The recent execution of an Iran woman has caused wide spread controversy amongst human rights groups. After being on death row for 5 years, 26 year old Reyhaneh Jabbari was hanged for the killing of Morteza Abdolali Sarbandi, a former intelligence ministry employee, in 2007. It is reported from Amnesty International that she was not only kept in solitary confinement for two months without seeing a lawyer or her family but also tortured before her death. Many Iranians saw injustice in her sentence to death since the killing of Sarbandi was a result of attempted rape. Aside from that, Jabbari was convicted of murder after an unfair trial and the disregarding of evidence after a confession was made. Jabbari's actions were those of self defense but even when the community rallied together to beg for her pardon, the public outcry was disregarded and the execution was not called off. This case and these specific circumstances have emphasized the United Nation's disapproval with the death penalty. Iran has executed at least 170 people this year after setting a record last year of the most people executed in any country. Human rights groups look towards first year president Hassan Rouhani as suspected cause for the amount of executions. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated in July that the death penalty has no place in the 21st century. The morality of it all has become a main focus. Members of the UN confirm that such unfortunate actions towards the convicted impede on the process of building international trust.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/25/world/meast/iranian-woman-execution/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews
This was a very unfortunate sequence of events that, in my opinion, took a turn for the worse when Reyhaneh Jabbari was executed. Even after an unfair trial in which presented evidence that could have possibly spared her life was not taken into consideration, she was still hung. While I have never been in favor of the death penalty, this specific case makes it so much more horrible. One would think that self defense could exempt a person from being put to death. The startling frequency of executions shows how easy it is to be convicted and put on death row. I agree with Ki-moon, in such an affluent and quickly advancing world, killing as a punishment should no longer be allowed. It is very uncivilized and primitive. There are other forms of punishment that do not end lives. Sarbandi was only 26 years old and if at some point the evidence needed to exempt her is properly examined, it will be too late. So many executions in Iran does in fact make the nation appear more on the aggressive side, not something that helps promote international peace. Hopefully, what people take away from this is the favorable concept of abolishing the death penalty in all nations.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Containing Ebola Through Quarantine
After Ebola has claimed the lives of an estimated 4,500 people this year, travel to West Africa has become highly unappealing. Volunteers still continue to risk their health with intentions on providing aid to the victims, a commendable act in an ailing country. However, upon returning to the United States, health care workers in states such as Illinois, New Jersey, and New York have been sentenced to a mandatory quarantine period of 3 weeks, the window period of the virus. This was in response to Dr. Craig Spencer's diagnosis of Ebola in New York City. A great amount of controversy has arisen from this situation, specifically amongst Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the state governor's who imposed the quarantine. Dr. Fauci claims that the mandatory quarantine is an unnecessary measure and could possibly discourage those with the intentions of helping people effected by the disease in West Africa. A preferable course of action in his opinion would be a volunteer quarantine. The rather unpleasant experience of Doctors Without Borders nurse Kaci Hickox supported Dr. Fauci's argument after Hickox claimed she was treated like a criminal upon arriving at Newark Liberty International Airport after being in West Africa. She was escorted to the University Hospital in Newark by eight police officers as well as flashing lights and sirens. New Jersey governor Chris Christie and New York governor Andrew Cuomo are in agreement about the taken course of action. Christie states a volunteer isolation period does not cut it when the health of the public is at risk. The disease is easily transmitted through contact with infected bodily fluids and in a state with such a dense population, the utmost protection is completely necessary. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/26/fauci-doesnt-support-new-state-level-mandatory-quarantines/
Clearly, this disease is nothing to underestimate. After so many deaths in West Africa and even the United States where we have a much more affluent health care system, Ebola must be contained in any possible way, even if it means restricting the freedoms of those returning from such an admirable cause. The symptoms of Ebola do not show until after 21 days, but even if the victim undergoes treatment as soon as they are apparent it could be too late. The disease could have already spread. My opinion, why risk it? I agree with both governors Christie and Cuomo. If the health of your loved ones is at risk, why not take some initiative? Be safe rather than sorry, even if the risk is miniscule. In no way should those returning from West Africa be stigmatized or mistreated during a quarantine after such a valiant deed, however. That is completely uncalled for and not the response that is deserved. It is the job of both the state and federal governments to protect the people and keep the nation safe. The quarantine is therefore necessary despite it's inconvenience towards the daily life of a civilian. It is better to inconvenience one rather than put a whole city at the potential risk or Ebola.
Clearly, this disease is nothing to underestimate. After so many deaths in West Africa and even the United States where we have a much more affluent health care system, Ebola must be contained in any possible way, even if it means restricting the freedoms of those returning from such an admirable cause. The symptoms of Ebola do not show until after 21 days, but even if the victim undergoes treatment as soon as they are apparent it could be too late. The disease could have already spread. My opinion, why risk it? I agree with both governors Christie and Cuomo. If the health of your loved ones is at risk, why not take some initiative? Be safe rather than sorry, even if the risk is miniscule. In no way should those returning from West Africa be stigmatized or mistreated during a quarantine after such a valiant deed, however. That is completely uncalled for and not the response that is deserved. It is the job of both the state and federal governments to protect the people and keep the nation safe. The quarantine is therefore necessary despite it's inconvenience towards the daily life of a civilian. It is better to inconvenience one rather than put a whole city at the potential risk or Ebola.
Monday, October 6, 2014
Overjoyed same sex couples finally meet at the altar
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-declines-to-review-same-sex-marriage-cases/2014/10/06/ee822848-4d5e-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop
Same sex marriage has long been a topic of controversy in the United States. Laws banning or prohibiting it have been created and repealed. Monday the 6th was a day of great joy for many gay and lesbian couples in more than 30 states. The good news of the rejection of an appeal that had sought to ban weddings of gay couples was cause to rejoice around the nation. The Supreme Court stepped out of the way and allowed the states of Utah, Oklahoma, Indiana and Wisconsin as well as states that had formally banned the unions of same sex couples (Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina) to embrace the right to marry. The court did not take on the appeal to declare the constitutionality of gay marriage meaning that the cases were not 100% settled all over the nation, which allowed the decisions of the lower courts to stand. This said that for now, gay marriage could be legal. The expectations were for the court to evaluate the controversy and hopefully make a move finalizing the constitutionality/unconstitutionality of the state courts decisions. This, obviously, was not the outcome. Clearly, not everyone was happy about the Supreme Court's decision to decline review on the marriage cases. Indiana governor Mike Pence had always supported "traditional" marriage and was very frustrated by the court's refusal to hear the "importance" of his arguments. Republican governor Gary Herbert of Utah promised to uphold the law even though it displeased him to see the state lose the right to create laws on marriage. On the other hand, democrats like Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia recognize that this sort of action was long over due. Nevertheless, the opinions of government officials was of no importance to many happy couples that were finally able to legally join in matrimony after a long wait.
I personally can not define a "traditional" marriage. I do know, however, that a man and woman should in no way differ from a woman and a woman or man and man. A marriage is about love, nothing else; it is not defined by what it is physically made up of, but what is made out of it. This all boils down to morals in a way, but it is despicable that an individual, or law for that matter, can come between two people of the same sex that want the same thing that every straight couple wants. In no way does their union effect me or anyone else, I have no right or audacity to interfere. I believe the Supreme Court did well in not interfering with the decisions of the lower court, allowing them to stand with their rulings in favor of same sex couples. Still, I see many states marked "gay marriage banned" on the map. This shouldn't even be such a struggle in my opinion. While very good news, it's really disappointing that this has so much publicity. Gay marriage should not be so controversial, bottom line. They should be allowed to live the same lives as any other American. Steps towards this have been taken today. No, the fight is not over but it is my hope that one day, the Supreme Court embraces what truly makes us American and our map becomes a clean slate.
Same sex marriage has long been a topic of controversy in the United States. Laws banning or prohibiting it have been created and repealed. Monday the 6th was a day of great joy for many gay and lesbian couples in more than 30 states. The good news of the rejection of an appeal that had sought to ban weddings of gay couples was cause to rejoice around the nation. The Supreme Court stepped out of the way and allowed the states of Utah, Oklahoma, Indiana and Wisconsin as well as states that had formally banned the unions of same sex couples (Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina) to embrace the right to marry. The court did not take on the appeal to declare the constitutionality of gay marriage meaning that the cases were not 100% settled all over the nation, which allowed the decisions of the lower courts to stand. This said that for now, gay marriage could be legal. The expectations were for the court to evaluate the controversy and hopefully make a move finalizing the constitutionality/unconstitutionality of the state courts decisions. This, obviously, was not the outcome. Clearly, not everyone was happy about the Supreme Court's decision to decline review on the marriage cases. Indiana governor Mike Pence had always supported "traditional" marriage and was very frustrated by the court's refusal to hear the "importance" of his arguments. Republican governor Gary Herbert of Utah promised to uphold the law even though it displeased him to see the state lose the right to create laws on marriage. On the other hand, democrats like Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia recognize that this sort of action was long over due. Nevertheless, the opinions of government officials was of no importance to many happy couples that were finally able to legally join in matrimony after a long wait.
I personally can not define a "traditional" marriage. I do know, however, that a man and woman should in no way differ from a woman and a woman or man and man. A marriage is about love, nothing else; it is not defined by what it is physically made up of, but what is made out of it. This all boils down to morals in a way, but it is despicable that an individual, or law for that matter, can come between two people of the same sex that want the same thing that every straight couple wants. In no way does their union effect me or anyone else, I have no right or audacity to interfere. I believe the Supreme Court did well in not interfering with the decisions of the lower court, allowing them to stand with their rulings in favor of same sex couples. Still, I see many states marked "gay marriage banned" on the map. This shouldn't even be such a struggle in my opinion. While very good news, it's really disappointing that this has so much publicity. Gay marriage should not be so controversial, bottom line. They should be allowed to live the same lives as any other American. Steps towards this have been taken today. No, the fight is not over but it is my hope that one day, the Supreme Court embraces what truly makes us American and our map becomes a clean slate.
Anti-american vs. Anti-education?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/changes-in-ap-history-trigger-a-culture-clash-in-colorado/2014/10/05/fa6136a2-4b12-11e4-b72e-d60a9229cc10_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop
Controversy in Colorado has flared due to the upholding resistance of the Jefferson County school district against College Board. The mainly conservative Board of Education is taking a stand against the new AP US History curriculum that has been initiated. Two new topics have been added to the course material, including conflict between Native Americans and European settlers from 1491 to 1607, and 1980 to the present which addresses touchy social issues like abortion and the terrorist attacks on September 11. America's past conflict, internal and external, proves that we are not perfect. This bothers the conservatives who believe that putting such knowledge in students heads will condone or encourage civil disorder. A new founded committee meant to ensure censorship of the material exposed to students has been organized, run by the district's very conservative board of education. Teachers, students, and parents are all highly disturbed and disapproving of the new committee's intentions. The community of Jefferson County has rallied together in protest, staging teacher "sick" days, marches in the streets, and even face to face confrontation at board meetings. One student even presented a signed petition of 40,000 names from across the country, clearly demonstrating that the committee had gotten under the skin of people all over. Still, republicans defend their arguments with claims that the course is so "anti-American" that graduating students will be ready to join the Islamic State and that the removal of such uncomfortable subtopics of American history is necessary. Some parents with children enrolled in Jefferson county schools agree with such actions too, saying that American exceptionalism should be a main focus and that the new curriculum deprives students of that knowledge. I say, extreme much?
I have been taking courses in US history since 6th grade and not once have I turned my back on America due to learning about past negative actions. These mistakes and conflicts must be learned from. Avoiding the problem is never the answer, something that we have been taught since elementary school as well. Also, I recognize many of the things that we as Americans enjoy daily and take for granted, such as food, a roof over our heads, and clothes on our backs. In that way, I know that where I live is exceptional, I am safe and comfortable and happy. But when I sit through a history class, I expect to learn the history of America, not a curriculum that has been picked through and scrubbed clean. We have no shortage of accomplishments that we can brag about, but at the same time it is imperative that we get to know the entire story of our past. It all boils down to one question: With such a censored curriculum, are we as students truly LEARNING? No, we are being spoon fed a nonsensical load of lies. As high school students, we need to be educated and aware of our nation's past and present, opposed to what a "censored" education would bring us. Going off to college with a completely different set of knowledge compared to those who have actually been informed of ALL aspects of the United States of America would not do us well in the real world. Patriotism does not come from what we learn, it comes from who we are as Americans in the present and what we chose to become. We need to learn from our mistakes, know what NOT to do again, admit we as a nation are not flawless but work to maintain order through unity AND awareness.
Controversy in Colorado has flared due to the upholding resistance of the Jefferson County school district against College Board. The mainly conservative Board of Education is taking a stand against the new AP US History curriculum that has been initiated. Two new topics have been added to the course material, including conflict between Native Americans and European settlers from 1491 to 1607, and 1980 to the present which addresses touchy social issues like abortion and the terrorist attacks on September 11. America's past conflict, internal and external, proves that we are not perfect. This bothers the conservatives who believe that putting such knowledge in students heads will condone or encourage civil disorder. A new founded committee meant to ensure censorship of the material exposed to students has been organized, run by the district's very conservative board of education. Teachers, students, and parents are all highly disturbed and disapproving of the new committee's intentions. The community of Jefferson County has rallied together in protest, staging teacher "sick" days, marches in the streets, and even face to face confrontation at board meetings. One student even presented a signed petition of 40,000 names from across the country, clearly demonstrating that the committee had gotten under the skin of people all over. Still, republicans defend their arguments with claims that the course is so "anti-American" that graduating students will be ready to join the Islamic State and that the removal of such uncomfortable subtopics of American history is necessary. Some parents with children enrolled in Jefferson county schools agree with such actions too, saying that American exceptionalism should be a main focus and that the new curriculum deprives students of that knowledge. I say, extreme much?
I have been taking courses in US history since 6th grade and not once have I turned my back on America due to learning about past negative actions. These mistakes and conflicts must be learned from. Avoiding the problem is never the answer, something that we have been taught since elementary school as well. Also, I recognize many of the things that we as Americans enjoy daily and take for granted, such as food, a roof over our heads, and clothes on our backs. In that way, I know that where I live is exceptional, I am safe and comfortable and happy. But when I sit through a history class, I expect to learn the history of America, not a curriculum that has been picked through and scrubbed clean. We have no shortage of accomplishments that we can brag about, but at the same time it is imperative that we get to know the entire story of our past. It all boils down to one question: With such a censored curriculum, are we as students truly LEARNING? No, we are being spoon fed a nonsensical load of lies. As high school students, we need to be educated and aware of our nation's past and present, opposed to what a "censored" education would bring us. Going off to college with a completely different set of knowledge compared to those who have actually been informed of ALL aspects of the United States of America would not do us well in the real world. Patriotism does not come from what we learn, it comes from who we are as Americans in the present and what we chose to become. We need to learn from our mistakes, know what NOT to do again, admit we as a nation are not flawless but work to maintain order through unity AND awareness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)