Do Dogs go to Heaven?

(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/world/europe/dogs-in-heaven-pope-leaves-pearly-gate-open-.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news)

Imagine it. What will your ideal heaven, if you believe there is one, look like? Will it have dogs from all over running around and barking? Well, maybe if you really liked that movie, "All Dogs go to Heaven."

http://www.scaryforkids.com/all-dogs-go-to-heaven/

However, present-day, this theory doesn't seems to have an actually answer. There are tons of arguments surrounding this idea, either you agree or disagree and the reasons why are just endless.

But it comes down to this. On December 11, in the St. Peter’s Square, a little boy asked Pope Francis the questions of all questions, "Do dogs go to heaven?" The little boy was distraught due to obviously his passing of his dog. The Pope in reply answers,“One day, we will see our animals again in the eternity of Christ. paradise is open to all of God’s creatures.”

Of course, it was unsure if the pope said that just to comfort the little boy and give him hope, nevertheless, this welcomed many animals rights activists such as PETA who seemed happy with the response. They continued to say how animals don't belong to us, rather, God, and that's why we should respect them.

Even though, despite this, the Pope seemed very opened lately, being okay with gay marriage and even now this. I have to admit, this may be one big step for religion in the future since many branches of Christianity may follow after the Pope's statement.

I personally feel there is a heaven for pets, because that's where I want to believe my cat is, waiting for me by the gates of heaven.

Wave of Protests After Grand Jury Doesn’t Indict Officer in Eric Garner Chokehold Case...

(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/nyregion/grand-jury-said-to-bring-no-charges-in-staten-island-chokehold-death-of-eric-garner.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0#)

People from all over have their own opinions and thoughts about the police officers living in this country. Some good, some bad. However, when Darren Wilson didn't get indicted for the shooting of Michael brown, this sparked chaos in the way people viewed police officers. it didn't help when right after the case another officer too was indicted even though a video evidence was provided.

To explain, a white New York police officer, Daniel Pantaleo, choke hold an unarmed black man, Eric Garner, leading to his death. A video was even taped of this happening. This criminal case went to the Staten Island grand jury, who decided that they didn't have enough evidence to proceed.
This angered many people even more as riots and protests from all over New York are popping out. People everywhere are chanting, “This stops today,”  and “I can’t breathe," to show their support for Eric Garner. In fact even Barack Obama, like before, had something to say about this issue along with our mayor Bill DeBlasio. “When anybody in this country is not being treated equally under the law, that is a problem,” Mr. Obama said, “and it’s my job as president to help solve it.”

Honestly what do I think about this issue? I feel as if this is ridiculous. What more evidence do you need than an actual hard copy of a video? Are we in danger to a point that even hard evidence can't protect us? Is race the factor that is playing the whole part to this case? Its sad to see the system that we all trust, fail.

However, in a way, if you think about it, this did bring many people together, even though lives were lost. People from all over came together on an agreement, to bring justice in where none was found, which is a pretty big step in society. The only thing I hope is for everything to get resolved and bring peace of mind to the families who lost their dear loved ones. 

The CIA wants to destroy thousands of internal emails covering spy operations and other activities...

(Article: http://news.yahoo.com/the-cia-wants-to-destroy-thousand-of-internal-emails-covering-spy-operations-and-other-activities-144303528.html)

http://topinfopost.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/cia.jpg

The C.I.A, or Central Intelligence Agency, is an " independent agency of the United States government responsible for collecting and coordinating intelligence and counterintelligence activities abroad in the national interest; headed by the Director of Central Intelligence under the supervision of the President and National Security Council." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/CIA)

Well, recently this agency decided to delete internal e-mails, including messages sent by all covert and counterterrorism officers after they leave the C.I.A.

Senate Intelligence Committee members are concerned that it may get rid of key records from some of the agency's most controversial operations. Or as Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein and ranking minority member Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga. would put it, "[it] could allow for the destruction of crucial documentary evidence regarding the CIA's activities."

The C.I.A, on the other hand, disagrees claiming that committee's concerns are overblown and ill informed. 



Well, what do I think about this issue? Personally I'm suprised how easy it seems for the C.I.A (not including getting the move passed) to delete e-mails for basically, ever. Nowadays people worry about what they send, who can see it, and the fact that the "internet is forever." So, whenever people are applying for jobs of colleges, they might have concern for their message history. And of course whenever we delete a certain e-mail, it'll still be there somewhere in the web. In fact, if one tried really hard, they can find it. So it amazes me how the C.I.A can rid of e-mails forever, e-mails maybe conerning things we Americans don't know about.

Obama Said to Plan Moves to Shield 5 Million Immigrants...

(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/us/obama-immigration.html)

Since in government class we have been discussing the different views of democratic and republican, I thought that this article would be fitting considering one of the biggest argument between the two parties is immigration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/us/obama-immigration.html

In this article, Obama wants to allow more immigrants, approximately five million, to be able to stay in America without being deported. That is because he wants to help certain people, like parents who are immigrants having legally born American citizens, to be able to stay in America with their children. They wouldn't be granted a green card, but they wouldn't be deported back to their birth place. Not only that, but he wants to grant working permits to people under 31 who arrived to America before June 2007. (according to Yahoo! News)

On the opposite side of the party, republicans disagree from all around stating the many problems we will have if we allow so many immigrants to live in our country. Also, that Obama doesn't have this much of a power to make this policy happen.

What is my opinion? Well, maybe I don't understand this article well enough, but my vote is more towards Obama. Why? Because I feel as if immigrants deserve a chance to live in America. I mean, at one point of our lives, all of us are immigrants, whatever being our parents, or our grandparents, or even our ancestors. (Excluding American Indians, being the original people living in America.) All of us deserve at least one chance to reach that dream or goal we want to achieve, the very thing we want to grasp in our very hands. But of course, I understand how the republicans are feeling and their concerns, but I wish one day I will be able to see everything living with each other in peace and harmony.

 

A Plague That Devastates Amphibians, Already in Europe, Could Spread to U.S. ...

(Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/science/salamanders-fungal-disease-europe-an-martel.html)

(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/31/science/salamanders-fungal-disease-europe-an-martel.html)

Do you remember the old Bible story of the plague in Egypt? When everything was overrun with frogs? Now that is coming back. Expect in reverse. There is a deadly fungus, called Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans that is killing off salamanders in Europe. This infection is very similar to disease that cause many frogs and toads to go extinct. Many researchers are predicting that this fungus will spread to America, and they are terrified of the effect it will bring.

Reason why they think this infection came about and is spreading is because of “globalization and a lack of biosecurity” and the likely cause of the fire-bellied newt in the pet trade with Asia.

Lead researcher, An Martel of Ghent University in Belgium, said that Europe and the US need to start screening amphibians in pet trades. “When animals are traded, they should be screened,” Dr. Martel said. “It should involve the world.” And many other fellow scientists agree with Martel too. In fact, one scientist noted the alarming rate that frog and toad species are dying off.

No one knows exactly how this infection is coming about, but researchers say that America can't risk losing more amphibians, as many already are extinct. Though similar, this fungus only affect salamanders and newts, not frogs and toad. However, when scientists infected 44 salamanders and newts with this disease, 41 rapidly died.

To prevent an outbreak from happening, they send a bill to Congress that would allow Fish and Wildlife Service to screen for infected wildlife in pet trades. 

Bill still pending. 

In my opinion, I really think that this bill still be passed. Many might argue this being a waste of time and money, but I would really like to have my children one day in the future to be able to see different species of salamanders. Also, we should help these poor defenseless creatures from a deadly disease they probably don't know about. And I bet you that the cause for this fungus was because of pollution or some act that we did. Adding on to this, many animals are extinct in the world. Such as the dodo bird and carrier pigeon, to name a couple. Its a really sad feeling to get when you realize that you would never ever be able to see them in your whole life-time. That you missed the chance. This isn't something I want, and I really think we should make every step to stop this from happening.

2 Former New York Police Officers Misused Database, U.S. Says....

(Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/nyregion/us-accuses-2-former-police-officers-of-abusing-a-confidential-database.htmll)

http://animalnewyork.com/wp-content/uploads/nypd_supercut_film.jpg

I thought it would be nice to stray away from "EBOLA" for awhile, and talk about something else. Like our great city for example. As Taylor Swift sang, "Welcome to New York!"

However, unlike her song, you aren't greeted with smiles and lights. Rather; dirty streets and rats. Yup sums up New York pretty good.

But in all honestly, like every other great state, NY has an abundance of police officers. I guess not all police officers are perfect, as we aren't perfect people. Makes sense to see them make a small mistake once in a while. However when you are bribing law enforcements for confidential information; it doesn't count.

Joseph P. Dwyer was often employed by defense lawyers to work on cases. However little did anyone know, he repeatedly paid police sergeant Ronald G. Buell to give him confidential law enforcement database to obtain personal information about potential witnesses. 

How did they managed to do this? According to the article, "In a 2012 case, for example, Mr. Buell gained access to the database, which is called the National Crime Information Center and is run by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and obtained personal details about a defendant in another case, the complaint said."

Both men are charged with one count of participating in a conspiracy to commit bribery and use of federal database without authorization. 

Until I read this, I didn't realize they things people with authority could be doing right now behind our backs. They can bend the law, prison the innocent and free the guilty, all without anyone knowing. Of course, until they get exposed. But that often takes a few years after the committed crime. I am also very upset to hear it being one of our very own. I personally love New York and to hear this happening is pretty upsetting. On top of that, if someone as high up as a police Sergent can do something like this, then who can we really trust? 

F.B.I. Director Calls ‘Dark’ Devices a Hindrance to Crime Solving...

(Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/us/politics/fbi-director-in-policy-speech-calls-dark-devices-hindrance-to-crime-solving.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0)

Privacy. A long hard battle fought between the government and us civilians. But what exactly does it  mean to have privacy? Well, according to our fourth amendment, we are allowed our privacy at long as a probable cause doesn't surface. Makes sense right? Don't do something illegal and your private life won't get viewed.

Well, according to this article from the New York Times, big companies such as Google and Apple protect people's privacy by using new encryption technology. This means that any information deleted can be encrypted and unable for the FBI to use, unlike public sites such as "Gmail" or "Facebook." 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/executives/image/director-james-b.-comey-high-res

“Unfortunately, the law hasn’t kept pace with technology, and this disconnect has created a significant public safety problem,” Director James B. Comey had said, speaking at the Brookings Institution in Washington on Thursday. So what does that mean? The FBI can't look into you phone's past history (of course applying to the new iPhone 6.) This makes their jobs much more difficult, as Comey starts to go on about how much harder it would be to catch, for example, a terrorist. If they aren't allowed to look into one's past messages, then they wouldn't know if someone is going to do something suspicious.

“It frustrates me, because I want people to understand that law enforcement needs to be able to access communications and information to bring people to justice,” Mr. Comey said. “We do so pursuant to the rule of law, with clear guidance and strict oversight.” 

 The American Civil Liberties Union, however, disagreed. 

“Federal law explicitly protects the right of companies to add encryption with no back doors,” Laura W. Murphy, director of the group’s Washington legislative office had said in a written statement. “Whether the F.B.I. calls it a front door or a back door, any effort by the F.B.I. to weaken encryption leaves our highly personal information and our business information vulnerable to hacking by foreign governments and criminals.”

On top of that, companies even argued that with encryption, there are still ways for law enforcement to legally interpret encryption by intercepting data in the cloud, or use force to get passwords to their devices. 

“Uploading to the cloud doesn’t include all of the stored data on a bad guy’s phone.” Comey had said in reply to this statement. He also argued that this would create a “black hole” if criminals opted not to store any data on the cloud. Also, they are limited in their ability to have their super-computer find combination to passwords for devices.

So, over all, what do I think about this? 

I personally feel that the FBI should be updated in their technology to encrypt. I mean, there are 316,128,839 people living in US. I'm pretty sure that our government wouldn't look into every one of our phone's data and read into our private lives. Only if you have a "probable cause" or a reason for them to look. If you aren't doing anything dangerous or illegal, no worries! They won't look at you message. However, if you are doing something that might cause harm, then obviously the FBI will look at your phone. This would protect us in the long-run from harm and danger.

Newly Vigilant, U.S. Will Screen Fliers for Ebola...

(Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/us/newly-vigilant-us-is-to-screen-fliers-for-ebola.html?_r=0)

(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/us/newly-vigilant-us-is-to-screen-fliers-for-ebola.html?_r=0)

 Unless you've been living under a rock, you probably heard about the virus "Ebola." For those who need a quick brushing up, Ebola is a virus originated from Africa, and, "an infectious and generally fatal disease marked by fever and severe internal bleeding, spread through contact with infected body fluid."     
  (Translated from Google) 

This, of course, created a whole new fear factor after someone arriving to the US caught the virus. 
To limit the amount of panic, five major airlines decided to screen people when they come back from west African countries. This idea came up after Thomas Eric Duncan died in a Dallas hospital from Ebola. Having these temperature checks would help regulate and keep the virus from spreading around. 

Well, in my opinion, as scary as Ebola may sound, I honestly don't think we have anything to worry about. As Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, had said, "That’s worth something because, at the moment, we have a much larger outbreak of anxiety than we have of Ebola.” 

Honestly we are over hyping this. I mean out of the many living in America, only one guy caught the virus. We're causing much more stress then we need. We live in America, and in America we have much more of an advance science than any other country. Our top field medical doctors will provide us with the treatment we need. Look at Africa, for example. Those hospitals aren't as good compared to ours. So I don't think we should overreact and hide out in our houses with masks and air-freshers. Rather, I think we should help and donate to stop this virus once and for all:

https://www.unicefusa.org/donate/stop-spread-ebola-west-africa-your-gift-matched/18771?gclid=CjwKEAjw5NihBRCZmdLkuuTHyWYSJACtCY0JB-CpzEBaJe112qsT10i_qxs9vTbpkdByxRIReRGNZRoCd1jw_wcB

https://secure.savethechildren.org/site/c.8rKLIXMGIpI4E/b.9198647/k.34C/Donate_to_the_Ebola_Childrens_Relief_Fund/apps/ka/sd/donor.asp?msource=wexgpebo0914&gclid=CjwKEAjw5NihBRCZmdLkuuTHyWYSJACtCY0Jd1CypdgTE4g-ZlgobKTgUspv3C0RUaeLsgE3GZUPnxoCuLbw_wcB 

 Thank You!

(Week 2: 10/9/14)

"Egypt seizes newspapers to censor an article..."

(Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/world/middleeast/egypt-seizes-newspapers-to-censor-an-article.html?ref=world)

According to an article by David Kirkpatrick in the New York Times, Egyptian Authorities removed all copies from one of the largest private newspaper company there. Reason why? To censor a certain article that was printed in it.Of course, this was another example of constriction ever since the military takeover. Not only that but the government has also shut down other main opposing news media and arrested several other journalists. Why? Because the government is scared of people handing out leaflets that would spark a revolution. Sound familiar?  Nevertheless, the security officials offered no explanation whatsoever to the newspaper company about why the censorship was enforced. Now, there is a longstanding Egyptian Law that requires journalists to first get permission of military intelligence before posting any information that relates to spy agencies.

Why did I pick this article among the many out there? It related to our topic we were learning in government, our first amendment.

Our first amendment states that we have the right to the freedom of speech, press and religion. What does that mean? It means we are allowed to say or practice whatever we want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone surrounding us. Of course, this is America we're talking about, not Egypt. But in a way, think about it. As much as we complain about how much we may dislike some of the things about this country, as least we are still allowed a voice in the media. We are allowed to voice our opinions. But now, wait a second. You may say, hey Amy wasn't there one case where a man was charged for advertising to military men against fighting in the Vietnam War? Well the case went all the way up to the supreme court and he lost. Reasoning? He was causing chaos and harm to the public. So do we have a free voice in our country? Its an opinion that is different for everyone. Whatever the argument may be, think about this. Is anything ever free?

(Week 1: 10/3/14)