School principle Thomas Murray of Danvers High School has made the Boston Globe by a recent move. He has banned the word 'meep' from his school. For those who have never heard of the word meep, it was coined by Beaker, one of Jim Henson's muppets and a character on sesame street. The word isn't even in the dictionary, which all adds up to a very confusing and hilarious puzzle. Why did Principle Murray feel that he had the right/need to ban this word from his school?
According to Murray the students were using the word in a disruptive way. The word was apparently given context similar to that of an obscenity. To be fair to Murray it is easy to see how certain students could have been using the word as an obscenity, but all in all this seems rather ridiculous.
The very fact that Murray had to ban a word represents a failure on his part as an administrator. What is to stop students from appropriating commonly used words like food or class? To a large extent the ban simply serves to help the students being disruptive - the word is now truly taboo, not simply a humorous utterance.
In the end, is it just to ban a word? It seems obvious that obscenities may deserve censorship. If a word is said only to provoke or express hatred or a threat then it can be filed under hate speech. However, hate speech is not illegal in the US. So why did the principle have the right to restrict the speech at his school? It seems that words are only as strong as their contexts, and hate speech is only as strong as its reception. If one does not care what another says, then that hate speech has lost its strength. Any action taken against hate speech often serves to strengthen it, and this is what have seen at Danvers School.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/12/13/meep/
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Presidential Respect
Recently there was a large controversy over whether President Barack Obama should be allowed to address the nation's school-children. This represents a vast a scary swing in political thought. Historically many presidents have issued speeches to schools including conservatives Reagan and HW Bush. Why then was the uproar so great when Obama took to the podium? The answer is that unfortunately politicians on both sides of the isle have started using many more scare tactics and extreme statements to further their agendas.
It used to be the case that the president would have a much greater role in interacting with the schools, and educators would trust the president to impart morally commendable and just messages to the students. This was seen through initiatives such as the presidential fitness test under Reagan and the presidential scholars program under LBJ. Both of these programs were much more invasive and comprehensive than a single speech, so why were they given the mandate? Again, the swing in political strategies has caused the opposition president to be regarded with less and less respect.
Nowadays instead of a highly qualified and successful individual, the president from the opposition party is represented as a foolish or even evil person. This was true for George W. Bush. Many people labeled him as a bumbling idiot incapable of even basic tasks. Now Obama is being portrayed as an extremist who wants to introduce evil socialist policies. The truth of the matter is that both men attended prestigious schools, ran successful careers, demonstrated capacity far beyond the average individual, and without a doubt hold a deep and true respect for American values.
In conclusion, this represents a false dichotomy of American politics. You're either the right candidate or you're evil or incompetent. Instead of treating the opposition with such disrespect both parties should engage in mutually respectful debates. This is after all the point of a two party system, so that both can balance and improve the other.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/obama.schools/index.html
It used to be the case that the president would have a much greater role in interacting with the schools, and educators would trust the president to impart morally commendable and just messages to the students. This was seen through initiatives such as the presidential fitness test under Reagan and the presidential scholars program under LBJ. Both of these programs were much more invasive and comprehensive than a single speech, so why were they given the mandate? Again, the swing in political strategies has caused the opposition president to be regarded with less and less respect.
Nowadays instead of a highly qualified and successful individual, the president from the opposition party is represented as a foolish or even evil person. This was true for George W. Bush. Many people labeled him as a bumbling idiot incapable of even basic tasks. Now Obama is being portrayed as an extremist who wants to introduce evil socialist policies. The truth of the matter is that both men attended prestigious schools, ran successful careers, demonstrated capacity far beyond the average individual, and without a doubt hold a deep and true respect for American values.
In conclusion, this represents a false dichotomy of American politics. You're either the right candidate or you're evil or incompetent. Instead of treating the opposition with such disrespect both parties should engage in mutually respectful debates. This is after all the point of a two party system, so that both can balance and improve the other.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/obama.schools/index.html
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Mandatory Seatbelt Usage
All states have laws requiring proper restraint of children in cars, and many states (Alabama, California, Hawaii etc...) have laws that require adults to wear seat belts. In the case of the children these laws are easily justifiable. A child is not considered to have the life experience nor judgment required to take care of themselves or others. Consequently some outside influence must help them by enforcing certain safe behaviors. Most of the time a parent is the one who is entrusted with this task. However, just as there are laws preventing bad parenting and child abuse, laws enforce child seat belt usage. Considering that we have laws prohibiting the beating of children in most states, it makes sense that we should also prevent parents from allowing their children to ride without seat belts.
It's with adults that the problem becomes less clear. It's not the case that we usually prevent adults from participating in self-destructive activities. Most laws are enacted to prevent people from harming others via reckless or irresponsible acts. This is the case with most traffic laws. People cannot drive drunk because they pose too much of a danger to others on the road or sidewalk. People cannot drive in unsafe cars because they might lose control of the vehicle. The line becomes fuzzy with safety devices.
It makes sense that cars should all come with safety devices such as airbags and seat belts; individuals need to be given the option to use them. The laws become less clear when they enforce mandatory usage of these devices. As discussed above, children often need guidance in decision making. But since we consider adults to be independent individuals capable of making their own decisions, how do we justify these laws? There is no way that wearing a seat belt makes a collision safer for other drivers on the road. It is entirely for the benefit of the individual wearing the belt. Are we then saying: "You're too stupid to make your own decision about wearing the belt, so we'll make it for you."? This seems to violate our basic tenant of individual liberties.
In conclusion, it does seem stupid to not wear a seat belt. The statistics showing how much safer one is when wearing them speak for themselves. So is there any sense in judging individuals who choose not to use the belt indeed too stupid to make that decision? In fact, via Rawls' reasoning, these people would not be considered rational individuals capable of entering the OP. This is an interesting issue, as seat belt laws represent a fairly unique type of law, namely one that forces us to act in our own interest, rather than trusting us to do it ourselves.
http://www.ok.gov/ohso/documents/NOPUS%202008%20SB%20Use.pdf
http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/seatbelt_laws.html
It's with adults that the problem becomes less clear. It's not the case that we usually prevent adults from participating in self-destructive activities. Most laws are enacted to prevent people from harming others via reckless or irresponsible acts. This is the case with most traffic laws. People cannot drive drunk because they pose too much of a danger to others on the road or sidewalk. People cannot drive in unsafe cars because they might lose control of the vehicle. The line becomes fuzzy with safety devices.
It makes sense that cars should all come with safety devices such as airbags and seat belts; individuals need to be given the option to use them. The laws become less clear when they enforce mandatory usage of these devices. As discussed above, children often need guidance in decision making. But since we consider adults to be independent individuals capable of making their own decisions, how do we justify these laws? There is no way that wearing a seat belt makes a collision safer for other drivers on the road. It is entirely for the benefit of the individual wearing the belt. Are we then saying: "You're too stupid to make your own decision about wearing the belt, so we'll make it for you."? This seems to violate our basic tenant of individual liberties.
In conclusion, it does seem stupid to not wear a seat belt. The statistics showing how much safer one is when wearing them speak for themselves. So is there any sense in judging individuals who choose not to use the belt indeed too stupid to make that decision? In fact, via Rawls' reasoning, these people would not be considered rational individuals capable of entering the OP. This is an interesting issue, as seat belt laws represent a fairly unique type of law, namely one that forces us to act in our own interest, rather than trusting us to do it ourselves.
http://www.ok.gov/ohso/documents/NOPUS%202008%20SB%20Use.pdf
http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/seatbelt_laws.html
Monday, November 30, 2009
Is It Just to Ban Steroids from the MLB
The saga of steroids and sports is never ending as the MLB continues to revamp and support new doping policies that prevent athletes from using banned substances. Those who support such strict policies are those who argue the importance of considering the effects of records of the past and present relative to the steroid use. It is evident that steroids and human growth hormones increase the strength. Ultimately, the playing level of athletes is increased as the added strength due to the substances decreases recovery time following games and injuries alike. Indeed, it is unfair that the athletes of the past who did not have this advantage are to be compared to the modern drugged up athlete. But who says that they need to be compared anyways? It is doubtful that scientists will be able to keep up on all the athletes and their drug use. It seems that many players can go untraced as the testing techniques lag behind in technology relative to the hot new steroids widely available. I think that the MLB should go ahead and make a breaking point in baseball's history and just accept the fact that today's baseball players cannot be compared to those of the past due to the untraceable steroids that many of them are likely to be taking.
Furthermore, after arriving at the conclusion that the MLB should start modern baseball history anew, would it still be just for the MLB to do random drug test samplings and punish the players who test positive for steroid substances? I think that there is some injustice at least in their testing process. If one athlete is to be tested and punished while another slips by the microscope, I find it unjust that such a policy would stand as by chance, the athletes are treated differently than the other athletes. This would be as if certain people in society did not have to abide by a law whereas others do. If the MLB were to be considered a society in it and of itself, it seems highly unjust that such severe incriminations occur to random athletes and not to all. The MLB, if it is going to continue to increase its punishments on banned substances, should also increase its standards on testing each athlete so that their is fair punishment among all the athletes.
For more information on this topic:
http://www.answerbag.com/articles/MLB-Steroid-Rules/f4ac5f5e-989b-433e-25ff-2d31095e47d2
Furthermore, after arriving at the conclusion that the MLB should start modern baseball history anew, would it still be just for the MLB to do random drug test samplings and punish the players who test positive for steroid substances? I think that there is some injustice at least in their testing process. If one athlete is to be tested and punished while another slips by the microscope, I find it unjust that such a policy would stand as by chance, the athletes are treated differently than the other athletes. This would be as if certain people in society did not have to abide by a law whereas others do. If the MLB were to be considered a society in it and of itself, it seems highly unjust that such severe incriminations occur to random athletes and not to all. The MLB, if it is going to continue to increase its punishments on banned substances, should also increase its standards on testing each athlete so that their is fair punishment among all the athletes.
For more information on this topic:
http://www.answerbag.com/articles/MLB-Steroid-Rules/f4ac5f5e-989b-433e-25ff-2d31095e47d2
Is a Liberal System of Justice Viable?
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1131925.html
"Demjanjuk trial / Why liberal legal systems can't try Nazis"
In this article, Segev discusses the inherent problems in a liberal legal system. He discusses the problem of a court which requires modern legal procedures like testimony, even when there is no one left to testify yet there is ample evidence that a crime was committed. This raises an important question that was brought up in Robert Nozick's theory, which is, how do we determine the necessary rectification for historical injustice? In the situation above, it's not exactly an application of Nozick's theory, for we are simply punishing someone for an injustice that cannot be undone rather than rectifying a historical unjustice (of course, one could argue that by punishing him, one will reduce anti-Semitism in the world, and anti-Semitism would not be as strong if not for people like him). Now, one could hardly doubt that Demjanjuk committed wrong from the point of view of almost any liberal theory of justice. So the problem with liberal ideas is not in the view of justice but in the application of it: how can we really determine who deserves what in a given situation according to those principles, even if we know what those principles are? This particular case suggests a partial answer, which is that testimony, and in general, legal procedure as it stands today in Western countries, does not constitute the whole picture. There needs to be some body which gets to determine based on intuition (but not proof) who committed which crime. But then is this not the same as the dilemma, described by Nozick, of who should distribute the wealth if we have a redistributive theory of justice? One must conclude then that there is really no way to have a liberal system of justice, unless one allows for some bias and hence potential failure of that system to always act effectively.
"Demjanjuk trial / Why liberal legal systems can't try Nazis"
In this article, Segev discusses the inherent problems in a liberal legal system. He discusses the problem of a court which requires modern legal procedures like testimony, even when there is no one left to testify yet there is ample evidence that a crime was committed. This raises an important question that was brought up in Robert Nozick's theory, which is, how do we determine the necessary rectification for historical injustice? In the situation above, it's not exactly an application of Nozick's theory, for we are simply punishing someone for an injustice that cannot be undone rather than rectifying a historical unjustice (of course, one could argue that by punishing him, one will reduce anti-Semitism in the world, and anti-Semitism would not be as strong if not for people like him). Now, one could hardly doubt that Demjanjuk committed wrong from the point of view of almost any liberal theory of justice. So the problem with liberal ideas is not in the view of justice but in the application of it: how can we really determine who deserves what in a given situation according to those principles, even if we know what those principles are? This particular case suggests a partial answer, which is that testimony, and in general, legal procedure as it stands today in Western countries, does not constitute the whole picture. There needs to be some body which gets to determine based on intuition (but not proof) who committed which crime. But then is this not the same as the dilemma, described by Nozick, of who should distribute the wealth if we have a redistributive theory of justice? One must conclude then that there is really no way to have a liberal system of justice, unless one allows for some bias and hence potential failure of that system to always act effectively.
Improper Holocaust Rectification
The Holocaust was a horrible event that should never have happened, but the prosecution of this law-abiding American citizen will not truly offer any retribution. There are three possible situations that could have occurred. One, the defendant in this case is completely innocent of all charges and he was never a soldier stationed at this extermination camp. Two, he was a soldier at the camp, but he was there against his own volition, and he should also be considered a prisoner. Three, he did commit these heinous crimes using his own free will, and he is completely guilty as charged. No matter which of these actually happened, the ability for anyone to discern the truth is impossible, and the justice we can find will not be sufficient to rectify the injustice of the past or the potential injustice that could occur from another human mistake.
If the first situation is true, the prosecutors and the advocates for this trial are making a huge mistake. There seemingly incessant drive and motivation to produce retribution for the horrible events of the last century is understandable, but it cannot excuse putting an innocent man behind bars. The end to this scenario can only leave blood on everyone’s hands.
The second situation is slightly trickier, but we still cannot necessarily hold the defendant responsible. Everyone was living in fear during the war, and we cannot blame every member of the society simply for not fighting the totalitarian government, especially someone who was not from the society. He was not German and allegedly only began to work as a guard after being imprisoned. He might as well have had a gun to his head.
In the third situation, we probably would all jump to condemn him for his actions, and in this situation, he would deserve punishment. But, let us examine if this scenario is reasonable. After the war, he immigrated to the United States, joined the most well-known workers union in U.S, was a perfect law-abiding citizen, and raised a family. Does that sound like a cold-blooded thirsty killer? Besides, what good would this man’s conviction do? In his old age, his punishment does not allow for any legitimate punishment, and it is hard to see how the overall good done by this trial outweighs the costs.
Of course I want Justice for the victims of the Holocaust, but I think we left the proper period for justice seeking a few years ago. Additionally, this conviction would not represent the justice the victims deserve. For now, I think we should be focusing on remembering and understanding what happened, in order to ensure nothing like this horrible event will ever happen again.
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/world/europe/01trial.html?_r=2&ref=global-home
AIDS Denialism... Yes, it still exists... Yes, it is almost 2010
One month from now it will be 2010. This is twenty nine years after the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) first recognized AIDS as a new deadly disease, the cause of which would go unknown for several more years until a virus was discovered that was present in all AIDS patients and seemed to be attacking the immune system itself. This was named the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, or HIV. Although no vaccine or cure has ever been invented, antiretroviral medication has been developed which slows the viruses propagation throughout the immune system and can allow for an extended period of asymptomatic life for victims of the disease. Due to the lack of a vaccine, the most important facet of the fight against AIDS has historically been prevention - informing the public of what we all can do to avoid contracting or spreading the virus.
Understandably, the initial claim that AIDS was caused by HIV was placed under scrutiny by legitimate scientists - some who not only scrutinized, but disagreed entirely - but as time went on and increasing scientific evidence emerged proving the causality of HIV, most of the these arguments began to die off. But they did not disappear entirely.
Even today, there exist groups of people who claim that HIV does not cause AIDS, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. And while this belief may be grouped in with other such 'conspiracies' that populate the landscape of pseudoscience - Holocaust deniers, Moon landing conspiracy theorists - this belief is not merely an offensive or controversial view of the past but a very contemporary and very dangerous stance. The most obvious and current example of the kind of effect such a view can have on society is the way in which AIDS statistics have changed in South Africa over the course of Thabo Mtheki's rule. Until he was finally removed from Presidency in 2008, the official stance in South Africa was that immunodeficiency could be caused by many factors, and that the best treatment for AIDS was a diet of garlic, beetroot and lemon juice. The treatment's efficacy is clear: 10% of all AIDS victims live in South Africa, meaning that over 12% of its citizens are infected.
Although it is important to acknowledge that this policy ended in 2008, the effects of HIV/AIDS denialism have certainly not. The most pressing complication to take into account is the effect that deniers' claims have on the lay public - especially when one takes into account that these theories have been rejected by the scientific community. For this reason, denialist claims will not be published in scientific journals, but rather in books and on the internet, media that do not necessarily require the representation of complete evidence and fact, much less both sides of an issue. Through these methods, people who are uneducated about the true nature of AIDS and the effect that antiretrovirals actually have on victims of the disease can be driven to seek alternative, less effective (or entirely ineffective) treatments - or just not treat themselves at all, believing the disease to be psychological. Worse yet, some denialists claim that AIDS is actually caused by AIDS medication. And while people are allowed to make decisions regarding their own treatment, consider the effect this could have on others. People who do not believe their disease to be viral would be less careful about taking proven cautionary preventions, and could potentially spread their disease to others. Pregnant mothers who are not treated have a high chance of spreading AIDS to their children, who will never get the chance to decide how they will treat themselves.
How can this problem be addressed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialist
http://www.aidstruth.org/
Understandably, the initial claim that AIDS was caused by HIV was placed under scrutiny by legitimate scientists - some who not only scrutinized, but disagreed entirely - but as time went on and increasing scientific evidence emerged proving the causality of HIV, most of the these arguments began to die off. But they did not disappear entirely.
Even today, there exist groups of people who claim that HIV does not cause AIDS, even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. And while this belief may be grouped in with other such 'conspiracies' that populate the landscape of pseudoscience - Holocaust deniers, Moon landing conspiracy theorists - this belief is not merely an offensive or controversial view of the past but a very contemporary and very dangerous stance. The most obvious and current example of the kind of effect such a view can have on society is the way in which AIDS statistics have changed in South Africa over the course of Thabo Mtheki's rule. Until he was finally removed from Presidency in 2008, the official stance in South Africa was that immunodeficiency could be caused by many factors, and that the best treatment for AIDS was a diet of garlic, beetroot and lemon juice. The treatment's efficacy is clear: 10% of all AIDS victims live in South Africa, meaning that over 12% of its citizens are infected.
Although it is important to acknowledge that this policy ended in 2008, the effects of HIV/AIDS denialism have certainly not. The most pressing complication to take into account is the effect that deniers' claims have on the lay public - especially when one takes into account that these theories have been rejected by the scientific community. For this reason, denialist claims will not be published in scientific journals, but rather in books and on the internet, media that do not necessarily require the representation of complete evidence and fact, much less both sides of an issue. Through these methods, people who are uneducated about the true nature of AIDS and the effect that antiretrovirals actually have on victims of the disease can be driven to seek alternative, less effective (or entirely ineffective) treatments - or just not treat themselves at all, believing the disease to be psychological. Worse yet, some denialists claim that AIDS is actually caused by AIDS medication. And while people are allowed to make decisions regarding their own treatment, consider the effect this could have on others. People who do not believe their disease to be viral would be less careful about taking proven cautionary preventions, and could potentially spread their disease to others. Pregnant mothers who are not treated have a high chance of spreading AIDS to their children, who will never get the chance to decide how they will treat themselves.
How can this problem be addressed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialist
http://www.aidstruth.org/
Diplomatic Tactics Fail to Influence Iran--Enough is Enough
Throughout the entirety of his presidency to date, Barack Obama has made a strong vocal contribution to the condemnation of Iran's nuclear energy program. Both the president and the International Atomic Energy Agency have called for Iran to cooperate and show full transparency involving its accelerating nuclear program, but to no avail. Despite repeated deadlines for Iran to cease its uranium enrichments, allow access to all nuclear plants, and negotiate sale of some nuclear material to other countries, Iran continues to ignore the statements of the international community.
As of this Sunday, Ahmadinejad has endorsed a plan to build at least 10 more nuclear enrichment facilities and obtain at least 500,000 more centrifuges. The fact that all of Iran's uranium has so far only been enriched to a relatively low level would seem to mitigate any concerns of imminent disaster. Yet even after Obama asked Ahmadinejad earlier this summer to demonstrate at the G-20 summit “that [Iran's] nuclear enrichment program is intended for peaceful purposes,” the September 24 deadline “came and went with no acknowledgment.” Once again, we seem to be making no progress through diplomacy.
So isn't it time we stopped relying solely on words? Sure, phrases like “time is running out,” “unacceptable,” and even “economic sanctions” may scare away a five-year-old, but they obviously won't have any effect on the President of one of the most powerful countries in the region. [In fact, for nearly the last 5 years, they haven't.] There is only so much we can do to enforce international laws and global security interests by using such supposedly 'forceful' language. Ahmadinejad has consistently refused to listen to the pleas of the international community to abide by its rules, an attitude that, when combined with Iran's threatening stance against Israel and the west, only grows more frightening every day. Words have had little or no effect so far to diminish our reason for fear; its time for some serious action. We've wasted a lot of time coercing, negotiating and imposing economic sanctions, while Iran's power over oil (and now nuclear) energy sources has been growing. Now is the time for concentrated physical efforts to stop Iran from gaining too much ground. Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton attests to this necessity: “If there is a point at which military force is still possible to break Iran's control over the nuclear fuel cycle, this is it.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/30/irans-latest-nuclear-plan-challenges-limits-obamas-wait-approach/
As of this Sunday, Ahmadinejad has endorsed a plan to build at least 10 more nuclear enrichment facilities and obtain at least 500,000 more centrifuges. The fact that all of Iran's uranium has so far only been enriched to a relatively low level would seem to mitigate any concerns of imminent disaster. Yet even after Obama asked Ahmadinejad earlier this summer to demonstrate at the G-20 summit “that [Iran's] nuclear enrichment program is intended for peaceful purposes,” the September 24 deadline “came and went with no acknowledgment.” Once again, we seem to be making no progress through diplomacy.
So isn't it time we stopped relying solely on words? Sure, phrases like “time is running out,” “unacceptable,” and even “economic sanctions” may scare away a five-year-old, but they obviously won't have any effect on the President of one of the most powerful countries in the region. [In fact, for nearly the last 5 years, they haven't.] There is only so much we can do to enforce international laws and global security interests by using such supposedly 'forceful' language. Ahmadinejad has consistently refused to listen to the pleas of the international community to abide by its rules, an attitude that, when combined with Iran's threatening stance against Israel and the west, only grows more frightening every day. Words have had little or no effect so far to diminish our reason for fear; its time for some serious action. We've wasted a lot of time coercing, negotiating and imposing economic sanctions, while Iran's power over oil (and now nuclear) energy sources has been growing. Now is the time for concentrated physical efforts to stop Iran from gaining too much ground. Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton attests to this necessity: “If there is a point at which military force is still possible to break Iran's control over the nuclear fuel cycle, this is it.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/30/irans-latest-nuclear-plan-challenges-limits-obamas-wait-approach/
The Land of the Free
Does the United States live up to this ideal? Indeed, it is easy to point out many ways where the country lacks freedom and so can never really be totally free; however, we must also take into consideration why so many people do seek asylum in our nation. The article from Newsweek talks about the growing number of people seeking asylum in the US due to discrimination or persecution based on their sexual orientation. And while gay rights are still a contentious issue, what is generally true is that in the US, unlike in many other places around the globe, it is acceptable and even welcome to be openly gay, lesbian, or transgender. Whereas there are places, such as Brazil as noted in the article, where people who are homosexual face violent repercussions for their sexuality, in the US any type of discrimination, violent or otherwise, is highly frowned upon and faces consequences in the legal system. This is good! We should feel quite fortunate to live in a nation where it is not okay to discriminate or attack others based on sexual orientation, gender, race, etc.
Of course, the United States is by no means perfect. There is much work still to be done before prejudice is expunged, if such an ideal is even possible. But perhaps we should also look outward and attempt to agitate for change around the globe. What better way to do this is there than to lead by example? As the United States and other nations become increasingly accepting of human differences, the wave will grow. Hopefully, we will be able to avoid social regression and see a much more tolerant and amiable atmosphere for future generations. Until then, the US should continue to be a safe haven for the world’s persecuted minorities.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/224893/page/1
Not in Our House: Religious Intolerance in Switzerland (Of All Places!)
Long hailed as the vanguard in liberal democracy, the Swiss have taken a debilitating step in the wrong direction. A referendum that resolved to ban the construction of new minarets (the house of worship for the Muslim faith) was approved by popular vote on Sunday. Amidst fears of terrorism and extremist violence, the Swiss have resolved to strike at the core of political Islam by sending a message that revokes the free exercise of religion.
The move raises key issues in an already tense battle of ideologies. Recognizing popular trends of fear and anxiety, Swiss government officials (who actively campaigned against the ban but must now execute its dictates) warn that the xenophobic hysteria that has overtaken the country is but a transitory phase that should not be interpreted as permanent change. As officials are caught in a political predicament, the question of national security has been brought to the forefront. To be sure, countries are expected to provide for the security of their citizens, thwarting potential threats to individual livelihoods as they see fit. In that capacity, they are free to provide for those security measures that enhance the freedom of all their citizens without arbitrarily limiting its exercise to a select group (here, the majority of non-Muslims).
However, if they are committed to liberal principles (as Switzerland is) they cannot retreat from liberal principles for the sake of public comfort. Of course, the issue becomes much more perplexing when the policy is instituted not by despotic government decree but by direct democracy (as is the case here). When the citizens of a country actively vote against the wishes of their more politically astute governing authorities, the resulting policy carries with it the legitimate authority of a majority’s consent without necessarily garnering the necessary institutional support. Such a perverse application of democracy requires necessary critical examination before put into practice.
The message sent to Muslims in Switzerland is a scary one. That ideological extremism is tied to religious devotion is a logical fallacy; that an educated populace would make such a connection and institutionalize its discriminatory implications is a greater one still, and an affront to justice at that. The Swiss have made a grave mistake, and, if the world is to be made safe for champions of democracy both inside and outside Europe, the decision must be overturned.
For a complete look at the story, follow the New York Times article here.
“Dozens charged in China mine disaster ‘cover up’”
“Dozens charged in China mine disaster ‘cover up’”
China’s mining industry is infamous for its danger and consequential commonality of death accidents. Although China’s central government has attempted to prioritize better safety standards, enactments are often dismissed in favor of scoring profit during a period of relative economic prosperity. News concerning China’s charging of 10 journalists and 48 government and mining officials with the collective “covering up” of a mine-disaster that resulted in the death of 34 miners, surfaced in the media today. Investigations, ordered by China’s State Council, have concluded that the disaster took place in the Bebei province, on July 14 2008, a few weeks prior to the summer Olympic games in nearby Beijing. Chinese officials are now being charged with having destroyed evidence, having moved dead bodies, as well as having paid off journalists to keep the disaster under the national and international radars at the time. According to investigative conclusions, “the 10 journalists were paid $380,000 to not report the disaster…(while) relatives of the miners were kept quiet with threats and ‘large payments’.”
Can charging these approximately 60 individuals offer the opportunity to rectify their performed injustice in society? Or is it impossible to apply a principle of rectification that would re-establish conditions of justice as if the injustice itself had never taken place? Simply reversing the acts of injustice recalled above certainly would not be the answer. Consider simply the case of government officials bribing journalists by paying them $380,000. It obviously seems ridiculous to imagine that this isolated act of injustice would be rectified by returning the $380,000 to the government officials, but what is it that should happen according to Nozick, (who suggests that any injustice that develops as a consequence of unjust practiced must be rectified) or perhaps any other philosopher that offers means of rectifying past injustices?
Referenced source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8385950.stm
China’s mining industry is infamous for its danger and consequential commonality of death accidents. Although China’s central government has attempted to prioritize better safety standards, enactments are often dismissed in favor of scoring profit during a period of relative economic prosperity. News concerning China’s charging of 10 journalists and 48 government and mining officials with the collective “covering up” of a mine-disaster that resulted in the death of 34 miners, surfaced in the media today. Investigations, ordered by China’s State Council, have concluded that the disaster took place in the Bebei province, on July 14 2008, a few weeks prior to the summer Olympic games in nearby Beijing. Chinese officials are now being charged with having destroyed evidence, having moved dead bodies, as well as having paid off journalists to keep the disaster under the national and international radars at the time. According to investigative conclusions, “the 10 journalists were paid $380,000 to not report the disaster…(while) relatives of the miners were kept quiet with threats and ‘large payments’.”
Can charging these approximately 60 individuals offer the opportunity to rectify their performed injustice in society? Or is it impossible to apply a principle of rectification that would re-establish conditions of justice as if the injustice itself had never taken place? Simply reversing the acts of injustice recalled above certainly would not be the answer. Consider simply the case of government officials bribing journalists by paying them $380,000. It obviously seems ridiculous to imagine that this isolated act of injustice would be rectified by returning the $380,000 to the government officials, but what is it that should happen according to Nozick, (who suggests that any injustice that develops as a consequence of unjust practiced must be rectified) or perhaps any other philosopher that offers means of rectifying past injustices?
Referenced source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8385950.stm
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Trying Terrorists in NY-Appropriate Course of Action?
Obama’s decided Friday that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other terrorists specifically involved with the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center would be tried in the U.S. federal courts rather than by military commission. Many believe the case is more appropriate for a military court, citing deficiencies in the capability for a Federal Court to conceal classified information related to national security and additionally suggesting a deficiency in the federal court’s prosecuting aptitude. Still others argue that holding the trial in New York City would reopen wounds for the mourning families of 9/11 victims and risks ensuing riots if one or more of the terrorists were unsuccessfully convicted. While trying the terrorists in New York inevitably risks the possibility of an unfavorable verdict resulting in unsatisfactory closure for victims and a blow to American national pride, the opportunity to hold the trial at the very location of the injustice is too meaningful to pass up. We should remain confident in the capability of our federal courts, widely reputed to be the best judicial system in the world, to handle the case. According to the New York Times, in the years since 9/11 the Justice Department has brought 119 federal court terrorism cases against 289 defendants, with a conviction rate of 91.1 percent. Furthermore, our unbiased federal court system holds much greater credibility than the secretive military court which has a history of utterly disregarding the unalienable rights and due process of the accused. We should hold this momentous trial in the public eye for all the world to witness in order to provide ultimate closure and uncontested, legitimate retribution for the 9/11 terrorists.
Gaining Power
On September 12, 2001, there was nearly unanimous support among US citizens to send our troops towards the Middle East to fight the ‘war on terrorism’ and capture the high ranking Al Qaeda officials who organized the devastating attacks of 9/11. Over eight years later, the United States Government still finds itself sending thousands and thousands of troops away from their families, shipping them by the airbus to the Middle East—although it has become quite evident that our incentives in that region were never quite what the public thought.
The United States has the most advanced armed forces in the world. We believed we could win any battle we chose to fight. Why, then, were Osama bin Laden and, his right hand man, Ayman al-Zawahri not captured when our troops had them cornered in a mountain range in December of 2001? Even knowing these two men were trapped in the mountains of Tora Bora, the United States had a mere 100 troops surrounding them—not nearly enough to prevent an escape.
The George W. Bush administration used the surge of patriotism created by 9/11 to justify its personal agenda—the fall of Saddam Hussein. Prompted by the scare Iraq was hiding nuclear bombs, Dubya elected to focus troops in Iraq using misleading arguments that victory in Iraq would defeat Al Qaeda along with Saddam Hussein.
The senate recently came out with a commission saying that since December 2001, Osama bin Laden has remained a prominent figure in the insurgency group, and has gained increasing power. His presence, despite American opposition, continues to recruit more and more converts to Al Qaeda. Simply put, bin Laden and his group of insurgents remain a huge direct threat to the United States.
Do any political philosophers give government the right to go behind citizens’ backs and stress one thing, while their actions attempt to achieve a different goal? We have yet to read of any philosophy merely coming close to this very anti-democratic stance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/world/asia/29torabora.html?ref=asia
The United States has the most advanced armed forces in the world. We believed we could win any battle we chose to fight. Why, then, were Osama bin Laden and, his right hand man, Ayman al-Zawahri not captured when our troops had them cornered in a mountain range in December of 2001? Even knowing these two men were trapped in the mountains of Tora Bora, the United States had a mere 100 troops surrounding them—not nearly enough to prevent an escape.
The George W. Bush administration used the surge of patriotism created by 9/11 to justify its personal agenda—the fall of Saddam Hussein. Prompted by the scare Iraq was hiding nuclear bombs, Dubya elected to focus troops in Iraq using misleading arguments that victory in Iraq would defeat Al Qaeda along with Saddam Hussein.
The senate recently came out with a commission saying that since December 2001, Osama bin Laden has remained a prominent figure in the insurgency group, and has gained increasing power. His presence, despite American opposition, continues to recruit more and more converts to Al Qaeda. Simply put, bin Laden and his group of insurgents remain a huge direct threat to the United States.
Do any political philosophers give government the right to go behind citizens’ backs and stress one thing, while their actions attempt to achieve a different goal? We have yet to read of any philosophy merely coming close to this very anti-democratic stance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/world/asia/29torabora.html?ref=asia
Friday, November 27, 2009
You are committing crimes every day!
In 2009, Boston civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate published his new book — Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. Why this name? Because he estimates that the average American now unwittingly commits three federal felonies on a daily basis due to the vagueness and over-broadness of the federal law – a phenomenon called overcriminalization.
And it seems that Mr. Silverglate is not alone. This year, the Supreme Court of the United States shows special interest in the spectrum of the criminal justice system by agreeing to hear three cases concerning the honest-services law – a federal law which makes it a crime for officials to defraud their employers of “honest services” and which can be used to target an exceptionally broad swath of behavior.
Even more surprisingly, the conservatives and libertarians are now standing on the same side. “It’s remarkable,” said Mr. Norman Reimer, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, “The left and the right are now in agreement in the area of criminal justice, the whole idea of less government, less intrusion and less regulation.”
At first glance, it seems totally unreasonable for people to argue against the federal criminal justice system since it is what keeps us safe every day. However, what if I tell you that “it is a violation of federal law to give a false weather report” and that “people get put in jail for importing lobsters”. Currently, according to the Heritage Foundation, there are more than 4,400 criminal offenses in the federal code, many of which are so comprehensive and so vague that all Americans violate them every day.
That is a situation, according to Sandel, in which “our control over the forces that govern our lives is receding rather than increasing . . . Increasing number of citizens view the state as an overly intrusive presence, more likely to frustrate their purposes than advance them.” (Sandel 92)
The fundamental question here is: What does the Constitution require us to do with the criminal justice system? Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas of the Supreme Court, joined by their liberal colleagues (to most people’ surprise), have commented that “the original meaning of the Constitution require them to rule against government in, among other areas, the rights of criminal defendants”. Put the point in a simple way, the Constitution deems that the American people be protected from the power of the state.
Another concern about the overcriminalization arises from the fiscal conservatives’ worry about the economic consequences of a criminal justice leviathan. In the end, the United States proudly owns the largest prison population in the world.
Source:
Adam Liptak, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/us/24crime.html?_r=1
And it seems that Mr. Silverglate is not alone. This year, the Supreme Court of the United States shows special interest in the spectrum of the criminal justice system by agreeing to hear three cases concerning the honest-services law – a federal law which makes it a crime for officials to defraud their employers of “honest services” and which can be used to target an exceptionally broad swath of behavior.
Even more surprisingly, the conservatives and libertarians are now standing on the same side. “It’s remarkable,” said Mr. Norman Reimer, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, “The left and the right are now in agreement in the area of criminal justice, the whole idea of less government, less intrusion and less regulation.”
At first glance, it seems totally unreasonable for people to argue against the federal criminal justice system since it is what keeps us safe every day. However, what if I tell you that “it is a violation of federal law to give a false weather report” and that “people get put in jail for importing lobsters”. Currently, according to the Heritage Foundation, there are more than 4,400 criminal offenses in the federal code, many of which are so comprehensive and so vague that all Americans violate them every day.
That is a situation, according to Sandel, in which “our control over the forces that govern our lives is receding rather than increasing . . . Increasing number of citizens view the state as an overly intrusive presence, more likely to frustrate their purposes than advance them.” (Sandel 92)
The fundamental question here is: What does the Constitution require us to do with the criminal justice system? Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas of the Supreme Court, joined by their liberal colleagues (to most people’ surprise), have commented that “the original meaning of the Constitution require them to rule against government in, among other areas, the rights of criminal defendants”. Put the point in a simple way, the Constitution deems that the American people be protected from the power of the state.
Another concern about the overcriminalization arises from the fiscal conservatives’ worry about the economic consequences of a criminal justice leviathan. In the end, the United States proudly owns the largest prison population in the world.
Source:
Adam Liptak, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/us/24crime.html?_r=1
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Gender Diagnosis
Imagine a young girl. She has never liked dolls, preferring instead to play ball with her older brothers. She thinks the other girls her age are too prissy and wants to have short hair so she can play more outside without having to worry about it getting dirty or caught in anything. According to the American Psychiatric Association, these are not innocent signs of being a tomboy, but rather symptoms of a mental disorder.
The official term for what most know as transsexualism is Gender Identity Disorder - and I use all caps because it still occupies a place in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV TR), the be-all reference for all mental disorders for the APA. Since homosexuality was removed from the list in 1973, this specifies that what the APA finds to be disordered about transsexual people is not same sex attraction, but their eschewal of gender roles. What is a gender role exactly? Some would say (and Okin would agree with them) that gender roles are cultural systems that vary based on the society - and are not set out by natural law - which set the bar for what is normal for each sex to do. Because they vary from culture to culture, some manners of comportment or actions could be considered normal in one society that could be seen as symptoms of Gender Identity Disorder in another. Here is a simple example: a man walking around in a skirt in America would be seen as very unusual, whereas the citizens of pre-colonial Hawaii would find pants to be more odd than what we would see as a skirt. Too flimsy of an example? In many Native American cultures, a man or woman who dressed as the opposite gender and wished to take a spouse of the same sex was called Two-Spirit (having both the spirit of a man and a woman) and was often respected in the tribe as being particularly spiritual.
With this in mind, how are we to consider the breaking of cultural rules to be an illness? The APA does not consider anarchists to be mentally infirm simply because they do not follow normal societal rules. I believe the time has long since come for transsesualism to be considered not a mental illness but a secularly acceptable alternative lifestyle, in order to make way for such necessary civil rights concessions as the addition of gender identity to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. This would afford some protection to this already disadvantaged group (97% of trans people report gender based discrimination in the workplace) and make America a little more just for all its citizens.
http://advocate.com/Print_Issue/Current_Issue/The_Gender_Identity_Divide/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit
The official term for what most know as transsexualism is Gender Identity Disorder - and I use all caps because it still occupies a place in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV TR), the be-all reference for all mental disorders for the APA. Since homosexuality was removed from the list in 1973, this specifies that what the APA finds to be disordered about transsexual people is not same sex attraction, but their eschewal of gender roles. What is a gender role exactly? Some would say (and Okin would agree with them) that gender roles are cultural systems that vary based on the society - and are not set out by natural law - which set the bar for what is normal for each sex to do. Because they vary from culture to culture, some manners of comportment or actions could be considered normal in one society that could be seen as symptoms of Gender Identity Disorder in another. Here is a simple example: a man walking around in a skirt in America would be seen as very unusual, whereas the citizens of pre-colonial Hawaii would find pants to be more odd than what we would see as a skirt. Too flimsy of an example? In many Native American cultures, a man or woman who dressed as the opposite gender and wished to take a spouse of the same sex was called Two-Spirit (having both the spirit of a man and a woman) and was often respected in the tribe as being particularly spiritual.
With this in mind, how are we to consider the breaking of cultural rules to be an illness? The APA does not consider anarchists to be mentally infirm simply because they do not follow normal societal rules. I believe the time has long since come for transsesualism to be considered not a mental illness but a secularly acceptable alternative lifestyle, in order to make way for such necessary civil rights concessions as the addition of gender identity to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. This would afford some protection to this already disadvantaged group (97% of trans people report gender based discrimination in the workplace) and make America a little more just for all its citizens.
http://advocate.com/Print_Issue/Current_Issue/The_Gender_Identity_Divide/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit
Corruption and Punishment
Recently, Teodoro Nguema Obiang of Equitorial Guinea was allowed into the US despite having been charged with numerous accounts of corruption. In particular, most of the money he earned was through stealing from the government of Guinea. I shall attempt to analyze the decisions of the US government through the lense of Robert Nozick's philosophy.
Nozick believes that if resources have been acquired unjustly, then society should have some principle of rectification in order to right what has happened. If one assumes for the moment that this man committed and injustice, then Nozick's theory would have that society right that injustice. The question is, how exactly does it right that injustice. In this case, how would not letting him into the country right anything? It may seem that we should not let morally questionable people into our country, especially given that there are so many other good people who are having a difficult time finding a visa. Yet this has nothing to do with rectifying his injustice. To the contrary, what should happen is that his money should be returned. One might then say that he should not be allowed to enter the country because if justice had occurred, then he would have not had enough money to travel. This can be extended to other ideas: a robber should not be punished, but the money should simply be returned. This might not be the case if the robber derived benefit for the money, for one could say that the robber had a more enjoyable life than would have been the case, and so the robber should suffer. But in cases of attempted crime, one applying Nozick's philosophy would clearly be required not to punish the robber.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/us/17visa.html?adxnnl=1&ref=global-home&adxnnlx=1258445285-kSHQxXMQnS2xk+97SFUtTw
Nozick believes that if resources have been acquired unjustly, then society should have some principle of rectification in order to right what has happened. If one assumes for the moment that this man committed and injustice, then Nozick's theory would have that society right that injustice. The question is, how exactly does it right that injustice. In this case, how would not letting him into the country right anything? It may seem that we should not let morally questionable people into our country, especially given that there are so many other good people who are having a difficult time finding a visa. Yet this has nothing to do with rectifying his injustice. To the contrary, what should happen is that his money should be returned. One might then say that he should not be allowed to enter the country because if justice had occurred, then he would have not had enough money to travel. This can be extended to other ideas: a robber should not be punished, but the money should simply be returned. This might not be the case if the robber derived benefit for the money, for one could say that the robber had a more enjoyable life than would have been the case, and so the robber should suffer. But in cases of attempted crime, one applying Nozick's philosophy would clearly be required not to punish the robber.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/us/17visa.html?adxnnl=1&ref=global-home&adxnnlx=1258445285-kSHQxXMQnS2xk+97SFUtTw
Monday, November 16, 2009
The Australian Government: Closer to Reconciliation but Still Not Absolved
The resent apology of the Australian government for the forced migration of thousands of British children troubles me in its lack of sincerity. The shroud of formality that the apology presents seems reassuring by the appearance of the Prime Minister and a special ceremony signifying the Australian governments sin, but behind that veil stands the truth: They still refuse to take responsibility for their part in a most egregious injustice.
This formal apology is all the thousands of victims of hundreds of years of exploitation will receive from the Australian government. As the below article states, “The Australian government has ruled out compensation, saying liability lay with state governments and churches that ran the institutions.” It is possible that the states and churches hold some responsibility, but if that is the viewpoint of the Australian government, why did they apologize? An apology implies some guilt for a prior act. The Australian government would not produce a public apology if they did not feel any guilt towards the action. So in essence, the Australian government in saying that they feel sorry for what they did, but these other groups should rectify the situation. In response this is what I say to the Australian government, “I’m sorry, but an apology without some sort of penance does not absolve you of your past misdeeds. You have admitted that you are at fault, now fix the problem you have claimed responsibility for.” While apologizing has its value, it does nothing to rectify the situation. Thousands have suffered unjustly and nothing is being done. There are more injustices adding onto the first.
There is little doubt in my mind that the states and church will not simply fire back at the Australian government and demand that they compensate the victims or their families, and so it does not seem likely that anything will be done anytime soon to rectify the past. I guess the victims can be satisfied with the fact that their plight required some sort of public address. I suppose I must look more favorably on the Australian government for at least apologizing for their errors; according to the bellow article, the British government has said they will hold off on their apology for another year. I am sure they have their calendar marked in 2010 already.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575193,00.html
The Real Choice
Many members of the Senate this week are struggling to come to terms with the new proposed health care bill, specifically with what its policy on abortion means for women. The bill currently bans coverage for abortions in all government-run insurance plans, as well as in any plan purchased with the help of government subsidies.
President Obama has stood firm on his decision to maintain the status quo by not allowing federal funding for abortions, a measure that would quickly incite the wrath of many conservatives. But pro-choice members of congress worry that the bill actually shuts women out of the option to have abortions covered in their plans.
Co-president of the National Women’s Law Center, Marcia Greenberger, says that under the current bill women are being asked to make an unfair choice between the elimination of gender discrimination in health care and “the basic right to coverage of their core health needs.”
Wait a minute: let's ask ourselves something. Is abortion really a “core health need,” or is abortion rather a “luxury” that many women take for granted? In my opinion, the right to basic health care coverage simply means that as an American citizen I should receive access to reliable, inexpensive insurance no matter what my gender or job situation is. The current bill aims to achieve just that, generally by expanding health care options, and specifically by making it illegal for companies to deny women coverage based on conditions such as age or previous reproductive health history.
In my opinion, the Obama administration is doing the right thing in not actively endorsing abortion, as it remains a morally debatable issue and state laws vary. But as these agitated members of congress need to remember, the current bill certainly still allows women the option to elect to pay for a plan that includes coverage for abortions. As it now stands, the bill does not restrict women’s less controversial and more fundamental “right to choose” - their insurance plans.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/another-standoff-may-be-looming-on-abortion-issue/
President Obama has stood firm on his decision to maintain the status quo by not allowing federal funding for abortions, a measure that would quickly incite the wrath of many conservatives. But pro-choice members of congress worry that the bill actually shuts women out of the option to have abortions covered in their plans.
Co-president of the National Women’s Law Center, Marcia Greenberger, says that under the current bill women are being asked to make an unfair choice between the elimination of gender discrimination in health care and “the basic right to coverage of their core health needs.”
Wait a minute: let's ask ourselves something. Is abortion really a “core health need,” or is abortion rather a “luxury” that many women take for granted? In my opinion, the right to basic health care coverage simply means that as an American citizen I should receive access to reliable, inexpensive insurance no matter what my gender or job situation is. The current bill aims to achieve just that, generally by expanding health care options, and specifically by making it illegal for companies to deny women coverage based on conditions such as age or previous reproductive health history.
In my opinion, the Obama administration is doing the right thing in not actively endorsing abortion, as it remains a morally debatable issue and state laws vary. But as these agitated members of congress need to remember, the current bill certainly still allows women the option to elect to pay for a plan that includes coverage for abortions. As it now stands, the bill does not restrict women’s less controversial and more fundamental “right to choose” - their insurance plans.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/another-standoff-may-be-looming-on-abortion-issue/
"Iran plays down UN nuclear report"
"Iran plays down UN nuclear report"
In today’s news, reports of further Iranian struggles to comply with international nuclear regulations were made, in reference specifically to Iran’s lack of full disclosure concerning the status of their respective nuclear arms facilities, and its corresponding inconsistency with obligations to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty sanctioned by the U.N. Insistence of complete compliance on the parts of Iranian nuclear negotiators, was formerly supported by earlier IAEA reports, which cited activities “in accordance with the IAEA instruction and limitations,” following inspection of the nuclear site at Qom. Since then though, Iran has revealed “the existence of the Fordo enrichment facility, which is being built about 30km north of Qom,” which according to the IEAE, did “not contribute to the building of confidence,” but rather, “gives rise to questions about whether there were any other nuclear facilities not declared to the agency.” Moreover, these new discoveries are calling into complete question motives concerning ongoing uranium enrichment, justified by the Iranian government as means of efficient energy production.
As these doubts continue to soar, decisions about what is appropriate action at this point to ensure Iranian loyalty to the non-proliferation treaty remains unclear. “Under a plan brokered by the IAEA and agreed by Russia, the US and France, Iran would send about 1200kg, or 70%, of its low-enriched uranium, to Russia by the year’s end for processing,” as a means of mitigating this doubt concerning Iran’s reliability to make good on its obligations. Still though, to date, “Iran has raised ‘technical and economic considerations’ with the IAEA and has missed deadlines to respond.” I recall having discussed this contentious issue in the past, and now with this newly updated report on the parts of the “U.N.’s nuclear watchdog,” the issue concerning what action short of brute-force can be taken to ensure Iranian compliance remains. Or is there a contention of justice that would legitimize using brute-force to mitigate Iranian injustice at this point? Perhaps Nozick’s principle of rectification would suggest this.
Referenced source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8363589.stm
In today’s news, reports of further Iranian struggles to comply with international nuclear regulations were made, in reference specifically to Iran’s lack of full disclosure concerning the status of their respective nuclear arms facilities, and its corresponding inconsistency with obligations to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty sanctioned by the U.N. Insistence of complete compliance on the parts of Iranian nuclear negotiators, was formerly supported by earlier IAEA reports, which cited activities “in accordance with the IAEA instruction and limitations,” following inspection of the nuclear site at Qom. Since then though, Iran has revealed “the existence of the Fordo enrichment facility, which is being built about 30km north of Qom,” which according to the IEAE, did “not contribute to the building of confidence,” but rather, “gives rise to questions about whether there were any other nuclear facilities not declared to the agency.” Moreover, these new discoveries are calling into complete question motives concerning ongoing uranium enrichment, justified by the Iranian government as means of efficient energy production.
As these doubts continue to soar, decisions about what is appropriate action at this point to ensure Iranian loyalty to the non-proliferation treaty remains unclear. “Under a plan brokered by the IAEA and agreed by Russia, the US and France, Iran would send about 1200kg, or 70%, of its low-enriched uranium, to Russia by the year’s end for processing,” as a means of mitigating this doubt concerning Iran’s reliability to make good on its obligations. Still though, to date, “Iran has raised ‘technical and economic considerations’ with the IAEA and has missed deadlines to respond.” I recall having discussed this contentious issue in the past, and now with this newly updated report on the parts of the “U.N.’s nuclear watchdog,” the issue concerning what action short of brute-force can be taken to ensure Iranian compliance remains. Or is there a contention of justice that would legitimize using brute-force to mitigate Iranian injustice at this point? Perhaps Nozick’s principle of rectification would suggest this.
Referenced source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8363589.stm
Fort Hood Shootings Incite Ethnic Discrimination and Expose Domestic Traumas of War
On November 5th Nidal Mlik Hasan, a U.S. Army Major and psychiatrist of Muslim descent, opened fire on the Fort Hood military base killing 13 people and wounding 30 others. It is understandable that the U.S. government and many Americans made preliminary assumptions that the case was affiliated with terrorism, as some evidence was discovered linking Hasan to email messages sent to a radical Muslim extremist Anwar al-Awlaki who is known to propagate terrorist sentiments. However, a thorough investigation has yielded no evidence of any affiliation with terrorist groups or any outside aide in Hasan’s suicidal plot. Yet, a Rasmussen survey found that 60% of Americans still want his case investigated as an act of terrorism, (under the jurisdiction of federal criminal courts). Racial/ethnic profiling is a prevailing factor in Hasan’s case, as he was automatically stereotyped to be an extremist terrorist. Nothing can justify Hasan’s heinous act of mass murder, but Americans need to shed their discriminatory assumptions and focus on the more valid motivating factor in his case: the aftermath of trauma caused by our war in the Middle East. The Fort Hood shooting should serve as a reminder of the atrocities involved with our current war and the permanent, emotionally scarring affects that our current war has inflicted on veterans and all military personnel involved. Rather than promote further racial profiling and sweeping generalizations about all American Muslims, we need to acknowledge the devastating domestic affects of war and reevaluate our lingering involvement in the Middle East.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/us/08investigate.html?scp=16&sq=Fort%20Hood%20killing&st=cse
Preparing for the Olympics in 2010, Vancouver seeks to remove the homeless
As the winter Olympics of 2010 in Vancouver approach, the Canadian government finds themselves in a debacle. Similar to Beijing’s attempts to rid the city of the intense pollution, Vancouver finds itself in a position in which they desire to remove the homeless from the streets. A provincial law has been proposed that would accomplish that task. A similar act, the Mental Health Act, has already allowed for the removal of those folks deemed incompetent and incapable of rationalization. The new proposal targets the homeless that do not fall in to the medically insane category. Debate is beginning to increase in parliament as to whether or not this law would actually be a violation of the Canadian charter.
What would the Rawlsian principles suggest about this forced removal of those who no doubt would be considered the least advantaged? In considering the original position and the idea of removal of the least advantaged, I think it would violate the justice as described by Rawls’ theory of justice. The principles that result from the original position seek to advance the minimum conditions of those who are the worst off. The difference principle, as Rawls outlines, promotes opportunity for those in this category. Removing these people ignores their membership in this society all together as they are clearly neglected to the extent in which they are thrown out.
However, the question can be brought up as to whether or not these homeless people are members of the society. What qualifies someone as a member of the Rawlsian society? Take for instance the plausible circumstance that some homeless people migrated to Vancouver from another city due to its more pleasant weather and the chance at greater opportunity for work. Not being original members of this society would lead us to a position in which we would need to evaluate the rights of a foreigner in the society. Rawls theory of justice does not cover this, but I would suggest that if they are not part of the society, then they do not have the basic liberties of the rest of the members of the society and thus can be removed from the city.
I presume that if a homeless person is indeed a member of this society (based off of what definition, I cannot provide) then it is unjust for their removal. However, if some homeless person, deemed a migrator, is not part of the society, then the local government has the just ability to have them removed to some other location.
http://www.straight.com/article-258818/province-targets-homeless
A Not-So-Obvious Kink in the Health Care Debate: Abortion
Amidst all the talk of coverage for uninsured Americans, it is easy to overlook some particulars in our current health-care debate. With hundreds (indeed, even thousands) of pages of legislation pushing through Congress, it is often easy to simply push through some relatively minor issues in pursuit of an overarching whole whose final outcome provides more benefit than harm. One problem, however, arises when we overlook particular aspects of legislation that can indeed make the situation worse. A case in point is the current health care reform, a new piece of legislation being considered in Congress that would change abortion standards considerably.
The measure, which would restrict access to insurance for abortions, has served as a hotly contested fighting ground for pro-life and pro-choice activists. In its final form, the House bill prohibits the sale of abortion insurance to those who receive subsidies and those on government-run insurance plans. As constructed, the legislation poses lawmakers with a strong trade-off: accept a law that reduces gender inequalities in health care provision or uphold the reproductive rights of women across the nation by striking that law down.
Amidst all the talk of minimal coverage for uninsured Americans, it is easy to overlook some particulars in our current health-care debate. With hundreds (indeed, even thousands) of pages of legislation pushing through Congress, it is often easy to simply push through some relatively minor issues in pursuit of an overarching whole whose final outcome provides more benefit than harm. One problem, however, arises when we overlook particular aspects of legislation that can indeed make the situation worse. A case in point is the current health care reform, a new piece of legislation being considered in Congress that would change abortion standards considerably.
The measure, which would restrict access to insurance for abortions, has served as a hotly contested fighting ground for pro-life and pro-choice activists. In its final form, the House bill prohibits the sale of abortion insurance to those who receive subsidies and those on government-run insurance plans. As constructed, the legislation poses lawmakers with a strong trade-off: accept a law that reduces gender inequalities in health care provision or uphold the reproductive rights of women across the nation by striking that law down.
Another important consideration about the bill is the scope of its coverage. Originally aimed at only those people who qualify for direct government assistance, the measure would eventually extend into the ranks of large employers providing insurance to their workers. Previously, such employers were free to include abortion coverage in the insurance they provided to their employees. The bill would therefore have far-reaching effects not only on the marginally poor but also the majority of Americans who currently receive some sort of coverage as part of their job package.
Congress is making a grave mistake if it allows the bill in its current form to pass through into law. The issue is not one of pro-life and pro-choice. The underlying issue here, however, is one of federalism, the overarching principle that has united federal and state measures under the common umbrella of mutual cooperation. Since the issue of abortion first received national attention in the Supreme Court’s groundbreaking decision in Roe v. Wade, the federal government has taken a hands-off approach, allowing states to determine the defining characteristics of their own laws regarding abortion. To that end, current law simply prohibits the federal government from fully financing abortion services, in no way preventing states from taking that very action on their own. That such a highly-debated issue was merely acknowledged in passing and articulated as but one of many provisions in an exhausting list of health care reforms is a travesty and a gross underestimation of such a policy’s effects on the relationship between the national and state governments. The House needs to strike down the bill and allow states themselves to determine how federal health care legislation will affect abortion.
For a closer look at the actual legislation follow: http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/another-standoff-may-be-looming-on-abortion-issue/
Who cares about Sarah Palin?
Can somebody please tell me why Sarah Palin’s interview with Oprah was reported either on the front page or under top stories or both on all the major news sites (ABC, MSNBC, Fox, CNN)? I mean, okay so she was the vice-presidential candidate in the last race, and she is a political figure. But how does her interview on Oprah qualify as a top story? So she went on and talked about the same old talking points as usual, meanwhile plugging her new book, does that really pertain to major politics? If it does, it’s my estimation that it is only because the media has decided that it does. What I mean is, Sarah Palin was basically unknown until the Presidential Campaign; she subsequently played a major part in the downfall of the McCain campaign, while becoming a media star. The media loves her because the media loves ratings, not because she has any political merit (she demonstrated her lack thereof quite often). But we are still hearing about her. Even after she randomly resigned from being governor of Alaska (a common move for any responsible executive no doubt), and took herself out of the actual political arena, the media still tracks her every move. I find it very pathetic that so much time is spent on her “career”, while so many actual important events are unfolding in the U.S. and abroad. The media should not be focused around entertaining its audience, but informing them on the facts. And then we wonder why the general public is so ignorant. My suggestion: get to the real pertinent issues and forget about Palin.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33970359/ns/today-today_books/
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/16/palin.oprah/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/16/palin-expresses-pity-grandbabys-daddy-oprah-interview/
http://abcnews.go.com/politics
Oh How the Turn Tables
President Obama landed in China today for a three-day visit to Shanghai and Beijing. But, for the first time in recent history, the primary focus of this American President’s visit will not be criticizing China on their human rights violations and stance regarding North Korea. Because of China’s rising power on the world stage, it is expected that she will be testing the United States' power, and ability to repay loans. Currently, China has a great deal of money invested in the United States, and they want to make sure we have the proper infrastructure and system to pay it back in a timely fashion. The Chinese government is especially skeptical about the proposed health care plan, which grants universal coverage.
The tables have truly turned on the United States as we accept a more passive role in these talks. The days of demanding change are gone, and we now have to prove ourselves. Some conservatives say it is imperative we don’t give in too much, as this will show weakness and secede our spot as global superpower. And others argue that China, due to its history of human rights violations, should not be granted such a coveted and globally influential position. But, Obama is prepared to enter talks this week with an agenda that will put American priorities first, while attempting to build up and strengthen our relationship with China. My question is where will global concerns like global warming fall in this new scheme of things? China is a leader is fossil fuel production, and the United States has already agreed to push back the date of enacting the Copenhagen Agreement regarding global warming that will include China from next month to much later this year. How much leeway can we give on such pertinent issues?
In order not to upset Chinese officials, Obama agreed to not meet the Dalai Lama last month in Washington even though every other president since George H.W. Bush has personally invited him to the White House. I can understand precautions like this, but in working with China, Obama must keep the international role of the United States in the forefront, and encourage China, in its growing international role, to likewise take a lead in global issues such as the environment and human rights.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/world/asia/15prexy.html?ref=asia
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/world/asia/15china.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=china&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/world/asia/14prexy.html?ref=asia
The tables have truly turned on the United States as we accept a more passive role in these talks. The days of demanding change are gone, and we now have to prove ourselves. Some conservatives say it is imperative we don’t give in too much, as this will show weakness and secede our spot as global superpower. And others argue that China, due to its history of human rights violations, should not be granted such a coveted and globally influential position. But, Obama is prepared to enter talks this week with an agenda that will put American priorities first, while attempting to build up and strengthen our relationship with China. My question is where will global concerns like global warming fall in this new scheme of things? China is a leader is fossil fuel production, and the United States has already agreed to push back the date of enacting the Copenhagen Agreement regarding global warming that will include China from next month to much later this year. How much leeway can we give on such pertinent issues?
In order not to upset Chinese officials, Obama agreed to not meet the Dalai Lama last month in Washington even though every other president since George H.W. Bush has personally invited him to the White House. I can understand precautions like this, but in working with China, Obama must keep the international role of the United States in the forefront, and encourage China, in its growing international role, to likewise take a lead in global issues such as the environment and human rights.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/world/asia/15prexy.html?ref=asia
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/world/asia/15china.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=china&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/world/asia/14prexy.html?ref=asia
Friday, November 13, 2009
Should the Age be considered in Life Sentence?
Over the last week, the Supreme Court of the United States heard two cases related to the Eighth Amendment banning cruel and unusual punishments.
Four years ago in 2005, the Supreme Court has decided by a vote of 5 to 4 that people under the age of 18 should not be executed in any case. However the cases before the court this time, Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida, are slightly different. They concern the question of whether age should be taken into account in deciding if juvenile offenders might be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in crimes not involving murder.
As usual, the court and the general public are divided into two sides holding different arguments.
Not to anyone’s surprise, Justice Scalia supports the life sentence. During the hearing, he made his point very clear. “One of the purposes is retribution, punishment for just perfectly horrible actions,” he pointed out, “And I don’t know why the value of retribution diminishes to the point of zero when it’s a person who’s … 17 years old.” In other words, what happened during the crime already becomes a fact that does not change with the criminal’s age. Since one purpose of the law is to punish the offender, the same degree of punishment should be given to a 17-year-old and a 35-year-ole if they commit the same crime.
But many people seem unconvinced.
One argument in support for age-consideration can be drawn from the reasoning delivered by the court’s majority opinion in the 2005 year case. As concluded by Adam Liptak, the Supreme Court correspondent of The New York Times, one major reason behind the 2005 case was the fact that “people under 18 are immature, irresponsible, susceptible to peer pressure and often capable of change.” Hence, it can be argued that because of the psychological and intellectual difference between a juvenile and an adult, the juvenile should not be punished as hard as an adult for the same crime because the decision a junior made during the crime is not a “mature” one. More importantly, people under 18 are usually capable of changing, and locking them up for the rest of their life seems a little bit harsh. As argued by Bryan Stevenson, Mr. Sullivan’s lawyer, “To say to any child of 13 that you are only fit to die in prison is cruel. It can’t be reconciled with what we know about the nature of children.”
Personally, I am holding an argument in favor of the age-consideration from a more philosophical point of view. As we know, there are laws saying that juveniles cannot drink, cannot drive and cannot marry. And the justification behind those laws is that people under 18 are not mature or responsible enough. The liberty to drive, to drink and to marry can all be seen as some forms of rights. Therefore, the society is restricting the juveniles’ certain rights based on their immaturity. However, many people under 18 are sentenced to the same punishment as adults, without consideration of the age and the fact of the immaturity of juveniles. It seems a little unfair for the society to bar the kids from the fruits of liberty based on their age yet not to consider their immaturity when they have to bear to thorns of laws. Therefore, I believe that the fact of age should be taken into consideration when life sentence is made in case not involving murder.
Source: Adam Liptak
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10scotus.html?_r=1
Four years ago in 2005, the Supreme Court has decided by a vote of 5 to 4 that people under the age of 18 should not be executed in any case. However the cases before the court this time, Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida, are slightly different. They concern the question of whether age should be taken into account in deciding if juvenile offenders might be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in crimes not involving murder.
As usual, the court and the general public are divided into two sides holding different arguments.
Not to anyone’s surprise, Justice Scalia supports the life sentence. During the hearing, he made his point very clear. “One of the purposes is retribution, punishment for just perfectly horrible actions,” he pointed out, “And I don’t know why the value of retribution diminishes to the point of zero when it’s a person who’s … 17 years old.” In other words, what happened during the crime already becomes a fact that does not change with the criminal’s age. Since one purpose of the law is to punish the offender, the same degree of punishment should be given to a 17-year-old and a 35-year-ole if they commit the same crime.
But many people seem unconvinced.
One argument in support for age-consideration can be drawn from the reasoning delivered by the court’s majority opinion in the 2005 year case. As concluded by Adam Liptak, the Supreme Court correspondent of The New York Times, one major reason behind the 2005 case was the fact that “people under 18 are immature, irresponsible, susceptible to peer pressure and often capable of change.” Hence, it can be argued that because of the psychological and intellectual difference between a juvenile and an adult, the juvenile should not be punished as hard as an adult for the same crime because the decision a junior made during the crime is not a “mature” one. More importantly, people under 18 are usually capable of changing, and locking them up for the rest of their life seems a little bit harsh. As argued by Bryan Stevenson, Mr. Sullivan’s lawyer, “To say to any child of 13 that you are only fit to die in prison is cruel. It can’t be reconciled with what we know about the nature of children.”
Personally, I am holding an argument in favor of the age-consideration from a more philosophical point of view. As we know, there are laws saying that juveniles cannot drink, cannot drive and cannot marry. And the justification behind those laws is that people under 18 are not mature or responsible enough. The liberty to drive, to drink and to marry can all be seen as some forms of rights. Therefore, the society is restricting the juveniles’ certain rights based on their immaturity. However, many people under 18 are sentenced to the same punishment as adults, without consideration of the age and the fact of the immaturity of juveniles. It seems a little unfair for the society to bar the kids from the fruits of liberty based on their age yet not to consider their immaturity when they have to bear to thorns of laws. Therefore, I believe that the fact of age should be taken into consideration when life sentence is made in case not involving murder.
Source: Adam Liptak
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10scotus.html?_r=1
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Scientology Convicted of Fraud in France - The limits of religious freedom
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)