On Monday, the French court, after a years long legal battle, finally convicted the French branch of the Church of Scientology of fraud, fining the organization the equivalent of nearly $900,000, but some are calling for more.The church was originally sued by a group of former members who had requested reparations or refunds upon their exit from the church. One woman in particular claimed to have been pressured into buying $30,000 worth of tests, programs and other paraphernalia before her request to leave the church. While supporters of the church are beginning the appeal process, its opponents are calling for a full out ban on the Scientology, citing it as a glorified pyramid scheme.
I am no fan of the Church of Scientology. In my opinion, any religion that sounds like it comes from the pages of a science fiction writer, and - surprise surprise - was actually 'prophesied' by a science fiction writer seems suspect to me. And when you add to it a surprisingly steep series of fees to remain a member or advance in the ranks, I begin to feel that L. Ron Hubbard wasn't a prophet, just a very shrewd businessman. However, despite my feelings about Scientology, or any religion for that matter, I don't believe that any group of people should be able to decide what others can believe and what makes a religion. Or rather, I don't think that anyone should be able to say what doesn't make a religion. People always have, and always will, believed anything they wanted to believe, and if their belief required monetary donations, so be it. No major movements have been made to shut down the Catholic church, even though donations and tithes from its many adherents have lead what might the most powerful charitable organization in the world to simply being the richest private institution in the world. Challenging the Church of Scientology in such a manner challenges the very foundation that religion is based upon - faith. When it comes down to it, a religion is made when any group of people get together and decide to adopt a certain set of beliefs, and no government should have the right to control faith. A church spokeswoman called the conviction "an Inquisition for the modern times", and though I acknowledge the exaggeration, I agree with the sentiment that a movement for banning a religion that does not directly harm those who do not adhere to its beliefs seems somewhat backwards.
In order to avoid hypocrisy, I must leave the questions open to you. Should France, which legally does have the right to do so, ban Scientology? Should the ex-members of Scientology even have won the lawsuit, considering that they were agreeing to the terms of the religion at the time said payments were made? And finally, what characterizes religious legitimacy? I have made my feelings clear, but I won't tell you what to believe.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-scientology_28int.ART.State.Edition1.4c27596.html
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
"China's Short-term and Long-term Economic Goals and Prospects"
"China’s Short-term and Long-term Economic Goals and Prospects"
Recession. Really? Not another causational interpretation of the current global economic depression, its respective consequences and national responsive attempts. Well, yeah…but I am by no means seeking to fashion an unbearable redundancy in blogging about this topically inescapable reality that occupies a position of disproportionate prominence in seemingly every media of information we expose ourselves too. And, hey, at least it’s not about the U.S. this time; at least not entirely…this recession is systemically global, so be reasonable. In coping with this current recession, the Republic of China faces some interesting challenge in determining helpful policy responses. China’s current status can be summarized as such: after enjoying a 9% growth rate through the first three quarters of 2008, China’s GDP suffered a significant decline in growth rate to just 2.6% in the fourth quarter of that year. The Chinese government and the IMF as well as other outside analysts continue to project growth-rate numbers significantly higher than actual quarter-to-quarter growth, and consequently “the pace of China’s growth slowdown has consistently exceeded the expectations of the Chinese government and most outside analysts.” This “unanticipated nature of the decline in China,” has had significant ramifications for the rest of the world, as its slowdown “attributable primarily to macroeconomic and exchange rate policies and other domestic factors,” including a dramatic drop in export growth to -17.5 percent in 2009 “has been greatly exacerbated by an unexpectedly deep economic collapse in US, EU, and Japan.” In seeking to achieve an agreeable resolve to its currently depressing status (pun intended;), the Chinese government is faced with this dilemma: “short-run political expediency versus long-term economic efficiency.” While China’s devotion of 7% percent of GDP or 4 trillion Yuan ($586 million) to economic stimulus in 2008, open to extension and expansion as the recession advances thereafter, revitalizing its historical economic habits, seem to encourage growth that is unsustainable. Throughout China, “under the cover of economic emergency, the local governments will now ignore the recently-strengthened laws on environmental protection, worker safety, and medical insurance in order to encourage investment.” It remains utterly clear that “the present mode of economic development has given China the dirtiest air in the world, is polluting more and more of the water resources, and, is, possibly changing the climate pattern within China.” At present, China faces the additional environmental concern of managing its formidable water shortage, as currently “China uses 67 to 75 percent of the 800 to 900 billion cubic meters of water available annually, and present trends in water consumption would project the usage rate in 2030 to be 78 to 100 percent.” Obviously this is a limiting factor in the way of pursuing any sort of sustainable growth. So in trying to determine the best possible resolve to China’s current recessionary situation, what would Rawls delegate precedence to, the short or long term economic goals, and general well-being of the least-advantaged, here being those made the worst off by the ramifications of China’s economic downturn?
Source of Reference :
http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2009/0217_chinas_economy_woo.aspx?p=1
Recession. Really? Not another causational interpretation of the current global economic depression, its respective consequences and national responsive attempts. Well, yeah…but I am by no means seeking to fashion an unbearable redundancy in blogging about this topically inescapable reality that occupies a position of disproportionate prominence in seemingly every media of information we expose ourselves too. And, hey, at least it’s not about the U.S. this time; at least not entirely…this recession is systemically global, so be reasonable. In coping with this current recession, the Republic of China faces some interesting challenge in determining helpful policy responses. China’s current status can be summarized as such: after enjoying a 9% growth rate through the first three quarters of 2008, China’s GDP suffered a significant decline in growth rate to just 2.6% in the fourth quarter of that year. The Chinese government and the IMF as well as other outside analysts continue to project growth-rate numbers significantly higher than actual quarter-to-quarter growth, and consequently “the pace of China’s growth slowdown has consistently exceeded the expectations of the Chinese government and most outside analysts.” This “unanticipated nature of the decline in China,” has had significant ramifications for the rest of the world, as its slowdown “attributable primarily to macroeconomic and exchange rate policies and other domestic factors,” including a dramatic drop in export growth to -17.5 percent in 2009 “has been greatly exacerbated by an unexpectedly deep economic collapse in US, EU, and Japan.” In seeking to achieve an agreeable resolve to its currently depressing status (pun intended;), the Chinese government is faced with this dilemma: “short-run political expediency versus long-term economic efficiency.” While China’s devotion of 7% percent of GDP or 4 trillion Yuan ($586 million) to economic stimulus in 2008, open to extension and expansion as the recession advances thereafter, revitalizing its historical economic habits, seem to encourage growth that is unsustainable. Throughout China, “under the cover of economic emergency, the local governments will now ignore the recently-strengthened laws on environmental protection, worker safety, and medical insurance in order to encourage investment.” It remains utterly clear that “the present mode of economic development has given China the dirtiest air in the world, is polluting more and more of the water resources, and, is, possibly changing the climate pattern within China.” At present, China faces the additional environmental concern of managing its formidable water shortage, as currently “China uses 67 to 75 percent of the 800 to 900 billion cubic meters of water available annually, and present trends in water consumption would project the usage rate in 2030 to be 78 to 100 percent.” Obviously this is a limiting factor in the way of pursuing any sort of sustainable growth. So in trying to determine the best possible resolve to China’s current recessionary situation, what would Rawls delegate precedence to, the short or long term economic goals, and general well-being of the least-advantaged, here being those made the worst off by the ramifications of China’s economic downturn?
Source of Reference :
http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2009/0217_chinas_economy_woo.aspx?p=1
Stimulus with a Carnegie approach
The author of recent editorial from the New York Times calls for another bolster of federal economic stimulus. He sites the weak and fragile progress the economy has made on account of immense stimulus spending. While I agree that the government cannot sit on its hands and pray that the economy continues to heal, I don’t agree with that we can ignore the repercussions of another immense stimulus package.
The federal government is already feeling the burden from the current debt as shown by record low Treasury bill values, and more debt could only make matters worse. The author shrugs off the long-term consequences saying, “The immediate need for stimulus trumps the longer-term need for deficit reduction. A self-reinforcing stretch of economic weakness would be far costlier than additional stimulus.” With every passing second the federal debt is rising, and that is essentially because the government is spending money it doesn’t have. The way the government obtains that money is by selling treasury bills (a short term loan in essence) to either other countries or investors, but each time the government sells a treasury bill, the value of future treasury bills decreases. Thus, if the government continues deficit spending, it becomes exceedingly more difficult for the government to pay for programs in the future, because the amount of debt that each additional expenditure creates continually increases. So with this giant debt that we have already, and the value of treasury bills at record lows, do we really want more immense spending? I am not an economics expert, but I do know that the most recent stimulus packages cost immense sums of money and I hear Washington talk about more giant sums of money everyday for various efforts. As a young person, even I fear that my grandkids could still feel the effects of this debt. But, since I agree the government has to take some action, we have to attack the problem of the national debt as well.
In order fix be able to fix the problem of national debt, I see no other way to attack the problem but by the same way Andrew Carnegie attacked his budget deficits—cut costs, and when you cannot cut anymore, cut again. While the federal government may need to be more careful and gentle when cutting spending, it needs to be done. Even the giant and powerful American government has its limits. Right now, we are trying to fight wars abroad, stimulate our economy, institute national healthcare, along with sponsoring all the other thousands of social programs, down to the most basic amenities such as the police, fire rescue, and the judicial system. We need to focus our priorities, so I believe if we follow a similar model to Andrew Carnegie and cut where we can. We can stimulate our economy without having to force our future generations to pay our bills, literally.
BM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/opinion/27tue1.html?ref=opinion
Monday, October 26, 2009
Unbiased Eggs: The Supposedly Impartial Jury
In April of 2008, Texas Child Protective Services conducted a raid on a little-known, peaceful community near Eldorado, Texas, removing almost 500 children from their homes in order to investigate claims of physical and sexual abuse. With the boom of media coverage that immediately followed, it seemed impossible that any politically aware American could not have heard of the drama surrounding the Yearning for Zion Ranch. People from all over the nation began to debate the justice (or lack thereof) of state intervention into private and religious matters with the aim of defending constitutional rights for the innocent.
But now, as courts begin to review the charges of crimes placed upon twelve male members of this fundamentalist sect, another, more subtle question comes into play. With a population of just under 3,000, Schleicher County (composed of Eldorado and the surrounding area) is tight-knit to say the least. Though not all county members belong to the sect itself, they doubtless all have a more intimate knowledge of the proceedings than other Americans observing through the television screen. With only this population to choose from, the Texan courts handling the case must now answer a very important question: who to pick for the jury?
Ideally, no one in a jury would know anything about a case beforehand, limiting their basis of reasoning to the facts presented in court. When this is not possible, the goal is for the chosen members of the jury not to have any predetermined opinions about the case, as this would presumably alter their decision-making process. We might compare this practical situation to such theoretical political ideas as Rawls’ “original position” or Smith’s “impartial spectator,” where all citizens taking part in society are expected to (at least hypothetically) separate themselves from their biases in order to come to just conclusions. The real world, and the case at hand especially, presents a practical challenge to this assumption. It seems clear that at this point the courts will not be able to form a jury that is completely ignorant, as it were, of the case at hand. At best, they might find a group of 12 people who at least claim to have no preconceptions about the justice or injustice of the situation. (Otherwise, according to law, the trial will need to be moved elsewhere {but would even this solve the problem?}) Though it must be taken into consideration that over a year and a half has elapsed since the original event occurred; surely the townspeople couldn’t have simply blocked all knowledge of the event from their everyday conversations and thought processes. In this situation, we might wonder: can the state reasonably rely on such undeniably human subjects as it can find to set aside their beliefs—not even to create a comprehensive theory of justice—but just to deliberate fairly on a single trial?
[Just for comparison, imagine something similar occurring within Princeton’s secluded campus community of a mere 5,000 undergraduate students. Could any of those exemplary moral and logical minds feasibly remain unbiased enough to serve as impartial judges in a case that begins and ends so close to home?]
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2009/10/26/dl.jc.polygamist.cnn
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/jury-selection-in-us-polygamist-trial-20091027-hhp7.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldorado,_Texas
But now, as courts begin to review the charges of crimes placed upon twelve male members of this fundamentalist sect, another, more subtle question comes into play. With a population of just under 3,000, Schleicher County (composed of Eldorado and the surrounding area) is tight-knit to say the least. Though not all county members belong to the sect itself, they doubtless all have a more intimate knowledge of the proceedings than other Americans observing through the television screen. With only this population to choose from, the Texan courts handling the case must now answer a very important question: who to pick for the jury?
Ideally, no one in a jury would know anything about a case beforehand, limiting their basis of reasoning to the facts presented in court. When this is not possible, the goal is for the chosen members of the jury not to have any predetermined opinions about the case, as this would presumably alter their decision-making process. We might compare this practical situation to such theoretical political ideas as Rawls’ “original position” or Smith’s “impartial spectator,” where all citizens taking part in society are expected to (at least hypothetically) separate themselves from their biases in order to come to just conclusions. The real world, and the case at hand especially, presents a practical challenge to this assumption. It seems clear that at this point the courts will not be able to form a jury that is completely ignorant, as it were, of the case at hand. At best, they might find a group of 12 people who at least claim to have no preconceptions about the justice or injustice of the situation. (Otherwise, according to law, the trial will need to be moved elsewhere {but would even this solve the problem?}) Though it must be taken into consideration that over a year and a half has elapsed since the original event occurred; surely the townspeople couldn’t have simply blocked all knowledge of the event from their everyday conversations and thought processes. In this situation, we might wonder: can the state reasonably rely on such undeniably human subjects as it can find to set aside their beliefs—not even to create a comprehensive theory of justice—but just to deliberate fairly on a single trial?
[Just for comparison, imagine something similar occurring within Princeton’s secluded campus community of a mere 5,000 undergraduate students. Could any of those exemplary moral and logical minds feasibly remain unbiased enough to serve as impartial judges in a case that begins and ends so close to home?]
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2009/10/26/dl.jc.polygamist.cnn
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/jury-selection-in-us-polygamist-trial-20091027-hhp7.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldorado,_Texas
Health Care Overhaul- We NEED It
Americans, like many others, tend to live in a world filled with misperceptions and delusions, but especially when it comes to healthcare. I mean, what are we thinking? I just can’t believe it when people go out parading around protesting healthcare reform, or when legislators, talk show hosts, or others run their mouths off declaring America to be the healthiest nation with the greatest healthcare system. We are far from. In fact, in the WHO’s last attempt to rank nation’s health care in 2000, the U.S. was a pathetic 37th. VERY FAR from the best.
A fundamental question is, do we want to make health care more affordable by following in the footsteps of other nations, such as France (who was the true leader on the WHO’s list), or not? Why are American debates so introverted? Is it so wrong to just look over at Europe and say, “That seems to be working.” A comparative approach, like that of Sen, would seem to be quite beneficial for this issue.
Now, Congress is debating a health care overhaul. For some reason, health care reform is a partisan issue, but to me it seems more like a special interest problem. Why do republicans feel like health care reform needs to be killed? Oh I know! The insurance companies just won’t be making as much money anymore, and, heaven forbid, they wouldn’t be able to turn away patients with pre-existing conditions. In short, money talks. And it is saying kill healthcare reform.
But I’m not saying that republicans and whoever else is against health care reform is a bad person. I’m sure they are nice people (most of them at least). What I’m saying is they are ignoring the needs of millions of Americans who can not afford the current system, which is one of the most expensive but also least efficient on the planet. In short, if a public option, or whatever the new politically correct term is going to be, works, then let’s have it already. In my opinion, it will work. It’s probably going to be a tough transition, but that’s what happens when you try to change an almost immovable titan that is the American health insurance industry. We have become entrenched in a system no longer based on helping people in need, but, instead, a profit based industry like any other. If the government can offer a more affordable option, and someone who can’t afford the high priced private policy now has the ability to go see a doctor, then who is being hurt?
Concisely speaking, we have a substandard health care system, but we also have the opportunity to change it for the better. Let’s make the most of it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33479225/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2007/May/Mirror--Mirror-on-the-Wall--An-International-Update-on-the-Comparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx
Passing the Buck (and Not Necessarily the Bong) on Marijuana
A splendid surprise for marijuana users (medical users, that is) came in an announcement from the Department of Justice that federal officials will no longer prosecute legal users or providers. The announcement has made states the primary authorities in dealing with their own laws regarding medical marijuana and its uses.
The measure has presented a key dilemma in federalism: to what extent can states dictate their own law without the support of federal standards? The answer, varying greatly across states, has some claiming that the federal government has abandoned a key responsibility.
The result has a been a sporadic scramble across the country as states move back and forth on issues previously handled by the federal government. Some states, having already legalized marijuana, have welcomed the policy as finally freeing them to pursue their own policies to the fullest extent without the intrusion of the federal government. Others, seeking to legalize marijuana in the near future, welcome the change as important in their own paths forward . Still, others (those states that depended on federal support for administering their own system) have reacted in disbelief amidst the budget cuts that have consumed states across the country. In response, they have imposed bans or moratoriums on current uses of medical marijuana.
The question is not whether the legalization of marijuana is itself a worthy cause (in fact, the cause has garnered considerable support as of late from those who advocate its therapeutic qualities and the importance legalization would have on tax revenues). The question is one of control. By adopting a hands-off approach, the federal government has created a legal vacuum for two key actors: states that do not possess the means for enforcing their own standards and states that have failed to define their own stance on the issue.
The government has taken a great effort at making states the authors of their own fate. To an extent, the new approach has empowered local lawmakers to exercise greater control over a policy that was previously left to higher authorities—oftentimes authorities drowned by bureaucratic barriers of time and money. While this is a move for the better in matters of republicanism, the government has provided little consolation for states bogged down in the logistical constraints of modern democracy. In states where institutional restraints and budgetary concerns do not allow for the enforcement of a state’s own law, the federal government should provide at least some sort of institutional or monetary support (at least temporarily) until states get their act together.
For an in-depth look at the political controversy, read more at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/us/26marijuana.html?ref=us
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Run, children, run! (Run away from Nozick! He is the boogeyman!)
According to a recent NYTimes article, many children in America have been leaving poor households and angry parents to live out on the street. They have set up small communities, with the older ones fending for the younger ones, and they must scavenge and steal for food. In this short post, I will attempt to evaluate the justice of this situation entirely from the viewpoint of Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, Utopia.
Difficult family situations resulting largely from poverty have caused life to be unbearable for these children, causing them to leave. According to Nozick we have no obligation to care for them from the standpoint of justice. Even though these children did not choose to be born into such families, anymore than a rich child chose to be born into a rich family, their situation is just; they simply have not acquired as much according to the theory of justice in acquisition.
In fact, the federally-funded outreach programs which have helped hundreds of thousands of homeless children are completely unjust, for the government takes taxes from citizens regardless of their willingness to pay and uses the money to help children who have run away from home. This is entirely unjust, akin to slavery, and should be stopped. In fact, because such an action is unjust, then by the principle of retribution, society must actually take away all of the money given to help these children (one can debate how to reacquire money gone into food which is already in the children's stomachs) and give it back to those from whom it was taxed. Only then can we achieve full justice.
Birth Control and its Opposition in the Philippines
Ms. Gina Judilla, a 37 year-old woman from Manila, Philippines is seen with her five children huddled in a small, undoubtedly unsanitary room. In an interview with the New York Times, she describes the various methods she tried using in order to terminate several of her pregnancies. From jumping down stairs to taking a gastric ulcer pill called Cytotec, apparently known as a birth control pill in the Philippines, she has been unsuccessful in committing abortion. Ms. Judilla is not alone in this process of attempts to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Many impoverished women are frequently impregnated unwantingly in the Philippines due to the fact that it is very difficult, and in some areas of the country, next to impossible to attain low cost reproductive services. From condoms to birth control, many public health clinics constantly turn people away because the services are unavailable. The Philippine government took note in a 2006 survey that from 2000 to 2006, only half of Filipino women of reproductive age used birth control of any kind. As a result, such startling numbers that 54 percent of the 3.4 million children born in the Philippines in 2008 were unintended. Of this 54 percent, 92 percent resulted from not using birth control.
Family planning advocates have made headway to change these numbers as legislation as reached the Philippine Congress. The bill is known as Reproductive Health and Population Development Act, and it would require governments down to the local level to provide free or low-cost reproductive health services — from condoms and birth control pills to tubal ligation and vasectomy. It would also mandate sex education in all schools, public and private, from fifth grade through high school.
The benefits of instituting such a policy are clear, less unintended pregnancy results in less of an aggravation of poverty. For families like Judilla, fewer children of the household will allow for more children to go to school. She noted that only two of her older children can go to school as they are all they have the finances for. And of course, the instituting the sex education in the schools will also stimulate safer sexual practices for future generations.
In opposition to this bill are the Roman Catholic organizations that say the bill would end up legalizing abortion. For a country whose roots and its people are predominantly Roman Catholic, there is a fear of un-Godly principles finding such heavy support at the national level of the government. The environment secretary, in response to the opposition's move of taking away contraceptives from public clinics and hospitals and in opposing the RH bill, said, “Contrary to what many are saying, that policy was meant to protect women, to protect their wombs from those who want to take away life,” he said.
It's understandable that the Roman Catholic Church has its values and its policies. However, how just is it that they infringe their principles on an entire country who may not have any moral connection to the church? Is it fair or just that they continue to allow millions of children being born in to a world of despair and poverty, and for most, will not likely to live a life much beyond the conditions of their natural inheritance? I would also like to add that this bill will really prevent so many attempts of abortion, like Ms. Gina Judilla's, which occur in unsanitary and unsafe conditions. In providing contraceptives, the government is simply trying to prevent so many unwanted pregnancies from occurring. They are trying to preserve the lives of those children that are born in to their country so that they have better opportunities to get education and stimulate the development of the country (as Gina Judilla's case would prove).
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/world/asia/26iht-phils.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
Family planning advocates have made headway to change these numbers as legislation as reached the Philippine Congress. The bill is known as Reproductive Health and Population Development Act, and it would require governments down to the local level to provide free or low-cost reproductive health services — from condoms and birth control pills to tubal ligation and vasectomy. It would also mandate sex education in all schools, public and private, from fifth grade through high school.
The benefits of instituting such a policy are clear, less unintended pregnancy results in less of an aggravation of poverty. For families like Judilla, fewer children of the household will allow for more children to go to school. She noted that only two of her older children can go to school as they are all they have the finances for. And of course, the instituting the sex education in the schools will also stimulate safer sexual practices for future generations.
In opposition to this bill are the Roman Catholic organizations that say the bill would end up legalizing abortion. For a country whose roots and its people are predominantly Roman Catholic, there is a fear of un-Godly principles finding such heavy support at the national level of the government. The environment secretary, in response to the opposition's move of taking away contraceptives from public clinics and hospitals and in opposing the RH bill, said, “Contrary to what many are saying, that policy was meant to protect women, to protect their wombs from those who want to take away life,” he said.
It's understandable that the Roman Catholic Church has its values and its policies. However, how just is it that they infringe their principles on an entire country who may not have any moral connection to the church? Is it fair or just that they continue to allow millions of children being born in to a world of despair and poverty, and for most, will not likely to live a life much beyond the conditions of their natural inheritance? I would also like to add that this bill will really prevent so many attempts of abortion, like Ms. Gina Judilla's, which occur in unsanitary and unsafe conditions. In providing contraceptives, the government is simply trying to prevent so many unwanted pregnancies from occurring. They are trying to preserve the lives of those children that are born in to their country so that they have better opportunities to get education and stimulate the development of the country (as Gina Judilla's case would prove).
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/world/asia/26iht-phils.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Property Right vs. Law Enforcement
Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments on a case with potential effect on due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The case concerns civil forfeitures – police seizing properties alleged to be connected with crimes. The question before the court was “whether people seeking to get their property back are entitled to a prompt hearing before a judge”. The key word here is “prompt”. Even though most owners are able to challenge the seizures, the procedure usually takes up months, or even years. As a result, the police often get to keep what they capture. In addition, most of the seizures are conducted without warrants but based merely on police officer’s claim that the property was somehow connected with the crime.
As usual, the court split into two sides.
On one side, Justice Breyer, one of the most liberal justices in the court, and Justice Sotomayor, recently appointed by President Obama, were apparently in favor of the property owners. Justice Breyer argued that in some cases, there is no probable cause for the forfeiture to begin with. For example, if a car happened to be parked by a building which was bombed and the police officer took the car, is it really fair for the owner to wait for six months until he/she can drive to work again? In response to that, the Justice Department lawyer, William Jay, explained that it has to take some time because police need to investigate the owner’s connection with the crime. “I am sorry,” Justice Sotomayor revealed her attitude, “You take the car and then you investigate?”
On the other side, Justice Alito, one of the conservative justices, contended that a prompt hearing could compromise an ongoing investigation. If the police suspect the owner of the car to be one of the participant in the bombing, and have him/her under surveillance, a prompt hearing will force the police department to disclose some important evidences of the investigation.
From a philosophical perspective, the two opposing arguments regarding the case represent a major topic in philosophical debate: individual right vs. general welfare.
Similar to the court, (though the liberal justice is not the synonym to a libertarian), the libertarians will support the property owners because they regard the protection of individual rights and personal liberties as the most important part of a principle of justice. Based on principle of justice in transfer, Robert Nozick will agree with Justice Breyer that if the seizure is not legitimate – without probable cause – in the first place, then the transfer of the car from the owner to the police is unjust. Therefore, the owner is entitled to a prompt hearing and police should return the car as soon as possible. John Rawls will also argue in favor of the property owners because his first principle of justice requires the protection of basic individual rights, which includes right to property.
On the other hand, utilitarians will speak for the police department. Because the car is only transferred from one member of the society to another, it is still within the society. Therefore the aggregate utility will not decrease as a result of this transfer. In addition, the forfeiture allows the police to conduct better investigation on potential suspects. As a result, it adds extra utility to the society and the society as a whole is better off.
Personally speaking, I believe the police should be required to obtain a warrant before they forfeit personal properties not directly related to the crime. With a probable cause, the police will be entitled to investigate the seizure in detail and determine whether it is related to the crime. Otherwise, they should not be allowed to seize personal properties. And if they suspect the owner, they can still investigate him/her, and forfeit the property until they have a probable cause. In short, innocent until proved guilty.
The case concerns civil forfeitures – police seizing properties alleged to be connected with crimes. The question before the court was “whether people seeking to get their property back are entitled to a prompt hearing before a judge”. The key word here is “prompt”. Even though most owners are able to challenge the seizures, the procedure usually takes up months, or even years. As a result, the police often get to keep what they capture. In addition, most of the seizures are conducted without warrants but based merely on police officer’s claim that the property was somehow connected with the crime.
As usual, the court split into two sides.
On one side, Justice Breyer, one of the most liberal justices in the court, and Justice Sotomayor, recently appointed by President Obama, were apparently in favor of the property owners. Justice Breyer argued that in some cases, there is no probable cause for the forfeiture to begin with. For example, if a car happened to be parked by a building which was bombed and the police officer took the car, is it really fair for the owner to wait for six months until he/she can drive to work again? In response to that, the Justice Department lawyer, William Jay, explained that it has to take some time because police need to investigate the owner’s connection with the crime. “I am sorry,” Justice Sotomayor revealed her attitude, “You take the car and then you investigate?”
On the other side, Justice Alito, one of the conservative justices, contended that a prompt hearing could compromise an ongoing investigation. If the police suspect the owner of the car to be one of the participant in the bombing, and have him/her under surveillance, a prompt hearing will force the police department to disclose some important evidences of the investigation.
From a philosophical perspective, the two opposing arguments regarding the case represent a major topic in philosophical debate: individual right vs. general welfare.
Similar to the court, (though the liberal justice is not the synonym to a libertarian), the libertarians will support the property owners because they regard the protection of individual rights and personal liberties as the most important part of a principle of justice. Based on principle of justice in transfer, Robert Nozick will agree with Justice Breyer that if the seizure is not legitimate – without probable cause – in the first place, then the transfer of the car from the owner to the police is unjust. Therefore, the owner is entitled to a prompt hearing and police should return the car as soon as possible. John Rawls will also argue in favor of the property owners because his first principle of justice requires the protection of basic individual rights, which includes right to property.
On the other hand, utilitarians will speak for the police department. Because the car is only transferred from one member of the society to another, it is still within the society. Therefore the aggregate utility will not decrease as a result of this transfer. In addition, the forfeiture allows the police to conduct better investigation on potential suspects. As a result, it adds extra utility to the society and the society as a whole is better off.
Personally speaking, I believe the police should be required to obtain a warrant before they forfeit personal properties not directly related to the crime. With a probable cause, the police will be entitled to investigate the seizure in detail and determine whether it is related to the crime. Otherwise, they should not be allowed to seize personal properties. And if they suspect the owner, they can still investigate him/her, and forfeit the property until they have a probable cause. In short, innocent until proved guilty.
Missing
It is widely known that China is most likely the next world superpower. With her developing population, solid economy, and modernization of industry, China has all of the criteria to become the foremost player on the global stage. These facts are unsettling, however, when juxtaposed to China’s continued authoritarian treatment of dissidents.
Last July, Uighurs (an ethnic group who are not Chinese, but have lived in the northwest portion of China for hundreds of years) instigated mass protests and riots against Han (natural born) Chinese. This is because the Han, under direction from the government, encroached on the Uighur’s territory, and insisted that the Uighurs follow the Han way of life. Seeing as Uighurs are completely distinct from the Han Chinese (and detest when they are called Chinese), they took action against the Han in order to remain relatively autonomous. These riots, however, resulted in many deaths and thousands of severe injuries. Under Chinese law, some Uighurs were taken into custody…but over 43 of them have disappeared.
The Chinese authorities refuse to release any information regarding the missing Uighurs, and in some cases assert that they have no idea of their whereabouts. Chinese and international law requires that detained individuals’ families be updated regarding their loved one’s status in the judicial system. This law has not been upheld in the cases of these 43+ Uighurs. In some cases, boys as young as 14 were plucked from their homes, and never heard from again.
Although the arrests may be legal under Chinese law, the families still should be told where their detained family members are…or if they’re even alive. The Chinese government is taking improper, and illegal (according to domestic and international law) action. And it makes me wonder how they will act as a global leader if they simply disregard laws whenever deemed fit. Also, China’s blatant oppression of dissidents makes one question whether or not they should be given global leadership status.
China is still an authoritarian country, and when people are vocally against the communist party or government, harsh punishments are imposed upon them. Last week at the Frankfurt Book Fair (the world’s most prominent book fair), China was the honored guest. Not only were party approved authors present, but exiled authors and civil rights leaders were as well. The juxtaposition of harsh conflicting views overshadowed the entire fair, and was a cause of major contention worldwide.
But, worse yet, this oppression is not a new trend in China. While events such as the 2008 Olympics in Beijing appear to have gone smoothly, throughout the course of the games, the government arrested any demonstrator who appeared to have a view differing from that of the Party. Any individual who publicly complains about restoration shortfalls after a natural disaster may also be arrested or exiled.
China is a great country with huge promise. I hope that before they assume a larger role at the globe’s helm, however, they sort out these domestic problems justly. Sweeping seemingly unpatriotic and contentious people ‘under the carpet’ is not the proper way to deal with criticism, and ultimately only creates more conflict.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/world/asia/22china.html?scp=3&sq=uighur&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/world/asia/21china.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=uighur&st=cse
Last July, Uighurs (an ethnic group who are not Chinese, but have lived in the northwest portion of China for hundreds of years) instigated mass protests and riots against Han (natural born) Chinese. This is because the Han, under direction from the government, encroached on the Uighur’s territory, and insisted that the Uighurs follow the Han way of life. Seeing as Uighurs are completely distinct from the Han Chinese (and detest when they are called Chinese), they took action against the Han in order to remain relatively autonomous. These riots, however, resulted in many deaths and thousands of severe injuries. Under Chinese law, some Uighurs were taken into custody…but over 43 of them have disappeared.
The Chinese authorities refuse to release any information regarding the missing Uighurs, and in some cases assert that they have no idea of their whereabouts. Chinese and international law requires that detained individuals’ families be updated regarding their loved one’s status in the judicial system. This law has not been upheld in the cases of these 43+ Uighurs. In some cases, boys as young as 14 were plucked from their homes, and never heard from again.
Although the arrests may be legal under Chinese law, the families still should be told where their detained family members are…or if they’re even alive. The Chinese government is taking improper, and illegal (according to domestic and international law) action. And it makes me wonder how they will act as a global leader if they simply disregard laws whenever deemed fit. Also, China’s blatant oppression of dissidents makes one question whether or not they should be given global leadership status.
China is still an authoritarian country, and when people are vocally against the communist party or government, harsh punishments are imposed upon them. Last week at the Frankfurt Book Fair (the world’s most prominent book fair), China was the honored guest. Not only were party approved authors present, but exiled authors and civil rights leaders were as well. The juxtaposition of harsh conflicting views overshadowed the entire fair, and was a cause of major contention worldwide.
But, worse yet, this oppression is not a new trend in China. While events such as the 2008 Olympics in Beijing appear to have gone smoothly, throughout the course of the games, the government arrested any demonstrator who appeared to have a view differing from that of the Party. Any individual who publicly complains about restoration shortfalls after a natural disaster may also be arrested or exiled.
China is a great country with huge promise. I hope that before they assume a larger role at the globe’s helm, however, they sort out these domestic problems justly. Sweeping seemingly unpatriotic and contentious people ‘under the carpet’ is not the proper way to deal with criticism, and ultimately only creates more conflict.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/world/asia/22china.html?scp=3&sq=uighur&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/world/asia/21china.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=uighur&st=cse
Close Guantanamo Bay Prison ASAP
A New York Times article earlier this week discussed the newly forming coalition of A-list musicians including Pearl Jam, R.E.M. and Trent Reznor, who have publically joined the campaign to close Guantanamo Bay prison in protest against the use of loud music as torture. According to the National Security Archive and interviews with former detainees, blaring music tracks by such artists as Britney Spears, AC/DC, Marilyn Manson and even the Sesame Street Jingle were played on repeat for lengthy periods of time. Artists are outraged at the possibility that their music could have been used as a torture device without their consent. The torture experiences of Guantanamo prisoners are increasingly being unveiled to the public as more detainees are released from custody, serving as an urgent reminder that the inhumane prison facility should be shut down with haste. How can the United States government possibly defend the detainment of prisoners denied due process and subjected to inhumane torture methods as constitutional? While some patriotic Americans lust for revenge against the September 11th attacks and justify the use of extreme imprisonment tactics as a necessary method to defend ourselves against further threats, we cannot continue to act with wanton disregard of our constitution in name of national security. It is impossible to know whether every single prisoner of Guantanamo Bay is a dangerous terrorist who, if liberated, would carry out malicious plans to attack U.S. soil. Many prisoners were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, messenger youth who happened to be caught carrying a gun and were implicated in their leaders’ plots of terrorism. The shockingly barbaric treatment of potentially innocent Guantanamo Bay prisoners, denied the right to an impartial trial or knowledge of their accusations and held indefinitely, only serves to further propagate Anti-American sentiments in the Middle East. Any of the philosophers studied in our class thus far, as well as the unalienable rights prioritized by our own American constitution would not accept the treatment of prisoners under any umbrella of justice.
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/musicians-want-to-know-if-they-were-on-guantanamo-playlist/?scp=4&sq=guantanamo&st=cse
Monday, October 12, 2009
Tightening the Borders--And the Budget
Last year, nearly 3 million people came to visit the U.S. on temporary visas… and didn’t go back. Although the departments of Homeland Security and Immigration combined have many effective ways of monitoring foreigners’ entry to the United States, there is currently no system in place for keeping track of whether or not they leave. This causes problems in the cases of those foreigners who may not have any incriminating ties to terrorist groups upon entering the U.S., but may develop communication with or sympathy toward such organizations while remaining within the nation’s borders.
The current policy of having foreigners return a paper stub on departure is obviously an insufficient means of monitoring exactly how many, and who, of the ‘visitors’ are overstaying their visas. For this reason, congressmen and congresswomen of both parties have proposed an electronic system that would officially record exit information for people with temporary visas on a national scale.
The issue that arises is that the implementation of such a universal electronic monitoring system would require a significant divergence of funds from the already strained stimulus program. Should this really be one of our nation’s top priorities? After all, most of these illegal immigrants cause no direct harm or threat to America. As much as we may want to avoid the isolated cases of suspected or attempted terrorist acts, it would be far less expensive to leave this to the department of Homeland Security to deal with on an individual basis. As we’ve seen from the relative peace that domestic America has enjoyed post-September 11th, the existing policy has worked rather well. We should eventually establish a policy for tracking and overseeing the timely exit of visitors to decrease illegal immigration rates, but for now we need to leave it up to security instead of diverting funds and placing more pressure on Immigration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/us/12visa.html?_r=1&ref=politics
The current policy of having foreigners return a paper stub on departure is obviously an insufficient means of monitoring exactly how many, and who, of the ‘visitors’ are overstaying their visas. For this reason, congressmen and congresswomen of both parties have proposed an electronic system that would officially record exit information for people with temporary visas on a national scale.
The issue that arises is that the implementation of such a universal electronic monitoring system would require a significant divergence of funds from the already strained stimulus program. Should this really be one of our nation’s top priorities? After all, most of these illegal immigrants cause no direct harm or threat to America. As much as we may want to avoid the isolated cases of suspected or attempted terrorist acts, it would be far less expensive to leave this to the department of Homeland Security to deal with on an individual basis. As we’ve seen from the relative peace that domestic America has enjoyed post-September 11th, the existing policy has worked rather well. We should eventually establish a policy for tracking and overseeing the timely exit of visitors to decrease illegal immigration rates, but for now we need to leave it up to security instead of diverting funds and placing more pressure on Immigration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/us/12visa.html?_r=1&ref=politics
Where's the difference: Why does the US treat socialzed medicine differently than other infrastructure?
Today much political rhetoric is being thrown back and forth over the issue of socialized or state run health care. Many conservatives view the move as fundamentally against American core values. What is unclear is why precisely the conservatives haven't been raising the same issue since we socialized the fire and police forces. While it is true that fire and police perform inherently different services than health care, most of the main reasons for implementation remain similar.
It is undeniable that asking an American citizen to pay out tax money for a government run health care plan would infringe on the liberties of that citizen, but so does restricting drunk driving. The important consideration is whether the benefit outweighs the cost. The police force exists to govern the people and enforce the laws of the state, but another or their fundamental roles is providing more freedom to the public. Imagine an anarchy where an individual had to constantly defend their family, home and possessions from attack and theft. In this society an individual has very little freedom to travel and pursue happiness. So by infringing on the rights of Americans by taxation, the government creates a far better environment for the general public. The benefit of the police force clearly outweighs the cost, especially since hiring personal guards would be much more expensive, and a general deterrent works almost as well.
Slightly different logic applies to the fire force, although the fundamental principles are the same; improve liberties for everyone via the minor evil of taxation. Private fire-forces have always led to massive extortion, as a fire-force can insist on any price or the house will be lost. This is one way in which people gain freedom - freedom from extortion. Another way in which the public benefits is that fires spread, and if your neighbor's house is on fire it's actually very much in your interests to contribute to the effort to put it out. So paying taxes for fire protection protects your property in several ways. The same value quality is true of the police force, privately hired fire fighters would be massively expensive and impractical.
Now we come to the issue of health care; if we examine it in depth we see that it is really no different. A socialized health care system would provide freedom from extortion in an emergency. If you go to a hospital today with an emergency the doctors will treat you, but will also slap you with a large bill afterward. It also acts the same way as the fire force; since diseases are contagious it is in my interest to keep my neighbor healthy. And like the two, health care would also be much more cost efficient when run by the state. There are those that argue against this, but that is simply not true. In the US 33 cents on every dollar payed to health insurance goes to doing paperwork that wouldn't exist if the government ran the system. And isn't the basis of America a free market, and if so, if the government can create a company that will out perform others isn't it beneficial for the consumer? If this isn't the case then I would like to know why all the insurance company lobbyists are shelling out cash left and right to see that health care isn't socialized. If it won't work better for citizens then why are they worried?
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427
It is undeniable that asking an American citizen to pay out tax money for a government run health care plan would infringe on the liberties of that citizen, but so does restricting drunk driving. The important consideration is whether the benefit outweighs the cost. The police force exists to govern the people and enforce the laws of the state, but another or their fundamental roles is providing more freedom to the public. Imagine an anarchy where an individual had to constantly defend their family, home and possessions from attack and theft. In this society an individual has very little freedom to travel and pursue happiness. So by infringing on the rights of Americans by taxation, the government creates a far better environment for the general public. The benefit of the police force clearly outweighs the cost, especially since hiring personal guards would be much more expensive, and a general deterrent works almost as well.
Slightly different logic applies to the fire force, although the fundamental principles are the same; improve liberties for everyone via the minor evil of taxation. Private fire-forces have always led to massive extortion, as a fire-force can insist on any price or the house will be lost. This is one way in which people gain freedom - freedom from extortion. Another way in which the public benefits is that fires spread, and if your neighbor's house is on fire it's actually very much in your interests to contribute to the effort to put it out. So paying taxes for fire protection protects your property in several ways. The same value quality is true of the police force, privately hired fire fighters would be massively expensive and impractical.
Now we come to the issue of health care; if we examine it in depth we see that it is really no different. A socialized health care system would provide freedom from extortion in an emergency. If you go to a hospital today with an emergency the doctors will treat you, but will also slap you with a large bill afterward. It also acts the same way as the fire force; since diseases are contagious it is in my interest to keep my neighbor healthy. And like the two, health care would also be much more cost efficient when run by the state. There are those that argue against this, but that is simply not true. In the US 33 cents on every dollar payed to health insurance goes to doing paperwork that wouldn't exist if the government ran the system. And isn't the basis of America a free market, and if so, if the government can create a company that will out perform others isn't it beneficial for the consumer? If this isn't the case then I would like to know why all the insurance company lobbyists are shelling out cash left and right to see that health care isn't socialized. If it won't work better for citizens then why are they worried?
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427
The Nomination of Justice Sotomayor from Differing Philosophical Perspectives
There exists an ongoing debate regarding whether or not the constitution should be interpreted as a living document or a fixed text, and consequently whether it is acceptable for a justice to draw upon individual experiences and personal opinions when deciding a case. The extremely controversial appointment of Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor allows for an interesting philosophical argument when examined through the divergent lenses of the figures we have studied thus far. As a Hispanic female from the slums, there is no denying that Sotomayor certainly brings her fair share of diverse experiences that may grant her a drastically different perspective towards certain aspects of life. However, this difference in life experience is a refreshing necessity that can only improve the judgment process of the Supreme Court by contributing to an increasingly well-rounded outlook when approaching a case. Furthermore, it is impractical to assume that a justice can ever be truly objective in formulating a decision because certain “subjective” personal values form a basis for the very process of evaluating an issue. It is no accident that historically conservative or liberal justices almost always rule in favor of their respective political parties, sometimes despite an overwhelming righteousness in favor of the opposite ruling. The most obvious and recent example of diversity aiding members of the court to formulate a unified decision involves the case of Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding where a thirteen-year old girl was illegally strip- searched by her school administrators. The only female member of the Supreme Court at the time, justice Ruth Ginsberg was able to sway the mindset of her male colleagues by stating that they had never been a 13-year-old girl and thus could not understand a girl’s sensitivity to violation of privacy.
While Rawls would most likely argue in favor of complete objectivity resembling his proposed “original position” in the Supreme Court, Susan Okin would agree with me in arguing that it is impossible to fully suppress one’s experiences as a woman because of innate differences in moral and psychological development, and would advocate Sotomeyer’s representation of the female voice. I do not mean to oppose Rawls’ theory of justice or original position, but only to wish to assert that it is a hypothetical situation that cannot be applied to modern day society or the supreme court. Additionally, the ethnic and socio-economic diversity offered by Sotomayor will increase the prevalence of dissenting opinions within the court—an aspect advocated by Michael Walzer as crucial to determining justice in his theory of separate spheres.
Turkish-Armenian Diplomacy
Currently the expectation of a signed diplomatic accord on the parts of Armenia and Turkey is occupying the forefront of middle-eastern political controversies. Given the bloodiness of past international relations amongst these two nations, a projected decision to open up their diplomatic ties and respective borders constitutes a step of enormous historical significance, and has been met by some vehement opposition by groups of passionate nationalists within both countries. This normalization process has been carried out in Switzerland, where officials from the United States and Russia are mediating discussions amongst Armenian and Turkish diplomats. The United States has been prompted by a series of mixed motives to pursue its agenda of interests in respect to the status of Armenian and Turkish relations. The contentious issue at hand refers primarily to the mass genocide of 1.5 million Armenians, subjected to the violent repression of the Turks of the Ottoman Empire. Although ample evidence of genocide has consistently been confirmed by the work of historians internationally, Turkey continues to deny genocide, arguing that the deaths of 1915 occurred as a direct consequence of civil war throughout Armenia. Needless to say, this egregious loss of life tied to these nations shared history, is a sensitive issue amongst natives of both countries, igniting immense opposition and widespread protest over matters of reconciliation. The elite self-serving nature of genocide on the nation of Armenia raised the international prowess of the Turkish authoritarian elite, at the expense of oppressing the Armenian population (on the grounds of religious subservience; Armenia is a Christian nation, while Turkey and the Ottoman Empire is/was devoutly Muslim). This exploitation of a single group for the advancement of another would be greatly disapproved of by Rawls, who within his principles of justice emphasizes that if those who occupy a position of relative supremacy are given an advantage, their actions must directly benefit the lowest classes. In short, the exploitation of Armenian civilians on the parts of Turkish authorities is considered terribly unjust. Opposition towards diplomatic efforts in Turkey, has been led by the Republican People’s Party, who insist on fighting any concessions to Armenia, and urge that Armenian-Turkish relations can only be repaired with an Armenian withdrawal from its current occupation of Nagorno-Karbakh. Throughout Armenia, resistance has been observed in the form of mass protest, where thousands of citizens have demonstrated. Proponents are enthusiastic about the prospect of free trade with newly opened borders.
Works cited: www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hMIVhRL1IZsbsjcPwt34qFbwo...
The CIA has gone too far
Imagine you are walking down some busy metropolitan street in the U.S. There are people walking around in each and every direction, going about their day like it was any day. Then imagine a din of breaking tires focus your attention ahead of you, where you see a swarm of men in dark clothing geyser out of a few dark unmarked SUV’s. They stuff into a burlap sack the gentlemen, who was standing only a foot in front you a moment ago at the last croswalk, hurl him into the backseat of one of the SUV’s and then speed off into the distance. Not what you were expecting after just getting your morning coffee? How do you respond?
This isn’t a scene out of some blockbuster movie but an event that has happened time and time again in the real world. With every passing news week we are hearing another tale such as the one of Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr (the news article is linked below.) The only difference between the above scenario and the real occurrences are their locations. For Nasr the location was Milan, Italy. We don’t allow torture or warrantless arrests in this country. Now should the fact that the location is different really change the accountability of the crime? Does the difference of jurisdiction really make it right?
The CIA is breaking the law. They are breaking our laws, Italy’s laws, and the international laws we have promised to uphold. If the CIA acted the same way within our borders, especially against a U.S citizen, there would be a tumultuous uproar. As a New Yorker, I understand the threat our society faces from terrorism and have greatly felt its effects, and I understand some of the great work that the CIA does for our nation. But, we are a country based on principles, which do not waver because of the fear of the public. We are not the oppressors that we fought in the in the wars of past, and we cannot allow ourselves to become them.
There are practical reasons why the CIA’s behavior in cases like Nasr’s is counterproductive. It will certainly enrage more individuals who are willing to fight against the U.S and our causes. But, the point I want to hinge on is that we cannot hold ourselves to the moral high ground established in our laws and constitution and then ignore that virtue because we think it might suit our protectionist needs. We say we do not negotiate with terrorists because then we would have to negotiate with all terrorists. The same theory applies to our principals—we do not curtail our principals because then we leave all of our principals vulnerable. A freedom that didn’t abridge the rights of another that existed yesterday cannot cease to exist today.
Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33208384/ns/world_news-terrorism/
Religion and Genetic Engineering: Cross cultural differences
Genetic engineering is one of the rare scientific topics that the public finds so inflammatory and polarizing that the media frequently lends it front page status. When legislation is proposed dealing with this issue, public response is often quite schismatic - its proponents acclaim the potential for curing diseases and creating healthier foods, while its opponents label it as 'playing god' and 'disrespecting nature'. While the nature of this argument may be completely familiar to us, it is interesting to note that it is a conflict that for the most part is exclusive to western nations. If a scientist claimed to have created human stem cells through cloning in the US, religious authorities would decry him or her as an arrogant blasphemer, whereas in South Korea when Hwang Woo Suk made this claim (fraudulently), he was endorsed by the head of SK's largest Buddhist order, Reverend Ji Kwan, who warned SK's scientists to not follow the western philosophy.
This difference stems from the nature of the religions that are most common in the two regions. While eastern religions have traditionally held either a great number of gods, or no god at all, western religions tend to be monotheistic, in which the one god is the sole giver of life and each soul a direct gift from God. In the view of many Christians, cloning is akin to tresspass in God's territory, whereas in Buddhism cloning has been likened to the cyclical process of reincarnation.
America lead the scientific world for the better part of the twentieth century, and even now many scientists emmigrate to the US in order to access our large pool of jobs and high class facilities, but less and less Americans are choosing to pursue science themselves. And though many foreign scientists still come to America for work, the percentage of these scientists that are leaving their home countries to work here is decreasing - especially in the east. While we are still hampered by restrictions on genetic engineering and stem cell research, eastern laboratories are being given free reign in these cutting edge fields. Is our reluctance to accept what many see as 'playing god' making us lose our scientific advantage? Is our religion holding us back?
This difference stems from the nature of the religions that are most common in the two regions. While eastern religions have traditionally held either a great number of gods, or no god at all, western religions tend to be monotheistic, in which the one god is the sole giver of life and each soul a direct gift from God. In the view of many Christians, cloning is akin to tresspass in God's territory, whereas in Buddhism cloning has been likened to the cyclical process of reincarnation.
America lead the scientific world for the better part of the twentieth century, and even now many scientists emmigrate to the US in order to access our large pool of jobs and high class facilities, but less and less Americans are choosing to pursue science themselves. And though many foreign scientists still come to America for work, the percentage of these scientists that are leaving their home countries to work here is decreasing - especially in the east. While we are still hampered by restrictions on genetic engineering and stem cell research, eastern laboratories are being given free reign in these cutting edge fields. Is our reluctance to accept what many see as 'playing god' making us lose our scientific advantage? Is our religion holding us back?
When Campus Safety Overextends its Welcome
When does an administrator’s concern for security on a school campus overstep its boundaries on individual integrity? When does a penal code seeking to prevent gross atrocities in school settings come to grips with the fact that it perpetuates them in other ways? The case of first-grader Zachary Christie shows that, in areas of much grey matter, the black-and-white punishment of zero-tolerance weapons policies often deals more harm than good.
The question of school safety is certainly more relevant in recent times, given the high incidence of gun-related tragedies at high schools such at Columbine and universities such as Virginia Tech. While it is understandable that school board officials in high-risk areas seek to promote policies that secure the livelihood of the students entrusted to their care, the prevalence of zero-tolerance policies in districts across the country is simply counterintuitive. Such a policy tends to have an adverse effect on unintended violators and only exacerbates social problems for the students who knowingly bring weapons to school.
Across the country, zero-tolerance policies have overstepped their intended jurisdiction and instead crossed over into areas where punishment was never intended. Cases are clear across America: a first-grader suspended for using his Boy Scout all-in-one meal kit at lunch, a third-grader expelled for an academic year after her grandmother sent her a birthday cake complete with a knife to cut it, a middle-schooler asked to leave a school after using a utility knife for a project in her design class. These cases, and the many more that mirror them across the country, illustrate inherent flaws in a system that not only offends the dignity of individuals morally incapable of vicious crimes but also even distorts educational priorities. Faced with year-long suspensions or even expulsions, students who innocently break zero-tolerance codes are forced to disrupt their typical academic schedules (and the growth that they once exhibited both inside and outside the classroom setting) or, in the worst of cases, are asked to start all over again in a new, oftentimes foreign, educational environment. At their core, policies that provide uniform punishment for non-uniform actions hurt those offenders residing at the margin. Issues of school safety are no different: the students often left worst off are the very students such policies seek to protect.
Correcting the situation involves a look into intended security objectives and mechanisms by which to reach them. While no one would be so remiss as to argue that safety lies outside the realm of services schools are expected to provide, school boards do need to reconsider policies that have overextended their welcome. To correct the situation, school boards need be given greater discretion to issue punishment on a case-by-case basis as opposed to the current one-size-fits-all punitive system. Such measures would allow schools to meet their goals of both upholding campus safety and defending individual integrity.
The New York Times article detailing Zachary's unfortunate circumstance and that of many others under school safety regulations can be found at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/education/12discipline.html?_r=1&ref=us
Health Care for Children and Rawls
A major debate is going on right now in American politics as to whether the United States government should provide free health insurance to all Americans, potentially resulting in higher taxes for the wealthier. Many have criticized this bill on grounds that it intrudes on individual rights, that government should not intervene too much in people's affairs, that the free market manages health care better, or simply that it counts as "socialism" and is therefore wrong (some without even explaining why). I will argue, from the viewpoint of Rawls's Theory of Justice, that health care should be provided free for all children, possibly at the tax expense of the wealthy. I will suspend complete judgment on health care for all, but argue that there is a case to be made that Rawls's theory would require free government-supported health care for all.
It is the view of many in the fiscal conservative movement that the United States has enough mobility that people's incomes are a good indicator of how hard they work, i.e. someone must be poor because they did not work hard, or rich because they worked very hard. But it is impossible to argue that anyone under 16, who is not allowed to work (at least in Massachusetts - the adjust age might be adjusted depending on the exact laws about child labor), should be held at all responsible for a lack of money. But if their parent, whether due to laziness, misfortune, or lack of opportunity, does not have enough money to pay for their child's health care, that minor is forced to go without health care regardless of their actions. A society following Rawls's principle of justice would not allow this to happen. Arguing directly from Rawls's Original Position, a being would not know whether it would be one of these children, and so it would argue for a system in which all children are given health care. As for adult health care, one might argue that all adults who do not have enough money for their own health care did so out of conscious choices. In this case, they had the opportunity for health care, and Rawls should be satisfied. For a Rawlsian society still requires certain responsibilities of its participants, and so actual resources are contingent upon the participants willingness to be part of the society, and Rawls would really only require a maximin of opportunity for resources, not resources themselves. Yet if one believes that socioeconomic position at birth has any effect upon socioeconomic position later in life (i.e. that we have not yet established perfect and complete mobility), the same argument applies, and so all should be given health care. In either case, the money of the most wealthy has no effect on the plight of the least, and so following the maximin principle, there is nothing against taking it out of their hands to use it for health care for the poor.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=universal%20health%20care&st=cse
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Iranian Justice
Two weeks ago, the United Nations Security Council met to discuss the issue of ‘global’ nuclear non-proliferation—but there was only one country on everybody’s mind…Iran. President Barack Obama was the chair of this committee session—the first time in the UN’s history a president of the US has presided over the committee. Obama has made it very clear that he aspires to see a world free of nuclear weapons. And on Friday he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for voicing such aspiration. But, can anything President Obama does actually make a difference in the world’s nuclear situation? The United States and Russia still have thousands of armed nuclear weapons, ready to be fired at anytime. There are seven other countries with nuclear weapons, and two more suspected to have secret programs. Iran fosters one of these secret programs and continually affirms that their nuclear program is only for peaceful use—to create a more efficient means of power and electricity—but recent findings of secret plutonium enrichment facilities in Qum have the global community rethinking their motives. Further, multiple terrorist organizations are actively seeking to obtain nuclear capacity.
Put yourself in President Obama’s shoes. What can we do to make Iran adhere to the nuclear regulations outlined in the IAEA and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Sanctions have been imposed on Iran for years, but their government brushes them off like a fly. Despite the fact that these sanctions are harming Iranian citizens by limiting their imports, the governing body (whose, please note, legitimacy is being questioned…) could care less. Iran has a history of disregarding its citizen’s well being for the overall good of the country. Where is the justice in that? Rawls would be fuming over such an overt example of injustice. The average citizens in Iran do not matter to the elite, and because of their current system of government, there is nothing that can be done about it. When democratic elections fail to be totally democratic, justice, Rawls would argue, is totally nonexistent.
So the question remains: what can the UN do to assure Iran make proper decisions with regard to global nuclear regulations? Sanctions can only go so far, and we end up harming innocent civilians in our attack of the Iranian government. Barack Obama and the Security Council are coming to this realization, and plan to meet next month to discuss this topic further. I sincerely hope the outcome of this meeting yields better results than punishing the wrong people.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/world/middleeast/05iran.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/opinion/06iht-edgreenway.html
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/09/25/world/middleeast/1247464827910/cnbc-iran-warned-about-nuclear-site.html
Put yourself in President Obama’s shoes. What can we do to make Iran adhere to the nuclear regulations outlined in the IAEA and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Sanctions have been imposed on Iran for years, but their government brushes them off like a fly. Despite the fact that these sanctions are harming Iranian citizens by limiting their imports, the governing body (whose, please note, legitimacy is being questioned…) could care less. Iran has a history of disregarding its citizen’s well being for the overall good of the country. Where is the justice in that? Rawls would be fuming over such an overt example of injustice. The average citizens in Iran do not matter to the elite, and because of their current system of government, there is nothing that can be done about it. When democratic elections fail to be totally democratic, justice, Rawls would argue, is totally nonexistent.
So the question remains: what can the UN do to assure Iran make proper decisions with regard to global nuclear regulations? Sanctions can only go so far, and we end up harming innocent civilians in our attack of the Iranian government. Barack Obama and the Security Council are coming to this realization, and plan to meet next month to discuss this topic further. I sincerely hope the outcome of this meeting yields better results than punishing the wrong people.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/world/middleeast/05iran.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/opinion/06iht-edgreenway.html
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/09/25/world/middleeast/1247464827910/cnbc-iran-warned-about-nuclear-site.html
It might be your right, but it just isn’t right
"That's our right," said Napolitano, president of the Southeast Broward Republican Club. "If we want to shoot at targets that look like that, we're going to go ahead and do that." Really? Now it just seems needless to say that just because something is your right does not always make it the right thing to do. Case and point, this situation: Republican candidate for Congress goes to a shooting range and opens fire on a target displaying the initials of his breast cancer stricken opponent and multiple targets covered in head scarves, resembling Arabs. While it’s true that he does technically have the right, as secured by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to do this, and while a spokesman for the Congresswoman did not feel that the behavior dignified a response, I will just come right out and say that the behavior was disturbing, disgusting, and, above all, just plain stupid. The political implications go through the roof, and such a lapse in judgment is unjustifiable. Consider first the blatant message sent by shooting a representation of your opponent. To me, that doesn’t say, “Let’s win the congressional election.” Rather, it sends a deadly message that alone is enough to be shocking, not to mention the more dramatic meaning it has for a woman battling cancer. In addition, shooting at the effigies of Arabs does not exactly demonstrate a tendency to open mindedness or global cooperation; instead, it signals a grossly displayed intolerance and hypocrisy. If we are going to be upset when the media displays images of people from other countries burning the American flag or other images associated with our nation, we should not go ahead and shoot figures resembling the people of other countries. It is just ridiculous. Let’s just say I’m glad this guy has no chance of winning in his district. What we need are more people with common sense, intelligence, and good judgment, not the complete opposite. So, no, having the right to do something does not in itself justify that action.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Free Speech v.s. Animal Rights
Stepping into a new term with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic justice ever appointed, the Supreme Court of the United States is now looking at a case that might have a great impact on the First Amendment right of the freedom of speech.
The case before the court, United States v. Stevens, No. 08-769, concerns a 1999 federal law which bans sales of "depiction of animal cruelty". Mr. Stevens in the case was sentenced to 37 months in jail because he compiled and sold tapes showing dogfights, even though he himself has nothing to do with the material on the tapes. In addition, much of the footage actually came from Japan, where dogfighting is legal.
According to Adam Liptak, the Supreme Court correspondent of the New York Times, the central issue at the case is “whether the court should for the first time in a generation designate a category of expression as so vile that it deserves no protection under the First Amendment.”
If we rephrase that, the real philosophical question before the court, which is also our first topic today, then becomes: Are there certain values/rights so important that they outweigh the fundamental rights enumerated by the constitution, and violation of these values/rights cannot be protected even by the Constitution? Apparently, the Supreme Court thinks there are. The most recent “unprotectable” category of speech was decided by the court in 1982 – child pornography.
However, even if certain values/rights are more important than others, how do we decide which is which? According to John Rawls’A Theory of Justice, the most basic liberties and rights are decided in the original position before people enter the society and all of them are fundamental values that should be protected. But he didn’t tell us what should happen if two of those fundamental values come into conflict with each other. Should the priority of rights be decided beforehand in the original position? If that is the case, then could people be thorough enough to consider all the rights and assign to them an order of importance? Rawls didn't seem to have provided us with any answers.
Moreover, child pornography would not appear without certain technology advance, and we can assume that 300 years ago people in the original position could not take child pornography into consideration when they designate the fundamental rights. Then does that mean after 300 years with the appearance of child pornography, the society should reenter the original position and a new set of rights should be decided? And if people are in the original position again, should the knowledge about child pornography be regarded as relevant or irrelevant information behind the veil of ignorance? Rawls hasn't said much about that, either. But based on the Supreme Court’s decision about the child pornography, some people, including me and at least the majority of the court, would say that at the moment of the case, the American society somehow reentered the original position and decided that depiction of child pornography should not be protected even with the freedom of speech. Therefore, I conclude that the choice of fundamental rights and liberties in a society should be dynamic and should be subject to constant review. Whether we agree or not, sometimes the Supreme Court acts as the representatives who search for new rights as the society progresses and reenter the original position to make a change.
Now let’s come back to the dogfight case. Given that we agreed certain rights can be more important than others and the society can reenter the original position to change it, a new question arises: Is Animal Rights more important than the Freedom of Speech? Both sides have supporters. On one hand, the News organizations, including New York Times, argued that the free speech right should be upheld. On the other hand, the Humane Society of the United States said that animal right is more important. Since both groups acted out of their individual interest, belief or value, we should turn to people behind of the veil of ignorance and ask what they think. But here comes the problem: all the participants in the original position are human beings. From Rawls’ description of the first principle that “each person is to have an equal right … ”, we can assume people in the original position are only to consider rights for human beings. One support for my argument comes from the whole idea of veil of ignorance, which serves to force people to put themselves in others’ shoes and thus produce a fair principle for all. Since no rational person would imagine him/herself turning into a dog after entering society, it is very unlikely that animal rights will be included in the fundamental rights in any circumstances. (Child pornography is totally different case, because a person could definitely imagine him/herself as the parent of the child.) Another support comes from Susan Okin’s Justice and Gender, in which she argued that only when women are included in the original position would the group “be highly motivated to find a means of regulating pornography.” Again, the logic is that only when people could imagine themselves in the position would they make efforts to protect certain values. Therefore, if animal rights are not decided as a fundamental right in the original position, it then couldn’t outweigh the freedom of speech.
Personally, I side with the First Amendment right in this case. It is not because that I don’t think animal rights important, but because if the court rules in favor of United States in this case, the First Amendment will be subject to more challenges than ever in the future. It would be put into a dangerous place (from a legal and technical perspective which I will not go deep into here.)
source: Free Speech Battle Arises From Dog Fighting Videos by Adam Liptak
homelessness in NYC rising
How did New York City get to a place in which upwards of 34,000 of its citizens is homeless? Not only this, but why does Mayor Bloomberg and other city officials find absolutely necessity in cutting the budgets for these people that seem to need the assistance most. There is no doubt that the economy is struggling, and more than ever, as the records show, new homeless families are taking to shelters at a rate higher than New York City has seen since the 1970’s. To be clear, 1,464 new families are entering New York City shelters each month.
Nonetheless, the city has already proposed a $3 million cutback in the budget for homelessness prevention programs, which leads me to ask the question, what justice is there in diminishing living standards for those already living in the least advantaged positions of a society? As Rawls’ theory of justice would argue, the standards of the least advantaged should be increased alongside those of the most advantaged. But what happens in the circumstances of a recession? What happens when standards seem to be plummeting everywhere? What happens when the capital of the advantaged is diminished so that they do not have the assets they once did to commit to responding to the conditions of the least advantaged?
The state tries to respond in the ways in which it determines as best fit and most advantageous to society. But what are the prospects of a society, such as NY, in which the governing officials deem it necessary not only to cut back on the funding of its homelessness prevention programs, but also to fire over 14,000 teachers. The inequalities between the rich and the poor are only going to increase further as a result of this. The quality of education that the least advantaged in a society receives is continually decreasing in quality with respect to those more advantaged. Consequently, the least advantaged have less and less hope of having the opportunity to be equally qualified for the job market as a result of their diminished human capital that the government fails to provide.
The short term budget considerations I’m sure look functionable on paper, but I believe that the long term ramifications of the budget cuts to the homelessness prevention programs and especially to the cut bucks on educators will drastically diminish opportunity to develop human capital and ultimately save costs for future governing officials.
http://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/recordhigh.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)