Adam February 24, 2004
Writing for the 21st Century Ms. Gokturk
Describe the Problem:
Haiti is in danger of falling into complete civil war with forces who are against the leadership of Jean-Bertrand Aristede taking control of the second largest city on the island. There have been outbreaks of violence by both sides of the conflict which is spreading toward the capital city of Port-Au-Prince. A suggested plan from the Bush Administration whereby both sides would share power for a finite time was rejected by the opposition forces who want Aristede removed from power.
Possible Solutions:
The U.S. could send peace-keeping troops to maintain order.
The U.N. could send peace-keeping forces to maintain order.
Both sides could agree to the Bush Administration’s suggestion.
My Solution:
The U.N. should mandate mediation by representatives of both factions in a neutral country as a multi-national peacekeeping force is put in place to insure safety to the residents until a solution is worked out.
• Would serve to get a wide range of countries involved in the issue
• Would enhance the U.N.’s reputation as an organization that actually does something
• Interference in the domestic strife of a country could serve to alienate all the participants in the conflict who would view the peacekeepers as potential invaders.
• Would embroil the world in a situation that might never successfully resolve itself after years of trying.
Adam February 24, 2004
Writing for the 21st Century Ms. Gokturk
Describe the Problem:
European nations are being swamped by immigrant workers (mostly from Central Europe) who are stretching the resources of the countries. In response, many nations have instituted restrictions on immigrants including registration requirements and prohibitions on obtaining relief services for a finite period of time.
Possible Solutions:
The current path of placing limits on the benefits available to immigrants.
A restriction on immigrants requiring self-sufficiency to enter the country.
Restricting all immigration.
My Solution:
All European countries should pool their resources and establish a co-operative job banking center that would register all potential immigrants prior to their entering any country. The registration would inquire as to the skills of the potential immigrant as well as making sure they are of good character (not criminals, etc.) The job-bank would then cross-reference the skills of the immigrant to the needs of the country, taking into account the available housing. The available ‘openings’ could then be offered to the potential immigrant who could accept the job opportunity. If it is not acceptable, they could wait until a position in the country they wish to immigrate to opens up.
• Would establish the first international employment service, thereby encouraging European cooperation in solving the problem that is impacting all of them.
• Would establish a method by which the desires of an immigrant could be matched with the needs of a country, helping to insure a successful transition that benefits both parties.
• Would serve to minimize the drain on resources by controlling the influx of new residents to a nation whose employment situation might not be ready to handle large numbers of immigrants.
• Would establish an international registry of names that could be used to ‘spy’ on people
• Would most likely restrict free movement of people into Europe
Adam
Writing for the 21st century Ms. Gokturk
PROBLEM:
In what most amount to one of the more ghoulish acts of misconduct in recent years, FBI
agents
involved in combing through the debris of the
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:
A policy should be formalized to
prevent the taking of anything from a crime scene by anybody . . . especially
an investigating officer. While this
seems fairly obvious, the FBI has not gotten around to it even though evidence
exists that this “memento-taking” occurred after the
MY SOLUTION:
In addition to establishing a policy prohibiting the removal of any materials from a crime scene, it has become painfully obvious that it may be necessary to “police the police.” This might be done by installing surveillance cameras at disaster sites and to put in place oversight from some other agency (Department of Health, etc.) that would help to insure the sanctity of crime sites. Finally, I would be sure that any policy implemented by the FBI in this regard has some onerous penalty attached to it as opposed to a 10-day suspension which is what was meted out in the above case.
PROS:
I guess it is human nature to try and keep some sort of memento of a historical event, but this differs in that it is a crime scene. A strict policy with real penalties would go a long way to provide victims and survivors the peace of mind in knowing that the crime will be treated appropriately and not reduced to a tourist attraction for investigating officers to plunder.
CONS:
Only because the FBI was ‘caught’ in this case will there be any movement to creating a clear guideline that will in effect, “legislate morality.” However, it is likely that the unspoken ‘brotherhood’ of officers will continue to shield misconduct. Only with an outside oversight can any policy be legitimately enforced.
Adam
Writing for the 21st century Ms. Gokturk
PROBLEM:
Clear Channel Communications has dropped the Howard Stern radio show in six of its markets following its firing of another raunchy DJ on Tuesday after that show received a fine form the FCC. This all comes following the Janet Jackson debacle at the Super Bowl which led to an uproar as to the quality of broadcasting in general. The problem arises with the question of censorship and a company’s caving in to a perceived threat from a government enforcement agency. The argument is made that if you don’t like what you are hearing, change the channel or turn it off. Unlike the Super Bowl, radio shows like Howard Stern’s are well known for their content and it seems foolish that anyone who listens doesn’t know what to expect. The Constitution protects freedom of speech, even raunchy speech, and I worry about the future when the government dictates what is ‘appropriate’ for the citizens of the country.
POSSIBLE SOLUTION:
If common sense logic to turn off what you don’t like to hear on radio isn’t enough, it might be possible to install the radio equivalent of a “V-Chip” which exists on televisions that allow individuals to lock out unwanted programming.
MY SOLUTION:
Change the channel. It is far better to make your own choice then to let the government make it for you. If that fails, then Howard Stern could move his show to satellite radio which is subscription based and currently un-regulated by the FCC.
PROS:
My solution preserves the intent of the founding fathers to establish a nation of freedom. By letting the market at large decide what it wants, we can be sure that programming will meet the desires of the public. If enough people get disgusted with Howard Stern, they will exercise the right to turn off the station and advertising revenue will dry up and the show will be cancelled, leaving Howard to count his millions in peace.
CONS:
There has been a noticeable ‘chill’ in the air following the Janet Jackson stunt on the Super Bowl. Conservatives have been charged-up by what they view as a public outcry against the vague concept of ‘indecency’ and they are moving to curtail basic rights of expression. The potential erosion of basic rights is worrisome and my simple solution of changing channels will probably not be well received by those who want the government to determine what is decent and what is not.
Adam
Writing for the 21st century Ms. Gokturk
PROBLEM
The driver of a
POSSIBLE SOLUTION
Through a policy of negotiation with the many unions involved, it may be possible to develop a plan for random testing and discipline that would be acceptable to the unions.
MY SOLUTION
The very fact that a proven drug
user who could have killed any number of civilians is now, “on paid medical
leave,” and “could” be dismissed strikes me as absurd. Granted that
PROS
The courts would (hopefully) validate the concerns of the city in implementing a drug policy that has so far involved years of negotiations that have not produced an acceptable result.
CONS
Litigation is costly and time consuming, even for the city. Politicians would risk angering the unions and, therefore, many of the voting public who believe strongly in unions as advocates.
Adam
Writing for the 21st century Ms. Gokturk
PROBLEM
In what would seem like an
outgrowth of Mel Gibson’s recent movie about Jesus, a well organized group in a
small town in
POSSIBLE SOLUTION
Anytime the subject of religion enters into a debate, things get murky. How can a nation that has, “In God We Trust” on its currency fully argue that creationism is a wholly unacceptable possibility? With this dilemma on the table, the only solution to the increasing number of challenges to evolutionary teachings must be to address each one on the facts. As indicated in the article, meetings are set-up to address all the “scientific” evidence that refutes the validity of evolution. We can only hope that the credibility of the presenters and the logic of the arguments will, at least, forestall any full attacks on accepted scientific explanations of evolution. It is unrealistic to assume that highly religious zealots will ever accept evolution as a fact. If you doubt this, just listen to the radio or watch television and hear how many people seem to view Mel Gibson’s movie as a documentary.
MY SOLUTION
I think this situation must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. There are groups identified in the article who focus on responding to challenges to evolutionary education and I think they should make their work better known, to encourage donations from scientifically minded people. As a result, these organizations could formalize their efforts and make set responses available in the form of DVDs or speakers who could quickly address and creationist objectors who would cloud the waters with less than good scientific challenges.
PROS
By identifying reputable scientific groups who are in a position to address challenges to evolutionary teachings, such groups could gain better funding and prestige.
By addressing this issue in a large-scale way, it could serve to galvanize creationist groups in even greater numbers than currently being experienced. In today’s increasingly conservative mind-set, it might result in a wide-spread, religious challenge to teachings in public schools that aren’t supported by Biblical writing.
Adam
Writing for the 21st Century Ms. Gokturk
The
latest push by the government into the lives of its citizens has been unfolding
locally. A mayor in nearby New Paltz, NY began issuing marriage licenses to gay
couples. The push for equal treatment by
gays in this arena has picked up steam recently with
Once again, the government is moving more aggressively into areas of personal conduct that, in my opinion, threaten the basic freedoms that all Americans were granted over two hundred years ago. I don’t really have any objection of gay marriages. It seems to me that this is a deeply personal issue that has little impact on anyone else and as such, I am puzzled as to why the government should feel it necessary to spell out a code of moral conduct for the nation. I admit that the founding fathers probably did not foresee this particular issue on the horizon, but the constitution was written in such a way as to allow great leeway in matters of personal choice. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” is sufficiently broad in its description to permit individuals the latitude to pursue their individual happiness . . . even if it seems to be quite different from another person’s definition.
I relate this issue to the one of censorship because I believe they both arise out of the government’s attempt to interpret what is “obscene” or “immoral” for the public. I confess that I was never much of an activist before, but my reading of the news lately has made me more aware that it is becoming increasingly difficult to stay silent when I see my basic freedoms being eroded. While the ballot box gives us all a chance to positively state our positions on issues, I hope that a constitutional amendment is not passed before we have a chance to vote out what seems to be an administration that is desirous of legislating morality.
Adam Marc 6, 2004
Writing for the 21st Century Ms Gokturk
The
intersection of personal liberties and economic realities occurred just the
other day with Howard Stern predicting that he would be taken off the air
completely in the near future. He is
basing his prediction on the fact that one his syndicators,
Clear Channel Media, removed him for six stations for ‘obscenity’ and a feeling
that he would be subject of large fines from the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). Stern noted that he
believed this recent focus on him is an outgrowth of his on-air statements
attacking the President on a variety of issues.
I am not sure that Howard’s recent troubles are the result of a
government conspiracy targeting him (he does), but rather an outgrowth of
recent events that have alarmed ‘
Janet Jackson’s publicity stunt at the Super Bowl put the issue on the front burner of the American landscape. By showing her breast on prime-time television, she has stirred up a hornet’s nest of outrage from people who believe the site had an enormously corrosive effect on them and their children. I agree that it was pretty poor taste and a fine is probably appropriate, but the issue has become much larger.
By targeting broadcasters, even those of questionable decorum, I believe it is unjustified. The millions of people who listen to Howard and the other ‘shock jocks’ tune to him of their own free will for purposes of amusement. After all, it is radio and completely lacking visual presentation. By having the FCC levy seven figure fines, they are, in effect, bludgeoning a company out of business. Howard Stern has been the target of enforcement in the past (under a Democratic administration) so I am not sure that he is the victim of a uniquely Republican conspiracy. I think he is in the wrong place at the wrong time but the fact that he is facing removal from the air represents a far more troubling issue. Is the government using its clout to silence dissent? Even dissent from someone as irreverent as a Howard Stern? That troubles me.
Adam
Writing for the 21st Century Ms. Gokturk
This weekend, the newspapers all had the same picture on the front page: Martha Stewart. One paper, the New York Daily News I think it was, had her photo with the headline, “Curtains,” which I thought was actually pretty good. I have not followed the case too closely but it seems like a great many people were happy with her conviction on charges that she lied about a stock trade. Of course, Martha Stewart’s fall has all the appeal of Marie Antoinette being led to the gallows during the French Revolution. The similarities (strong, wealthy women in highly visible positions of power) are too obvious to ignore. However, in keeping with my growing concern about government intervention into the lives of its citizens, I wonder if Ms. Stewart hasn’t been the victim, at least in part, of some selective enforcement?
The fact that the government brought this action against someone as famous as Martha Stewart is big news. Other corporate executives are currently on trial for allegedly committing crimes far more serious than hers. Ms. Stewart’s actions concern a stock trade that saved her $45,000. Not cheap, but not the millions and even billions of dollars that the other executives are involved in. The Stewart case is really small potatoes and probably cost more to prosecute than the amount of money illegally saved.
I think the government may have been targeting her because she is Martha Stewart. There are careers to be made for prosecuting such a high visibility defendant. Making an example of Martha Stewart appeals to the ‘mob’ because we all, in some way, resent her success. I don’t think it is a “woman thing,” either. I think the public will be crying out of the blood of the other male corporate executives who ‘live large.’
The fact that a person has made a success of themself should not make them a target of additional scrutiny. Particularly in this case, it is not a lot of money so we have to ask ourselves why she was prosecuted? Is this yet another example of the government unfairly using its powers?
Adam
Writing for the 21st Century Ms. Gokturk
An interesting wrinkle to the issue of increased government censorship activity relating to radio broadcasting appeared in this Sunday’s New York Times. In an article in the Week in Review section, it was noted that the FCC’s recent enforcement activities might be motivated as an effort to ‘de-construct’ the large scale media consolidation that dominates radio.
As it stands now, the vast majority of radio outlets are owned by just a few corporations under a number of well known banners like Viacom, Clear Channel, Infinity, etc. The article postulates that the moves to levy large fines on broadcasters might be due to a desire to force conglomerates to spin-off their holdings to smaller entities. This would (supposedly) put the stations back in the hands of people in local markets who are more in touch with the moral climates of their listening area.
The ideal is not far-fetched. I can understand the potential for problems when one large holding company dictates its positions over the masses. Unfortunately, this can also be the case when a government uses its ‘clout’ to inflict its will over the masses by virtue of its size.
No matter what the motivation behind the recent increase in FCC censorship activities, it is still troublesome to any one who values civil liberties. Certainly using the power of fines to inject a some new kind of economic de-centralized broadcasting theory is just plain wrong. The marketplace can create that by virtue of its power to change channels from stations it does not appropriate. The underlying issue is the government getting involved in the area of Free Speech and not masking it with some sort economic overtones.