Too Immune?

If you have watched Law & Order or Lethal Weapon 2 at some point in your life, then you probably know what diplomatic immunity is, or at least understand the basic concept. But what is it really, and how far will it stretch over and protect those that have it assigned to them? Is it just something to walk around and gloat with, or is it actually helpful?

Diplomatic immunity is “immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State enjoyed by the members of the diplomatic staff, and of the administrative and technical staff and of the service staff of the mission.” In simpler terms, it is the privilege of exemption from certain laws and taxes granted to diplomats by the country in which they are working. This idea was officially agreed upon in 1961 as part of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Today, there are 187 countries that allow and provide diplomatic immunity.

The difficulty with diplomatic immunity is that it puts nations in a bind when the “Diplomatic Immunity Card” is played. The privilege was initially granted, in essence, to provide strong relationships between countries. So what would you do if you were the head of a government and someone from another country’s government, who operated his job within your country’s borders, was accused of a petty crime and decided to say that he was exempt from committing that crime due to his diplomatic immunity? Would you have him convicted of the crime because your policy is that everyone needs to understand the law, or will you let it slide because your true desire is to have a more peaceful and less strenuous partnership with the diplomat’s country? Odds are that you would take international harmony, trust, and partnership over international discourse, which is what the previously used situation really boils down to.

To really put this into perspective, here are some actual uses of diplomatic immunity and their results. (1) Zaire officials were sued by their landlord for neglecting to pay the rent, which compiled to a debt of $400,000. This is when the U.S. State Department stepped in, saying that the Zaireans were protected from paying by diplomatic immunity. The case ended when a circuit court agreed with the diplomatic immunity statement. (2) In 1996, United Nations diplomats in New York managed to rack up 143,508 parking violations, which comes to a hefty amount of $15.8 million dollars in fines. Of those 140,000+ summons, diplomatic immunity cleared each and every one of them. (3) Here is an example of exercised diplomatic immunity outside of the United States. In 1979, the Burmese Ambassador to Sri Lanka used his “Diplomatic Immunity Card” to weasel his way out of murder. One night, the Burmese Ambassador waited at home for his wife to return. Reportedly, she was having an affair with a member of a Sri Lanka band. Upon her arrival, he shot her. The next morning, he set up a funeral pyre in the backyard on their property in Sri Lanka. In front of neighbors and police officers, the Ambassador threw his wife into the flames. When the police came to arrest him, he said that they could not enter because his house was on Burmese soil. The Burmese government responded by taking him out of Sri Lanka, and he was never charged.

So diplomatic immunity has been used as an excuse for murder, tax evasion, rent negligence, parking wherever you feel like parking, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and slavery. Personally, I understand why we have diplomatic immunity. It helps establish soundness within the relations of governments. However, I also do not believe that your importance to your government should affect how you are treated within another country’s borders when it comes to crime. It does not matter whether you are the President of a European country, the son of a Middle Eastern diplomat, a desperate parent in an impoverished town, or a serial killer. None of these situations can give you the right to escape the law. I understand that there is no pure justice within the legal system, but I do believe that eliminating diplomatic immunity can be a start.

If you commit the crime, you should be held accountable.

Here is a video providing examples of diplomatic immunity being used:

Here are the links to the sources used for this post:

• http://mentalfloss.com/article/24534/8-shameless-abuses-diplomatic-immunity
• http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/15/can_you_get_away_with_any_crime_if_you_have_diplomatic_immunity
• http://www.rd.com/advice/diplomatic-immunity-going-too-far/
• http://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2012/mar/28/dominique-strauss-kahn-diplomatic-immunity-scandal
• https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/diplomatic-immunity-how-does-it-work

Pushing Towards an Energy Revelation

In today’s day and age, coming up with new energy ideas is at the forefront of many minds around the world. These ideas have ranged from solar to wind to nuclear.  Another idea has been to harness the kinetic energy produced by an action and use that as a source of power and usable energy. Perhaps the most practical version of this new idea is already starting to give promising results. The first setting for this door is the entrance to the Natuurcafé La Port in the Driebergen-Zeist train station of The Netherlands. This technology has also moved across the Atlantic Ocean, where scientists in New York City are working on the door and its functions.

The process by which these doors collect energy are quite simple. First, a person pushes the door. Next, the movement of the doors creates kinetic energy. Then, this kinetic energy is captured by a generator. And finally, the generator sends the harnessed energy to supercapacitors for storage and distribution. This also makes the conditions that must be met for these doors to work possessable. The doors must have the necessary energy producing and storing equipment attached and back-up energy sources need to be put in place if the area(s) that the doors power can no longer be supported by just the doors. One of the biggest upsides that revolving kinetic doors have are that there is no waste. It is not like nuclear energy when you have a great energy source but also a great amount of nuclear waste. Instead these doors only produce energy that can be used. There may not be any government investments in these doors at the current moment, but as more and more scientists look into this idea, government interest is bound to spark.

The whole process of how this energy gets from its point of origin to its destination is quite ingenious. After the door revolves and the kinetic energy is produced, the generators that harness it send the energy into storing mechanisms called supercapacitors. These mechanisms serve the purpose of being the holding cells for the newly-produced energy and also has the distributors that send the energy to the area that it will be required to power. After the energy is sent, rather than needing a conversion, it powers what it needs to immediately. This makes this energy system a decentralized system because the energy that the doors produce will be used in the building that the doors are built into. The unfortunate thing about this energy production method is that it cannot translate to automobiles.

While these may be a great source of energy, it will take a LOT of revolving doors to create an impact on the world energy usage. Essentially, any building that has or could use a revolving door, would need a kinetic energy revolving door installed. But this is the world-view obstacle. If someone’s goal is to find an easier way to power a building, then the kinetic energy revolving doors are definitely the way to go. This reason is also the driving business incentive for why buildings should incorporate kinetic revolving doors into their building plans (or renovation plans). From the public standpoint, this new inclusion can help them be a part of energy production and let them know that they are producing energy. This awareness is something that the scientists and engineers in New York plan on including: they would set up an electronic display that showed how much energy each person produced. Revolving kinetic doors also make a compelling argument for why governments should use them: their installation process is not mind-bendingly difficult, nor is how they work. Lastly, and light-heartedly, kids can also really take part in the energy-producing process of these doors because there are very few things in this world that a child finds more fun than going around and around and around in a revolving door.

Table 1. Energy savings comparison

Revolving Door Usage	50%	75%	100%
Saving of annual Energy consumption	14.5%	38.7%	74.0%
# of houses the saved energy can heat in one year	1.0	2.7	5.1
# of years the saved energy can light a 100W bulb	5.8	15.3	29.0

Note. Adapted from “Modifying habits towards sustainability: a study of revolving door usage on the MIT

campus” by B.A. Cullum, O. Lee, S. Sukkasi, and D. Wesolokski, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2006.

Here is a video of these innovative revolving doors featuring the engineers from Fluxxlab. Fluxxlab is based in New York City and one of the organizations that is working on these doors.

Sources:

http://goodcleantech.pcmag.com/news-and-events/280000-revolving-door-harnesses-kinetic-energy

http://inhabitat.com/energy-generating-revolving-door-by-boon-edam/

http://inhabitat.com/generate-energy-with-fluxxlabs-revolution-revolving-door/

http://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/sustain.ubc.ca/files/seedslibrary/APSC261_RenewableEnergySources_Group04_Clean.pdf

http://www.buildings.com/article-details/articleid/9452/title/revolving-doors-generate-energy.aspx

http://www.energyharvestingjournal.com/articles/revolving-doors-harvest-human-energy-00001686.asp?sessionid=1

The Quake That Stopped the Battle

The Quake That Stopped the Battle

 

In October of 1989, two clans came from opposing sides of the water, meeting in a series that would determine supremacy. Supremacy of the Oakland-San Francisco Bay area, that is. The Oakland Athletics and the San Francisco Giants faced off in the World Series, and the series had been labeled the Battle of the Bay. But this event is much less remembered for the sports than it is for the terror that struck San Francisco. Following the end of the Series, there was a new nickname for the matchup, The Earthquake Series. Because before Game Three began, a city vibrant with orange and green turned into a crumbled city in a matter of seconds.

San Francisco was not ready for an earthquake, and the results (which will be discussed later) showed. The city had already been the location of one of the greatest natural disasters in the history of the United States, the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. But since that point in time, no major or even semi-major earthquake effected the city. The earthquake was, as David Schwartz, a USGS geologist says, “a wake-up call for this region.” People believed that the San Andreas Fault was no longer a threat due to its length of quietness and calmness. There were no extremely strong and strict building codes. The available machines for earthquake prevention and determining were not in abundance. Perhaps the most shocking thing is that this lack of preparation for this disaster was not as greatly emphasized as it could have been because the epicenter was almost 60 miles away.

 

 

 

 

The Loma Prieta earthquake had a magnitude of 6.9, which was less than the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake (7.8 on the Richter Scale). It only lasted about 12 seconds, but that was more than enough time for it to cause massive destruction across the city of San Francisco and other parts of California. Although there were only 63 casualties of the quake, it left 3757 others injured. Monetarily, the quake delivered damage costs upwards of $6 billion. Of all the structures most hurt by the earthquake, the most badly damaged were the older structures, including the Cypress Street Viaduct and the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. Closer to the epicenter of the disaster, the quake resulted in more than 1,000 landslides. The quake could be felt as far away as western Nevada. Power outages, though much less of a tragic effect, covered most of the surrounding areas. The quake even stopped the World Series for ten days.

 

 

 

 







One of the biggest reasons that this earthquake was much more devastating than it should have been was because of the architectural state and planning of San Franciscan buildings. At the time of the quake, there were no strict and demanding rules targeting earthquake safety. Today, each building is built and reinforced with earthquake-sustaining techniques and guidelines. The bridges have all been reinforced to much greater tolerations. One example of this is the Bay Bridge, which actually had one whole stretch of road collapse during the earthquake. This bridge is now reinforced so that it can (supposedly) withstand any of the earthquakes that will challenge it in the next 1500 years. Although earthquake prediction is still rather difficult, San Francisco and the surrounding areas have much more help on their side for future events. There are now over 200 geographical sensors planted, many more than the small amount of 75 that existed at the time of the earthquake.

 

 

Although it does have more preparations than before, San Francisco is still far from being fully protected and ready for another earthquake. And unfortunately, the only way for San Francisco to really know whether it is well prepared or not is to have it face another earthquake.



 

 

Here are two detailed sources about this event:

 

• http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1930668,00.html
• http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1989_10_18.php

 

Here is a live broadcast that occurred during the earthquake:

(Best if watched beginning at 2:19)



Oh, All the Places Films Go

Oh, All the Places Films Go

One hundred years ago, moving pictures were still a relatively new form of media that were just starting to catch on. However, the idea of sending a finished film from country to country for viewing was not encouraged. The film that cameras used is very fragile, easy to damage, and susceptible to burning. But today, releasing films internationally is very common. Almost every film made today is digital, therefore lessening the problems that actual film brought. There is no physical copy that can be damaged by being held improperly and they will not spontaneously combust. The real reason, though, for the increase in international releases has to do with the expensive budgets of today’s films. The average budget of a film is $70 million. This is why films are sent across the world: to make money.

The globalization of the film industry is a long process, and there are two reasons for why it was so important. First, film festivals and awards ceremonies began opening there competition to all film markets. For example, the Academy Awards (Oscars) did not feature an award for Best Foreign Language Film until 1956, at the 29^th Oscars. This development has mainly targeted the critical acclaim aspect of a film’s success. This development has also brought box office success, but it is not the driving force. Second, other countries wanted to see Hollywood films. This is where the full-blown money aspect comes from. Hollywood studios realized that this was a way for films to make an even bigger profit, leaving more money left over after the humongous budget was paid off.

As a comparison, here are two ways that globalization has affected the outcome of film’s success. The first example is Avatar (2009), an American film directed by James Cameron. This film is the highest grossing film of all time without adjusted inflation. It had (roughly) a $237 million budget. Worldwide, Avatar made over 10 times its budget, finishing its theatrical run with $2,787,965,087. It was shown on over 14,000 movie screens across the world. In the U.S. and Canada, is grossed a little over $760 million. However, the other $2 billion dollars in box office revenue came from international theatres.

The second example is Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000), a Taiwanese film directed by Ang Lee. Ang Lee is a Taiwanese film director who has received widespread acclaim for many of his films, many of which were released in English, rather than his native language. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was also produced by China, Hong Kong, and the United States. Upon its release and in the following aftermath, Crouching Tiger achieved two things. First, the critical acclaim that was a desire first introduced in the mid-1900s. This film was a monumental success among critics. It won numerous awards and was placed in many critics Top 10 lists for films of 2000. At the Oscars, it won four awards: Best Foreign Language Film, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, and Best Original Score. It was even nominated for both Best Picture and Best Director (Ang Lee). Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon also accomplished the Hollywood section of globalization, box office success. The success of this film was not expected, especially the public reception in the United States. Crouching Tiger actually grossed more money in the North America than it did in all other international venues combined. The final statistics are $128,078,872 in North America and $85,446,864 internationally for a combined $213,525,736 box office catch.

Here are some articles on this information:

• http://criticstop10.com/best-of-2000/
• http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=foreign.htm
• http://www.economist.com/node/18178291
• http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/hollywood-era-globalization 

Here is a video that addresses Hollywood's attempts at garnering success in foreign markets:

(This video is most relevant from 1:00-1:30)

Snowden: Hero or Traitor?

 

 

 

 

                Prior to June 2013, the name Edward Snowden did not ring many, if any, bells. However, his revealing of the actions of the National Security Agency, where he worked, launched him into a global spotlight. He placed himself into an ongoing debate: hero or traitor. He also sparked another debate: is the NSA and the U.S. government on the whole invading the privacy of the U.S. citizens and the rest of the world.

                Both debates are difficult to argue without full understanding of the situations. First, looking at the NSA, there is not much information that doesn’t border the invasion of the privacy boundary. In total, the NSA was authorized to spy on 193 countries in one manner or another. In terms of foreign relations, this does not put the United States in good trust with the rest of the world. This not only makes the United States look like a paranoid nation (which we kind of are), but it also makes it appear as those we view almost every nation in the world as a threat to us in one way or another. Looking at another aspect of the NSA’s spying, they [the NSA] have been questioned by other governments and international organizations around the world as to whether their investigations not only broke U.S. laws, but also laws of the corresponding nations.

                When it comes to the involvement of the NSA in possible illegal surveillance on U.S. citizens, the information is much more personal. The first information released regarding the NSA activity focused on a secret court order that resulted in Verizon allowing the NSA to listen in on millions of customers’ phone calls. Next, the public learned that the NSA was collecting information from the biggest search engines, including Facebook and Google. Snowden also included that the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) accompanied the NSA in some of its surveillance.

                Now, for the second debate… Snowden himself. When it comes to debating whether he is a hero or a traitor, the debate is not only between U.S. citizens, it also includes citizens and governments from around the world. The argument that he is a hero is based on what his actions did in their most basic form. They revealed that the U.S. government was spying on both the U.S. citizens and nations around the world. They also showed, as Snowden said in an address to a crowd at the South by Southwest Conference, that he “saw the Constitution being violated on a massive scale.”

                Not surprisingly, the argument that Snowden is a traitor is led by politicians. Speaker of the House John Boehner says that Snowden is a traitor that put innocent citizens in danger. Other politicians view his acts as those of a traitor because he revealed top secret information to other nations. There are also arguments over whether the way that he revealed the information was the best decision, due to the importance and controversy that surrounded the information in question. Other critics look at the way that he obtained the information as illegal.

 

                Personally, I believe that Snowden is a hero, through and through. What the United States government (and the NSA more specifically) did is wrong. I can understand being more wary in today’s world because of 9/11 and the threats of terrorism. However, there is no excuse for monitoring the people that you are supposed to look after without their consent. Also, the United States has no right to watch almost every square inch of the planet. I can understand watching trouble areas of the world, such as the Middle East, to gain an understanding of how the situations there are going, but a full on surveillance is just over the top.

 

 

Here are some related articles:

·         http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-23768248

·         http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

·         http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/personal/2014/03/10/sxsw-edward-snowden-satellite-interview/6232223/

·         http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/01/03/the-three-types-of-nsa-snooping-that-edward-snowden-revealed/

Here is a video debating whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor: