Goldstone

The Goldstone Report, written by UN lawyer, Richard Goldstone.  He was commisioned, by the UN, to look at war crimes during the 2008 conflict between Israel and Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

As someone who knew some people who fought in the 2008 conflict on the Israel side, I have a bit of bias (plus I am a jew), but I am finding it harder and harder to justify Israel's actions.

After the Goldstone report was published, essentially saying that both Hamas and Israel took part in war crimes, Goldstone life was threatened by several extremist jews.  Beyond that, many people threatened to riot outside of his grandson's Bar Mitzvah.  Having put alot of work into my bar mitzvah, I will say that that is a very rude thing to do (you have to learn a whole ne language and alphabet for one day).  The rioters have no right to take away from the boy's day.

Now, a settlement ahas been reasched and Goldman will be going to the Bar Mitzvah, but I still have a problem with Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister  (see tomorrw's post for that). I guess I am OK with this issue

Let's just lie...

My biggest pet peave is when products claim to be "green" when there is indeed nothing green about them. 

A good recent example is the world's cup coming up in South Africa.  Now, ignoring the fact that this is a big deal for Africa to host it's first World Cup. The designers of the project claim that this will be the greenest world cup in history.  They are aiming (albeit halfheartedly) for carbon neutrality.  Of course, all of this is a lie.  A report on NPR found that this game will have a bigger carbon footprint than the last 5 World Cups combined.  Of course, some of that was due to the fact that this world cup is not in Europe, thus more plane travel will take place.

Here are just another list of things that I have seen that clame to be "green:"
1) An external hardrive
2) A shirt
3) Dog food

If you heard about the recent Energy Star debacle, you probably know that those are suspect, though my dad (who works for the EPA) assures me that Energy Star is being reworked. 

So I guess, the only way that we can be green is to keep our old stuff.  That is disgusting.  Now isn't that just downright un-American?

Junior Theme Update (Seperation of Church And State)

Kind of haven't done one of these yet, so here goes:

I feel like my junior theme  is coming along quite well.  I need to simplify my arguments a little and clarify some of the terms for the reader.  Other than that, I think that (unlike most of the things I write) the focus is pretty good,  though I will work on it.  On top of that, I will continue to work on transitions and try to get my paragraphs and paragraph blocs into the most logical order.

I am still a little shaky on how I will conclude the theme.  I think I will take a stand on the issue, seeing as how my essay covers a relatively controversial topic.  If you trhink that I should or shouldn't, let me know.

Also, If you have a topic that relates to mine or you think that my topic woujld be useful for your paper, let me know in the comments.

How quickly we forget

Yesterday, Manuel Noreiga was extradited out of the US and into France.  Personally, I would have expected a little more fanfare. 

It is hard to believe that a man who was at one point the most hated man in America didn't even make it into the "Top Stories" of my New York Times App. 

That brings me to a question: Does our society have communal ADD? We forget everything so quickly.  Anyone who has ever been shortly famous will tell you how surprising it is how quickly the media forgets about them altogether. 

I feel like, as a society, we are just looking for a new fad to focus on.  Once a person is no longer interesting (or in Noreiga's case, a cruel dictator) we just don't care anymore.  As Mr. Bolos and Doc Oc will tell us, we can only focus on so much.  So then, is the world structured like our AS class that instead of following everything poorly, we follow a few stories closely.

Unexpected Consequences

I want to talk today about unexpected consequences of legislature. I think that these give us a really interesting insight into the truth of a society. 

For instance, a lot of people argued that the revolution in China gave women greater rights than they had before.  Indeed, they did gain more rights; there is no more foot-binding.

But, the restrictions on children in China has lead to a great deal more men than women in China.  By 2020, there will be 24 million more men than women in China.

Clearly, women in China do not have the rights that we had hoped. 

Another example of an unexpected consequence is America's toughening restrictions on teenage drinking. 

People expected this to lower underage drinking (obviously), but instead it increases the problem.  As my parents will attest, there was drinking in their childhood, but not to the same extent as today.  People did not binge in the way that they do today.

I think that this unexpected consequence speaks to the ethos of American youth.  We want to be free from our cushy suburban lives and uber-wealth.

Are there any unexpected consequences that you can think of that provide insight into a culture.

Trust Me

I was thinking the other day about the way that we are trusted by our government.  We are trusted with 2-ton machines capable of killing instantly, yet we are not trusted with Marijuana.

We are trusted with Tobacco, which most doctors will agree has no real health benefits.  At the same time, there are a huge number of medicines, which do have redeaming attributes, that aren't nearly as dangerous as tobacco, but are tightly regulated by the government.  My face medicine, used to control acne, requires a prescription.

I have to ask myself, where does our country draw the line.  There are so many things that, to me at least, seem so incredibly random, yet no one thinks to control cars, even though we only recieve a set of lessons as teens.  Why are we considered to need to be "protected" from face wash, but not tobacco? 

Are there any laws that seem random and a little useless to you?  I would love to start a conversation about the real roots of our laws.

Loss of Values in America

Nada Prouty was the perfect example of a CIA and FBI (before that) agent. She was a proud American and she loved her country.

After the CIA claimed that she was committing sedition for the enemy (Hezbollah) she was imediately removed from her position.  Then the media began to attack her.  She was coerced into admitting her guilt, then (for obvious reasons) her citizenship was revoked. 

After new prosecuters looked into her case, they discovered that she was clearly innocent.  This was a huge embarressment for the CIA; but it was nothing compared to what has happened to Prouty.  Her citizenship cannot be restored, due to technicalities.  Now, she faces being sent back to lebanon where many of the terrorists that she hunted would be waiting to kill her.  The judge is delaying her deportation. 

I can't help but wonder what this says about our country.  In "America" we turned a person who has more faith in her country than I do and was willing to risk her life fighting against a cruel and unforgiving enemy; an enemy that she has a right to identify with.  She lives with a tarnished reputation and a lost lifestyle.

NCAA loses

I am watching the final game as I write this.  Currently Duke and Butler are tied at 16.  Personally, I prefer Butler 'cuz I love an underdog.  By the time this is published, we will no doubt have a winner.

Honestly, I wonder if there really is a winner.  The main argument for these sports and the recruiting that goes behind them is that a winning team will lead to more donations to the school by graduates.  my dad informed me, however, that the school uses most of this money to pay for more sports.

Then, I wonder, what is the point.  Maybe this gives people who wouldn't usually have the chance, the chance to go to college.  It is a great equalizer, like I said yesterday.  Then, I heard on NPR that only about 40% of college basketball players actually graduate.  Basically, I can't see a point to this.  If you do, tell me.

An Elitist Sport

In a conversation the other day, someone mentioned that the reason that he enjoyed watching athletics so much was that it is a great equalizer.  Regardless of race, SES, or family income, one is either good or bad at a sport.

This got me thinking, rowing is not by any means a cheap sport. A boat costs about $50,000.  Then, you have to consider that nearly all of our competitions are out of state and require coach buses and hotel stays.  Because of these expenses, New Trier is the only public school in the area and one in a handful of public schools in the country that has a team.

I will vouch for the team, saying that we do work quite hard, and that we are by no means a group of rich kids rocking back and forth on our boats.  On the other hand, our competition is made up of mostly prestigious prep schools and extremely wealthy public schools.  By excluding a huge population of the US are we making ourselves less of a sport than any other real sport.

This has huge impilications, when you consider that colleges get about the same amount of recruits for crew as they do for mainstream sports.  Think about the way that this effects who gets into America's most prestigious institutions.  What do you think of rowing? Can it even be compared to other sports?

Politics and Religion

For my Junior Theme I am writing about the church and state kerfuffle.  One of the books that I am reading is entitled, Why Politics Needs Religion by Brendan Sweetman.

Sweetman Argues that religion is merely a worldview in the same way that secularism is a world view.  Essentially, the idea that one should be free to do anything so long as it only hurts you is the same as the idea that homosexuals shouldn't be married in that they both are based on worldviews.

A worldview comes from a balance of fact-based observations and things taken on faith.  He says that the more of a worldview is taken on fact-based observations, the more rational.  Then he says that religion and secularism (ie the idea of evolution and science-based meaning of life) are equally equally rational.  I am not sure about that, but other than that, he presents an interesting argument.

I'll admit, I have a problem with politicians quoting scripture when justifying a certain piece of legislature.  Maybe I should learn to accept a differing worldview and ask myself if I am merely quoting secular scripture.

What do you think?  Do you think that religion should be given the same weight in public debates as logic?

Constitutionality of Sex Offenders

As long as I am on the subject of constitutionality (see my last post), I thought I would talk about the other constitutional quagmire that is plaguing very few ears (unfortunately).

Many people would agree that if the government were to tell you where you could and could not live, based on things like nearby schools, stores, or restaurants, you would probably call fowl and call it what it is: unconstitutional.  Why then, does no one argue that telling registered sex offenders where they can and cannot live is unconstitutional.  The reason is simple, no one wants to be the politician who let perverts into their constituents neighborhoods.

Why do we not think about the fairness of these laws.  Lets think of our term for sex offenders, pervert.  In fact, the term pervert is quite offensive, if you ask me.  Most therapists will agree that pedophilia and sex addictions are real things.  Why, then, is it inappropriate to call someone with other mental disorders a derogatory name, but it is perfectly acceptable to call these people by such names.

 Beyond the fact that "perversion" is a mental disorder (that some people can be "cured" of), there are many people who are sex offenders who can't live near schools but aren't pedophiles.  In some states, a rape charge will put you on the same list as pedophiles, and I think that there is a big difference between raping an adult or a child (though I wouldn't call one "better").  There are also a multitude of cases of twenty-something guys or girls who had relationships with teenagers.  After jail time, these people (who have already lost years of their life for a questionable reasons) now find that they have limited rights.  You can't live near an elementary school because fifteen years ago you dated a 17 year old, that simply makes no sense to me.

Honestly, if I had kids, I wouldn't want a pedophile living next door, but that doesn't mean that I should have the right to tell this man where he can and can't live.  I can tell my kids not to go to his house and I can even move, but telling him where to live is just not justifiable.

A note: I was going to put up a easily attainable map of all the "sexual predators" in the New Trier district, but made a conscious decision not to.

Constitutionality of Healthcare

Someone brought up to me that the healthcare bill (probably a law by the time this is published) is unconstitutional.  This is an interesting argument, I thought.

The bone that people pick with the bill/ law is that it requires you to buy healthcare insurance.  This mandated healthcare, people say, is the only case in which people are forced into buying something that they may or may not want.  I brought up car insurance, though a moment after saying that, I realized that one can simply choose not to drive.  One can choose to be homeless without a job, and not pay taxes.  Contrarily, one cannot choose not to live (suicide is illegal).

Personally, I think that mandated healthcare is, ignoring the constitution, the best way to cut down on insurance costs.  Unfortunately, there is this idea that people love to pull out; they say, "it is a slippery slope."  And indeed, I can see that argument.  Many of the greatest dictators (like Hitler per-say) came to power not by a sudden coup, but by a gradual usurpation of power.  (Just a note, contrary to the many satirically posted Obama with Hitler 'stache, I am in no way comparing Obama to Hitler.

So, then, is mandated healthcare OK.  Can you justify mandated healthcare with the constitution in mind, or do you need to go outside of it?  Do you even support mandated healthcare?

Abortion... Whose Choice is it?

Instead of talking about a woman or the government's right to choose, I want to talk about a man's right to choose.

That sounds silly, but I was talking to a family friend who was relaying the story of his friend (that sounds really gossipy) whose child had just been aborted by his ex.  The man's friend was really distraught and wondered why he had no choice as to his child's life.

I thought about this for a while, then I said, "who does more work, the man who donates the sperm to the woman, or the woman who does everything else."  He responded that he wasn't sure if the sperm was being donated to the woman or the child.

That was a good point, then I thought of a metaphor.  You have a house to be cleaned, both the man who unlocks the door to the house and the woman who actually cleans the house are necessary for the house to be cleaned.  The difference is that after the man inserts his key, so to speak, he leaves the house to be cleaned by the woman.  All the work will be done by the woman and the woman will get all the credit for cleaning (and rightfully so).  If the woman decided to stop cleaning, it would be nobodies choice but her own, right?

What do you think of my allegory or my belief that a woman should have more say over an abortion than a man?

Do We Live in an Oligarchy?

No, but we are closer to this than a dictatorship.

In 5/6 of the last presidential elections, the candidate who raised the most money won the election.  The only acception is Clinton who raised less money than Dole but won anyway.  Thus, if those who make more money win, those who give more money have more power to support the candidate of their choice.

This could be a coincidence, but I don't believe in coincidences.  I would like to think that American voters are more free thinking than people who just look at ads and decide what to vote for, but I'm not so sure.

Personally, I like to get to know people that I vote for, and I know that I should expect the same from others that I do from myself.  Because of this, I will play the assume that the president who gets the most votes also gets the most money by coincidence or simply because he has more supporters.

What, then, about small time politicians.  Very few people look up the websites on judges and even state representatives.  These people win because they are able to raise the most money.  The people who get the "small time" political jobs are the ones who eventually filter to bigger things on a national scale.

So again, I ask, do we live in an oligarchy?

Do We Live in a Dictatorship?

No, but there is one presidential power that should not exist.  Personally, I don't think that the president should have the power to pardon.

Of course, I have nothing wrong with the yearly tradition of pardoning turkeys on Thanksgiving, but think of any other time that it has been used for a justifiable reason.

After Ford took over, he pardoned Nixon.  Is this fair? Absolutely not.  I simply don't see any argument for dictatorship.

I don't understand why, in a government with so many complex checks and balances, we have one many who has the ability to, on a wim, commune sentences.  Nearly all presidents, in the last few days of their presidency, pardon a series of people of their political party.  This isn't just at all.  These are white collar criminals who committed serious crimes who get off scott free.

It seems odd that there is one man in the United States, which must have thousands of crimes a month, is able to pick a few of his buddies and essentially say, "it's ok, he is with me."

I know we are supposed to honor the constitution, but I don't see how this can be justified.