United Nations: Helpful or Harmful?

Based on the information in the assigned reading and the documentary "Broken Promises," I think that the United Nations could still be viable as a world policing agency if reformed; however, the current state that it's in is only going to cause more harm than relief. I am not arguing that the founders had anything but good intentions; nevertheless, a few debilitating flaws popped up (as can be expected in any endeavor). First of all, as noted in the packet, one hundred two countries with a combined population less than that of the United States, make up a 55 percent majority in the general assembly. In addition, 90 percent have a combined gross domestic product that is less than that of the U.S. This represents to me an unfair majority, a general assembly composed of "balance" that is not always the best, or the safest, representation for the world. After all, a majority of the UN's Human Rights Commission is made up of some of the worst HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS (documentary). Sudan's presence, Cuba's presence, China's presence, etc. on this commission is the worst form of hypocrisy: the kind that leads to death for innocent people. Because of this disorganization, innocent people were left to die in Rwanda in 1994, and innocent people are still being left to die in Darfur. When it all comes down to it, the United Nations will fail, and should most certainly be abandoned, if it does not become more balanced, more organized, and more flexible to intervene when deemed necessary and apparent.

The Socratic Method: "Bowling for Columbine"

After watching "Bowling for Columbine," I noticed strong connections between the documentary and Socrates' Socratic method. In "Bowling for Columbine," Michael Moore adopts the Socratic method in analyzing the gun problem in America, especially in interviewing different people who could be held responsible (Charleton Heston, workers at Kmart Corp., etc.). Whereas most people keep the interviews they conduct on a respectful and nonconfrontational level, Moore asked questions-that others would never dream of asking-simply because he wanted to hold others accountable for their actions, and he wanted to know the truth. After asking one confrontational question, and then hearing the answer, Michael Moore asked follow-up questions that challenged them further. Sometimes he even asked the questions in a completely different way so as to trap them into feeling guilty for the wrongful "crimes" they had committed and for all of the ways they contributed to the gun problem in America. At times, questions were not needed at all; Moore's actions did all the talking. For example, Moore brought two victims from the Columbine shooting to Kmart headquarters and confronted the "big guys" directly, making sure that they knew that Kmart bullets did the damage. The next day, to prove an even bigger point, he and the boys went to Kmart and bought all of the bullets. Then they returned to Kmart headquarters and demanded answers. To sum it all up: Michael Moore not only asked questions, but he asked them in different ways than the norm allowed for, and he built off of these questions in order to challenge the people he was interviewing to see the situation in unaccustomed ways-to see that they were the ones who were truly at fault. He "proved" one point after another by doing things this way. On page 221 of "The Dialogues of Plato," for example, Socrates persuades Glaucon and the others to sway to his line of thinking by "proving" various statements to them and getting them to agree/comply. Socrates plays the "so then, (blank) must be true because (blank) you agreed is also true" kind of card. This can also be related to Michael Moore's way of interrogating others and finding out information.
Michael Moore and Socrates both utilize the Socratic method so that they are able to get to the truth and so that they are able to make others see the truth in themselves.

Socrates' Strong Argument

After reading "Crito" from Dialogues of Plato, I agree more with Socrates' argument. If Socrates were to follow Crito's advice to escape, he would have been a hypocrite! Everything that Socrates argued during his trial was supportive of his willingness to die for what he believes in; therefore, if he were to go against what he believes in in order to live, he would be ridiculed for that and deemed not supportive of his initial arguments/views. In acting as a martyr, he remains consistent with his normal behavior and conduct. I agree that Socrates should submit to Athens because Athens has nurtured him and taught him throughout the years. He chose to live in Athens and nowhere else, so he should deal with any punishment dealt out to him by his "mother and father." After all, Socrates realizes, it is the law.
Although Crito argues that Socrates will be leaving his children behind and that Socrates will be satisfying the many by submitting to their punishment, Socrates has a beautiful argument to repudiate this. He remains consistent with his "do not render evil for evil" argument, and he argues that the wise prevail no matter how many unwise citizens there are. Basically he is saying that doing right by himself, a wise person, is by far the best course of action he could take. As far as the children are concerned, Socrates believes that his children would not have as much if he remained alive because they would be forced to leave Athens and would be subject to other punishments because of their father. He knows that his children will be raised and taught sufficiently with the help of the friends he is leaving behind.
There is a strong connection between "Crito" and the "Law and Justice" packet in that both deal with the law and one's choice to submit to it given various circumstances. In the "Law and Justice" packet, some throughout history have believed that it is best to go against the law in order to right a moral/unjust wrong. Following this, this "group" refuses to accept the punishment for the broken law because they know that what they did was not wrong. On the other end of the spectrum, there have been those who have, like the previous group, done no wrong in "breaking the law," yet they feel it is their duty to accept the punishment, whether to prove the point that they are falsely and wrongfully imprisoned or to remain consistent with their views. Socrates can relate to the latter group in every way. It is unfortunate, however, that he did not even know he was doing wrong! The question that sums up the relationship between the two readings is this: should one submit to the imprisonment bestowed upon himself/herself when he or she sees no wrong in the "wrongful act?"

Memorable Topic from Q1

One topic that I truly found interesting was the topic of 'Victimless Crimes.' I had never considered gambling, scalping tickets, pornography, or sex acts, among other things, to be real crimes worth imprisoning others for until I watched the recorded television special that was played in class. I enjoyed listening to the two arguments: one being that people should be able to do what they choose to do as long as they are not directly affecting anyone else-a lot of these acts are committed in the privacy of one's own home!-and the other being that these acts are immoral, whether they are hurting anyone else or not. Under the first amendment shouldn't one be able to "mess up" his or her own life? And who is the government to decide what is moral or immoral for any one person? This are questions that were brought to my attention, and they truly made me think. I understand how a few victimless crimes, such as prostitution and drug use, are borderline, but many others that are extremely harmless are still characterized in this 'immoral' way. By learning about these "victimless crimes," I became better aware of where I stand on the issue-I do not believe many of these acts, especially sex acts, should be regulated when everyone thinks and feels differently regarding his or her own morals. I also became aware of the fact that this struggle for rights given to us under the first amendment even existed-that there are people out there who fight the battle every day because they cannot live their life happily with the infringement on their privacy and their choices. I gained a better realization of the hardships many people endure because of these "morally-regulated" laws. I value learning this because I can teach those who are not aware so that they can become aware and do something about it if they so choose. Becoming aware and spreading the word could easily become a catalyst for change! I also now have the ability to relate it to other happenings throughout the country and to compare it to various other instances outside of our country as well. I have become a more informed citizen, and I will be better able to relate back to this topic in the future.

Inherit the Wind

In the note preceding the play, the playwrights imply that the themes of the play are timeless and universal. They understand that there is always something that gets America, or even a small portion of America, riled up. People will never agree on everything because we all have unique opinions that we are entitled to have! Under the first amendment, we are given our basic freedoms of individualism and the freedoms to express those. As in the book, there will always be a battle raging between two parties who cannot seem to reach common ground. This is not wrong, but the playwrights are trying to emphasize the inevitability of this in our society. In the book, the battle was fought over "Darwinism" and evolution. An example in today's society would be the issue of abortion. It is a constant battle that exists due to two extremely different views.
As I stated before, the abortion issue is a great example of how the themes of the book tie in today, especially since both topics are very much based on religion. In Inherit the Wind, the argument is that God created all beings. The other side of the argument states that humans and all beings evolved over time. When applied to abortion, the religious side emphasizes that human life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. The other side believes that a woman has the right to decide what she is going to do with her body.
People are never going to agree on everything, which is why the Scopes trials had to happen and why Roe vs Wade occurred. There are plenty of other examples of opposition in today's society.
It's a fact of life!

Promoting Democracy Abroad

After reading "Should Democracy Abroad Be a Top U.S. Priority?" I agree with the "yes" argument. First of all, the "yes" argument is a very strong argument that states that those countries that democratize experience a sharp increase in economic growth. For example, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Mexico, Senegal, Mozambique, and other countries, all of which switched over to democratic ways, grew more rapidly than Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia, all countries with autocratic governments. In addition, Siegle makes the argument that while autocratic countries with incomes below $2,000 averaged 79 infant deaths per 1,000 live births during the '90s, democratizers in the same income category and time frame typically experienced only 62 infant deaths. Also to be noted, democratizing states that strive to establish institutions of shared power tend to develop more rapidly. Those countries such as Botswana, South Africa, Senegal, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, etc. that have established stronger methods protecting against the arbitrary use of power have realized more economic growth than other democratizers whose restraints on political monopolization have been weak. Democratic countries, he argues, also present a good example of the benefits of democracy to those countries who do not currently govern that way. I believe that these examples provide strong support and evidence that democracy anywhere is responsible for increased prosperity and advancement. This can be made evident simply be comparing and contrasting countries with a strong democratic system to those that have a poor democratic system or none at all. Who can argue with infant mortality rates and economic stability?

In reading the "no" argument, I picked up on some weak points in the text. The "no" argument, first of all, does not even really disagree with the "yes" argument-it simply disagreed in the way the spread of democracy abroad was being carried out. What kind of an argument is that? :) This in itself makes for a poor stance (the fact that the author is not supporting the completely opposite point of view). She argues that the spread of democracy abroad is costing us too much money and that our president is not carrying his duties out in the correct way, but she does not really give much of an example. She does speak of how some say that they doubt President Bush really wanted to establish democracy in Iraq in the first place, but she does not back up her argument by giving examples of who, when, why, etc. This is all simply heresay without substantial evidence. Her circumlocution is not beneficial or complementary to her argument whatsoever-it just makes her seem as if she didn't do her "research!"

Justification of Putting Suspected Terrorists Through Torture

After reading "Is it Justified to Put Suspected Terrorists under Great Physical Duress," I sided with the "no" stance. I strongly believe that because the U.S. government allowed for the beating of, many times innocent, people who were suspected terrorists, we were given a bad reputation. Many other countries who had looked up to us previously, now look down upon us as no better than the actual terrorists themselves. This could harm our country in the sense that those who took our side before on very large matters, have left us on our own after this "rendition" sort of uprising. In addition, the beating and torture of people for information teaches our children the wrong things, and it sets up very low standards for our citizens. We can no longer say that we are a morally-correct country, and there is definitely not as much to be proud of if we are defined for our unethical and inhumane treatment of our own race! I do not agree with the "no" argument at all because the author stresses that torturing others for information is essential to protecting our citizens from harm. He also states that we are sending a positive example in standing up for the freedoms and protection of our country. Yes, I agree that our citizens should be kept out of harm's way, but as the "no" argument mentions, how many people actually have information to give us? And how many times have these pressure tactics worked? I will say that I don't believe they are effective at all! We just look idiotic. In conclusion, the "no" argument is a much stronger argument, and I argue with that argument one-hundred percent.