News for nerds, stuff that matters

In California, there is a ballot initiative that allows for petition for a public vote on the policies proposed. While this may sound like direct democracy and democracy at it’s finest, the reality of it is the manipulation of public opinion in order to create unnecessary dissension that may affect the efficiency of the democratic system in play.

With this policy in effect, the criminal justice cost has risen, the term limits of policy makers have been reduced to the extent that the elected officials now lack experience, and the policies enacted can only be overturned through public vote. These are all elements that affect the political and judicial system.

The other major problem is that getting on the ballot and being able to set the agenda costs millions of dollars. This process is favorable to those who have enough money to pay for advertising fees and promotional campaigns. This causes a favor of the elite who can manipulate public opinion to their favor and enact policies that benefit their businesses.

This makes me question, is this really what direct democracy is? How can it be done without prioritizing a certain group’s political agenda? Is the manipulation and domination of the wealthy inevitable?

Sources:

The article is one that speaks to the core problem of democracies. The promise of poverty reduction by twenty five percent by 2013-2014 is abandoned through the introduction of the discourse of ” balanced budget” of Ontario, which excludes measures that act against poverty. The underpinning problem is: in democracies, the change of governments and turnover of staff often symbolizes the problem of passing the buck between administrations. The accountability issue is one that threatens the spirit of democracy as a whole. The goals of various policies and ideals are lost in the transition process.

The article poses an important question, “It’s also worth noting that the Poverty Reduction Act was passed with much fanfare by MPPs of all parties in 2009. Will those same MPPs speak out now to demand that poverty reduction get the attention it deserves?”

It is vital to note the urgency of the matter. “At a time when food prices are rising by 4.6 per cent a year, the social assistance rate freeze amounts to a cut in income. It gets worse. Finance Minister Duncan also announced that benefits for people on social assistance will be reduced by $30 million this year, and over $200 million over three years. Meanwhile low-income parents will be forced to wait another year for a scheduled increase in the Ontario Child Benefit”. These are unnecessary policies at dire times for low income families.

Not only is poverty reduction not achieved, the policy widens the gap between the rich and the poor. The enactment of these policies seek to plunge deeper into the cycle of poverty, that will be even more costly in the future to get out of.

Source:

http://www.thestar.com/iphone/opinion/letters/article/1155350–ontario-budget-hunger-games

In a recent report, “Apple Products Trigger “Religious Reactions” Like Cults”, the relationship between technology and religion is explored. We might not realize it, but the way that Apple products are able to manipulate our lives is underestimated most of the time. We’d like to think we are in control of technology. However, we are merely muppets of technology. The successful branding of Apple and its ability to create a cult-like sentiment is recognized even by the Pope!

“Pope Benedict XVI has been documented stating that technology consumption is a big threat to religion and the Roman Catholic church. He made sure to remind everyone one Sunday morning that technology cannot replace God”. For us atheists, comparing technology to a religion might not have so many implications, but the gravity of the issue is that we are dominated and controlled by technology. We live and breathe it. Despite a growing need to embrace our inner techy, the recognition of the reliance on technology should still remain.

Not much at all, according to the recent Hong Kong chief executive election. There were three candidates in the election: Mr. CY Leung, Mr. Ho Chun Yun, and Mr. Henry Tang. The first candidate was seen having dinner with a leader of an organized crime, and Mr Tang was involved in extra-marital affairs, in which his mistresses and “bastard” child was exposed. Moreover, to add fuel to the fire, he also placed blame on his wife’s shoulders for not abiding with housing and construction regulations. All these scandals has generated much resentment from the public towards this rowdy election. Despite all these speculations and media exposure, it merely stirs negative opinion of the public, while having no effect on the election results and election process, since the candidate is selected by a selection committee. “Ordinary Hong Kongers will have no say in who becomes their next chief executive on March 25. Instead the “election” will be decided by a carefully selected committee of 1,200 pro-Beijing business and professional elites”. Should candidates be allowed to remain in election races despite legal issues and blatant offences?

Sources:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Hong+Kong+rowdy+election+embarrasses+Beijing/6320097/story.html#ixzz1q6rDZ8cc

CY Leung won in Sunday’s vote, with 689 votes amongst 1200 electors. “The 1,200 electors – who are mostly loyal to Beijing – in the past rubber-stamped the Chinese government’s choice for the post”. Despite accusations of having ties with underground organized crimes, he still dominated the polls. The reason for the many protests in Hong Kong is due to the dissatisfaction of citizens towards the elections process, in which 1200 electors are predetermined, and they are the only ones eligible to vote in the entire population of Hong Kong. Is this considered democracy? What say you?

Fun fact: Mr. CY Leung has been ridiculed in political cartoons as a fox or a wolf, due to his facial features, and sly character.

As a Hong Kongese, it pains me to see such a closed system of elections whose purpose is to exclude rather than include. The principles of inclusion and representation is completely lost in the process, and democratic values have vanished into thin air.

Another article about Clooney, not about a change of girlfriends, for once, nor about a new film. An arrest?

In high spirits and still speaking passionately about the Sudan crisis, Clooney said this was his first time being arrested. “And let’s hope it’s my last,” he said.

No one gets arrested in such a charming manner as Clooney. Clooney spoke against the violence in Sudan.

“He said he appeared in front of the embassy to ask “the government in Khartoum to stop randomly killing its own innocent men, women and children, stop raping them, stop starving them,” according to a video posted online by MSNBC”.

This article is, for lack of better term to describe it, bizzare. First of all, Clooney arrested. Second of all, celebrity arrests that don’t involve drugs, drinking and driving, or sex scandals. More outlandish, a protest against Sudanese violence at the embassy, one that is peaceful, would lead to arrests. Where are the civil liberties that our democracies speak so highly of?

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/George+Clooney+arrested+demonstrating+against+Sudanese+crisis/6315646/story.html#ixzz1pKE1icXa

A grassroots documentary to raise awareness about Joseph Kony, a Ugandan guerrilla group leader, directed by a young film-maker, went viral on the internet. I remember being on Twitter and Facebook on March 6^th, 2012. That day, my newsfeed on Facebook, for us addicted users, went from “sharing” of the video to receiving many group invites for UBCKONY2012, etc. It was received with such warmth for a while, before the press started slighting the movement for the possible amount of donations received from the movement.

My honest opinion of the video: It was done well, with a positive message, but I don’t understand why the many other documentaries that have similar objectives didn’t go haywire like this one did. Anyhow, it promoted an initiative that is legitimate, and the discourse that is perpetuated is one that would benefit the children in Uganda in being free from tyranny of Kony. The fact that the campaign is targeted specifically to this one goal is part of the reason why it received so much support and media attention.

In an article in Los Angeles Times, a teacher supports the cause of Kony 2012.

“Don’t squelch young activists like my son or my student, Thomas Abebe, who took it upon himself to raise money for famine relief around the Horn of Africa by selling rubber bracelets to his fellow classmates. Did I ask him for an accounting of funds? No, I just thanked God that someone cared enough to get involved. He gets an A+ in my book!”

I very much agree with her stance. The negative response of the media is the exact skepticism and pessimism that stifles many dreams and the birth of many noble initiatives. It is time to let these activists and youngsters to follow their dreams, as long as they are doing good to the society. After all, this is the harm principle that society follows, isn’t it? Who are they harming in receiving donations to help fight for a cause? Even if there are administration fees involved, etc, and not the whole portion of donations goes towards the cause, at least the discourse and paradigm shift will allow for public discussion and raising awareness.

Recently, after receiving much media backlash, Jason Russell, a co-founder of the movement was arrested for lewd behavior. Of course, this drew much criticism. Ben Keesey came to his defense, stating that “[t]he past two weeks have taken a severe emotional toll on all of us, Jason especially, and that toll manifested itself in an unfortunate incident yesterday,” said Ben Keesey, CEO of Invisible Children”. He undoubtedly displayed a bad public image. However, it is also time for the media to reflect on the unnecessary pressures that have been hoisted against these activists. The slogan of KONY 2012 is “Make him visible”, I now implore the media, MAKE DREAMS VISIBLE.

Source:

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2012/03/kony-2012-backlash-dont-squelch-young-activists-blowback.html

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1147729–kony-2012-co-founder-of-stop-kony-movement-arrested-for-lewd-behaviour-reports

In December in Wukan, China, corrupted officials were driven out of town. It is a heart-warming and hopeful story of how democracy was lost and found again, through a revolution by members of this small fishing village. In replacement of the old corrupted officials, a““Civilized election, fair competition” and one that is base on“Obeying the law” was held yesterday.

The question of where the line is when it comes to infringement of an individual’s rights and liberties is one that is revisited, and revisited, without a clear answer. In fact, there may never be one. A recent examination into the NYPD’s department surveillance of Muslim students and mosques raises the question of whether one’s fundamental democratic rights are impeded with targeted surveillance of a particular group.

In response to the appeals to the Department, “Gov. Dan Malloy of Connecticut said, “I think New York has a reasonable right to be protecting itself.” At the heart of the issue is, what constitutes as “reasonable right”? What about the dignity and freedom of an ethnic group? Don’t they also have a reasonable right to protect themselves against ostracization and again, as my previous post suggests, the recurring unjust discourse? I again question the right of the state to target a certain group of people and justify stigmatization and surveillance in the name of security.

Source:

http://hudsonvalley.ynn.com/content/top_stories/576612/holder-to-investigate-nypd-surveillance/