My privacy amendment

In accordance with the inherent attributes of human existence as laid down in our Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and also with the foremost duty of government: to protect these three conditions of life (except in the case of sound evidence to the abuse of the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others), it will be unconstitutional to invade or infringe on the privacy of citizens, or anyone within the boundary of this United States of America. Privacy, in this case, being defined as their right to withhold information of a personal, familial, or vocational nature, retain objects or material that may be of unsavory origin or composition, or otherwise live their life how they chose without fear of what they are or what they do being frowned upon by government, except where their behavior is contrary to the natural rights of others. Unconstitutional privacy invasion includes the use of telephone or computer taps to eavesdrop on the affairs and activities of citizens, thermal imaging, or residence-specific sewage analysis prior to evidence of unlawful pursuits and a warrant obtained through the standard legal channels.

 I wrote this privacy amendment after a class activity in which we discussed the ramifications and possible loopholes in the amendments, and were asked to write our own "water-tight" amendment. This amendment is by no means "bullet-proof" and I am sure that anyone with a few minutes available for pondering could think their way through it unscathed. I was inspired by the writing style of the other amendments, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, and strove to imitate their roundabout approach, studded with commas and strictly unnecessary vocabulary. I also was attempting to strike a balance between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist views, so that the amendment preserved people's freedom to pursue activities that might not be socially or legally acceptable, while at the same time not making the long arm of the law so atrophied and arthritic that civilization collapses around us. My reasoning for this was that no person, whether political leader, law enforcement agent, multi-billion dollar oil tycoon, third world dictator, or even religious head-honcho, truly has the right to judge right from wrong, and therefore is unable to dictate how any other person is supposed to live. So long as somebody's chosen pastime, occupation, or whatever does not affect anyone in an adverse manner, they should be free to live how they want, and likewise if somebody else's opinions are incompatible with the activities or opinions of others, they are free to think what they want as long as their disapproval stays within the limits of civility and does not threaten the natural rights of those in question. 

Blog Reflection

1. What are you most proud of on your blogs? Why?
My favorite part of my blogs are the blogs themselves, because I feel they were written fairly well and were about topics I had a reasonably firm grasp of due to the copious amount of time I devoted to searching for good articles. I also enjoyed perusing the extensive list of gadgets available for use on the sidebars, and as a result I am happy with the sidebar gadgets.

2. What could you improve on future blogs?
Most of the time I had before the deadlines was spent combing a well-known site (New York Times) for articles that fit the assignments, leaving me a fraction of the intended time to compose an informative and insightful blog entry. I plan to improve this slightly unfortunate habit by broadening the scope of my researches to encompass a greater swathe of the news sources made available by the web, but since this habit has not yet resulted in complete failure on my part to complete the assignments, such improvement is not high on my list of priorities. I would also like to possess the patience and technical cunning needed to wade through the immensely complex menus involved in posting a video directly on the blog entry, as a slice of an interview or newsreel would serve both as an attention grabber and force readers to acknowledge the evidence behind my sesquipedalian lucubrations.

3. How has blogging impacted your understanding of the US? The Media? Current Events?
Ever since the beginning of the blogging project, my comprehension of the world has been keeping pace with the current events posted on the New York Times web site, because this is the first time I have been required to keep tabs on the news. For example, were it not for this "blogging to learn" project my knowledge of the current stock market crisis would likely be nonexistent, or at most restricted to the rough outline of the issue, for the simple reason that even If I was possessed of a godlike understanding of the event, there would be absolutely nothing I could do about it. This project has given me cause to monitor the status of the news, and so keep up with various tidbits of information such as the looming presidential election, the aforementioned stock market calamity, the whirlwind of political and scientific activity surrounding global warming, and a host of other riveting topics. Outside the realm of current affairs, this ongoing project has bolstered my knowledge of America's "ideals" as laid down in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and this comprehension has been built upon by the reading of Federalist papers 10 and 51, along with an excerpt of Common Sense. For almost every one of these historic documents, we (the class and I) were required to connect the concepts outlined in them to a current event in the form of these blogs. I do not lie when I say that it has been a most enlightening experience, even if the revelations were instigated by the remorseless tedium of homework assignments.

Palin suggests war with Russia

- Original Washington Post article by Reuters - September 11, 2008

- New York Times NATO article by Judy Dempsey - September 14, 2008
- United States Constitution

- Palin interview on national security and Georgia/U.S. relations

When asked if war with Russia was a possibility in response to their invasion of Georgia, Palin said: "Perhaps so". She then went on to proclaim that as a member of NATO, America was obliged to defend other members of the alliance, despite the fact that the Georgia is not a part of NATO. The 26 NATO ambassadors planned a two-day visit to Georgia, and are currently debating extending a membership to the country. I find this statement by Palin shocking, mainly because of the financial status of America at present, but also because she is hinting at war while we are even now engaged in a controversial conflict in Iraq. Fighting two unrelated wars with both Iraq and a military superpower while simultaneously grappling with staggering national debt and the threat of terrorist attack is not a situation that could ever end favorably. Even consideration of such a course of action points to the erosion of constitutional values in recent years, the "Constitutional Crisis". It is clearly stated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that it will be the duty of the Congress to declare war: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water". It should be easy to see, especially after the nature of Palin's comment, why it is important to have decisions of this magnitude debated by a group of over 400 people. For some reason the wisdom of this safeguard seems to have been forgotten of late.

Government considers massive bailout of "distressed" mortgages

- New York Times article by Edmund L. Andrews - September 18, 2008

This article details the possibility of what would be "the biggest bailout in United States history". Apparently officials are in discussion  about what exactly to do about this most pressing issue, but from what I gathered from the article, they (The Federal Reserve, Treasury, and Congress) seem to be leaning towards bailing out the failing assets. This is a complex and delicate issue, and I do not profess to have any understanding of it beyond those whom are attempting to address it, but it is at least apparent that it boils down to a conflict of principles. On the one hand the views of the Federalists, lead by John Locke, would promote the government's swift intervention on behalf of the people who suffered due to poor loans. Thomas Hobbse's Anti-Federalists would, in contrast, prefer the situation be left to the businesses. However, the views of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists do not apply only to the solution of the problem, but also its causes. It seems that this is a perfect opportunity to explore the pros and cons of the opposing opinions, because to the best of my knowledge this crisis was brought about by the poor choices of private companies, not government policies. The causes of this particular incident are highly relevant to its solution, whatever that may be. The Anti-Federalists trust the private corporations to make their own choices, and thus be responsible for their outcomes. The Federalists would call for more regulations in business, arguably preventing the disaster before it occurred. 

The fact remains, however, that the money our government would be using to patch up the economy does not technically exist, due to our shocking national debt. Therefore the argument could be made that plunging our country even deeper into a monetary deficit would set us up for an even greater fall later. Personally I would agree with this last possibility, and let the economic fires burn themselves out, so to speak. However, I have not been the victim of any of the economic failings so far, so my ability to make an impartial decision is hampered accordingly. It is entirely possible that I would be singing a different tune if my own financial security and that of my family was jeopardized.

"Democrats Reluctantly Embrace Offshore Drilling"

- New York Times article by Carl Hulse - September 11, 2008

This article was examining the shift in the Democrat's long-held reticence to offshore drilling. According to the article, the position was acceded only under the condition that it would be combined with a host of clean-energy initiatives.

"Ms. Pelosi and her fellow Democrats say that they are making the change reluctantly but that the political climate rendered it impossible to try to retain the drilling ban this year. So rather than see the moratorium expire and open the way to drilling as close as three miles from the coast, they said they were pushing any drilling at least 50 miles offshore, requiring states to agree to it and tying the whole package to a series of clean energy initiatives that have so far languished in Congress."

By this excerpt, it becomes clear that instead of struggling to contain the growing pressure to expand oil production, the Democrats have cunningly seized this opportunity and are using it to advance some of their own aims (renewable energy). I chose this article not only because it was interesting, but because it coincidentally paralleled some of our recent classroom discussions. Close to the beginning of the school year in our biology class we read a paper on the pros and cons of oil drilling off the American coast. The paper was most illuminating, because it examined not only the increased oil production the drilling would yield, but also the dangers of offshore drilling and what would be required to construct enough platforms to make the effort worthwhile, among other scraps of logistical data. According to the paper, even if construction began today it would be 2017 before any platforms would be operational. Also according to the paper, offshore drilling can result in ecological calamities of a far-reaching nature (oil spills) that can occur either as petroleum is loaded onto cargo ships, by some sort of equipment failure, or by a leak in the concrete and steel umbilical that connects a rig to the ocean floor. In addition to their potential for spill-based catastrophes, drilling platforms can leak heavy metals into the water, potentially poisoning the food chain (which we rely on as much as sharks and other aquatic predators). Though it is true that the technology behind today's drilling platform is of a considerably higher standard than it was when the practice was in its infancy, the extraction of oil deposits from the bottom of the sea possesses an inherently dangerous quality that can never be fully suppressed, both for the environment and those working on the rig.

"Obama Looks to Lessons From Chicago in His National Education Plan"

- New York Times education plan article by Sam Dillon - September 9, 2008
- New York Times sex ed article by Larry Rohter - September 10, 2008

The first article is a portrayal of Barack Obama's promise of stronger nationwide educational programs. In it, he promises to strengthen early childhood classes and train thousands of new teachers to bolster both the education levels in underachieving schools and provide openings which would help offset the recent teacher layoffs. In a related controversy, Mr. Obama has weathered misinformed political flak in the shape of an advertisement concocted by rivals eager to twist his public image. The ad claimed that Obama favored "comprehensive sex ed in kindergarden", when in reality he was voting for an Illinois bill calling for "age and developmentally appropriate" sexual education in grades k-12. I think this claim is outrageous because, in my mind, to not only distort certain crucial facts, but deliberately lie to the public is a contradiction of everything "American" and an appalling violation of the Constitution. Sadly, it seems that in political circles this notion is shared by very few, if any, and is certainly contradicted by a hefty pile of historical precedents. The articles highlight some of the disparity between the two presidential candidates, and shows Obama's connection to the Federalists and Anti-Federalists ideals, at least on the issue of education. Mr. Obama's promised educational changes bear resemblance to the Federalist views, because in order to uphold his pledges in the case of his election the government would be required to standardize educational performance across the entire nation, contradicting the beliefs of the Anti-Federalists: that each of the states should be in charge of their own affairs.

"Questions About Safety of Plastic in Baby Bottles Remain"

- New York Times article by The Associated Press - September 3, 2008

This article examines the continued controversy over specific chemicals used in the production of plastic baby bottles. Certain animal studies have apparently raised concerns over the effects of bisphenol A, a plastic hardening compound used in the production of baby bottles and the sealing of canned foods. While debates continue to rage on both sides of the issue, some companies have stopped selling bottles treated with bisphenol, and others have increased production of chemically sound, if physically delicate glass baby bottles. The connection to the philosophical values of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are clear, as the FDA is a branch of the government, and as such their ability to make and enforce laws is supported by Locke and decried by Hobbes. We can infer from the set of principles generated by Hobbes that he would oppose the unseen influence of the FDA, preferring for each person to make their own decision about whether to use plastic baby bottles or not. However, while assuming this, we should bear in mind the time period Hobbes occupied, and the dramatic differences between then and now. Is it fair to assume that Hobbes would still stand behind his beliefs in the face of our much larger and potentialy more insidious world, with its plethora of astounding technological achievements and shockingly effective weapons?

"Kosher Plant Is Accused of Inhumane Slaughter"

- New York Times article by Julia Preston - September 4, 2008

- Undercover Peta video [very graphic]

This article was produced in light of new video evidence, produced without the knowledge or consent of the plant's owners, revealing that the strict guidelines required for Kosher food processing were being violated and the rights of the animals disregarded at an unspecified Agriprocessors meat packaging plant. The video showed several instances of apparently nonreligious workmen administering secondary cuts to the animal's throats, a practice that requires the approval of a rabbi trained in ritual slaughter. This article relates to our recent classroom discussion of Hobbes vs. Locke and their influence on American politics, because obviously in a society inspired by the beliefs of Thomas Hobbes, such infringement on religious beliefs would be very difficult to monitor given the inherent individuality of a Hobbsian worldview. In contrast, the values promoted by John Locke would imply (and indeed require) the enforcement of some sort of regulation to ensure compliance with strict religious dietary requirements.

Personally, I see this whole issue as being something of a moot point. Loathe as I am to assault religious beliefs, the idea of mass producing beef that has been killed in accordance with specific rules is tinged with a certain amount of irony. It is my opinion that there is no practical difference between a cow that has been killed by a trained rabbi and one that has been killed in any other way, be it natural, vehicular, or as a result of some sort of projectile weapon. Aside from that, and despite my beliefs that the animals should not be subject to unreasonable or unnecessary amounts of pain, the difference between one slit of the throat and two is not very significant, and does not merit the amount of indignation being directed at it.