Wikirebels is about a group of hackers, lead by Julian Assange, who started a website called Wikileaks. Wikileaks is a site devoted to finding censored information and sharing it with the general public. They believe in total freedom of the press and the unrestricted flow of information.
The documentary begins by giving some background on Assange. He grew up in Australia and became interested in hacking at a young age. He was found guilty of minor hacking crimes around the age of 13, but he only had to pay minor fees. He came to the U.S. and started Wikileaks. The first 20 minutes of the documentary are about the site and their mission. However, in 2010, Wikileaks made a serious name for itself when it released thousands of classified documents and video clips from the U.S. militrary during the Iraq War. Included in these is a clip from a U.S. militray helicopter in which the captain fires on innocent civilians, and then fires on people that try to help them. The classified material was released by Bradley Manning, a young officer in the war, who was disturbed by what he read and saw and believed the public needed to know. He now faces charges of up to 52 years in prison. Wikileaks is continuing to work on releasing classified information, despite some complications with rape charges brought against Assange in Sweden. In the end, the documentary shows what Wikileaks is working on now, which is also classified, but this time, they are going to edit it to protect national security secrets.
The film does a lot of interviews, which advance the plot. It follows key members of Wikileaks around, getting background on them and their role in the site. In a way, the documentary is similar to a profile documentary, but it focuses on mutiple people. I like how the organize it, by giving background, then showing wikileaks' big discovery, and then showing what they are doing now.
The dramatic aspects of the film were not too noticeable, although they did a good job when they cut back and forth between the helicopter footage and the interviews with the wikileaks personell.
The film portrays the dirty basements and beat up apartments that wikileaks is based out of very well, by shooting the interviews in cluttered, messy areas. The film also uses rack focus shots very well throughout.
Although the first 20 minutes of the film are kind of slow, and some of the footage is low quality, I would still recommend this film for two main reasons. The first is that it is an interesting portayal of an organization with a very interesting philosophy. The second reason is that many people, even after wikileaks released the footage and information, still haven't seen or read it, and this film provides a nice summary.
Here is a clip from the first couple minutes of the film:
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Don't Blame the Sociopath with the Gun
In the tragedy in Newtown on Friday, there seems to be a clear culprit--Adam Lanza, the shooter. However, blaming him for what happened is insensitive, illogical, and counterproductive to solving America's gun violence problem. The real culprit in this massacre is our government and our society.
Gun control is a topic that few politicians are willing to discuss. In the 2012 presidential town hall debate, the candidates were asked about gun control. Obama, trying to appeal to conservatives, started by saying, "I believe in the 2nd amendment. We've got a long tradition of hunting, and sportmen, and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves." He then emphasized "the importance of parents, and the importance of schools," in preventing gun violence. I don't want to burst your bubble Mr. President, but no amount of parenting or schooling is going to prevent sociopath with access to a gun from using it. Romney began with: "I'm not in favor of new pieces of legislation about guns." Politicians refuse to adress gun control in a serious manner because they believe it is political suicide.
However, not discussing it is societal suicide. There have been too many instances in this country's recent history in which a mentally unstable person has gotten their hands on assault weapons, and the result is always the same; our leaders end up making tearful speeches and comforting the families of victims. But then, after a couple weeks or so, the whole incident goes into the back of their mind and they go on with bussiness as usual. However, for the victims, and the families of the victims, life doesn't go back to being "business as usual." For many of them, nothing will ever again be "bussiness as usual."
Society is also to blame for this tragedy. In the U.S., and, to be fair, many places around the world, there is a stigma surrounding mental illness. Mental illness is something people are born with, just like Sickle Cell Anemia and Systic Fibrosis. If the mentally ill were able to get help as easily and as fearlessly as someone with Sickle Cell Anemia, it would vastly reduce the number of mass shootings in America.
There will always be people in society, who, if they get the chance, will go on a rampage and kill innocent people. It's societies job to keep guns out of their hands and to get them the treatment and help they need. And as for our politicians, it's time for them to stop backing down, and start the conversation about gun control. As Americans, we have to push for tighter restricitons on guns and better treatment for the mentally ill--because one gun related death is too many; and 26 is way too many.
Gun control is a topic that few politicians are willing to discuss. In the 2012 presidential town hall debate, the candidates were asked about gun control. Obama, trying to appeal to conservatives, started by saying, "I believe in the 2nd amendment. We've got a long tradition of hunting, and sportmen, and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves." He then emphasized "the importance of parents, and the importance of schools," in preventing gun violence. I don't want to burst your bubble Mr. President, but no amount of parenting or schooling is going to prevent sociopath with access to a gun from using it. Romney began with: "I'm not in favor of new pieces of legislation about guns." Politicians refuse to adress gun control in a serious manner because they believe it is political suicide.
However, not discussing it is societal suicide. There have been too many instances in this country's recent history in which a mentally unstable person has gotten their hands on assault weapons, and the result is always the same; our leaders end up making tearful speeches and comforting the families of victims. But then, after a couple weeks or so, the whole incident goes into the back of their mind and they go on with bussiness as usual. However, for the victims, and the families of the victims, life doesn't go back to being "business as usual." For many of them, nothing will ever again be "bussiness as usual."
Society is also to blame for this tragedy. In the U.S., and, to be fair, many places around the world, there is a stigma surrounding mental illness. Mental illness is something people are born with, just like Sickle Cell Anemia and Systic Fibrosis. If the mentally ill were able to get help as easily and as fearlessly as someone with Sickle Cell Anemia, it would vastly reduce the number of mass shootings in America.
There will always be people in society, who, if they get the chance, will go on a rampage and kill innocent people. It's societies job to keep guns out of their hands and to get them the treatment and help they need. And as for our politicians, it's time for them to stop backing down, and start the conversation about gun control. As Americans, we have to push for tighter restricitons on guns and better treatment for the mentally ill--because one gun related death is too many; and 26 is way too many.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Flaws in my History Textbook
A couple weeks ago, I was reading my history textbook for class, when I came upon a startling, although not altogether surprising paragraph. The chapter was about demographics and the "American melting pot." The paragraph reads: "Until recently, the largest minority group in the country has been the African American population. One in eight Americans is a descendent of these reluctant immigrants..." Now, this quote in and of itself isn't that bad; it just struck me as a good way to begin pointing out some of the flaws in the book. I thought I would give the quote before I outline the other flaws in the textbook.
1. The book often says ridiculous things, like the "reluctant immigrant" bit. It seems out of touch with current society and culture, kind of like the ol' grandpa in the family that still calls homosexuals "fairies." It was published in 2009, so the excuse of it being simply outdated doesn't really work.
2. The book includes some statistics that are bound to change and doesn't acknowledge that the statistics are bound to change. For example, when discussing women and minorites in Congress, it gives specific numbers of how many there are in the present tense with no asterisk or any acknowledgement that these numbers will change.
3. The book is wordy, unclear, and badly written. One such wordy, confusing sentence reads as follows: "Nevertheless, bargaining, in the form of trading support on two or more policies or providing specific benefits for representatives and senators, occurs less often and plays a less critical role in the creation of presidential coalitions in Congress than one might think." A textbook is supposed to make things clearer, not much more confusing.
4. Lastly, the textbook is dry, boring, uninformative, and its only insights are into the obvious. Textbooks, as a general rule, are supposed to teach. However, in this book I often find myself factchecking the book while reading, instead of actually learning.
Now, after listening to me rant about how bad the book is, one might ask, "So what?" which I believe is an important question. It's just a bad book, there are plenty of bad books out there. What's the big deal? I think the reason I have a problem with it is that it is an AP Textbook, designed to help students do well on the AP test--the cumulative, all-important test. If all one's supposed to learn for this class can be learned from this god-awful book, then the way the curriculum is structured needs to be seriously reconsidered.
1. The book often says ridiculous things, like the "reluctant immigrant" bit. It seems out of touch with current society and culture, kind of like the ol' grandpa in the family that still calls homosexuals "fairies." It was published in 2009, so the excuse of it being simply outdated doesn't really work.
2. The book includes some statistics that are bound to change and doesn't acknowledge that the statistics are bound to change. For example, when discussing women and minorites in Congress, it gives specific numbers of how many there are in the present tense with no asterisk or any acknowledgement that these numbers will change.
3. The book is wordy, unclear, and badly written. One such wordy, confusing sentence reads as follows: "Nevertheless, bargaining, in the form of trading support on two or more policies or providing specific benefits for representatives and senators, occurs less often and plays a less critical role in the creation of presidential coalitions in Congress than one might think." A textbook is supposed to make things clearer, not much more confusing.
4. Lastly, the textbook is dry, boring, uninformative, and its only insights are into the obvious. Textbooks, as a general rule, are supposed to teach. However, in this book I often find myself factchecking the book while reading, instead of actually learning.
Now, after listening to me rant about how bad the book is, one might ask, "So what?" which I believe is an important question. It's just a bad book, there are plenty of bad books out there. What's the big deal? I think the reason I have a problem with it is that it is an AP Textbook, designed to help students do well on the AP test--the cumulative, all-important test. If all one's supposed to learn for this class can be learned from this god-awful book, then the way the curriculum is structured needs to be seriously reconsidered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)