The Last Meta Post

I would like Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Bolos to grade my "The Push for Transparency" post.

It's crazy to see how much has changed and progressed from my first posts to my last posts. At the beginning of the year, I was just getting used to the whole blogging thing, and now I feel like almost a professional.

I've noticed that this last quarter I've talked more about issues we've discussed in class, like lists, places, and cycles. Before, I would usually take an idea we discussed in class and find something in the news to relate it to, but this quarter I took ideas we talked about and expanded them further.

I also really enjoyed writing about posts related to my Junior Theme topic. I liked being able to connect something like the "Wait, Tupac's Alive?!" post that discussed hackers who posted a fake "Tupac's still Alive" article to the PBS website to WikiLeaks, which I wrote about a lot in my junior theme.

I think I have also learned how to make my posts more concise and get to my point quicker. At the beginning of the year, I had extremely long posts and I feel that by the end they have shortened appropriately. It was something I worked really hard on, and I had to figure out which information was surplus and took the reader away from what I was trying to say. I also, think I've improved in my empathy for the reader. I almost always give links and try to highlight the quotes in my posts in different colors to make it easier for the reader to see what words are mine and what words are somebody else's.

Overall, I loved the blogging experience. It's awesome to be able to write down how I view a certain situation or what I think about something. I also think it's great that we as classmates can comment on each other's blogs and get in healthy debates about different topics.

To Tell or Not to Tell?

*For some reason, this blog post never posted, I found it in my drafts. It's from May 5th.

There are many arguments whether or not our government needs to be more open or more secretive. The recent releases of classified documents by WikiLeaks has not helped the fight towards more transparency in government one bit. Many believe, especially those in the United State government, that the disclosures of American diplomatic logs to the public have hurt American diplomatic ties. Some say other disclosures have placed innocent lives at risk.

But have these releases really hurt America? Can these documents prevent us from having good relations with other countries?

To me, it seems that these documents have been classified for a completely different reason. I do believe that some of these documents have been classified in order to protect people because I do know they could in danger if their governments know what they have shared with the United States. However, I believe that many of these disclosures are to withhold information from the American people about the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to author Micah Sifry, who wrote The Age of Transparency, the government classified this information in order to "prevent the American public from understanding the full impact of of the invasion and occupation of Iraq."

By withholding information, the government tried to maintain support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some people had been comparing the situation in Afghanistan to that of Vietnam, feeling that the situation in Afghanistan had no end and that we were getting involved in something that shouldn't have been necessarily our business.

I believe that the government was more concerned about not embarrassing themselves and maintaining public opinion rather than if American diplomatic ties were severed with the WikiLeaks leaks. Even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said after the leak of the American diplomatic cables that "governments deal with the United States because it is in their interest. Not because they like us, not because they trust us and not because they believe we can keep secrets.”

I believe that the government's backlash against WikiLeaks is more about preserving the government's reputation and avoid embarrassment/scandal than about diplomatic relations or protecting people's lives.

The North Shore Cycle

Currently in AS, we are reading the play The Kentucky Cycle, which is a series of nine one-act plays that explore the American mythology of land and how three families fight over the rights to a certain plot of land. Each act has many similar aspects of the act before it, like killing for land, suggesting that it is a vicious "cycle."



Reading this play has made me think of the cycles in my life. One specific cycle I seem to notice is what I'd like to call "The North Shore Cycle" or the "Middle Class Cycle." Whatever you want it to be. This is a cycle of life, that I believe starts as soon as a kid reaches their teenage years. Or maybe it just becomes more noticeable then. You go to high school to do well to go to college. You go to college to do well and either go into graduate school, law school, med school, etc. or to just get a job. So basically you go to college to get a good job. You get a good job so that when you get married and have kids, you can support them. And then you watch the cycle repeat itself with the next generation.

Granted some people are exceptions to this cycle. Some never get married or have kids. Some choose to do their own thing and break this cycle, but it is very rare. This cycle is what your parents expect of you. This cycle might be what you will expect of your children. Whether you become subject to it or not, either way it's definitely there in front of you.

Wait, Tupac's Alive?!

On Monday, PBS posted an article that rapper Tupac Shakur was still alive and living in New Zealand. However, it turned out to be a false article, placed on the website by hackers who were angered by coverage of WikiLeaks.

According to the New York Times, security experts call these attacks "reputational" on media companies who publish things that the hackers are not happy with. The companies are apparently vulnerable to these attacks because they "depend on online advertising and subscription revenue from Web sites that can be upended by the clicks of a hacker’s keyboard." The hacker can simply take away revenue from a Web site, even by just shutting it down for a few hours. Time equals money.

The attacks were "said to be motivated by a “Frontline” film about WikiLeaks that was broadcast and published online on May 24." The hackers, who are supporters of WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, felt that the film had shed both the Web site and Assange in a negative light.

This hasn't been the first attack on a Web site who had been critical of something others didn't agree with. Last December, hackers shut down web sites owned by Gawker Media. Apparently, "Gawker had been critical of hacker groups like the one called Anonymous that had attacked security firms and Web sites of the Egyptian government."

So is this form of protest alright to do so? Is it okay for hackers to illegally hack a web site and shut down their revenue because of something they don't agree with?

I think there's a point when people are going to far and I believe that's what has occurred with these hackings. There's one thing of protesting something when a company commits an awful act or something of that sort. But there's another when they are just expressing their beliefs. The hackers are committing illegal acts, and although some may be funny, I just don't feel like that's the right way to go about it. Perhaps they can make their own web site and condemn what they disagree with, or they can create a protest rally. But I think the hacking has taken things a little too far.