BLOG POSTING -- #5

High school play canceled over possible objections to gay content

Synopsis: Drama teacher at a Newport Beach high school says the principal shut down his production of 'Rent' because of its gay characters. District officials say the principal only asked to read the script.

Rent centers around several diverse characters. The two main characters, Mark and Roger, are the archetypal bohemians. Roger is a young, struggling musician/songwriter trying to write one glorious song before AIDS claims his life. His roommate, Mark, is a film artist searching for opportunities to practice his art. Having no steady jobs and no idea how to obtain the next rent payment, they parallel the bohemians of Paris: they abandon the pursuit of comfort and financial security and focus fully on their art.

While reading this interesting article, I was surprised to learn the drama teacher at the Newport Beach school stated the principal told him to cancel the show because she disapproved of the gay characters in the musical. Fal Asrani, the school's principal, disputes that she pulled the plug on the production, saying that she only asked to review the script, according to district officials.

But Ron Martin (drama teacher) said he chose "Rent," the story of artists struggling in New York City, for the spring musical because he hoped it would be a vehicle for teaching tolerance after overhearing students using homosexual slurs.

He openly states -- "My responsibility as a drama teacher is to expose my students to a variety of different types of plays," Martin said. At a recent meeting with Martin and a union representative, Asrani shut down the plans for "Rent," saying that she needed to review the script because of "prostitution and homosexuality," Martin said, adding that there is no prostitution in the musical.

To learn/read more about this issue -- Please visit: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/18/local/me-gay-play18

After reading this article, I can honestly say that I was shocked that this play was even an issue let alone canceled. Although, I have not personally watched the movie or play titled “Rent”, I think it’s truly unfair that this production was “shut-down” because it dealt with homosexual characters. I personally feel in today’s world homosexuality is a way of life and if the play “Rent” can educate students about this way of life -- than so be it. I personally do not agree with the principal’s decision to cancel this program, because students have the right to be informed about the different ways of life, and as stated in the article I too feel this play could be a “vehicle for teaching tolerance after overhearing students using homosexual slurs”. I think educating/informing students is the key to creating a society and a student body that being homosexual should not define who you are as a human being.

Food for thought:
What are your personal thoughts or opinions about this article?
Do you feel the principal made the right decision to ban this play/musical?

BLOG POSTING --- # 4

Banning Books in Miami


Synopsis:
Schools are supposed to introduce children to a variety of ideas and viewpoints, but the Miami-Dade School Board decided a few years ago to put one viewpoint off limits. It banned the children’s book “A Visit to Cuba” from its school libraries because it said the book offers too positive a portrait of life under the Castro regime. That was bad enough, but then last week, a federal appeals court upheld the ban. The Supreme Court should reverse this disturbing ruling.


A visit to cuba covers land, landmarks, homes, food, clothes, work, transportation, language, school, free time, celebrations, and the arts.

To learn more about this interesting issue -- please visit (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/opinion/11wed3.html?_r=1)


Personal response:

After reading this interesting article, I was very surprised that this book caused such an uproar in the Miami-Dade County Public School District. As stated in the article, “A Visit to Cuba” and its Spanish edition, “Vamos a Cuba,” are part of a series of books for children ages 4 to 8 that introduces them to the geography, customs and daily life of different countries. The Miami-Dade County Public School District has 49 copies in its elementary and middle schools. Yet, a father of an elementary-school student, complained that the portrait of Cuba in the book was inaccurate, and petitioned to have “A Visit to Cuba” pulled.


Intrigued by this argument, I decided to review the book in order to gain a better perspective of the situation at hand. After reviewing the book, I can honestly say that I couldn’t locate any real specific things that signified this book should be removed from library shelves. But then again I am not a Cuban, and I have little knowledge about the Castro regime. Therefore, I feel that because this is such a touchy subject for readers (mainly parents) that this is the real reason why this book is being challenged. Although, some of books content includes advanced information for its intended age range, and it may include questionable pictures, I’m still undecided about the act of permanently removing this book from all Miami-Dade Public School libraries. If anything, I feel this book could educate many children about the way of life for Cubans.

Food for thought:
What is your thought/opinion about this article?
Do you feel this book should be removed from school libraries?

Blog Posting # 3

Amazon Says Error Removed Listings

In response to nearly two days of angry online commentary, particularly on Twitter, Amazon.com said on Monday that “an embarrassing and ham-fisted cataloging error” had caused thousands of books on its site to lose their sales rankings and become harder to find in searches.

To read more visit (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/technology/internet/14amazon.html)


After browsing the net in search of something interesting for my third blog posting, I came across an interesting article about a computer error that caused thousands of books on Amazon.com to lose their sales rankings which led to cries of censorship from some critics. Most of the company’s online critics complained that the problem appeared to have a disproportionate effect on gay and lesbian themed books, leading to cries of censorship. The titles that lost their sales rankings during the weekend included James Baldwin’s “Giovanni’s Room,” the gay romance novel “Transgressions” and “Unfriendly Fire,” a recently published book about the government’s policies on gays in the military. Many of the affected titles disappeared from basic searches so that, for example, a search from Amazon’s home page for “E. M. Forster” did not turn up “Maurice,” Forster’s classic novel about a homosexual relationship. Nathaniel Frank, the author of the well-reviewed “Unfriendly Fire,” said he could not find a link to the hardcover edition of his book last weekend.

This was a serious issue because sales rankings on Amazon are important to authors. Books that receive high sales are often placed on the website’s best-seller lists and it also helps shoppers to find them. But due to this error, sales for other book categories also plummeted. For example, 57,310 books featured on amazon.com in several broad categories were also affected, including books on health and reproductive medicine.

Due to this serious issue, many shoppers and critics felt that Amazon purposely censored books that focused on homosexuality. Amazon declined that this was the case and stated “it plans to implement new measures to make this kind of accident less likely to occur in the future.” But critics are still disappointed that Amazon did not react quickly enough to fix this problem and make a statement sooner to those who expressed their concerns on Amazon.com and Twitter (online commentary).

After reading this article, I was surprised by the actions and statements presented by Amazon.com. I wonder if the affected authors received any compensation for their lost sales. It was also surprising to learn that it took two days of angry online commentary before Amazon decided to approach this problem. Thank goodness for the people who noticed and even disagreed with the cataloging error mishap that censored materials/books with gay and lesbian themes.

Blog Posting # 2

Is That Plate Speaking for the Driver or the State?

Article Tools Sponsored By
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: April 27, 2009

WASHINGTON
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Times Topics: U.S. Supreme Court

The last time the Supreme Court considered what the First Amendment has to say about license plates was in 1977, when it ruled that New Hampshire could not force George Maynard to drive around with plates bearing the state’s motto, “Live Free or Die.”

Mr. Maynard said he was not satisfied with those options. He would, he said, choose life, “even if it meant living in bondage.”

The justices probably thought their decision settled things as far as free speech and license plates were concerned, and for more than 30 years they have turned their attention to other matters. But now the flipside of Mr. Maynard’s case, involving license plates that say “Choose Life,” is heading toward the court.

No one is forced to use the plates, which are available in 19 states and seem intended to appeal to those who oppose abortion rights. They are so-called specialty plates, which are available for an extra fee to people who want to express themselves through their license plates.

To learn more about this story -- please select the link below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/us/28bar.html?_r=1

Personal Comments:

After reading this article I was a little disturbed with some of the things mentioned. I strongly feel that people or drivers are entitled to purchase specialty-license plates of their choice, whether the plates state “Choose Life”, “Play Tennis”, or “Pro-Family”, as the article states “no one is forced to use the plates.” Personally specialty-license plates do not offend me in anyway. I think it’s a matter of choice if one decides to purchase a specialized license plate. After all, we as Americans live in world where freedom of speech is acceptable. Yet, after reading this article I’m starting to wonder how true this is. In the article it mentions that the state of Illinois says “it should be allowed to decide what goes on its license plated because they convey government rather than private speech. If that is right, the First Amendment drops out of the equation, as the government is free to say what it likes.” I was somewhat bothered by this comment because I feel no state should have the right to restrict/deny a certain license plate to its population. All citizens within the U.S. should be given the option/choice to select a license plate that reflects their personal beliefs or opinion.


Aside from my personal remarks regarding specialty license plates, I was surprised to learn that many of the proceeds from specialized plates are donated to various organizations. For example, the “Choose Life” plate generated about 800,000 in 2007. The Florida state law requires that the money raised from those plates, after administrative expenses are deducted, be given to adoption agencies. The Florida law forbids sharing the money with group offering “counseling for or referrals to abortion clinics.” After reading this section within the article, I agree that proceeds raised from this particular license plate should be used to support adoption agencies. I think this is a wonderful way to give back to such a useful organization. I think yearly contributions to adoption agencies will help to support the many children within this organization.
Overall, I think this was very interesting article which takes a close look at world’s beliefs and/or opinions which can be openly and vividly expressed on a license plate.


Questions:
What are your thoughts about this article? Do you feel the government has the right to restrict certain specialty-license plates? Do you feel the proceeds earned from specialty-license plates should be given to certain organizations such as adoption agencies? If not where would you like the proceeds earned to be disbursed to?

Blog Posting

Diana Kim, of Fairfax, Va., is sure not to smile as she gets her driver's license photo taken. Virginia uses face-recognition software that won't allow for smiles on IDs.

Hello Classmates,

While browsing the internet on my lunch break, I came across an interesting article that I wanted to share with you all. After posting my first shocking yet interesting article about "Airport scan reveals all", I was even more surprised when I came across another article which bans people from smiling on their driver's license in order to reduce license fraud, but is this policy worth-while? --- What are your thoughts on this new idea/technique?

Four states adopt 'no-smiles' policy for driver's licenses - By Thomas Frank, USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-25-licenses_N.htm?se=yahoorefer

Stopping driver's license fraud is no laughing matter: Four states are ordering people to wipe the grins off their faces in their license photos.

"Neutral facial expressions" are required at departments of motor vehicles (DMVs) in Arkansas, Indiana, Nevada and Virginia. That means you can't smile, or smile very much. Other states may follow.

LICENSE FRAUD: States take steps to cut down fake IDs

The serious poses are urged by DMVs that have installed high-tech software that compares a new license photo with others that have already been shot. When a new photo seems to match an existing one, the software sends alarms that someone may be trying to assume another driver's identity.

But there's a wrinkle in the technology: a person's grin. Face-recognition software can fail to match two photos of the same person if facial expressions differ in each photo, says Carnegie Mellon University robotics professor Takeo Kanade.

Continuation -- Airport body scans reveal all

Airport body scans reveal all:

Image:


Millimeter wave technology produces whole body images (woman at left, man at right) that reveal what's under your clothes, including Metallic or non-metallic devices and objects are displayed, including weapons, explosives and other items that a passenger is carrying on his/her person. The images are viewed by a Transportation Security Officer in a remote location. According to the TSA: To ensure privacy, the setup "has zero storage capability and images will not be printed stored or transmitted. Once the transportation security officer has viewed the image and resolved anomalies, the image is erased from the screen permanently. The officer is unable to print, export, store or transmit the image." Credit: TSA

Blog Posting -- Airport body scan reveal all

While watching the news (fox 41 News ). They had a brief segment that talked about how many airports are using a new technique to scan people for weapons, etc...Check-out the article it's pretty interesting and scary at the same time. I can honestly say, after reading this article I will probably think twice about flying, and what has the world come to since 9/11...This article clearly shows that people have little regard for ones privacy..And although, I believe in flight safety and security, this new technique or device seems to be quite humiliating if you ask me..

Questions?

What is your thoughts/concerns after reading this article?

Do you agree this goes against the privacy act?


Airport body scans reveal all:
(http://www.livescience.com/technology/090401-airport-scan.html)


New airport security scanners could become a popular alternative to body searches, but have also prompted some privacy concerns.

Whole-body imaging technologies can see through clothing to reveal metallic and non-metallic objects, including weapons or plastic explosives. They also reveal a person's silhouette and the outlines of underwear.

That hasn't stopped security officials from implementing them. The U.S. Transportation Security Agency (TSA) started using whole-body imaging at six airports this year, and plans are in the works to expand it to airports in several more U.S. cities later this year.

The TSA has tested two technologies, including "millimeter wave" (MMW) technology which bounces radio-frequency waves off people to construct a 3-D image within a few seconds. TSA also temporarily leased four "backscatter" units which use X-ray scanning, although the MMW method is currently faster.

Early this year, TSA began implementing MMW as a primary screening technology next to metal detectors at airports in San Francisco, Miami, Albuquerque, Tulsa, Salt Lake City and Las Vegas.

Airports in 20 U.S. cities, such as JFK in New York City and LAX in Los Angeles, have used or plan to use MMW tech this year. Other countries have also begun using or evaluating MMW for airport screening, including the UK, Netherlands, Japan and Thailand.

The MMW and backscatter scans intentionally blur facial features, and the security officer viewing images sits in a remote location where he or she cannot identify the passengers, said Lara Uselding, a TSA spokesperson. She added that the systems also delete scanned images after the viewings, and have "zero storage capability."

That has not stopped privacy advocates from asking how much passengers may unwittingly reveal in whole-body imaging.

"Body scanners produce graphic images of travelers' bodies and are an assault on their essential dignity," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Project. "The safeguards announced by the TSA do not convince us that the technology is acceptable, and we question the supposed voluntary nature of these scanners."

TSA pointed out that passengers can currently choose between the MMW screening and the more traditional body search conducted by a security officer with a wand. The new screening tech actually proved popular in testing conducted in January 2009.

"More than 99 percent of passengers selected for Millimeter Wave screening opted to use the technology instead of the traditional pat-down procedure at Los Angeles International Airport," Uselding said. "We saw the same percentage for use at JFK with MMW."

A body scan that leaves no record might be less invasive than background searches which look through computer records containing personal passenger information, said Bruce Schneier, chief security technology officer for British Telecommunications, who has published several books and testified on security issues for the U.S. Congress.

However, Schneier raised two main issues: whether security officials are doing the right thing to address security issues, and whether they're doing it right. His concern is that high-tech airport screening has become too focused on specific threats.

"I dislike security that requires us to guess a target and tactic," Schneier told LiveScience. He added that airport screening represents the last line of defense against potential threats, whereas spending more money on intelligence gathering has benefits whether terrorists are targeting an airport or shopping mall.

"Security is a tradeoff," Schneier said. "Every dollar we're spending on airport security is a dollar not spent someplace else."