“Opposition growing rapidly today in Brussels” is one of many constant updates on the ACTA by David Hammerstein. In the article, he addresses several reasons for the growing opposition to the ACTA and some views expressed by the European Parliament who was asked to vote on whether making the draft of the agreement publicly known. Hammerstein disagrees with many aspects of the ACTA, namely the power it will have over countries and private companies. One of the constituents of the ACTA is that third party internet providers, such as Comcast or Verizon, will be held responsible for the illegal downloading of their customers. Hammerstein compares this to a scenario of the Post Office being responsible for the letters it sends. The author also disagrees with how the agreement has been presented, cloaked in secrecy and only voted on with a yes or no, violating the democratic process outlined in the treaty of Lisbon. He also reports the views of the European Parliament, one being that they refuse to vote on the agreement until it is made public in order to open up the floor to public opinion. The EU also states that the current version of the ACTA infringes on Freedom of Expression as well as the Right to Privacy. Another negotiation that the EU requests is that the “evaluation of economic and innovation risks must take place prior to introducing criminal sanctions where civil measures are already in place.” The Eu also disagrees with third party service providers being responsible for consumer decisions, but also stresses that the ACTA would put more restrictions on border control, and would most likely inhibit the access these countries have to legal medicines.

“Developing Country Opposition to ACTA Mounts” on Speak Out on Copyright is an article touching on the problems that developing countries will likely have if the ACTA is passed. India is currently compiling a group of countries against the ACTA simply because of the negative public outcry. These countries, which include India, China, and possibly Canada, have five major concerns with the agreement. First, they fear that the agreement would create uncertainty with the current international trade law, creating conflict. Second, the ACTA would create domestic restrictions for them and would make it difficult for them to pass future trade laws that would fit within their current domestic law. Third, the ACTA would disrupt the current trade of much needed pharmaceuticals between India and Brazil because of the increased seizure power from custom officials. Fourth, the ACTA would force countries to allocate a certain amount of money toward intellectual property enforcement, and many countries cannot afford this budget reallocation. The concern resides in the fact that these countries are already stretched thin, and many argue that the money is better served investigating violent crimes rather than stolen DVDs or software. And fifth, the ACTA would brush aside current United Nations jurisdiction that offers greater transparency, while the ACTA is in favor of a closed, non-transparent negotiation process.

In an article about the ACTA, Danile Castro outlines some of the benefits that could arise from accepting the ACTA as part of U.S. Law. The first being the annual revenue that is lost by users stealing copyrighted material such as music, movies, and software. It's estimated that the United States looses billions of dollars each year as this continues, and stopping illegal downloading will provide a significant means of revenue for businesses. Castro also argues that supporting the ACTA will also protect American jobs, companies, and consumers, by the demand of their products remaining strong. He also emphasizes that by protecting copyrighted material, we are protecting the producer or artist in furthering their ability to produce creativity and innovation.

In “International Piracy: The Challenges of protecting Intellectual Property in the 21^st Century” is a hearing by the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, with an audience of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. The hearing covers ground over three countries; namely the United States, Russia, and China. The hearing states that this a primarily and “effort to ensure that other countries do not thrive on the backs of American creativity.” It also goes over the restrictions of both countries and what can be changed in terms of these nation's laws in order to ensure a safer and more legal internet. The witnesses called spoke of the importance of protected intellectual property and the significant role it plays in our global economy. The negotiations between the United States and Russia previously had allured to the fact that they would get together to try and improve the protection and enforcement of intellectual property. These two countries were considered the prime culprits in allowing piracy and illegal downloading to flourish, and therefore the model for change in these countries would provide a good template for other countries, including the United States. In this hearing, an IP enforcement bill was proposed that suggests stronger criminal penalties, increase enforcement of national laws, strengthen cooperation between government and industry, and educate consumers. This will help me in my issue because this is a country seeking out another country in aid to the issue of piracy. This is the first time the House of Representatives is discussing this on an international scope. The ACTA would be an international organization with countries being involved on a volunteer basis. This congressional hearing suggests that the United States is seeking out Russia and China for their cooperation. The ACTA is also an American based committee seeking other countries to join.

“Consumer Benefits of Today's Digital Right Management Solutions” is also a congressional hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives and the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. This hearing focuses on the benefits of consumers and producers that support Digital Rights Management. Digital Rights Management was the solution for these companies, a way to ensure that the misuse of digital products was not being permitted. Digital Rights Management is actually a type of software embedded in the product in order to block unauthorized users from using it. This hearing states that because of DRM, consumers have more options available tot hem in the digital market. They also state that because of DRM technology, companies were able to protect their work, and also present a physical product. They argue that without DRM technology, companies would have refused to put their products on shelves, knowing that it would be copied or misused. This pertains to my issue because DRM is the foundation of the ACTA. DRM is a specific copyright used in digital media that if violated, the ACTA would have the power to produce punishment for the user or the power to turn off a site directly providing illegal copies of this product.

The ACTA or Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, is a proposed agreement for establishing a international standard on intellectual property rights. The ACTA would consist of countries on a volunteer basis, creating a governing body outside of the WTO, WIPO, or UN. The ACTA would be able to take direct action against copyright infringement, counterfeit goods, pirated copyright protected works, and piracy over the internet. The ACTA would overcome many court precedents defining consumer rights and would change or remove limitations on the application of intellectual property laws. The ACTA has remained pretty secret in it's policy, but also because nothing is official yet and drafts are constantly changing, but this would be huge for the online community.

My husband is a software engineer and is very passionate about open-source software. He believes that patents and copyright laws need to change in order to encourage more innovative thoughts and implementation.

The ACTA would effect everyone who uses the internet. Do you download movies? Songs? If you do then this organization would effect you. The major stakeholders in this are the leaders that would pass this international policy. President Obama is getting behind it, whereas the EU Parliament voted against it. Also companies that support DRM or produce products that are being pirated. Record companies, movie companies, software companies, etc.

The difficulty I would find in researching the issue is that no one really knows exactly what the ACTA would really consist of because of the policy being created behind closed doors. My initial position is that I'm ok with piracy on the internet. I know it's not admirable, but I also don't pirate everything. If I watch a movie or hear a song that I like, I will go and buy it. I have no problem supporting an artist or a production company if I like they're product. If I download it and I don't like it, I won't, but I also won't be listening to it in the meantime.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100311/1214528523.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement

A new cigarette tax is proposed for the city of New York to hike up taxes on cigarettes up to twice as much. Under this new bill, the average pack of cigarettes would cost $9.20, and in the city, $11.

I don't smoke, and frankly I think you're stupid if you do, but laws are supposed to protect people from each other, not ourselves. It would be the same as implementing a tax on candy or on organic food, abortions, or growing your own food in your backyard. This is incredibly interesting to anyone who smokes, but actually effects everyone. Bills like this could lead to other similar taxes.

The major stakeholders in this issue are tobacco companies, the federal and state government who are sucking in the cash from this, and everyone who smokes cigarettes. The greatest difficulty when researching this topic will be whether it violates the constitution to tax a specific good or service so much.

I hate it when people smoke and it makes me nauseated, but people have the right to smoke cigarettes just like people have the right to not wear their seatbelt. It their right. I don't think an extra tax should be implemented that violates people's rights just to build revenue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/nyregion/19tax.html

I believe in the power and importance of education. Educated people shape the future, provide new breaks in technology, and create solutions for current and future problems. We will continue to be world power by helping children have the knowledge to think for themselves. We also create a generation of innovators through education, forwarding a better life for the future. When people are able to view a situation from all sides, learn how to communicate diplomatically, and be problem-solvers, this will help ensure peace.

Being a student myself, I have experienced the results of a declining economy. Any state funded school is going to suffer these same budget cuts where classrooms become larger and programs get cut. Any school that's state funded will suffer the same fate of losing programs and teachers. For any CSU student, this means that tuition will go up dramatically, and is already doing so. In the years to come it's said to go up even more, making school less affordable for many people. As a result, there will be less opportunity for student loans or grants, and it will be harder for people to get the education they need in order to pursue the career they would like. This also affects many others such as public schools, the federal government, private schools, parents, students, teachers, colleges, college students, even private industry. Education really affects a wide audience.

I expect to encounter many people in opposition on the subject. Even last year people marched the capitol to show that they were against the rising cost of tuition. There are also people who are bitter about losing their jobs and they have no sympathy for teachers having the same problem. But it's not about that, it's about what's important for the future. It's not that teachers are more important than any other profession, it's that education for our children is more important than most other results. I think I will be able to provide a level headed argument for my audience. Many of these people who have lost their jobs are parents and realize the importance of education.

I do agree that cuts need to be made, fat needs to be trimmed but not at the cost of childrens' education. 35 – 47 kids a classroom is too many, and teachers need to have the resources available to them to provide adequate education. School cannot possibly be engaging if each student is one of 30 or 40. Children will also struggle, not being able to get the personal attention some might need.

http://cartoonbox.slate.com/hottopic/?image=4&topicid=49

Good intentions go a long way, especially given the current situation with oil Beyond Petroleum.  If BP involves the community and makes an effort to include local opinion, the town will be less resentful about the spill and will significantly lessen the out-spoken negativity against BP.  Because of the oil spill and the controversy over whether proper regulations were followed, BP could use all the positive PR it can get.  What ever BP can do in order to smooth over their reputation would be beneficial for their business and future mishaps.  This will also help the legal consequences concerning the town.  The locals have every right to sue BP in damages for not cleaning the area properly.  If the local authorities are included in the process there will be less of a chance for legal issues once the cleanup is finished.

Locals have also claimed that the effort for cleanup has been incredibly disorganized and haphazard.  If BP continues on this path of confusion and power struggle, progress won't be made and will get done and the locals will be left with a land uncared for and improperly cleaned.  Local authority will push for more change and will make sure things move forward because they are financially and emotionally invested in the area.  Experts that come in don't have a tie to the land, the locals do, and they will make sure change happens.  They will be the driving force behind proper cleanup.

The author calls for more action. Because the US is too dependent on oil and other fossil fuels, legislation should be passed in order to promote alternative energy solutions. They state that the price increase the average household would pay for power would be worth it to prevent climate change and further oil spills. The author does offer an opposing argument, many claiming that the economy would cripple under such a strain, but no reasoning is given to why it would remain solid with new energy laws. The author states that the new energy bill is worthy of attention, and should be considered to protect our environment and our nation's security.

One of the points made is that students will become more successful communicators when having multiple resources at their disposal for expressing their point of view.  They argue that certain means of communication are better at capturing certain meanings than others.  I couldn't agree more.  If every form of communication was a structured essay in paragraph form, then only those who were talented at writing essays would be able to make it as successful communicators and would be the only ones able to express their opinion.  This would significantly decrease the range of views heard publicly about current issues.  This would also mean that reading would be the primary mode of communication.  Now, I'm not downplaying the positive affect that reading has on our culture, but it would mean that it would take much longer for information to be communicated successfully.  To hear any news we would have to sit down and read it instead of listening to the radio, hearing a news broadcast, etc.  Using different mediums can also help convey meaning that reading cannot.  For many, visualizing colors or sounds is difficult, and they find that these attributes to be successful in film or music.  Having multimodal communication is imperative for students to use the medium that they are most comfortable in, therefore creating a more emotionally moving, intellectually stimulating, and overall successful piece.

Many teachers complain about students not participating in class or simply going through the motions.  This is true for many students.  As a student, I have been writing essays for years, and when I'm asked to write one after another each essay feels the same.  For students to remain engaged in a subject they need to be interested and they need to have a creative outlet.  By encouraging students to use the medium they are most passionate about, students become more involved in the class and become better communicators.  Involving students in multimodal projects also may help them find their passion in life or help them find their dream job.  Teaching students skills is always good, but when a student becomes involved they go above and beyond the normal scope of work and learn how to teach themselves skills.  This is what I hope teachers are trying to accomplish.

When using multimodal forms of communication, students are challenged intellectually and creatively, and they become less fearful of breaking the mold of traditional communication.  This skill is invaluable.  A few years ago we didn't have facebook (whether you regard that as a good thing or bad thing is up to you) or twitter.  Because people played with different forms of communication in order to express their views, we now have so many forms of public technology that people get to pick and choose how they communicate with others.  Challenging traditional ways of doing anything breeds free thinking and new ideas, and challenging the way that we communicate our views will help people become better communicators because they will feel less uncomfortable with things they are unfamiliar with.  Using different forms of communicating will also help people to become more well rounded in communicating and give them the skills they need in order to become more successful in other aspects of life.  They will be able to communicate with people who are difficult to communicate with, or convey an idea to large masses of people.

Overall I think that Takayoshi and Selfe did well at emphasizing their points in arguing for multimodal communication and their reasoning is sound.  Communication is not cut and dry, it's forever evolving, changing, shifting, and challenging our previous ideas.  We should encourage progress and creativity.

I think the police officer wasn't necessarily justified in punching the 17 year old girl, however, people must take into account that officers have a split second to make a decision and we have weeks to tear it apart.  I do think that the officer committed profiling because who gets arrested for jaywalking? Jaywalking?!  You usually get a ticket IF that.  The fact that he was going to arrest her for it was excessive and silly.

View the article at http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Cop-Caught-Hitting-Girl-In-The-Face-Seattle-Police-Officer-Punches-17-Year-Old-Female/Article/201006315650356?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_4&lid=ARTICLE_15650356_Cop_Caught_Hitting_Girl_In_The_Face%3A_Seattle_Police_Officer_Punches_17-Year-Old_Female