is particularly worried about the potential for a dictatorship in the U.S. and told radio host Alex Jones, “"We know that if the day should come where a full-blown dictatorship would come, or tyranny … it can only happen if those men, our brothers in arms, go along and comply with unconstitutional, unlawful orders.”
The calls for violence among these “Patriots” are growing louder and more frequent. The Idaho Citizens Constitutional Militia recently posted an opening for a “field sniper.” In Washington, a man was charged with keeping an illegal cache of weapons that included a machine gun, four silencers, and two guns made by a local gunsmith and inscribed with "Christian warrior" and “NObama.” In Nebraska, a member of a conspiracy group called the Prophecy Club was found to have been hiding dozens of containers of explosive powder, fuses and other components that could be used to make up to 93 grenades.
It is unlikely that the various organizations and groups under the umbrella of the “Patriot” movement will ever rally enough support to overthrow or even significantly influence the government. It is unfortunate, however, that there are those with so little faith in our system of government as to believe that violence is the only solution to the problems we all face every day.
Media wins right to publish untruths
Freedom of the press is a concept that we associate with the freest of nations. As a country, we take pride in the fact that news outlets are always free to print the truth and that no publication, radio frequency or television station is under the government’s thumb. It’s a sign of a truly free nation when their reporters are free to present the facts and offer commentary on them.
We have such confidence in our media’s freedom to report that we’re pretty willing to trust what major outlets say and assume that the necessary fact checking was done. Sometimes we forget that even though the government isn’t free to adulterate the truth, there are agents who are perfectly willing to.
This goes beyond cries of bias within news outlets. Contrary to popular belief, there is legal protection for news organizations to publish information that may not be truthful.
In 1997, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, two former journalists for a Fox Network-owned affiliate, were doing a story on the bovine growth hormone rBGH and its effects on humans who consume products that contain it. The report proffered that rBGH is known to cause cancer and products containing it were able to be sold without a label informing of the chemical.
Akre and Wilson presented the story to their bosses at the news station, but were immediately greeted with resistance. The station was under pressure from the Monsanto Corporation (the company that produces rBGH) to either ensure that every part of the report was unequivocally true or to withhold the report altogether. Monsanto has an aggressive, capable legal department that will attack any weak links a piece concerning the corporation. The story was rewritten by Fox’s lawyers some seventy times before the two journalists were simply terminated when they refused to air the edited segment.
Akre and Wilson both sued the Fox affiliate for the loss of their jobs. Wilson, who acted as his own lawyer, lost his suit, but Akre won some $400,000. In 2003, however, Fox appealed the decision, claiming that it was their First Amendment right to report whatever they liked. The case was overturned and a Florida appellate court decided in 2006 that the Federal Communications Commission’s position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a “law, rule, or regulation.”
The whole case leaves the nations journalists in a pretty tricky situation as far as precedent. Suddenly, every news outlet in the United States has legal backing to publish untrue stories. There is a fine line between freedom of the press and total impunity to publish whatever a media company feels like. There’s a difference between censorship and journalistic standards of truth and proof.
What is really interesting is that this case concluded about three years ago and it’s still “circulating,” as it were on the net. It has received little to no coverage from mainstream news and is only surfacing on a few blogs and sites like Digg and reddit. This is to be expected; a mainstream news outlet has no reason to want to publish a story that runs the risk of sparking public outrage and threatening their newfound trump card.
We have such confidence in our media’s freedom to report that we’re pretty willing to trust what major outlets say and assume that the necessary fact checking was done. Sometimes we forget that even though the government isn’t free to adulterate the truth, there are agents who are perfectly willing to.
This goes beyond cries of bias within news outlets. Contrary to popular belief, there is legal protection for news organizations to publish information that may not be truthful.
In 1997, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, two former journalists for a Fox Network-owned affiliate, were doing a story on the bovine growth hormone rBGH and its effects on humans who consume products that contain it. The report proffered that rBGH is known to cause cancer and products containing it were able to be sold without a label informing of the chemical.
Akre and Wilson presented the story to their bosses at the news station, but were immediately greeted with resistance. The station was under pressure from the Monsanto Corporation (the company that produces rBGH) to either ensure that every part of the report was unequivocally true or to withhold the report altogether. Monsanto has an aggressive, capable legal department that will attack any weak links a piece concerning the corporation. The story was rewritten by Fox’s lawyers some seventy times before the two journalists were simply terminated when they refused to air the edited segment.
Akre and Wilson both sued the Fox affiliate for the loss of their jobs. Wilson, who acted as his own lawyer, lost his suit, but Akre won some $400,000. In 2003, however, Fox appealed the decision, claiming that it was their First Amendment right to report whatever they liked. The case was overturned and a Florida appellate court decided in 2006 that the Federal Communications Commission’s position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a “law, rule, or regulation.”
The whole case leaves the nations journalists in a pretty tricky situation as far as precedent. Suddenly, every news outlet in the United States has legal backing to publish untrue stories. There is a fine line between freedom of the press and total impunity to publish whatever a media company feels like. There’s a difference between censorship and journalistic standards of truth and proof.
What is really interesting is that this case concluded about three years ago and it’s still “circulating,” as it were on the net. It has received little to no coverage from mainstream news and is only surfacing on a few blogs and sites like Digg and reddit. This is to be expected; a mainstream news outlet has no reason to want to publish a story that runs the risk of sparking public outrage and threatening their newfound trump card.
Technology not utilized on campus
I returned to Nevada Union after travelling across California to check out colleges during fall break. After spending time at two UCs, two private universities and a high school in southern California, I began to wonder why NU doesn’t have WiFi access like the majority of college campuses and a rapidly growing number of high schools. At an institution that is supposed to be preparing us for college and the world beyond, why aren’t we learning more about increasingly digital solutions to modern problems?
The average NU student’s access to technology and the web is really sort of pitiful. The school has banned iPods and thereby opportunities for options like educational Podcasts and easy web access; the doctrine on laptops is unclear at best and restrictive at worst; library computers always available for quick access are hopelessly out of date; PCs that are even a generation behind current are only available via reservation and only usable under the watchful eye of a staff member; and the internet filter blocks the vast majority of Web 2.0 socially-created websites like YouTube, reddit, Digg, Blogger and Facebook that could potentially offer exciting new educational opportunities.
When I ask Nevada Joint Union School District Superintendent Ralf Swenson what the official line on web access at NU is, he quickly produces the official policy and reads it off: essentially, students are not to have access to personal emails, videos, MP3 files or chat rooms. He pauses to laugh. “This was approved by the [school] board in 1998. It may be time for an update.”
Swenson, at the top of the chain of command of the district, is not even remotely opposed to integrating modern tech concepts into NU’s curriculum, a stance that’s a little surprising given the current state of affairs. Listening to him talk, however, one does not get the impression that he wants to crack down further or keep things the way that they are; indeed, he’s nothing but optimistic about the average student’s capacity to access information for the benefit of the educational process. He speaks of advisory committees of tech-savvy students and grants from Apple to open an “iPod Lab” on campus (a school-owned set of iPod Touches to be checked out to individual students for web, audio and video access).
Then why the hard line on tech from the administration? According to Jill Sonnenberg, NU librarian and co-chair of the local Intellectual Freedom committee, it stems from technologically-challenged instructors. “Teachers need professional development to feel comfortable using Web 2.0 concepts,” she says, pointing to the removal of a twenty-one hour tech-education mandate for all teachers as one cause of the restrictive attitude. “So much of meeting time is spent on explaining how to work [the school’s information infrastructure] eSchool when it should be put towards discussions of how to integrate these concepts.”
There’s certainly departmental support in certain places for further campus technology access, so the next step, as it so often is, seems to be a demand from the population. As more and more students become increasingly tech-savvy and capable of accessing huge amounts of information, the divide between access concepts on and off-campus shouldn’t remain so wide; in other words, internet-capable students shouldn’t have to dumb down their research abilities when they come to school.
Agree? Outraged? Think we’re full of it? Send your thoughts to NellPK.nuunderground@gmail.com and keep your eyes on NU Underground for further coverage of technology on campus in the coming weeks.
The average NU student’s access to technology and the web is really sort of pitiful. The school has banned iPods and thereby opportunities for options like educational Podcasts and easy web access; the doctrine on laptops is unclear at best and restrictive at worst; library computers always available for quick access are hopelessly out of date; PCs that are even a generation behind current are only available via reservation and only usable under the watchful eye of a staff member; and the internet filter blocks the vast majority of Web 2.0 socially-created websites like YouTube, reddit, Digg, Blogger and Facebook that could potentially offer exciting new educational opportunities.
When I ask Nevada Joint Union School District Superintendent Ralf Swenson what the official line on web access at NU is, he quickly produces the official policy and reads it off: essentially, students are not to have access to personal emails, videos, MP3 files or chat rooms. He pauses to laugh. “This was approved by the [school] board in 1998. It may be time for an update.”
Swenson, at the top of the chain of command of the district, is not even remotely opposed to integrating modern tech concepts into NU’s curriculum, a stance that’s a little surprising given the current state of affairs. Listening to him talk, however, one does not get the impression that he wants to crack down further or keep things the way that they are; indeed, he’s nothing but optimistic about the average student’s capacity to access information for the benefit of the educational process. He speaks of advisory committees of tech-savvy students and grants from Apple to open an “iPod Lab” on campus (a school-owned set of iPod Touches to be checked out to individual students for web, audio and video access).
Then why the hard line on tech from the administration? According to Jill Sonnenberg, NU librarian and co-chair of the local Intellectual Freedom committee, it stems from technologically-challenged instructors. “Teachers need professional development to feel comfortable using Web 2.0 concepts,” she says, pointing to the removal of a twenty-one hour tech-education mandate for all teachers as one cause of the restrictive attitude. “So much of meeting time is spent on explaining how to work [the school’s information infrastructure] eSchool when it should be put towards discussions of how to integrate these concepts.”
There’s certainly departmental support in certain places for further campus technology access, so the next step, as it so often is, seems to be a demand from the population. As more and more students become increasingly tech-savvy and capable of accessing huge amounts of information, the divide between access concepts on and off-campus shouldn’t remain so wide; in other words, internet-capable students shouldn’t have to dumb down their research abilities when they come to school.
Agree? Outraged? Think we’re full of it? Send your thoughts to NellPK.nuunderground@gmail.com and keep your eyes on NU Underground for further coverage of technology on campus in the coming weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
