Newspapers vs. Internet

Silbet Wong is completely correct on this topic: newspapers are becoming obsolete. I don't think they are unneccessary, but the internet certainly trumps them. Newspapers are becoming useless, to a degree. I doubt blogging will catch on anytime soon, but the internet certainly has priority currently over print.

Participation topic 2

I think democracy could easily survive without newspapers. People don't rely solely on newspapers for their information- we also have the web, radio, tv, magazines, books, and other ways to get information. Just because there are no newspapers doesn't mean society won't be able to debate or communicate about their ideals. John Kerry said, “America’s newspapers are struggling to survive and while there will be serious consequences in terms of the lives and financial security of the employees involved, including hundreds at the Globe, there will also be serious consequences for our democracy where diversity of opinion and strong debate are paramount…" I completely disagree. Even if newspapers were to "die", we as a whole would find other ways to get ideas into circulation and communicate between large groups. Kerry is wrong and newspapers are not vital to democracy surviving.

Blog Three- Obama at Ghana's Door

Gregory Rodriguez, a writer for national newspapers about political issues, recently wrote a column on President Obama visiting the country of Ghana. In the very first sentence he claims Obama's visit to Ghana was "biblical." He was comparing Obama going to Ghana to Jesus's second coming. Obama's father's side was slaves for generations, and Ghana is known for slavery. Rodriguez says "...U.S. presidents are rarely seen in the position of directly empathizing with the victims of history. (And when they do, it's generally in the pose of vengeful warrior, such as in the days after Pearl Harbor or 9/11.)", meaning that when Presidents go overseas or whatnot to visit people in need they do it because it's more expected of them than anything. Obama did it because he had ancestors who were in the same situation many Ghana people are in now, and he can relate to it. I agree with what Rodriguez says. Maybe Obama's visit to Ghana wasn't "biblical", per say, but it was more meaningful that what some previous Presidents have done. Obama said, "The old slave station reminds us that as bad as history can be, it is also possible to overcome." Rodriguez agrees and so do I.

E-democracy

I agree with what Sergio Ferguson said under his "however" column. The number of people educated enough to be able to handle an e-government would be few, therefore not many people would be equally represented. Our technology might be able to handle having an e-government, but with very many complications. Viruses and spam being just a few. And, it is true that security is never a given. There is and always will be a way that someone or multiple someones could hack into a system and alter the information. Also, the government cannot afford to ensure that the public is equally represented. We would have to make sure that the majority of voters have a computer (or like object) to cast their vote on, and there is a wide range of people that don't have access to said device. Therefore, the government would probably have to raise taxes to make sure everyone can get a computer, which just digs our economy into a bigger hole. All in all, it's a negative thing. Our system already has enough trouble. Leave it as it is.

Participation Topic 1

I don't think the U.S. should become active in e-democracy. Mainly, because certain households do not or cannot afford a computer, cell phone, etc. The said households could miss out on certain votes, or important campaign issues. Secondly, this could lead to a rise in cyber-bullying. More people could receive spam e-mails, threatening texts or messages, or viruses on their computers. On a forum a one "A. Sideridis" posted, he mentioned there could be a rise in privacy violations and electronic crime. Some people may even decide in violates their rights.

Sotomayor Refuses to State Abortion Beliefs

On Wednesday, July 15, Judge Sonia Sotomayor was asked about her standings on abortion. Multiple people questioned her, including Republican committee members and Democratic committee members. She had an in-depth conversation about her beliefs with Tom Cornyn, a Republican party member. He asked her what she believed the "settled law" on abortion in America was, and she stated the case of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. According to Cornyn, she never actually said her own personal beliefs. He then proceeded to ask Sotomayor if it would be legal to terminate a fetus's life if the parent decided it didn't want it. Sotomayor said she couldn't answer this question, "in the abstract, because I would have to look at what the state of the state’s law was on that question and what the state said with respect to that issue.” She also had a discussion with Dr. Coburn, who says she seemed to dodge the question and relay only true facts, as opposed to her own beliefs and standpoints.

This is worth a look at, I think, because abortion is a major debate in the American society today. It shows how some people are willing to discuss it but others, particularly people in a position of power, refuse to because they don't want to be "labelled" or misquoted.