Porn Ban in South Africa

Deputy Minister of Home Affairs Malusi Gigaba has proposed a ban on inappropriate websites and television programs. He proposes that the ban, covering TV but also mobile phones and the web, could be implemented in the form of filters set by Internet service providers. Countries such as Australia and China have already developed filters to block access to certain websites, however Internet security experts have dismissed the idea as "madness". Gigaba's rebuttal was "Cars are already provided with brakes and seat belts... There is no reason why the Internet should be provided without the necessary restrictive mechanisms built into it." Many people in South Africa are against this ban. Craham Cluley of security firm Sophos said "Although their intentions may be honourable, it's barking mad to think you will be able to completely outlaw pornography from the web which, is after all, the modern equivalent of the wild west." Pornography is a big topic of debate in South Africa and no one knows where this proposed ban will take the country.

I agree with what Sophos has said about the Pornography ban in South America. No matter how hard the government tries to ban pornography, people will always find ways around the ban. There is no point in wasting millions of dollars trying to filter something that is unstoppable. It is like a country trying to ban alcohol or cigarettes. As honourable as their intentions may be, it's just impossible to accomplish. I believe it is up to the parents or guardians to censor their children from pornography. The parents control what the child sees and watches on television and the government should not intervene with that. Furthermore, trying to restrict pornography would be against what the public wants. If the government were to make this bill into a law, the citizens of South Africa would be dissappointed, perhaps even angry at their decision. Pornography on the Internet is something the government just can't control. It is up to the parents and educators of South America to teach the children the rights and wrongs of the Internet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10180937.stm

The Gambler Of North Korea

After a painstaking investigation, South Korea has blamed North Korea for the sinking of its warship, the Cheonan, on March 26. Ever since Kim Jong Il, the leader of North Korea, became ill, North Korea has become increasingly bold. In the past, top North Korean leaders tended to calculate the costs and benefits carefully when they acted to put pressure on the outside world. Recently however, they launched various missiles and conducted another nuclear test, all in a few weeks. Why the sudden boldness? The North Koreans seem to believe that possession of nuclear weapons provides them with far wider room for strategic and tactical boldness. Canada, the United States, Japan, South Korea, and Russia are focusing on the denuclearizing of North Korea, but they still want North Korea to open up and allow social reform. The Allied countries believe North Korea should open up to the world and forget about the possibility of a nuclear war, for the benefit of not only themselves, but the everyone.

I believe Canada, the United States, Japan, South Korea, and Russia should denuclearize North Korea immediately. After the threat is removed, they can focus on attempting to convince North Korea into a opening up to the world. It will be incredibly difficult because North Korea is a communist country, meaning the people don't have much say in the countries decisions. Truthfully, the world has been trying to help North Korea for years, but they are too stubborn to accept help. If they didn't want to accept social and economic aid before, why would they accept it now? North Korea has made up its mind to be an independent country that is against the world. If the world can't change North Korea's opinion about itself and everyone else, war is going to be inevitable, with or without the use of nuclear warheads.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/814182--the-gambler-of-north-korea#comments

Over the next few weeks more than half a million students will graduate from American colleges, the vast majority with at least four years of campus life behind them. Indeed, the assumption that it takes four years to get an undergraduate education, but this assumption needs to change.
The college experience may be idyllic but it’s also wasteful and expensive, both for students and institutions. There is no reason undergraduates cannot be completed in three years, and plenty reasons why it should. The decrease in time to obtain an undergraduate would decrease the amount of money. All universities have to do is hire a few more professors. The save in money would not be the only benefit. Students would be able to enter the working forces earlier than before, hopefully boosting the countries economy.

Though I do believe it will be a good way of saving money, I think students need that extra year of university or college. University is not just about education, it's about teaching the student what to expect once they leave. High school is 4 years long because that's how long it takes to prepare students for university life. Some students aren't even ready after that, and take another year to prepare themselves. It is the same for university. The young adults who are thrust upon the world so suddenly will not be prepared. The life lessons the students learn in university, such as dedication, preparation, organization, etc, will not be obtained easily outside the campus. It is difficult for students to grasp these concepts on their own. They need the uni verities guidance. Though shortening the time to achieve a undergraduate would reduce costs, it could drastically effect the students leaving the university or college. They would be unprepared.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/opinion/25Trachtenberg.html?ref=opinion

An Arsenal We Can All Live With

The Pentagon has now told the public, for the first time, precisely how many nuclear weapons the United States has in its arsenal: 5,113. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before the Senate to advocate approval for a "New Start" treaty. The treaty's ceiling of 1550 warheads deployed on 700 missiles and warheads will leave the United States with fewer warheads since John F. Kennedy was president. Yet, many people believe the United States can reduce their warheads even more. Maxwell Air Force Base calculated that America could reduce it's nuclear warheads to 311, without sacrificing security. 311 nuclear warheads would provide 1900 megatons of explosive power. Considering America has no real threats since the Soviet Union, limiting their nuclear warheads sounds logical.
America needs a nuclear arsenal. But they certainly don’t need one that is as big, expensive and unnecessarily threatening to much of the world as the one they have now.

I believe that the idea Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton proposed are good, however, they are not reducing the amount of nuclear warheads enough. I agree with what the Maxwell Air Force Base has to say. If America can reduce the amount of warheads without jeopardizing the nations security, what is there to lose? Why can't the American government remove something that is costing billions of dollars when it is of no use to Ameria? Personally, I believe it is because it represents their power. The more nuclear warheads America has, the more powerful they feel. But they must realize that having so many nuclear warheads is useless. If they only need 311 to maintain their security and power, why keep 1550? It seems that their insecurity for power is causing them to waste money and time on something that can now be considered useless.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/opinion/24schaub.html

Slow Down And Get Retirement Home Laws Right

The legislative committee reviewing the Ontario government’s Retirement Homes Act is moving at top speed. Last week, it completed its public hearings in a single day. This week, it expects to wrap up its clause-by-clause review. Gerry Phillips, the minister responsible for seniors, would like to see the bill become law before the House rises for the summer next month. Everyone seems to agree with this pace, except for the people these laws were made for. “We support the idea of regulation, but this is not the way to do it,” said Gerda Kaegi of Canadian Pensioners Concerned. Gerda Kaegi wanted to speak to the committee, but couldn’t accommodate the 10-minute time slot she was assigned. With the speed the committee is moving at, it seems they don't care much for the senior laws in Canada.

I believe the government does care for the seniors of Canada, they just need to slow down the pace. Seniors and retirement homes is more important than one would think, and the government has not put enough thought into making this bill a law. They wish the bill to be in place before the home is even built. They need to make sure this is what seniors really want, not just current seniors. These are important issues. It wouldn’t hurt to slow down, address seniors’ concerns and ensure the Retirement Homes Act is a genuine step forward.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/810321--goar-slow-down-and-get-retirement-homes-law-right

Quebec Highway Safety Questioned

Quebec coroner says a stretch of highway east of Montreal, where three cyclists were killed and three others were injured, is dangerous because it does not have a paved shoulder. The six cyclists, all from Montreal's South Shore suburbs, were training for a triathlon along Highway 112 when they were struck from behind by a pickup truck. Coroner André Dandavino, who is investigating the accident, said the four-lane road needs to have a paved shoulder so that cyclists can be safe. In fact, under Quebec highway rules, and road travelled by more than 5000 vehicles daily must have paved shoulders. Why then, were there no paved shoulders on Highway 112? Dandavino says it's because many of Quebec's roads have been neglected in the past 20 years.

I believe this story easily shows the ignorance of some people. How could someone driving a pick-up truck not see 6 bikers in a single file line? At first, I believed it to be from alcohol, however, police have proved that alcohol was not present in the driver at the time of the incident. It was human error. Also, if that highway was known to have no paved shoulders, why would the 6 bikers take the risk? The club they came from, the Saint-Lambert Triathlon Club, was aware of the dangers of that highway. It was the decision of the riders to take the risk. I don't know who to blame in this incident, though I believe it is still mainly the drivers fault. The government should take more care of those highways so that incidents like this become rare and unheard of.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/05/15/mon-cycling-accident.html

Harper Shows Anti-Gay Side

Toronto’s annual gay pride festival is a major event, attracting an estimated 300,000 tourists to the city and ploughing $136 million into the local economy. Last year, it was deemed worthy of a $397,500 grant from Ottawa under its “marquee events” stimulus program. This year, it will get nothing. Pride’s organizers blame “some kind of homophobia” in Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Ottawa. Toronto Councillor Kyle Rae calls it a “discriminatory, Neanderthal government.” The federal Liberals say it is a “reckless, ideological cut." The government vehemently denies all this. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” said Industry Minister Tony Clement in the Commons on Monday. “This is a two-year stimulus program. In year one of this program, almost 75 per cent of the funding went to events in Canada's largest cities. In year two, we wanted to ensure that the money was spread out to some of the smaller cities so they were able to benefit as well.”

It is difficult to determine which statement is false and which is true; however, the Conservative parties views do reflect this choice well. Conservatives are not the greatest supporters of homosexual couples, so it would not be surprising if Stephen Harper did have "some kind of homophobia" That being said, it is not fair to immediately blame "homophobia in office" as the reason the Gay Pride Festival did not receive any payment. Perhaps what Clement says is correct, that they wish to spread money out to smaller cities around Canada. This would not be the first time Canadians have over suspected a political topic. Either way, I believe completely removing the funding from the Gay Pride Festival is unfair. It attracts tourists and money, both attributing to the economy. It's funding is quite minuscule compared to the amount it grosses as an event.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/807480--harper-shows-anti-gay-side