Bringing Back Science

The Bush administration is almost over, so the current media buzzword is “legacy.” One of the most unfortunate pieces of that legacy is the war on science waged by President Bush and co. On climate change, stem cell research, green technology, species protection, and reproductive health, they openly ignored scientific research. More shocking were the steps they took to hinder research that might be politically inconvenient. See this article for a longer musing on the subject; it pieces together how Bush officials have interfered with and ignored scientists.

It’s time for that dismissive attitude to change. Based on Obama’s most recent radio broadcast, come January 20th, it looks like American science will be freed from the shackles of our small-minded executive. Obama said eloquently,

“The truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources – it’s about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient - especially when it’s inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us.”

I can see why he got the endorsement of 61 American Nobel laureates in physics, medicine, and chemistry.

The Bush administration has been abysmal for science. Their actions reflect the belief that ideology is more important than facts. As students, I believe we must reject that approach. We must be committed to reasoned inquiry, even if we might not like the answers we find.

America must renew its commitment to science if we wish to remain the leading nation in the Western world.

Food for thought The more I think about it, the Bushian attitude towards science – that it is less important than one’s personal beliefs – is not just an isolated oddity, but a symptom of his whole mental outlook. Bush seems to value his gut more than his brain (Consider the incident where he said he had “looked into [Russian President Vladimir Putin’s] heart” and determined that “he’s a good man,” or his comment that “I really don’t feel comfortable in the role of analyzing myself.” You can probably think of other examples). It concerns me how many people seemed to like this down-to-earth intuition, and makes me worry whether we have devalued facts and intellect in our public debate. I once heard someone say, “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” Let’s keep that in mind.

Paper or plastax?

Scene setting: shopping at Kohl’s, the checkout line

The checker reaches for a plastic bag.

ME: Oh, I don’t need any bags. I am just going to carry this stuff out.

The checker starts sticking “Kohl’s” tape all over my purchases.

ME: I don’t need stickers either. I just want to carry my purchases out the door.

CHECKER: (Blank stare)

The other 12 people in line are getting restless.

ONE ANGRY LINE WAITER: Why don’t you just take the bag?

ME: I’m just trying to be green. I don’t need a bag. Can I please just carry this out of the store?

CHECKER: Fine.

The American mindset needs to change. Plastic bags have got to go. Why? They take 1000 years to decompose in landfills. And they are not just environmentally-unfriendly, they also aren’t economical. According to cnnmoney.com, “it costs taxpayers $90 every time a city worker in a cherry-picker goes out to remove plastic bags from a tree [in San Francisco].”

So how should we end the plastic bag addiction? Place a tax on plastic bags to encourage shoppers to bring along reusable canvas bags (or even old plastic ones they have lying around the house). Ireland did it in 2002. In the 5 months after the 15 cent per bag tax passed, 3.5 million euros were raised in the first five months. South Africa, Bangladesh, and San Francisco followed suit. Even China banned free plastic bags.

So let’s go, America. Change the script. Scratch: “paper or plastic?” and institute a plasTax.

Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2205419.stm
http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/14/magazines/fortune/pluggedin_gunther_plastic.fortune/index.htm
http://www.takepart.com/2008/11/07/bloomberg-proposes-tax-on-plastic-bags/

US International Relations and The Law of Peoples

Over the past few years, the US has been focusing much of it’s foreign policy on a few specific areas, the most obvious being Iraq and Afghanistan. It is hard to quantify the amount of effort we put into relations with any individual country, but I think it’s fair to point out those countries that we clearly expend little effort on.

The distribution of foreign policy, and the actions we take, run contrary to the principles proposed in Rawl’s Law of Peoples. Rawls argues that well-ordered nations (and I assume the US as a well-ordered nation for this post) should aim “to bring all societies eventually to honor the Law of Peoples”(Rawls Law of Peoples 1999: 93). This is a Duty to Assist. If I am to postulate that US foreign policy should adhere to Rawl’s liberal doctrines, then I believe we should focus more on certain burdened societies.

While Rawls would have the US take action, or help, the structure of such unordered nations, we can use certain indicators to determine which nations are unordered. The first is part of the structure itself, namely which nations have the worst corruption in their government. Studies by Transparency International found 10 countries to have at least 32% of it’s citizens to have been forced into bribery over the course of a single year. These are Albania, Cambodia, Cameroon, FYR Macedonia, Kosovo, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Romania, and Senegal.

Another indicator could be humans rights records. The Congo, Rwanda, Burundi Algeria, Sierra Leone, Egypt, North Korea, Sudan, Indonesia, Yugoslavia, and Pakistan were found to have the worst records, in decreasing order, by Amnesty International. (The Guardian).

Health is also a good indicator of the level of order in society. Angola, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe are all reported as having an average life span of less than 40 years, as discerned by the World Health Organization’s World Health Report 2002 (Dwyer).

These low standards, Rawls argues, are the fault of the structure, the government and it’s related economic, political, and social institutions. Indeed, in many of these cases, it has been reported that a nations government has actively worked against the good of part of it’s own demographic. The genocide in Darfur is particularly prominent in today’s media.

How is the US doing in addressing these foreign policy concerns, then? I cannot of course provide an exhaustive examination of US-Congo relations, and US-Algeria relations, and US-Kosovo relations, et cetera, but it is obvious that we are not putting as much effort into helping many of the nations listed above, publicly at least, as compared to the many strong ties we have with well-ordered nations or to the concentrated military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

First of all, it is worth mentioning that all the effort we have put into the War of Terror is at least partially supported by the Law of Peoples. The confusion comes from 9/11 being a terrorist act. Rawls grants all well-order societies “the right to war in self -defense”(Rawls Law of Peoples 1999: 91), but never to instigate war unprovoked. One could argue that these wars are self-defense, or that we started them. I personally found this distinction interesting, as I was expecting to find no Rawlsian backing whatsoever for our current actions.

To return to my argument, consider Darfur. The situation can be briefly summed up by a Washington Post article. In April 2006, “Bush insisted there must be consequences for rape and murder, and he called for international troops on the ground to protect innocent Darfuris…yet a year and a half later, the situation on the ground in Darfur is little changed: More than 2 million displaced Darfuris, including hundreds of thousands in camps, have been unable to return to their homes.”(US Promises on Darfur Don’t Match Actions). As in the Congo, Burma, Indonesia, Albania, Cambodia, to name a few, we should at least be focusing some part of our significant power and influence on positively affecting change.

A side-argument may be proving that we interfere in countries where it also happens to serve our own interests. I don’t want to try and argue that here, but I’m sure someone will post on it. As for Rawls, he asks a level of consideration based on the level of disorder in a particular nation. The Duty of Assistance should not be self-serving. Even if the Ideal Theory Rawls proposes cannot be fully used in real life, it is still a strong political argument for justice that can appeal to our more intuitive moral feelings. It is my hope that the coming administration will focus more on these areas of the world.


Transparency international, http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/gcb/2007

"Amnesty reports worst human rights records", The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/rightsindex

Rawls, John. The Law of Peoples. New York: Harvard UP, 2001.

"US Promises on Darfur Don't Match Actions", Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/28/AR2007102801704.html

Dwyer, James. “Global Health and Justice” Bioethics 19.5/6 (2005): 460-475.

POLITICS: EVEN DEMOCRACIES NEED 'SUNSHINE' AGAINST CORRUPTION
Emad Mekay. Global Information Network. New York: Apr 30, 2004. pg. 1
(Copyright 2004 by Inter Press Service/Global Information Network)
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=3&did=625859931&SrchMode=2&sid=7&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1228886329&clientId=17210

The Politics of Prop 8 and Princeton

If you voted in the USG elections yesterday afternoon, you probably noticed three ballot initiatives at the end. You have probably heard about the content of these referenda and the debate surrounding them, so I won’t digress into a summary here. If you need a primer, there are two Daily Prince articles that give a nice summary, linked to here and here.

I didn’t vote in favor of either the amicus brief proposal, or the CIL proposal. The idea that Princeton should file an amicus brief against Prop 8 is extreme. First, there is the obvious issue that this is a controversial political issue that the University has no special expertise in; this is a school, not a partisan think-tank. Second, if administrators take a public position on such a contentious political issue, what sort of message does that send to students who don’t support gay marriage? Are they to abandon their positions? Just accept that the University knows best? I think such a public University position would have a chilling effect on free speech by those that disagree.

Now, from what I’ve just said, it sounds like I might have supported the initiative that would caution the administration against taking public positions on controversial issues. However, the CIL’s resolution is clearly inappropriate because it is so vague. This vagueness makes the resolution, to use a legal term, overbroad. That is, it can be construed to prohibit commentary that the University has every right to make. I really just don’t get how you can strictly define terms like “people of equal good will,” and “reasonable disagreement.” Essentially, the first referendum prevents important expression by students, and the second prevents important expression by the University.

When I first started looking at these, though, I hadn’t thought through all that. My knee-jerk reaction was that we obviously would want to react to Prop 8 in some way. I mean, one of the biggest supporters of the initiative is based on Nassau St. We’re college students; political involvement is supposed to be important. However, my outrage faded when I did a little more digging about what Prop 8 actually was.

Homosexual couples have not lost any practical rights. Hospital visitation rights, income tax consideration, all the tangible benefits of marriage are available under domestic partnership laws. Despite all the animosity over Prop 8, the change is in name only.

Thinking about this brought me to a key question: what business does the government have granting marriage licenses in the first place? If marriage is a religious institution (as it seems many Prop 8 supporters would argue), then it seems government should get out of the marriage business altogether.

The justification for granting marriage licenses in the past was, I suppose, to encourage people to get married and to provide legal recognition of the trust between them. I would argue that these are not religious goals, but civil ones, and they apply equally to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. The First and Fourteenth Amendments provide strong arguments for the elimination of religious considerations and a focus on equal protection. Therefore, here is my proposal: it is time for legislation that establishes a single national standard for civil unions based not on religion, but on the public good.

Fellow Republicans: Give Barack a Fair Chance

The election of Barack Obama was certainly a historic outcome of this 2008 political election. I did not vote for Barack Obama, nor did I think he was the best man for the job. You can even refer to previous blog posts in which I criticized many of Obama’s economic policies. Yet, a majority of the American people think Obama was the best choice for president. And because of this, I have decided to give President Obama a fair chance.

Clearly, Obama has the ability to unite people. He was able to draw many lifetime Republicans to cross to the Democratic side of the ticket and punch his name for president. So maybe Barack will do a good job. I certainly hope so, because the country certainly seems to be having trouble. My personal beliefs led me to think that maybe Obama’s plans for America weren’t the best idea, but I simply cannot be sure. I don’t think anyone could say for sure that one party’s method works better or is better for the nation. So I certainly won’t be rooting against Obama when he takes office. And I certainly hope that fellow Republicans aren’t either. It deeply concerns me that many Republicans whom I have spoken to are simply expecting and hoping Obama fails. As corny as it may sound, we must be united as Americans, and support our new president, or at least give him a chance.

I don’t know if Barack Obama will fix our nation’s problems, but I sure hope he can. I could care less which party is in office, as long as the president is the best person for the country. One thing is for certain, however, and I hope many Republicans can agree with me on this. On January 20, 2009, when Barack Obama takes the oath of office for the Presidency of the United States of America, although I may not be able to advocate each policy he tries to enact or each new idea he may have, he will have my support as a person one hundred percent.

Obama's Public Works: Will it Work?

There has been some talk recently about Barack Obama’s decision to spend billions of dollars on public works projects to create new jobs and keep up our infrastructure. He has suggested a massive overhaul of the interstate highway system, focused on bridges, but has also mentioned the ‘greening’ of buildings and making high speed internet available in more places. Obama seems to be taking a page out of the book of FDR and Eisenhower for this idea, but I just have trouble seeing these public works projects being extremely effective in helping the economy. It is true that billions of dollars will be spent in order to create these new jobs and make these changes, but the problem is that the plan risks having little to no effect on the economy, all the while sinking the U.S. into greater and greater debt.

While I do not plan to discuss Obama’s tax plans, I will bring up the point that there are many other projects that are in need of government funding as well. Energy is one that comes to mind immediately, as does education. Hopefully, Obama’s plans to institute these public works projects will not adversely affect other government entities and cause jobs to be lost there. As one of my previous posts mentioned, I am just slightly afraid that Obama’s spending will be digging government into too deep of a hole; even deeper than the hole it is already in thanks to George Bush.

While projects such as these may have worked in the past, I’m just not sure that they will have the same effect as they have previously. Obama has mentioned ideas such as ‘greening’ buildings and making high-speed internet more available, but these simply do not seem like the best choices for spending given the current economic situation. The people will be getting much less benefit out of these projects as when compared to the projects of the 1950s, which resulted in the creation of our massive interstate highway system.

Overall, I just think something may have to give. If Obama throws so much money at these public works projects; there will probably have to be cuts to other government programs that would result in the negation of any jobs created by the works projects. Or if Obama does not make cuts to other areas, I’m simply worried he may be either overtaxing the people, or putting the government way too far into debt in this time of economic crisis.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us/politics/07radio.html?ref=us

Should Government Mandate Unviersity Endowment Spending?

There is no debating the fact that a college education in the United States today is becoming more and more difficult to afford, both for students and their families. Tuitions have been consistently rising faster than inflation rates, and things have gotten even worse in the face of our economic struggle. But the answer is not government intervention.

Recent government action has tried to move toward forcing university spending of endowment in order to better financial aid, which is simply not the best course of action in order to alleviate the burden on students. Some schools already have impressive financial aid systems in place, so it is unfair to mandate spending of the endowment when the cost of attending some of these universities is actually decreasing on average.

Forcing universities to take action is simply not a good choice. Universities understand the difficulties that paying for college causes, and most of them are tending to do their best to help reduce the burden; spending as much of their endowment as they can afford to help the students. Essentially, universities should have the right to be in control of their own finances; they know what is best for the university, and they are certainly watching out for their students. This kind of mandate for spending of the endowment is extremely risky, and makes universities much more vulnerable in times of market downturn; in which their endowments will struggle. Ultimately, this is not the government’s role. A blanket mandate of endowment spending is simply not responsible, although I would certainly be open to hearing other ideas on how this problem can be alleviated.


http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/09/09O21/

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=7rfk3s20hf1q824cl33y1cjx03d78syj

My Afternoon in the Original Position

So, I was just in the original position. And yes, really.

This afternoon, I was involved in a social science experiment at the PLESS laboratory in Green Hall. The aim of the experiment was to determine what a group of five people would do if asked to allocate (our) future resources among individuals in the group.

The experiment took place in this way:

1. We were presented with 4 conceptions of potential redistribution, including justice as fairness, Nozickian no-distribution, a resource floor, and a maximum range (though the options were entitled differently, of course). We took a quiz to make sure we understood each of the theories fully.

2. The five of us sat around a table discussing how we would like the monetary results of a forthcoming test to be divided up among the individuals in the group. We did not know what kind of test we would have to take (ie manual labor or math problems).

3. We took the test (it ended up being a spelling test), and were paid based on the results of our test and the resource distribution we had chosen.

So, here's what happened. We did agree, as Rawls thought we would, unanimously; however, we did not choose justice as fairness! We chose to set an income floor! I, being the liberal I am, almost argued for a range of 0 (meaning we would all receive the same payoffs) and also almost argued for justice as fairness, but decided that an income floor would be fairest. That way, our mini-society would still reward hard work (there would still be incentives to succeed on the test), though the worst-off would still be provided for insofar as they did not walk away with nothing. Fortunately for me, the test did not involve manual labor (though I can probably do more pushups or sit-ups than the average person), and I ended up doing the best on the spelling test, meaning I walked away with $23. I'm rich! However, I learned that, if the group had chosen not to redistribute money at all, I would have made more than $30. To be honest, this made me slightly upset, which is what in fact is upsetting to me right now. Though I could have made $7 more, why do I deserve those $7? I, just as Rawls argues, happen to be a decent speller, at least compared to the others in the group. Why do I deserve anything more than anyone else? I do not.

Still, that we did not choose justice as fairness and chose to institute a monetary floor did not surprise me, as I have learned that similar studies have found that others do the same thing. The argument against justice as fairness based on the experimental evidence is convincing: this is not theory; there was real money involved, yet we still chose to only institute a floor, and not completely redistribute income as justice as fairness would have us do.

There were problems with the study, however. To be honest, I knew that I would probably do better than average on the test, as it likely could not involve manual labor due to legal issues. I also knew that I'm fairly good at trivia games, and mathematically quick (ironically, spelling is likely to be one of my worst abilities). I was tempted, for a second, with the veil of ignorance drawn back, to go for no-redistribution. But, I tried to pretend that I did not have this unfair knowledge--restore the veil--and ended up back with an income floor, which is what the group chose.

After experiencing the original position for myself, I feel that I understand it much better. That those in the group did not choose justice as fairness as our conception of justice is troubling for Rawls' theory, though there were problems with the experiment. After living through having to choose it or not, I still agree with Rawls, though I'm not sure anymore. Either way, I'm $23 better for it.



Sources:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1w55w6419k1pw032/fulltext.pdf

Saving Pirates?

A Danish warship that was searching to destroy pirate ships in the Gulf of Aden recently found seven suspected Somali pirates stuck in the ocean due to a broken motorboat. The warship rescued the seven pirates who were in need of water and food, gave them shelter, and turned them over to Yemen authorities.
It’s ironic that if the pirates were in a better position – having a functioning motorboat and sufficient provisions – they might be dead. If the pirates had fled, the Danish warship would have given chase. In the chance that the pirates used the rocket-propelled grenade launchers on board against a chasing warship, the Danish warship would have opened fire.
The commanders of the warship obviously made the right decision. But the reason for that decision has to be made clear. The commanders spared the suspected pirates not because they were in need of food and water and were in all senses defenseless in the open sea. The pirates’ need for mercy did not – or should not – factor into the commanders’ decision. Rather, the commanders made the decision to take the suspected pirates on board their own warship because they had no evidence that the seven men were pirates.
Besides the grenade launchers and AK-47s – common pirate weapons – stowed on board the motorboat, the seven men were not doing anything wrong. Those men were judged as innocent before proven guilty, and therefore saved and turned over to Yemen authorities, who will hopefully investigate more into the matter and prosecute the men if they do turn out to be pirates. A “victory” in a legitimate court is worth much more than a “victory” of taking life.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/world/europe/06pirate.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/world/africa/19somalia.html?fta=y

Possible US Positions in Mumbai

Last weeks terrorist attacks on Mumbai caused loss of life, heightened tension in Indian-Pakistani relations, and a potential shift in the war on terror. The relationship between India and Pakistan is complicated; since the Partition of India in 1947, three major wars and multiple skirmishes have been fought between the two countries. Even without this historical background, the dialogue between the two countries following the attacks would undoubtedly be heated. Unfortunately, the terrorists have quickly been identified as Lashkar-e-Toiba operatives, an organization based in Pakistan. It is a very difficult question as to how much the nation of Pakistan should be connected to such a group, but it is undoubtedly in the best interest of both countries to abstain from war, especially since there have only been minor skirmishes since 1999, when both countries acquired nuclear capability.

I am interested, then, to see what role Condoleezza Rice plays, and attempts to play, when she reaches Mumbai on Wednesday. Clearly, she has stated her desire to deal with both Islamabad and Mumbai, and to lessen tension. But, besides sincere humanitarian concern, shifts in Pakistani forces could affect US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Historically, Pakistan and India have held forces along their border, and the Kashimiri Line of Control. This has been a deterrent for either country to invade (both have tried).

Northwest Pakistan, the other side of the country, has become a stronghold, or base, of terrorist activity. This affects in anti-US forces in nearby Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as seemingly influencing the Mumbai attacks.

If a renewed spirit of conviction arises from this ordeal, it is in Pakistan and India’s own interest for Pakistan to focus more on this region (and they do currently have operations there).

Particularly because of our own interests, I think Rice will try to help convince Indian leaders of the view that they should renew efforts in counter-terrorism, not just counter-Pakistani-terrorism. There should be major support in India for some sort of retaliatory effort, and it is how this effort is shaped that may greatly affect the region. If Rice could get India to see the interconnectedness of counter-terrorism in Afghanistan to terrorism from Pakistan, we could see a more concerted effort in the region. Perhaps India would be more interested in helping in Iraq and Afghanistan? Such an orientation (if India does not lash out at Paksian) provides no excuse for Pakistan to shirk on fighting insurgents within it’s own borders.

I posit this as an interesting maneuver that might be attempted. Whether it succeeds or fails, we could see one last foreign policy move from the currently lame Bush administration. The options could be a further push for Bush’s War on Terror, and in this case I believe it could be a good push. Or Rice’s tension-dampening presence in Mumbai, which, while necessary, could either be seen as another instance of our current administrations softness of late, or perhaps a shift towards understanding that we should not try to influence too greatly the leaders of foreign nations.

(Note: I'm not taking any stance, outside of the current situation, on whether counter-terrorism in any capacity is good or bad, smart or worthless, necessary or not, etc. The fact is our government considers us in a War on Terror, and after the attacks Mumbai will undoubtedly adjust it's own counter-terrorism policies)

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/opinion/01mon1.html
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/world/2008/12/01/5-lessons-from-the-deadly-mumbai-terrorist-attacks.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/world/asia/02mumbai.html?pagewanted=2&sq=mumbai&st=cse&scp=2

Too much executive power?

Over the past three weeks, President-elect Barack Obama has compiled a stunning transition team, paving his way for a “smooth transition” into the White House. With prominent figures such as Senator Hilary Clinton in his prospective Cabinet, our nation’s leader seems calm and capable in handling all the problems we’re facing at this turning point in history.

However, while President Obama will certainly take the executive action necessary to ease the American public in this time of crisis, I must wonder whether all these responsibilities should be placed on the shoulders of one man. In the next four years, our president will most likely have the opportunity to guide us through a war, salvage our faltering economy, instate nationwide healthcare and social reforms, and appoint one or more Supreme Court justices, continually extending the power of the president’s administration.

While I am assured our new president is sincere in his promises for change in America and has the best intentions in mind, the American public should remain prudent and skeptical of our ever-expanding executive branch. We have seen the harms an unbridled executive can commit, from a gross enlargement of the military-industrial complex (and its associated executive benefits) to illegal wiretappings on American citizens. Surely, some more extreme actions have been justified in the past, but as our system of checks and balances slowly erodes under the pressures of “crisis mode,” we can only be increasingly wary of the latitude our political leaders take with their powers.

Of course, I would love to put my full trust in the Obama administration and hope that change will naturally be pursued and flourish in the course of his term(s). But as politically-active citizens, it is our right and responsibility to keep our leaders under scrutiny and hold them to their campaign promises. Else, we’ll be watching the balance of our delicate republic slowly decay in the wake of our heedlessness.