Aristotle spoke of ethos, pathos, and logos.
SUCCES is a mnemonic for success in communication
- SIMPLICITY
- UNEXPECTEDNESS
- CONCRETENESS
- CREDIBILITY
- EMOTIONS
- STORIES
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
#OccupyProfessorPitney'sBlog
I know that everybody is busy reading and making study guides but I wanted to hear what other people thought about the Occupy Wall Street protests. My personal opinion is this:
Occupy Wall Street was created by a Canadian magazine primarily protesting Corporate influence in the Government. I think that the protests have attracted a vast range of participants in terms of political beliefs and backgrounds who often detract from the legitimacy of the protests. While I generally disagree with those who want immense changes in America’s political and economic systems, I do agree that the materialism that exists in America today warrants reflection, as it has become the center of our lives. This was the intention of Adbusters (the Canadian rabble-rousers) when they created Occupy Black Friday. Although I struggled with the idea at first I think it carries on the spirit of OWS in calling attention to the matter. I also think that Occupy Black Friday illustrates the differences of those who are protesting for more jobs and those protesting corporations (it’s safe to say that boycotting consumer spending would have a negative impact on the job market.) To this date, Occupy Wall Street has proven to be a jumbled mess unable to truly define its own identity and its own message. Varying points of view have made it nearly impossible to legitimize any type of “movement” and in some cases have delegitimized the intent of the protests. I also feel that the protests have been a success in some ways. The discontent felt by many Americans, even those who have taken part in the protests, is palpable at this point. Public distrust in corporations runs throughout the country and recent events such as Citizens United v FEC point towards a growth in corporate influence. #OWS has at least brought a massive amount of attention to this issue and moving forward I hope they find a way to organize and take the next step in their movement. Finally, I think that although many people agree with the end but not their means, at some point aren’t these means better than none at all?
This may be the longest post of the year but I feel it has the potential to be a hugely important event in today’s culture (OWS not my post). It also involves a lot of what we have learned about over the past semester and is especially pertinent while we read Alinsky. Although many of you may not have opinions on the matter, I would love if those who do write a response to continue this discussion (after all isn’t that the point of this blog?). Good luck getting through these next couple of weeks everybody.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Movies, TV, and Politics
Birth of a Nation (1915) -- the first movie to have a White House screening, sadly revealing Woodrow Wilson's writings and racial attitudes in the early 20th century.
Gabriel Over the White House (1933).
Mission to Moscow (1943) -- pro-Soviet propaganda (at 1:36:30).
Duck and Cover (1951) -- civil defense documentary on saving yourself from the Bomb.
Red Nightmare (1962) -- DOD film asks: what if the Reds took over?
Fail-Safe (1964) -- after the Cuban Missile Crisis, a scary look at an accidental nuclear attack -- the closing minutes.
Dr. Strangelove (1964) -- a satirical look at an accidental nuclear attack.
Capricorn One (1978) -- in the paranoid 1970s, a fake Mars landing (start at 20 min.)
Gabriel Over the White House (1933).
Mission to Moscow (1943) -- pro-Soviet propaganda (at 1:36:30).
Duck and Cover (1951) -- civil defense documentary on saving yourself from the Bomb.
Red Nightmare (1962) -- DOD film asks: what if the Reds took over?
Fail-Safe (1964) -- after the Cuban Missile Crisis, a scary look at an accidental nuclear attack -- the closing minutes.
Dr. Strangelove (1964) -- a satirical look at an accidental nuclear attack.
Capricorn One (1978) -- in the paranoid 1970s, a fake Mars landing (start at 20 min.)
Monday, November 21, 2011
Food vs Fuel: Some rice for thought
I raised the topic of ethanol subsidies in class last Wednesday and most of the class responded with very strong opinions about ethanol. In the news media today, ethanol is generally crucified because of the "food vs fuel" debate. However, the issue of food vs fuel is not so simple. Here's some food for thought about the role of ethanol in world food markets:
I invite you to examine the prices of various commodities grown as food crops around the globe: maize, barley, rice. While news rages with complaints about rising corn prices, you will notice that corn is not the only crop going up in cost. Indeed, everything is going up. So is the price of oil (notice the extremely close correlations in the price of food and oil overtime)-- which believe it or not, drives the price of virtually everything. Consider a $3.60 box of corn flakes. It is comprised of merely ten cents of corn. The rest of the cost is made up of producer mark up and the $1.20 of energy that goes into producing that corn flake from raw corn. The price of oil drives the price of food products-- not the cost of the raw good, which is virtually negligible. Even in the poorest countries in Africa, cassava root (one of the most important staple crops in the country) must be cooked before eaten, lest the consumer die from a cyanide produced in the stomach by eating raw cassava. To cook cassava, one needs energy-- in today's world, that means oil.
The next concern raised in the food vs fuel debate is the idea of direct land use change. First of all, I've yet to see a comprehensive, widely accepted study that confirms this theory at all. But aside from that, let's look at the theory behind it. When corn prices go up, farmers want to grow nothing but corn because they want to grow the crop that will make them the most money. This results in a shortage of other crops, making them more scarce, and driving the price of those crops up, as well. Just by this logic, one would assume that the market balances out at this point; those farmers that had turned to the more profitable corn industry could then turn back to their original crops and make just as much money producing a more scarce crop.
But, even if that logic doesn't satisfy you, here's a kicker: consider rice, which is grown in paddies that are not competitive with land for corn in any way. The price of rice is up from four years ago, just as the price of corn and barley and just about every other crop in the world is. Rice isn't competitive with corn: according to the indirect land use change model, rice farmers would switch to growing corn because it is more profitable, causing the rise in the price of rice. However, due to the nature of the actual crop, this argument is invalid. Rice is the world's largest food staple, and it is by nature unaffected by ethanol markets.
If you consider the correlation between the price of oil and the price of food that I mentioned earlier, ethanol theoretically decreases the price of food, rather than increasing it. Ethanol breaks dependence on oil by providing a more domestic, sustainable alternative. This, in turn, affects the correlation we previously mentioned, ultimately reducing the cost of processing and cooking food.
My final point: food vs. fuel comes from concerns about rising prices for corn. This is a western, rich man's issue. Indeed, 50% of the world consists of subsistence farmers-- the farmers who worry not about high food prices, but low food prices that leave them poorer than ever. Only if the price of corn or rice or barley or what have you drops do they have a concern. The issue of high corn prices, which is commonly raised on behalf of the parts of the world that can't afford food, is actually benefiting the world's poorest.
The world produces more calories per capita today than it did in 1960. Why is there more hunger than ever? I'd venture to say that it has little to do with ethanol. It has to do with a distribution problem for food around the globe.
For further reading, here are a few related articles, including one about the most recent study regarding food vs fuel:
Myths about ethanol
Food vs Fuel thoughts
Food vs Fuel study
I invite you to examine the prices of various commodities grown as food crops around the globe: maize, barley, rice. While news rages with complaints about rising corn prices, you will notice that corn is not the only crop going up in cost. Indeed, everything is going up. So is the price of oil (notice the extremely close correlations in the price of food and oil overtime)-- which believe it or not, drives the price of virtually everything. Consider a $3.60 box of corn flakes. It is comprised of merely ten cents of corn. The rest of the cost is made up of producer mark up and the $1.20 of energy that goes into producing that corn flake from raw corn. The price of oil drives the price of food products-- not the cost of the raw good, which is virtually negligible. Even in the poorest countries in Africa, cassava root (one of the most important staple crops in the country) must be cooked before eaten, lest the consumer die from a cyanide produced in the stomach by eating raw cassava. To cook cassava, one needs energy-- in today's world, that means oil.
The next concern raised in the food vs fuel debate is the idea of direct land use change. First of all, I've yet to see a comprehensive, widely accepted study that confirms this theory at all. But aside from that, let's look at the theory behind it. When corn prices go up, farmers want to grow nothing but corn because they want to grow the crop that will make them the most money. This results in a shortage of other crops, making them more scarce, and driving the price of those crops up, as well. Just by this logic, one would assume that the market balances out at this point; those farmers that had turned to the more profitable corn industry could then turn back to their original crops and make just as much money producing a more scarce crop.
But, even if that logic doesn't satisfy you, here's a kicker: consider rice, which is grown in paddies that are not competitive with land for corn in any way. The price of rice is up from four years ago, just as the price of corn and barley and just about every other crop in the world is. Rice isn't competitive with corn: according to the indirect land use change model, rice farmers would switch to growing corn because it is more profitable, causing the rise in the price of rice. However, due to the nature of the actual crop, this argument is invalid. Rice is the world's largest food staple, and it is by nature unaffected by ethanol markets.
If you consider the correlation between the price of oil and the price of food that I mentioned earlier, ethanol theoretically decreases the price of food, rather than increasing it. Ethanol breaks dependence on oil by providing a more domestic, sustainable alternative. This, in turn, affects the correlation we previously mentioned, ultimately reducing the cost of processing and cooking food.
My final point: food vs. fuel comes from concerns about rising prices for corn. This is a western, rich man's issue. Indeed, 50% of the world consists of subsistence farmers-- the farmers who worry not about high food prices, but low food prices that leave them poorer than ever. Only if the price of corn or rice or barley or what have you drops do they have a concern. The issue of high corn prices, which is commonly raised on behalf of the parts of the world that can't afford food, is actually benefiting the world's poorest.
The world produces more calories per capita today than it did in 1960. Why is there more hunger than ever? I'd venture to say that it has little to do with ethanol. It has to do with a distribution problem for food around the globe.
For further reading, here are a few related articles, including one about the most recent study regarding food vs fuel:
Myths about ethanol
Food vs Fuel thoughts
Food vs Fuel study
The Mass Media
What Americans know: evidence from Pew
Change in the media
But these numbers are not quite what they seem: much internet content comes from newspaper sites.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Monday, November 14, 2011
The Iowa Problem
He's bold, powerful, gaining popular support; and according to Newt Gingrich, "I find it very formidable to think that I might win." Nothing can restrain Newt Gingrich... except for Iowa, because "Gingrich’s survival depends largely on Iowa."
Romney, on the other hand, might win the Iowa caucuses with minimal time and resources; but as of now he is going for New Hampshire.
Romney, on the other hand, might win the Iowa caucuses with minimal time and resources; but as of now he is going for New Hampshire.
An Essay on Parties
As a way of bringing together our discussions of parties and interest groups, you might want to read a recent (and brief) essay by Walter Russell Mead. Here is an excerpt:
The weakness of political parties is one thing that foreigners often don’t grasp about the United States. Elected officials are usually much more worried about their popularity among voters than about their popularity with party officials. Party organizations are only one among many sources of funding; most US politicians raise pots of money on their own, rather than relying solely on subsidies from party HQ.
This makes American politicians much more independent of party control than are politicians in many other democratic countries. Members of parliament and representatives in many countries know that their careers depend on their parties and leadership; they vote against their parties much less often than their American counterparts.
The results can be paradoxical. On the one hand, American politics is more populist than politics in many countries, with politicians scrambling to respond to strong feelings in the public. On the other, money plays a greater role as individual politicians are more easily influenced by the prospect of campaign contributions than large party organizations would be.
County Politics Can Be Heated, Too
Our discussion today of county politics reminded me of a meeting I attended last year in my local Stark County. This video is meant mainly for amusement and no, it is not a joke.
Parties in America
Party in Government and Party Organization
.........................Legislative............................Executive
Party in Gov.....House Dem Caucus................POTUS
........................House GOP Conference
........................Senate Dem Caucus
........................Senate GOP Conference
Party Org........DCCC, NRCC, DSCC, NRSC......DNC, RNC
........................House GOP Conference
........................Senate Dem Caucus
........................Senate GOP Conference
Party Org........DCCC, NRCC, DSCC, NRSC......DNC, RNC
Party in the Electorate
Congress Trading Stock on Inside Information
This week on 60 Minutes Steve Kroft did a segment on Congress members trading stock on inside information. Kroft found many instances where members of congress legally traded stock based on non-public information from Capitol Hill. One instance was in 2008 as a piece of legislation that would hurt credit card companies was making its way through congress. Nancy Pelosi purchased 5,000 shares of Visa at $44, two days later it was trading at the price of $64 (Pelosi made an easy $10,000) and the legislation then never made it through the House. Brian Baird, a former congressman from Washington state, mentions that in the past few years a whole new totally unregulated, $100 million dollar industry has formed in Washington called political intelligence. It employs former congressmen and former staffers to scour the halls of the Capitol gathering valuable non-public information then selling it to hedge funds and traders on Wall Street who can trade on it.
Should members of Congress be allowed to trade stocks based on inside information? What regulations should be imposed? There have been failed attempts- because why would Congressmen want to pass a piece of legislation that limits their abilities in the stock market?
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Occupy gets violent
For those of you who were waiting for the Occupy Movement to get violent, the wait is over.
A protest identified as part of the Occupy Movement at UC Berkeley resulted in policemen beating students with batons-- in this video, you can watch the police battering the students scream in the background. I don't know if anyone has ever heard of the documentary "Two Days in October," but the movie features video and first-hand accounts from the 1967 student protests against Dow Chemicals at the University of Wisconsin. I was surprised at how much I was reminded of that movie watching the video of UC Berkeley.
The police captain at UC cited that the attack was justified because the students linked arms when asked to step down: "The individuals who linked arms and actively resisted, that in itself is an act of violence," UC police Capt. Margo Bennett said. "I understand that many students may not think that, but linking arms in a human chain when ordered to step aside is not a nonviolent protest."
Regardless of your opinion of the Occupy movement or even the justification behind the violence, it's hard to watch that video and not cringe. Imagine that scene playing out on the quad at CMC.
So now the question: will this incident encourage or discourage the Occupy movement? Will authorities be more keen on crushing it?
A protest identified as part of the Occupy Movement at UC Berkeley resulted in policemen beating students with batons-- in this video, you can watch the police battering the students scream in the background. I don't know if anyone has ever heard of the documentary "Two Days in October," but the movie features video and first-hand accounts from the 1967 student protests against Dow Chemicals at the University of Wisconsin. I was surprised at how much I was reminded of that movie watching the video of UC Berkeley.
The police captain at UC cited that the attack was justified because the students linked arms when asked to step down: "The individuals who linked arms and actively resisted, that in itself is an act of violence," UC police Capt. Margo Bennett said. "I understand that many students may not think that, but linking arms in a human chain when ordered to step aside is not a nonviolent protest."
Regardless of your opinion of the Occupy movement or even the justification behind the violence, it's hard to watch that video and not cringe. Imagine that scene playing out on the quad at CMC.
So now the question: will this incident encourage or discourage the Occupy movement? Will authorities be more keen on crushing it?
Keystone Pipeline Debate
The controversy over a transnational pipeline running from Alberta to Texas brings to light a potential sever in Democratic solidarity. Because of the economically trying times, the union-dominated portion of the party has made their ideol0gical platform in 2012 clear: to create jobs at all costs and with whatever provisions necessary.
Their endorsement of the $7 Billion, 1,700 mile pipeline, however, has collided head on with numerous environmentalist groups. This is problematic for a party in which environmentalism has become just as mainstream as the unionism. Not only does the "liberal fringe" take environmentalist approaches seriously, but the movement's financial and lobbying efforts in Washington have grown drastically as well.
So what will this mean for the Dems in 2012? Maybe nothing. Maybe a ton. The likelihood is that neither group will abandon the Obama camp. But then again we're looking at a party who lost a major wave election in 2010 and who has a guy in office who's been underwater in the polls for several years. Needless to say, the Dems need solidarity now more than ever, and this isn't helping
To read more about it, go here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68089.html
Their endorsement of the $7 Billion, 1,700 mile pipeline, however, has collided head on with numerous environmentalist groups. This is problematic for a party in which environmentalism has become just as mainstream as the unionism. Not only does the "liberal fringe" take environmentalist approaches seriously, but the movement's financial and lobbying efforts in Washington have grown drastically as well.
So what will this mean for the Dems in 2012? Maybe nothing. Maybe a ton. The likelihood is that neither group will abandon the Obama camp. But then again we're looking at a party who lost a major wave election in 2010 and who has a guy in office who's been underwater in the polls for several years. Needless to say, the Dems need solidarity now more than ever, and this isn't helping
To read more about it, go here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68089.html
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Is Rick Perry His Own Worst Enemy?
So if you all were watching the debate tonight, you would have seen this little piece of political gaffe. It seems that despite everything, Rick Perry seems to be the one who does the most damage to himself. Between flip-flopping on the question of appearing on debates, and appearing to be in an altered mental state at the New Hampshire event, Rick Perry seems to be digging his own political grave.
Perhaps the best thing that he could do right now is keep quiet and let the attention stay on Herman Cain and his issues. That being said, perhaps the best thing the other Republicans could do for their own chances is let Rick Perry keep committing these gaffes and knock himself out of the race.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Thoughts on the 2012 election
For those of us who are writing on topic number 3, this article might be something to keep in mind. The article says Romney leads in electability, but comes up short in other areas. He remains at only 24% in the polls, still slightly below Cain (despite the recent scandals). Even though 1/5 th of voters believe he has the best chance to win against Obama, he is neck in neck with the other candidates on more specific voting issues. "On empathy, 21% say Cain is the one who best understands their problems, compared to Romney's 17%." Cain and Romney have similar numbers about the economy too. Will Cain's recent poll surges fizzle like Perry's did earlier, or will Cain continue to challenge Romney as a viable opponent?
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67742.html#ixzz1d3jDWYyH
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67742.html#ixzz1d3jDWYyH
Constitutional Change and the Electoral Process
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. Taxes are a major issue in campaigns.
Amendment XVII
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
Amendment XVIII (Prohibition) and Amendment XXI (Repeal) were big issues in their day.
Amendment XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Ponder the gender gap.
Amendment XX
This amendment greatly shortened the "lame duck" period after the presidential election, which was a huge problem in 1933.
Amendment XXII
Former president Bill Clinton said Monday that, without term limits, he would have stayed in the job "until I was carried away in a coffin, or defeated in an election."
Amendment XXIII
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a state; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
A solid three electoral votes for the Democrats
Amendment XXIV
Poll taxes had disenfranchised the poor and minorities.
Amendment XXV further raised the prominence of the vice presidency and thus, vice presidential candidates.
Amendment XXVI
Look what happened to voter turnout when the amendment became effective.
Amendment XXVII
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Congressional pay is a hardy perennial among election issues.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Huntsman's rather interesting approach to energy?
In a speech in Nevada earlier this week, Jon Huntsman said, “I will systemically begin to eliminate every subsidy for energy companies, whether it be oil, natural gas, wind or solar. Under my presidency, the United States will get out of the subsidy business." Quite a bold statement.
It's been interesting to hear about each Republican's approach to energy, particularly the alternative energy and corn ethanol market that drives a large portion of Iowa's economy. Perry, while opposing subsidies, has suggested an extension of the current tax-credit program for wind projects (which would certainly benefit Iowa). Romney has left his opinion vague, but has not indicated that he supports any kind of extension of the current subsidy program.
Huntsman, however, seems to have given up on Iowa with his most recent announcement. If the presidential hopeful has any intention of staying in the race, he needs to make some magic happen in New Hampshire.
It's been interesting to hear about each Republican's approach to energy, particularly the alternative energy and corn ethanol market that drives a large portion of Iowa's economy. Perry, while opposing subsidies, has suggested an extension of the current tax-credit program for wind projects (which would certainly benefit Iowa). Romney has left his opinion vague, but has not indicated that he supports any kind of extension of the current subsidy program.
Huntsman, however, seems to have given up on Iowa with his most recent announcement. If the presidential hopeful has any intention of staying in the race, he needs to make some magic happen in New Hampshire.
Friday, November 4, 2011
The Air Midterm
Relax. This “air midterm” does not count toward your grade; do not even turn it in. Instead, use it to appraise your own progress in the course. Try out this test, either in your head or on paper.If you flounder, then you should take more care with class sessions and assigned readings.
I. Identifications. Explain the meaning and significance of the following items. What is fair game for an identification?
- Items that we have discussed in class or on the blog;
- Items that appear in bold or italics in the readings;
- Items that cover several pages in the readings.
- “Energy in the executive”
- Popular sovereignty
- “Selective incorporation”
- Proportional representation
- Self-evident truths
- Spaghetti chart
- Moeurs
- Ninth Amendment
- Federal Register
- The Three-Fifths Clause
- Redistricting commissions
- The Supremacy Clause
- “Now I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social, and political evil, having due regard for its existence among us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any practical way, and to all the Constitutional obligations which have been thrown about it...”
- “[A]nd to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.”
- “The President of the
- According to Tocqueville, what are the main causes that maintain a democratic republic in the
- Is federalism beneficial? Explain.
- Should we amend Article V to make it easier to amend the Constitution and call a constitutional convention?
Mark Block
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Debbie Pepper Allen
Donna Brazile
David Plouffe
Thursday, November 3, 2011
the horse race: indepedents and the base
The New York Times recently put out a interactive chart which predicts the winner of the presidential election based on GDP, presidential approval, and GOP candidate ideology. Based on current predictions, it makes Obama much more likely to win than the conservatives but places him at a slight disadvantage to Romney and a large disadvantage to Huntsman. While the whole chart is interesting, I want to focus on the idea that Huntsman is the most likely to win the presidency and why that appears to be wrong.
Political Science articles like this one, point out that since Americans don't always vote, a motivated base is important and can make up for not winning independents. It seems that a Huntsman nomination in today's GOP would doom it to defeat. His fights with the GOP electorate over global warming and evolution, seem to ensure that many conservatives would not go out and vote for a former member of the Obama administration, and the fights are not over big enough substantive issues that would make many people vote for Huntsman and certainly not many more than would vote for Romney. In short, it does not appear that Huntsman would attract many more independents and Democrats than a man like Romney and would certainly lead to a major depression in GOP base turnout.
What do others think about this, or the poll in general?
Political Science articles like this one, point out that since Americans don't always vote, a motivated base is important and can make up for not winning independents. It seems that a Huntsman nomination in today's GOP would doom it to defeat. His fights with the GOP electorate over global warming and evolution, seem to ensure that many conservatives would not go out and vote for a former member of the Obama administration, and the fights are not over big enough substantive issues that would make many people vote for Huntsman and certainly not many more than would vote for Romney. In short, it does not appear that Huntsman would attract many more independents and Democrats than a man like Romney and would certainly lead to a major depression in GOP base turnout.
What do others think about this, or the poll in general?
The Federal Reserve doesn’t seem optimistic.
The Federal Reserve predicted economic growth through 2013 and it wasn’t a good sign. Recently the Fed “predicted that the economy would expand 2.5 percent to 2.9 percent in 2012, well below its June projection of 3.3 percent to 3.7 percent.” Read here Though “the Fed’s economic forecasts do not have a particularly good track record” they “do offer a window into the state of their minds. In a word: glum.” As we have discussed in class the economic situation can have a direct impact on the presidential elections. The Federal Reserve doesn’t seem to think the economy will be picking up which could affect Obama’s run in 2012.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Can Public Men Have Private Lives?
In 1791, Alexander Hamilton commenced a sexual affair with Maria Reynolds while serving as secretary of the Treasury. Hamilton paid Reynold’s husband more than $1,000 in blackmail to continue sleeping with his wife without his intervention. When a muckraker exposed the affair, Hamilton sought to use the media of the day, publishing a pamphlet to defend himself.
Alexander Hamilton, Herman Cain, Arnold Schwarzenegger…the list goes on. To the casual observer it seems politics are a breeding ground for the sexually promiscuous, but in light of media culture today it is obvious that our elected officials are simply under a great deal of scrutiny. In today’s world, Abraham Lincoln would never be elected. Politics relies much on personality traits and the ability to look good in front of a camera more so than political credentials.
How much privacy should politicians get? Is it fair not to vote for someone who is highly qualified for a position, but cannot seem to refrain from hanky-panky? From an individual perspective, I’m highly sympathetic. It’s hard enough to deal with the family issues of sex scandals, and when the media’s grilling you about each excruciating detail it is even more humiliating.
On the other hand, we have a right to know whom we are voting for. Character matters, and if a politician betrays their family and spouse, can we trust them with our tax dollars and votes?
What do you think: If a politician is engaging in any activity that does not directly affect his office and therefore is not public in nature, does the public really have the right to know?
Civil Liberties, Civil Rights
The Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
---------------------------------
Civil War Amendments
Amendment XIII
Amendment XIV
Amendment XV
Expanding Civil Rights to Encompass Animals?
Something I thought was related to our current discussion on civil rights and civil liberties, PETA has filed a lawsuit against SeaWorld last week for its treatment of 5 killer whales, under the conditions of the 13th Amendment's ban on slavery. Though it's largely viewed as a giant publicity stunt, there might be some contextual material worth thinking about, such as:
Can the text of the 13th Amendment against "slavery and involuntary servitude" be expanded to encompass animal species, or can only humans be under this umbrella? PETA spokesman Jeff Kerr says that the whales are "kidnapped from their homes, kept confined, denied everything that's natural to them and forced to perform tricks for SeaWorld's profit. The males have their sperm collected, the females are artificially inseminated and forced to bear young which are sometimes shipped away." Can this be paralleled to slavery and/or involuntary servitude? On the matter of evidence though, what really happens in the process of obtaining animals for such purposes?
How about the historical context? Some of the arguments against the case range from it being offensive within the context the amendment was established, or that the whales can't really be plaintiffs. African-American slaves back in the antebellum eras were largely seen as either animals or property, hardly as human. A justification in the Dred Scott case was that these African-American slaves were not eligible to be plaintiffs and file lawsuits because they were not U.S. citizens; therefore are animals residing in the U.S. not U.S. citizens? (Can this possible argument draw parallels to arguments about non-citizen voting?)
Skeptics will be surprised to note that the animal rights movement has made some significant headway in the legal sphere, in countries such as Switzerland, New Zealand, and Germany, and in the classrooms of law schools all around the country. :D
Can the text of the 13th Amendment against "slavery and involuntary servitude" be expanded to encompass animal species, or can only humans be under this umbrella? PETA spokesman Jeff Kerr says that the whales are "kidnapped from their homes, kept confined, denied everything that's natural to them and forced to perform tricks for SeaWorld's profit. The males have their sperm collected, the females are artificially inseminated and forced to bear young which are sometimes shipped away." Can this be paralleled to slavery and/or involuntary servitude? On the matter of evidence though, what really happens in the process of obtaining animals for such purposes?
How about the historical context? Some of the arguments against the case range from it being offensive within the context the amendment was established, or that the whales can't really be plaintiffs. African-American slaves back in the antebellum eras were largely seen as either animals or property, hardly as human. A justification in the Dred Scott case was that these African-American slaves were not eligible to be plaintiffs and file lawsuits because they were not U.S. citizens; therefore are animals residing in the U.S. not U.S. citizens? (Can this possible argument draw parallels to arguments about non-citizen voting?)
Skeptics will be surprised to note that the animal rights movement has made some significant headway in the legal sphere, in countries such as Switzerland, New Zealand, and Germany, and in the classrooms of law schools all around the country. :D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)