On the Road to One-World Government

            The emergence of a world government is inevitable. The increasing use of the United Nations to solve international problems is the first step towards this autocracy. Over the past few months the United Nations has been busy dealing with the rebellions and conflicts in countries such as Syria and Libya. Although we consider ourselves an autonomous, free nation, we are still subjected to the opinions and beliefs of other world leaders. Why is this? Because the congruency of differing nations is becoming a hotly desirable characteristic. Nations feel compelled to cooperate and be a part of this global governing power to ensure they will be included in the benefits such an autonomy offers. At the current rate, we can expect to see a one-world government sooner than later.

          

            The dominating factor concerning what is or is not a state is characterized by Luis Cabrera in saying “I define the state as an organization possessing a monopoly on the legitimate use of organized violence within a society” (Pg.29). This definition asserts that as soon as a government can use its power on the citizens, those citizens then fall under that state. With this definition being defined, we can transfer this meaning to modern times. It is a well-known fact that American forces have been in the Middle East for close to ten years enforcing American ideals. In order to preserve American freedom, so it is said, we have been waging war in foreign countries trying to find “terrorists”. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are two primary examples. In regards to these two suspected terrorists, America has been using “legitimate use of organized violence” to capture them and bring them to justice. What does this mean for the world? It means that although we have territorial boundaries, these boundaries can be ignored and battles can be fought anywhere as long as it falls under the veil of promoting democracy and ending terrorism.

          

             Coinciding with these points, we can take a look at the formation of the European Union (EU). This formation consolidated 27 previously autonomous nations into a single state. What was the purpose of this consolidation? To make governing Europe easier. If this type of wide-scale convergence of powers is possible in a modern state, it is inevitable that it is possible to continue further. Once the autonomy of a single country is eliminated, it makes future eliminations of autonomous countries a foreseeable possibility. The ease of communication in today’s technologically advanced society furthers the ability to sculpt the world into a one-world government. We no longer concern ourselves with what only happens on American soil. We are increasingly becoming more and more willing to intervene in world affairs to ensure that our global society remains as our leaders want it. As we continue to be concerned in world affairs it is inevitable that one day a one-world government will be established to ensure that global law is regulated and enforced.

           

Cabrera, L. 2011. Global Governance, Global Government. Published by State University of New York                  Press. Albany, NY.

Reliance on Social Networking

             In order to fully understand how connected our world currently is, we can take a look at the recent Osama Bin Laden slaying. As soon as the news broke that U.S. forces had killed Bin Laden people were flocking to Facebook and other social networking sites to confirm the news. Thousands of people attending the Philadelphia Phillies baseball games were shown in the crowd staring at their phones, awaiting the news. A man in Pakistan was even noted as giving a live play-by-play of the raids on Twitter. These examples show how influenced and reliant the world is on social networking.

            

            Sohaib Athar, an IT consultant who lives a few miles away from Bin Laden’s compound in Abbottaad, Pakistan, was the man responsible for live-tweeting the Bin Laden attack. His first tweet read: “Helicopter hovering above Abbottaad at 1AM (is a rare event)”. Although Athar did not know he was directly reporting world news, he was. He immediately began accumulating thousands of followers on Twitter who wanted to hear more from him. Were people rushing to news sources or government forums? No. People were relying on social networking to get their news.

             

            During the Philadelphia Phillies baseball game on Sunday night, the news of Bin Laden’s death seemed to erupt at once. People were shown looking at their phones and showing other people the news they were reading on their phones. Once enough people understood what was going on, the crowd began to chant “USA!” for over 5 minutes. Would this have been possible 10 years ago? The answer is no. We are in a modern state where technology is dominating our world. Wherever we go, to a baseball game, the movies, dinner, etc, we can be immediately interrupted by our digital devices if there is pressing enough news.

          

     What does this digital domination mean for our society? This new phenomena can be viewed as being a positive and a negative. It is beneficial to have a media outlet which allows people to post breaking news so others can see it. On the other hand, with the amount of information being transferred through digital devices it makes us more reliant on those devices. It persuades people to check their social networks sites regularly to make sure there is something that they did not miss. We are in the age of technology, and this presence of technology was clearly evident on Sunday, May 1 with the breaking news of Osama Bin Laden’s death. We must ensure that the benefits of technology persuade us to become reliant slaves of that same technology.

 Video: Phillies Fans Chant “USA” After News of Bin Laden’s Death

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/man-who-live-tweeted-bin-laden-raid-talks-to-abc15

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/video-phillies-fans-chant-%E2%80%9Cusa%E2%80%9D-after-news-of-bin-laden%E2%80%99s-death

Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria in American Meat

           The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for making sure that food grown in and imported to America is safe for consumption. This governmental agency regularly tests meat and produce to ensure that harmful bacteria such as E. coli, Staph, and Salmonella, are not present in consumed food. To control these harmful bacteria the FDA has regulated that large-scale animal farms use antibiotics which are “chemicals which can kill or limit the growth of microbes like bacteria, viruses, and fungi” (FDA, 2011). Although the intentions of the FDA to make food safe, it is alarming to find that these bacteria have altered into drug-resistant bacteria which can cause harm to humans.

            

           Journalist David Kirby of The Huffington Post states “sub-therapeutic antibiotics promote animal growth and stave off epidemics, a constant problem when animals are crammed into confinements by the thousands”. These antibiotics are regularly introduced to animals to keep us safe, but how is it possible that these bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics? The FDA asserts that “bacteria can destroy the drug or they can keep the drug from entering the bacteria cell… once bacteria become resistant to a particular drug, the continued use of that drug may increase the number of resistant bacteria” (FDA, 2011). These findings suggest that once an antibiotic is introduced to a strand of bacteria, the bacteria naturally finds a way to defend itself from the antibiotic. Once this defense is initiated by the bacteria, the food no longer becomes safe from bacteria, but rather supports the growth of bacteria.

             

            Recent studies by Carla Vignaroli published in Current Microbiology (May, 2011) tested the antibiotic resistant bacteria “enterococci” found in chicken and pig meat. Their findings suggested that “of the 48 different multidrug-resistant (MDR) strains found within enterococci, 31 of these strains were resistant to two antibiotics” (Vignaroli, 2011). These findings suggest that large portions of the meat we eat regularly contain resistant bacteria. This raises the question then of whether or not the FDA is actually doing their job in protecting us from food-borne bacteria. Looking at the evidence of and presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in our foods, it appears as that they are not.

             

            The presence of bacteria in food is something natural and unavoidable, which is why proper preparation of food is necessary. Antibiotics were introduced with the belief that these magical drugs would eliminate any and all bacteria from our food supply, enabling large-scale animal farms to be able to produce massive amounts of meat with little disease and death. The downside of this introduction of antibiotics is that it has made the bacteria within the food impervious to the antibiotics. With this being the case, antibiotics are unnecessary and unnatural. Widespread commercial farming which emphasizes mass output is not the safe answer. Animals raised naturally which are not subject to scientific antibiotic testing is the most sane and safe alternative to eating meat containing antibiotic-resistant super-bacteria.

Kirby, D. (April, 2011). “Drug-Resistant Bacteria in Half Your Meat? Time for Congress to Act”. Huffpost Healt online. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/drugresistant-bacteria-in_b_849928.html

Unknown, January 2011. “Antimicrobial Resistant Bacteria in Animals and Food”, U.S. Food and Drug Administration website. http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/ResourcesforYou/AnimalHealthLiteracy/ucm240634.htm

Vignaroli, C. , Zandri, G. , Aquilanti, L. , Pasquaroli, S. , & Biavasco, F. (2011). “Multidrug-resistant enterococci in animal meat and faeces and co-transfer of resistance from an enterococcus durans to a human enterococcus faecium”. Current Microbiology, 62(5)1438-1447.

Governmental Warrantless Searches

            Following the attacks that occurred on the World Trade Center in 2001 were many new laws and regulations. One of the most prominent was the PATRIOT Act, a clever acronym for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism”. This congressional act gave the Federal Bureau of Investigation a multitude of new powers in the guise of combating terrorism. One such power granted to the FBI was their use of national security letters (NSLs) in Section 505 of the act for combating domestic terrorism. These letters “seek customer and consumer transaction information in national security investigations from communications providers, financial institutions and credit agencies” (Gorham-Oscilowski, Jaeger 2008) concerning individuals suspected of engaging in “foreign counterintelligence”. Issue with the NSLs are that they violate the Fourth Amendment.

           

            The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that people have the “right… to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”. At the heart of the issue is the concept of individual privacy. Justice Louis Brandeis, in a dissenting opinion in Olmstead v. United States, states that “every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment” (Gorham-Oscilowski, Jaeger 2008). The problem arises out of the fact that NSLs are used even when the FBI has no concrete evidence indicating participation in terrorism. This type of eavesdropping is extremely detrimental to the freedom and well-being of American citizens, not to mention unconstitutional.

           

            Research on NSLs show that while Fourth Amendment supporters denounce it completely, Government claims that they are acting within the Constitution when conducting the surveillance. The problem Government must now face is that it has been proved of violating Fourth Amendment rights by the Supreme Court. In Doe v. Ashcroft, the court found that “the Fourth Amendment was violated by the absence of meaningful judicial review” (Sanchez, 2009) in a case where an internet service provider sued the government after receiving a request for an NSL.

             

            The debate concerning individual privacy is as hotly debated now as ever. Government proposes that their warrantless searches are justified in the fight against terror. Individuals feel that the Government is cutting corners on constitutional processes in order to find as many criminals as possible. We would like to believe that the Government is acting justly to protect us, but the reality of the matter is that they have been shown to engage in unconstitutional practices in order to fulfill their own agenda.

Sources

Gorham-Oscilowski, U., Jaeger, P. T. 2008.  “National Security Letters, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the Constitution: The tensions between national security and civil rights”. Government Information Quarterly, Volume 25, Issue 4, October 2008.

Sanchez, J. 2009. “Real Reform for the PATRIOT Act?”. Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10599&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatoRecentOpeds+%28Cato+Recent+Op-eds%29

           

FCC Regulation: Net Neutrality

            The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should not adopt the proposed concept of net neutrality. Net neutrality, as described by Tony Lee, “essentially prevent companies that own the broadband infrastructure (of the internet) from interfering with applications and programs even if certain users disproportionately hog and clog the broadband networks and bandwidth.” This means companies like Yahoo and Google, who are considered Content and Application Providers (CAPs), cannot regulate programs such as Netflix or video-chatting programs that clog the internet’s bandwidth (Crocioni, 2011). Currently the CAP’s can alter a programs’ internet streaming capabilities to ensure internet access is not slowed down as a whole. The Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton responded to the neutrality proposal, saying “the FCC’s hostile actions toward innovation, investment and job creation cannot be allowed to stand” (Perine, 2011). Traffic management, as net neutrality supports, sounds like a good idea. In reality, it is just one of many steps government will take in trying to conquer the freedom of the internet.

           

          Over the past decade (2001-2009) the internet business has exploded from an $8 billion enterprise to a $42 billion giant, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. During these years the internet was regulatory-free. Proponents of net neutrality state that regulation would promote faster, more secure internet access for all individuals (Crocioni, 2011). Peter Suderman in his piece “Internet Cop”, however, asserts that “the internet best operates when the government leaves it alone.” Past efforts to expand and expedite the internet gave way to flocks of entrepreneurs looking to make money in the internet field. If regulation were to occur, the internet industry would lose jobs set up to streamline the internet to the government.

           

          The issue of freedom versus regulation of the internet gives way to biases on both sides. The government would like to see regulation fall into their hands because the FCC would grow in size to be able to handle regulatory concerns. Governmental regulatory jobs would increase tenfold. The government would also have control over what is accepted and rejected on the web. Proponents of internet freedom are biased in the sense that they currently use the unregulated internet. In today’s form the internet offers access to just about any site by any individual with a computer. Complete freedom in this magnitude is revered.

             

          The positions on the idea of net neutrality are distinctly drawn. The government proposes that regulation would streamline the internet and essentially clean it up. Proponents of a free internet hold true to the fact that while left on its own the internet has expanded greatly, offering thousands of people with ingenuous solutions to benefit. Internet regulation, net neutrality primarily, is a danger to the ideal of freedom. Internet creation and growth stemmed from people who simply wanted to make the internet better. Some aspects thrived while others died – a characteristic of our free-market economy. Net neutrality gives the government power over how the internet functions on a data-level position. If this ideal were to be supported it would undoubtedly lead to more regulation and censorship by the government, not freedom.

References

Crocioni, Pietro, “Net Neutrality in Europe: Desperately seeking a market failure”,                    Telecommunications policy, Vol 35., Issue 1, February 2011, pages 1-11

Lee, Tony, “FCC: ‘Regulatory Vigilante”, Human Events Online News, January 3, 2011, http://content.ebscohost.com/pdf25_26/pdf/2011/

Perine, Keith, “Top Issues for 2011: Net Neutrality”, CQ Weekly, January 10, 2011, pg. 102, http://library.cqpress.com/cqweekly/document.php?id=weeklyreport112-000003792323&type=toc&num=61&

Suderman, Peter, “Internet Cop”, Internet Freedom Coalition,  http://www.internetfreedomcoalition.com/?p=1690#more-1690