No Where Is Safe: Does Airport Security Actually Help? (Assignment date: 6-29-16)

          During these troubled times, terrorists can strike anywhere, at any moment. One common type of facility in particular is a favorite target to attack: airports. In an article written in response to the terrorist attack at Ataturk Airport in Istanbul this past Tuesday, the author states how the attack shows that, "Subjecting passengers to more security before they board a plane doesn't necessarily deter terrorists." The author's main argument for this statement is that no matter how tight the security, terrorists will still launch an attack if they really want to, as evident in the Istanbul attack, where the security at Ataturk Airport is more extensive than in U.S. airports. While this may be partly true, these security measures most likely do deter a large portion of would-be attackers from opening fire in a heavily secured airport, since most would-be attackers are likely to not be smart enough to plan around the tight security. However, this enhanced security does relatively little to prevent an attack from prepared terrorists that have "done their homework", per se.
          The best solution is presented at the very end of the article by Professor Mark Stewart. He suggests that spying and intelligence work be conducted in order to prevent terrorist attacks before the terrorists even make it to the airports. Even though this is clearly the best and most reliable solution, it has also been proven to fail in the past in the prevention failure of terrorist attacks. A prime example of this is the Boston Bombings conducted by the Tsarnaev brothers in 2013. Evidence has been released to the public that the United States was warned of the pair by the Russian government in advance, but the government failed to take any preventative action, and lower levels of law enforcement also received no word of them at all. This inaction resulted in a bombing that rocked the nation. Unless the government could freely cooperate with lower levels of law enforcement to actually prevent terrorist attacks, or take action themselves, then the use of intelligence to foil terrorist attacks is null and void.

Article Link: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/01/world/airport-security-around-the-world.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Nothing's Perfect: Self-Driving Cars' First Casualty (Assignment date: 6-20-16)

          As technology has progressed so rapidly over the last several decades, it has been proven time and time again that no technology is perfect. A newly released article from the New York Times yesterday talked about a fatal car crash involving a self-driven Tesla Model S in Williston, Florida. It happened when a tractor trailer appeared suddenly around the corner and the car failed to put on its brakes, leading to a full speed crash. This incident is the first of its kind, and most likely the first of many as this technology slowly integrates itself into society. In Tesla's press release, they stated that the circumstances of the crash involved a light reflection that prevented the car's sensors from noticing the vehicle and brake in time. At the very tail end of the article, the author slips in at the last moment that Tesla has also elaborated that their self-driving technology is still new and requires that people view it as such. In the very last sentence of the article, it is stated that when the autopilot feature is activated, a box pops up in a digital display that explains that at this point in time the auto pilot is merely an assisting feature that still requires two hands to be on the steering wheel.
          No technology is perfect, especially the unfinished prototype self driving technology implemented in the Tesla Model S. This accident was a combination of both driver and vehicle failure. While the vehicle did fail to sense the tractor trailer in front of it, the driver of the vehicle also failed to follow the instructions provided by the system. The article also mentions how he had taken several videos of himself in his Model S while it was in self drive mode, with neither hand on the wheel, so it can be assumed that he most likely did not have his hands on the wheel at the time of the accident, it is also likely that he was not paying attention to the road as well in his confidence in the self-driving technology. While there are most definitely measures that can be taken to improve the technology, which most certainly is not far off, there will always be some sort of flaw in a technology that leads to possibly fatal consequences. However, as long as it reduces the overall number of car accidents in America, then the technology is worth investing in and using properly, which includes following all given directions.

Article Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/business/self-driving-tesla-fatal-crash-investigation.html?ref=technology

The Iraq War From the View of A Veteran (Assignment date: 7-1-16)

           In a guest OP-ED column from 2013, as a part of a six part series for the anniversary of the end of the war in Iraq, veterans sent in pictures and their stories of the war to the column and they were compiled in a series of short stories. The one that was perhaps the most intriguing was one titled "War is Over" by a veteran named Perry O'Brien. He started off by talking about a particular night at a clinic in Kandahar that he remembered well. It was the night he decided that the war was not worth it and saw no reason for he and his company to be going through the battle against themselves. He says this because, at the time, more soldiers were being treated for friendly fire wounds than wounds from enemy fire. While his whole company was sitting idle in the desert fighting off inner demons, the media still portrayed the same old war footage of night time bombings and tanks in formation. He then talked about how when he got home in 2004, while some of his other comrades went on other tours in Afghanistan, he filled out the paper work to become a conscientious objector to the war and be honorably discharged from the military. Only two years later, he ends up at a funeral for a sergeant from his old company. He notes that some of his former comrades are in civilian clothes, as uncomfortable as he is at the event, while the rest are in uniform, back on American soil from multiple tours of combat overseas. Then he jumps to 2011, the end of the war. He talks about how it is all over magazines that end up on the ground, trampled and in the mud, but for as much talk about the war that they contain, there was no mention of Kandahar or the soldiers that were injured from friendly fire and accidents.
            This absence of what actually happened overseas is a huge issue that is all too prevalent within the mass media. Instead of reporting on what was actually going on overseas, they only reported on the big exciting events where U.S. forces were actively clashing with enemy forces. This is because the media wants to prolong citizen interest in overseas conflict so that they can bring in readers and revenue, a consequence of the profit model of media companies. If the media reported on what was actually happening on a daily basis in Iraq and Afghanistan, the anti war movement would grow and discourage readers from reading news stories about the wars in the Middle East.

Article Link: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/a-war-before-and-after-part-6/#more-141766