Death penalty

An astounding 1135 Americans have been killed mercilessly in the last thirty-one years by the United States judicial system (death penalty info 1). Amazingly, this is a perfectly legal practice in the same country that is often said to be at the forefront of the free world. Many continue to argue for the practice of capital punishment, or the death penalty for the murderers and rapists of our country, in order to deter these types of people from commiting these awful acts. They also argue that we need to clear out our jails, as it doesn’t make sense to use tax dollars to keep these heinous people alive in our prison cells. However, there is plenty of data to argue just the opposite, that the death penalty is not successful in deterring crime, and that it is actually more expensive to kill these people than to keep them in our jails.
First, the proponents of capital punishment argue that the only way to teach some of these people not to murder and commit other awful crimes is to threaten them with death upon conviction. However, it has been seen that this is not effectively deterring murder. In fact, in most cases, the murder rate has risen with the use of the death penalty. In states that do not practice capital punishment, the murder rates have been consistently between 27 and 46 percent lower than in those states that practice it since 1995 (death penalty info deterrence). Most recently, in 2007, the murder rate was 5.83 in states that use the the death penalty, versus only 4.10 in states that don’t (deterrence). That is a 42 percent difference (deterrence). In addition, according to a survey, of past and present presidents of the nations top criminological societies, 84 percent reject the notion that capital punishment acts as a deterrence to murder (death penalty info 3).
Secondly, a common argument for the implementation of the death penalty is that we need to clear out our jail cells, that we shouldn’t be spending space and money keeping these evil people alive in our prisons. However, it has been proven time and time again that it is more expensive to kill these people than to keep them alive. For example, in California, the death penalty system costs taxpayers 114 million a year more than what it would cost to keep convicts locked up for life (death penalty info 4). Californians have coughed up over 250 million for each execution (4). In Kansas, capital cases are seventy percent more expensive than non-capital cases, including incarceration costs(4). In Florida, it costs 51 million a year above what it would cost for first degree murderers to spend life in prison without parole (4). That’s 24 million for each execution (4). Imagine what could be done with all that money. A great majority of the reason costs are so much more for death penalty cases are because of the extensive trials that they must go through. Ever case is brought to appeals, and drags on forever, as people’s lives are literally at stake in these trials. Often times those on death row are using taxpayers dollars for their lawyers and court costs also because they have the right to them, but usually don’t have the money to pay for them. These costs add up quickly.
Possibly the biggest argument for the death penalty, the one thing that is keeping it legal in some states in the face of all this contradictory data is that is just. People say eye for an eye, that is the only just thing to do. But I disagree. First of all, by killing those that have killed, we are stooping to their level, and setting an example of vengeance. Many of those convicted of murder kill for revenge. They feel that someone did something bad enough that warrants their life be taken. While we might not agree that it is worth their life, it seems to be for these murderers, in the name of justice. By taking the lives of the murderers for committing crimes we believe to be horrible enough to die for, we are doing the exact same thing as the murderers. It is all about vengeance, and there is no room for that in a mature and responsible society. As Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind.”


Bibliography

"Fact Sheet." Death Penalty Information Center. 8 Dec 2008. Death Penalty Information Center. 8 Dec 2008 .

"Deterrance." Death Penalty Information Center. 2008. Death Penalty Information Center. 8 Dec 2008 .

Are humans like Ants?

Everybody knows that war is always going to lead to death and most likely destruction. But are we the only species that have “wars.” According to some emerging research ants have a tendency to go to war against other colonies in their area. If you actually think about it for a second, it does make sense.

Some species attack and take over neighboring colonies. Others are fewer expansionists but just as aggressive; they invade colonies to steal eggs or larvae, which they either eat or raise as workers/slaves. (Ant)

Not only do humans share their aggressiveness with ants, but social patterns as well. Ants have a well organized social structure that allows them build their ant colonies and function as they do. Humans also have a social “norms” that they follow. Most humans will generally follow the crowd. Solomon Asch did some a very interesting experiment to determine how likely someone was to conform to a group.

Imagine yourself in the following situation: You sign up for a psychology experiment, and on a specified date you and seven others whom you think are also subjects arrive and are seated at a table in a small room. You don't know it at the time, but the others are actually associates of the experimenter, and their behavior has been carefully scripted. You're the only real subject. The experimenter arrives and tells you that the study in which you are about to participate concerns people's visual judgments. She places two cards before you. The card on the left contains onevertical line. The card on the right displays three lines of varying length.

The experimenter asks all of you, one at a time, to choose which of the three lines on the right card matches the length of the line on the left card. The task is repeated several times with different cards. On some occasions the other "subjects" unanimously choose the wrong line. It is clear to you that they are wrong, but they have all given the same answer.


What would you do? Would you go along with the majority opinion, or would you "stick to your guns" and trust your own eyes? (Solomon)

Though most people would say they would trust their own eyes, Solomon Asch’s experiment proved otherwise.

To Asch's surprise, 37 of the 50 subjects conformed to the majority at least once, and 14 of them conformed on more than 6 of the 12 trials. When faced with a unanimous wrong answer by the other group members, the mean subject conformed on 4 of the 12 trials. Asch was disturbed by these results: "The tendency to conformity in our society is so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black. This is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct."(Solomon)

After looking at such a simple experiment to see how important it is for humans to conform to the majority, leads us back to the ants. In the ant’s social structure not conforming to the rest of the populous means death. In our society, not following social norms (thing that the normal populous does and considers normal) means being looked at as strange or weird.

For the most average adult, their day goes day-in and day-out doing pretty much the same thing over and over again. For some its wake up, eat breakfast, go to work, eat lunch, go back to work, leave work, come home, eat dinner, relax and go to bed to wake up the next day and do the same thing. Ants lives are continuously the same thing. Each has their own specific job that they must carry out. Workers work, queens have babies, warriors defend, and gatherers gather.

Can humans who are the dominant species on earth really share such basic patterns in social networking and aggressiveness with ants? Ants are such a simple and small animal to compare humans to. But humans are aggressive; anyone can see that by looking at our history. Not only do both species share aggressiveness but humans share their ability and need to conform as well. Though you can easily pick these two species apart in other ways, like their ability to hold eight times their own weight, but one cannot ignore the similarities that humans do share with ants.

Works Cited:

“Ant” Wikipedia 6 December 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant#Cooperation_and_competition

“Solomon Asch Experiment (1958): A study of conformity” Age-of-the-sage.org http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/social/asch_conformity.html

Due Process

The events off September 11, 2001 influenced the feelings of most of the U. S. The attacks reminded people of the danger of terrorism, and made them aware of their mortality. This ubiquitous knowledge had a significant impact on how people lived. People felt compelled to display American flags, attend church, and give blood. Many also began to severely judge others that did not align with their world view. There were multiple accounts of violence against persons appearing to be Middle-Eastern. These judgments are endemic of mortality salience. When people become aware of their mortality, they more harshly judge those that do not align with that view. This is evident even in the court system. Recent experiments and research demonstrates that when judges are affected by mortality salience, they alter their judgments to align more accurately with their view of the world.

Terror management theory describes how people react when they are made aware of their mortality. According to this theory, society and culture are used as barriers against the knowledge of mortality. So, when people are exposed to this knowledge, they alter their actions to align more strongly with their worldview. This allows them to reinforce that view and keep mortality salience at a safe distance. (Arndt et al, 2005) According to this theory, people affected by mortality salience will more harshly judge those that seem to oppose their world view. This is demonstrated in the violence against Middle-Eastern people post September 11. This can also have effects as far reaching as the court room.

In an experiment, a group of judges were given questionnaire packets. Half of the packets contained questions that were designed to elicit thoughts of death. The judges were then asked to decide bail for an alleged prostitute. They gave the judge all the information that would normally be used to discern bail in this type of case. Judges not given questions regarding mortality salience gave on average a bail of 50 dollars, whereas the judges given the questions regarding mortality salience gave an average bail of 450 dollars. (Arndt et al, 2005) According to terror management theory, this difference is caused by judges view prostitution as a threat to their world view, the legal system. When this experiment was repeated with college students, only those who viewed prostitution negatively gave higher bail for the defendant when exposed to mortality salience. (Arndt et al, 2005)

These experiments demonstrate the significant affect mortality salience can have on the legal system. After September 11, many criticized the government for not giving fair trials to suspected terrorists, but in that situation, a fair trial may be impossible. This effect is not only bound to events like September 11. Common courtroom occurrences such as recordings of fatal car accidents or recollections of death can cause mortality salience. (Arndt et al, 2005) These results leave us wondering if it is possible to have a fair, unbiased justice system. How just can courts really be?


Sources

Arndt, Jamie; Cook, Alison; Lieberman, Joel D.; Solomon, Sheldon. “TERROR MANAGEMENT IN THE COURTROOM: Exploring the Effects of Mortality Salience on Legal Decision Making”. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 2005.

Revenge?

Revenge?

Revenge at its simplest is somewhat of an easy concept to understand. If something is done to someone, it is easy to assume they will retaliate. It is not often that violent or vengeful actions are taken against a party without some sort of revenge. In the world we live in, some sort of revenge is often required. If action is not taken a country or government seems weak. Not only that, but they lose the faith of the people in the sense that the government will not stand up to aggressors. One of the greatest examples of our time would have to be the US retaliation on Afghanistan for the September 11th attacks. In the beginning the reasons were clear cut. They attacked us so we attacked them. But at some point in time, the reasons were changed and the focus of the war switched to Iraq. Similarly, the Unites States took a stance of non-involvement during World War II. This stance stood firm until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, forcing the United States into the war and eventually to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

At what point does revenge become something more? Fine suggests that certain actions are taken due to the unexpected consequences of one decision. Opportunities arise from the outcome of one action that allows for advancements in other areas to be taken. He states “Social problems are linked in complex, dynamic, and interconnected ways… ‘solving’ social problems creates both opportunities and constraints that … generate other problems through a process [termed] ‘chaining social problems.’” According to this theory, revenge will no longer be revenge when the consequences create an opportunity to gain something worthwhile.

So the simple act of making sure someone “gets what they deserve” is not so simple after all. In fact it creates a complicated string of opportunities in which one is able to gain power and influence. In effect, what might start out as a simple act of retaliation, could turn into a means to permanently change the balance of power within the global community. For instance, the War in Afghanistan led to the War in Iraq, which resulted in the execution of Saddam Hussein.

But is this type of action truly necessary? It is clear throughout history it is not enough to just get revenge. Governments pursue objectives far after the necessary retaliation is taken. I can only think that this can be explained by the fact that the only guaranteed security a country can have is to be at the top. In order to make it to the top one must take every opportunity possible to expand influence, even after the necessary revenge has been taken.

Fine, Gary Alan. "The Chaining of Social Problems: Solutions and Unintended Consequences in the Age of Betrayal." Social problems 53.1 (2006): 3-17.

Role of Paramilitaries in Genocide

Paramilitaries have been essential in the ability to carry out genocide in the twentieth century and this tradition has continued into the twenty first century. The S.S. and S.A. in the Holocaust, the Interhamwe in Rwanda, and the Janjaweed in Darfur are a few examples. It could be argued that paramilitaries are essential to carrying out genocide. Paramilitaries are involved in many conflicts and are essentially a group of civilians that are militarily organized and are often used as an extension, or in place of, regular military troops (paramilitary). There are several reasons that paramilitaries are such effective and practical tools to carry out the dirty work of genocide.

The first reason is that because genocides occur during times of war the regular military is busy trying to win the war. The paramilitaries of the Serbia-Bosnia conflict were usually little more than gangs of thugs and criminals who enjoyed violence and the looting along with the killing. In Rwanda in 1994 and the current Darfur crisis, both governments were at war with rebels over who should and has the power to control the government. In Rwanda the Interhamwe often manned the roadblocks and formed the gangs that went house to house looking for Tutsis to slaughter while the Hutu military battled the advancing RPF.

Another reason that paramilitaries are ideal in carrying out genocide is that international accountability has greatly increased within the last century. Military leaders are held accountable for the orders they give and the actions that their troops commit. By using paramilitaries and militia, government and military leaders can claim to not have been involved in committing genocide. An excellent example of this is the ongoing genocide against Africans that is being carried out by Arabs in Darfur. While the Sudan government gives these Arab groups financial support, the groups are not officially part of the state. Therefore, the government can claim that they themselves are uninvolved and unaccountable. While the international court system is far from perfect, countries and individuals have been tried and convicted for genocide. Adolf Eichmann’s televised trial for helping orchestrate the Holocaust is an iconic example.

Currently there are trials going on for paramilitary leaders in the Serbia-Bosnia conflict as well as the many genocidaires being held in prisons awaiting trial in Rwanda. The use and abuse of paramilitaries across the world is an issue that needs to be addressed. Wars and conflicts are evolving past the conventional two-sided battles with either side wearing brightly colored uniforms. Low-intensity conflicts and the use of unconventional organizations and tools is increasing. The idea of paramilitaries and militia lies close to the American identity of freedom but we need to be aware that such groups are capable, and have been used, to carry out massive atrocities.

"paramilitary." WordNet® 3.0. Princeton University. 06 Dec. 2008. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paramilitary>.

Help and Aid

With power comes responsibility. This is a saying which states that when a person or group of people has power they must be responsible and know how to use it. For decades now, the Unites States has been a world superpower and was for a number of years arguably the only superpower. The country is thought of as the leader of the democratic world and serves as a model to many smaller third world countries trying to establish democracy.

There is a theory that explains diffusion of responsibility. This was a way of thinking that came about after an experiment conducted by Latane. After the experiment the conclusion was made that when people are in a group, they feel less personal responsibility to helping another person as they responsibility it shared amongst all of those in the group. In other words, in a group of four people, a single person will only feel 25% of the responsibility for a fifth person in need. (Latane) An example of this on a global scale could be seen during the events before World War II. When Hitler began slowly expanding into the countries surrounding Germany, the other countries adopted a form of appeasement to avoid war. With all of the other European countries, with the exception of Italy, the responsibility of stopping Hitler from taking over the smaller countries was shared so that none felt wholly responsible for keeping him in check. More current examples could be situations like the Rwandan genocide. This was something which the international community was aware of, but again, because most of the community was aware of it not much effort was put into helping from each individual country. Instead of a large UN force being sent, a very small group of soldiers from the different countries was used.

Unfortunately for the countries where violence occurs, the sense of responsibility and duty to help really is affected. This means that when famine or genocide breaks out that those affected will most likely receive less help than they need, in particularly from the larger countries like the United States. Despite having resources that could easily support and aide many of these international problems the financial or manpower assistance just isn’t given. Leaders and countries need to be fully aware of this and the psychology behind it and be able to give help to countries in need to the best of their ability.

Latane, Bibb. “Bystander Intervention in Emergencies”. 1968. http://www.nd.edu/~rwilliam/zsoc302/fall2002/experiments/Darley2.pdf

war against war

There has always been struggle against war. With every war there are protesters and people who do not agree with it, and therefore, don’t support the effort. Even though these people don’t believe in war, does it matter? How do they go about ending the war? Do they even have the power? People have fought to end wars in many ways. I will discuss a few of these attempts in this blog.

Passive protesting: I consider protesting through all forms of writing, such as songs, poetry, books, articles, petitions, etc., passive forms of protesting. Even though somewhat passive, they are still, however, effective and convincing. There is a group called Poets Against War. Their mission is to continue the tradition of socially engaged poetry by creating venues for poetry as a voice against war, tyranny and oppression (Poets Against War). Their website is Poetsagainstthewar.org; I would highly recommend reading some of the poems on the site. One I found interesting is called "Let Freedom Ring."

"it would be nice if it did ring,

but it doesn't

it explodes and makes a mess" (Red Cloud).

The author is critiquing the way we fight for freedom through war in his poetry. All forms of writing can be used as propaganda to end war.

Active protesting: I consider protesting through rallies, public demonstration, civil disobedience demonstrations etc., active forms of protesting. There are many ways to actively protest: marches, sit-ins, picketing, and many more. These forms of protesting are usually done in large groups or a single person in front of a large crowd. There is a website called protest.net that has lists of protest dates so everyone knows where and when to gather and also news articles explaining important issues (Upcoming Protests). Active protests encourage people to participate in the action and are effective to any viewer.

Protesting gone too far: While protesting against the war is usually meant to be peaceful, sometimes the protests become violent. An example of this occurred at the Republican Convention in St. Paul last September. A rally of anti-war protestors tried to break though police barricades to get to the convention center. Police fought back against the protestors using bicycles and eventually deploying pepper spray. (Violence).

Protesting is an effective way to fight against the war if it is done so peacefully. When Anti-war protestors begin fighting with police, or other people, they are no longer taken seriously. How can they argue against the war when they themselves use violence to get what they want? I encourage you to visit both of those websites I have listed and see how these people are going about protesting.

Works Cited

Cloud, Red. "Poets Against War." Nov 2008. Poets Against War. 5 Dec 2008 <http://poetsagainstthewar.org/>.

"Poets Against War." Nov 2008. Poets Against War. 5 Dec 2008 <http://poetsagainstthewar.org/>.

"Upcoming Protests." Protest. 5 Dec 2008. Protest Net. 5 Dec 2008 <http://Protest.Net/>.

"Violence Breaks out in Anti-War Protest in St. Paul." ABC News 01 Sept 2008 5 Dec 2008 <http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/violence-breaks.html>.

Accidental Racism

Throughout the course of history, race has become a focal point in political and social discussions. In today’s world, especially in the United States, an almost absurd obsession with being “politically correct” in all race-related matters has developed. However, the desire to be politically correct and remain entirely unbiased has ironically resulted in being less partial towards non-ethnic groups.
According to Icek Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior, intention is typically the most accurate predictor of behavior. Behavioral beliefs (including an assessment of the outcome of a given situation), normative beliefs (social influences and how one expects his or her identifying group to react), and perceived control beliefs (success of similar maneuvers in the past) all influence one’s intentions. As I mentioned in my first and second blog entries, social influence on an individual’s beliefs is monumental and almost unrivaled—that is, the concerns of a given group at a given time are often transferred to the individual without him or her ever noticing.
With the recent election of the first African-American President of the United States, race has become a point of contention in American society. Society has rightfully demanded racial equality and an end to discrimination, and as such, these issues have become priorities for the individual as well. Although institutions of the past such as slavery are extremely unfortunate and regrettable, we as a society have made an effort to progress. The Civil Rights movement achieved legal equality for African-Americans, but racism is still prevalent in today’s society. The predicament, however, is that ridding society of racism against blacks should not mean instilling racism for whites.
Because society so greatly influences the individual’s behavior and because each member of the group tends to seek approval of the group, the desire to appear impartial often makes one biased. For instance, a recent study that entailed selecting hypothetical candidates for college acceptance revealed that attempting to appear “colorblind” influenced the participants’ selections significantly. Whites especially were less likely to acknowledge race as a factor in their selection of the candidates and were actually more likely to accept more diverse candidates with less “specific qualifications.” This suggests that, because society is so obsessed with remaining colorblind, preference is sometimes subconsciously given to the more ethnic candidates, especially if a Caucasian is making the decision. Because being racist is appropriately taboo, whites are often afraid of appearing racist and make decisions accordingly (Norton, Vandello, Biga, Darley).
Because society is so focused on adhering to remaining “colorblind,” the individual often evaluates potential employees, college applicants, etc. based on race without actually acknowledging it. As such, preference is often given to the more diverse candidate, negating the initial attempt to remain unbiased.

Sources:
Norton, Michael, et al. "Colorblind and diversity: conflicting goals in decisions influenced by race." Social Cognition 26.1 (2008): 102-111. PsycINFO. EBSCO. 3 Dec. 2008 .

http://www.12manage.com/methods_ajzen_theory_planned_behaviour.html

Post-traumatic Stress in War Veterans

Most of the time when soldiers are featured in magazines and newspapers after being wounded, the main form of disability that is featured is physical wounds. Why is it that there is no real spotlight on those that are victims to post-traumatic stress caused by war? While all of those who are injured (whether it be physically or psychologically) are victims to the cruel realities of war, my impression is that the media focuses on the physical aspect.

I’ve been interested in the effects of the war on an individual’s mind since I was younger, when my aunt told me about my biological grandfather. She said that he was a good man, a good husband, and a good father. He left home to fight in the Korea War, and my aunt said that when he came home he was a completely different person than the father she had known before. His whole personality had shaped into that of a stranger, and he allowed his life to be consumed with drugs. The war had messed him up, she told me, and he never returned to his normal self.
Now I know that my grandfather isn’t the only case of this happening. I have heard of several accounts of people transforming into different versions of themselves after involvement in war. It has been noticed that post-traumatic stress disorder is fairly common among those who have been subjected to the atrocities of war. It has been stated that “considerable evidence suggests that some Vietnam veterans have suffered long-term mental health problems as a result of their experiences while in the military.[1]”

More focus needs to be put on this aspect of victimization in war. Rather than focusing solely on physical wounds, attention needs to be paid to the mental wellness of war veterans. When looking back to the Vietnam era, one can find that the suicide rates were higher for those who were eligible for the draft as opposed to those who were not, and it was determined that the actual events of the war were the cause of this as opposed to the eligibility itself (Norman).
The trauma that many of these vets face is a sad fact of war. Many people don’t think of individuals, but rather see war veterans as statistics. They look at the news and are able to see how many are dead or injured. But each veteran who is faced with post-traumatic stress should be given attention as well. They have suffered just as those physically wounded, though in a different form. However, this does not diminish the importance of each veteran’s victimization.

[1] Hearst, Norman, and Thomas B. Newman. ". Proving Cause and Effect in Traumatic Stress: The Draft Lottery as a Natural Experiment ." Journal of Traumatic Stress 1.2 (1988). Psych Info. 3 Dec. 2008.

Fighting to Avoid Shame?

One thing I've learned through blogging this semester is that war is full of complex situations, and nothing is simple. I know that groups find many reasons for engaging in war, but I never would have thought that wars are fought out of shame or to avoid shame. "The Social Self Preservation Theory asserts that situations which threaten the 'social self' (ie, one’s social value or standing) elicit increased feelings of low social worth (eg, shame)" (Gruenewald, Kemeny, Aziz, & Faney, p. 915, 2004). Basically, an event or situation which threatens people's self-worths causes an increase in shame. If a group feels threatened, it makes sense that it would go to war in order to avoid being defeated and feeling shame. The threatened group might attack first as a way of ensuring that the other group is shamed first. It is also possible that a group that is already feeling shame would attack in order to feel better. The already ashamed group would hope to improve its social standing and therefore its social worth by getting rid of the threat they are under.

After the Treaty of Versailles, Germany fell under the latter type of group. The nation had been humiliated by losing "much of its territory, its industry, its army and its status as a powerful nation following World War I" (Armstrong, p. 35, 2006), and the people were looking to get back on top. The Nazi party offered an opportunity to do just that and regain the lost pride of the Fatherland. What ensued was a war in which the shamed Nazis "felt better about themselves when they disempowered and cruelly humiliated those over whom they had control (Armstrong, p. 36, 2006). When they gained control over others and shamed them, the Nazis were able to get rid of their own shame.

In many Middle Eastern countries, if a woman is found to be having sex with anyone besides her husband, her family is deeply dishonored. Whether she has committed adultery or been raped, the family is shamed and in need of a way to regain its honor. The result is that "the woman is sentenced to death by the men in her family" (Armstrong, p. 36, 2006). There is a great deal of importance placed on family honor, and the loss of it creates much shame within the society. It appears that it is worth sacrificing a family member's life if it means that the family as a whole can end its shame and go back to its previous social position.

The United States is not too good for shame, and its own national anthem demonstrates the importance of pride in the country. We are in "the land of the free and the home of the brave," and so any threat to the freedom that the citizens are so proud of would have consequences, thanks to the brave ones fighting for it. In fact, "the American government claims to fight wars in the name of freedom and national honor" (Armstrong, p. 35, 2006). The people of the United States are so proud of their freedom and honor, that, even when its not threatened, they fight to preserve it. They fight to avoid the shame that would come from losing their social status. They fight to avoid ending up like Germany after World War I.

Everyone experiences shame, but not everyone is willing to go to war to avoid/stop that feeling. Normal shame, like letting a dark secret slip out accidentally, is usually short-lived and doesn't create a need to attack in order to feel better. Pathological shame, on the other hand, exists when the same feeling of shame is felt with every single small failure or rebuke (Goleman, 1987). Occasional shame is normal, and a well-adjusted person can get over it easily. Pathological shame is relentless, and a person under it needs to turn the tables in order to feel better.

It is very common to say that one is fighting for pride or honor, and it is understood that a defeat would cause a loss of pride, in the form of humiliation and shame. Is it not the same thing, then, to say that one is fighting to avoid shame? I am not suggesting that shame is the sole factor in a conflict, but according to the Social Self Preservation Theory, when a threat to the social self is present, so is shame.

References:

Armstrong, M. K. (2006). The connection between shame and war. The Journal of psychohistory. 34(1), 35-42.

Goleman, D. (1987). "Shame Steps Out of Hiding and Into Sharper Focus", The New York Times, Tuesday, September 15, 1987.

Gruenewald, T. L.; Kemeny, M. E.; Aziz, N.; Faney, J. L. (2004). Acute threat to the social self: Shame, social self-esteem, and cortisol activity. Psychosomatic medicine. 66(6), 915-924.

War is Hell

Certainly everyone has heard of the phrase, “War is Hell”. It is used in describing war and what goes on during armed combat. There are so many different things that go on during war it is nearly impossible to imagine the intensity of that sort of situation without having experienced it firsthand. Just because they leave the battlefield though doesn’t mean they’re problems stop. Often they come home to a public that is unhappy with the war and they don’t get the welcoming that they deserve. Now, similar to Vietnam, soldiers returning from duty get far less than they deserve. Especially considering that they’ve spent so much time training to fight and are now forced to live a civilian life.
Re-acclimating to this new lifestyle is a challenge since soldiers are forced to experience all kinds of extremely violent and stressful situations. Along with physical reactions to these different sights there are also psychological reactions, some that can affect a person months and years after the causal experience occurred. Sometimes these experiences can cause serious psychological damage which can be classified at post-traumatic stress disorder. This is a person suffers long term effects from a stressful situation, such as combat or seeing someone get killed. People who suffer from PTSD end up re-experiencing the traumatic event or events and will try to avoid places, people, or other things that remind them of the event. Soldiers affected by this will show symptoms for a long period of time and considerable damage can be done.
In the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there are a total of 40,000 reported cases of PTSD between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2007. The number increased following the move to increase soldiers in the area and to increase the lengths of tours. As of May 2008 there had been 4,759 American deaths and over 32,000 wounded (Morgan). All of these soldiers eventually come home back to the states, where they have to deal with the PTSD as well as face a public that is unhappy about the war, with Bush having an approval rating of 31 % (Steinhauser). One of the best methods for helping a person to deal with PTSD is using exposure therapy. This is where the person is exposed to situations that caused the disorder in a controlled way so that they are not overwhelmed, with the exposure eventually reaching a point where the subject is no longer affected by it. This was shown when Dr. Keane conducted clinical trials with Vietnam veterans and concluded that exposure therapy was very successful at limiting things like flashbacks, irritability and nightmares (Keane).
Exposure therapy works though because of it being done in a controlled manner. When veterans are subjected to scenes from the war which they just recently returned from a public source, especially when the coverage has a high chance of being negative, it will affect them negatively. Though not nearly as bad as with the Vietnam war where soldiers were termed “baby-killers” among other things, veterans from the middle east often have less than grateful experiences while trying to adjust to civilian life. All the while dealing with PTSD and mass images they are confronted with on the news and nearly every other media outlet. There are programs currently in place that work through the Veteran’s Affairs, but not very much attention is paid to PTSD as it isn’t the easiest thing to diagnose. A change is needed to help those soldiers returning to be able to live a normal life in the suburbs, so to speak.

Keane, T. M. & Kaloupek, D. G. (1982). “Imaginal flooding in the treatment of a posttraumatic stress disorder”. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.
Morgan, David. “Post-traumatic stress soars in U.S. troops”. 27 May, 2008. Reuters. Dec 2, 2008 www.reuters.com

“National Center for PTSD Fact Sheet”. United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Dec 2, 2008 < http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/ncmain/ncdocs/fact_shts/fs_what_is_ptsd.html>

Steinhauser, Paul. “Poll: Bush’s popularity hits new low”. 19 Mar, 2008. CNN. Dec 2, 2008 <>

Propaganda and War

During war propaganda is used to promote and even to protest war. It is used to sway the general populous to their side. “The “good guys” and the “bad guys” can often both be guilty of misleading their people with distortions, exaggerations, subjectivity, inaccuracy and even fabrications, in order to receive support and a sense of legitimacy.” (Shah) But even knowing all these distortions one cannot help but think of the appealing nature that the media uses to portray their side of the conflict. This propaganda can be seen in just about every war this world has seen, from the Cold War to World War II, and even the current war in Iraq.

“The first casualty when war comes is Truth.” These words spoken by U.S. Senator Hiram Johnson in 1917 couldn’t be more right. (qtd. In Shah) Every day an American turns the television on they are bombarded with all sorts of propaganda. Take the past presidential election for instance. Everybody knows that each candidate won’t be able to fulfil all the promises they make during the campaign, but each American likes to think they will be able to. Promises regarding the current War on Terrorism and the Iraqi War that can’t be solved overnight that will take years to complete. “Probably every conflict is fought on at least two grounds: the battlefield and the minds of the people via propaganda.” (Shah)

Common ways of using propaganda are using selective stories, partial facts, reinforcing reasons and motivations, and demonizing the other side. The point of all these varying ways is because each person will be sway more one way after seeing a particular message, ad, or article. Some people may base a decision on partial facts given by the media, and other people may sway at the media demonizing the other side. The Prime Minister of Britain during World War II once said that, “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.” (qtd. In Shah)

When National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was interviewed on Monday
[Oct. 15th 2001] on the Arab-language channel Al-Jazzeera, she explained that
she did not want American Networks to air Osama bin Laden tapes because they
were “propaganda.”

“[A] 15-minute or 20-minute tape... that sat there and did nothing but
incite hatred and, ultimately, attacks against innocent American was not a
matter of news, it was a matter of propaganda...,” (Gillin)

An award-winning investigative journalist, Phillip Knightly once pointed out that while some stories may be lies, not everything is a lie, and some of the stories could be true. (Shah) But the dilemma here? How do we know what is true and what is a lie? Even if you look up information on the other side chances are you are just looking up more propaganda. The media portrays its information through an already distorted lens.

The embedded reporters, dependent on the military for food and transportation as
well as security, have a natural and understandable tendency to protect those
who are protecting them. They are not allowed to report outside of the units and
are, in effect, captives. (Hedges)

During wartime, the public opinion is very important, because without supporters, without propaganda, war isn’t as effective. As Adolf Hitler once said about propaganda:

All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even
the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it...
Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see
paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched
sort of life as paradise. (qtd. in Shah)

As most can imagine and reflect on the images and messages that the media has put out to influence the populous to sway. Media is an effective way of using propaganda to make people believe that their particular cause is important. The people determine the success of a war. Even General Herman Goering, President of German Reichstag and Nazi Party, Commander of Luftwaffe during World War II once said about the general populous:

Naturally the common people don’t want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England,
nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the
leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter
to drag the people along, whether it is democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or
a parliament, or a communist dictatorship... Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to
do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack
of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any
country. (qtd in Shah)

Propaganda will always come hand-in-hand with war. The world cannot help that fact, but the only way we can fight the general masses is by being aware that the media is very much biased and that most of what we see is propaganda. Research is always effective in determining the truthfulness of an ideal or message, but knowing that whatever source you use is biased is a key determining factor. In this Age of Information with the vast usage of media such as television, radio, and the ever growing Internet, it’s hard to tell who’s who and what’s biased or not.


Works Citied:
Grillin, Beth. “U.S. Intensifies the War of Words” Global Issues 21, October 2001 http://www.globalissues.org/article/283/us-intensifies-the-war-of-words
Hedges, Chris. “War: Realites and Myths” Anitwar.com 11 June 2005 http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hedges.php?articleid=6294
Shah, Anup. “War, Propaganda and the Media” Global Issues. 31 March 2005 http://www.globalissues.org/article/157/war-propaganda-and-the-media

Death and Desire

The recent slump in the economy has seen a significant decrease of consumer demand. The government is attempting many strategies to provoke the economy to be more active. Many of these involve increasing consumer demand. Some have proposed stimulus packages and tax breaks would accomplish this goal, but recent studies in mortality salience, however, reveal a much less costly possible alternative. These studies demonstrate how awareness of mortality affects peoples’ desires to consume and gain resources.

Terror management theory, TMT, describes how people react when confronted with their own mortality. TMT suggests that people cope with mortality salience by believing “in cultural worldviews that help them feel that they have meaningful lives and are worthy members of their culture.” (Kasser and Sheldon 348) This means that people will act in a way they feel reinforces their role in society. This has been supported through experiments demonstrating that those confronted with mortality salience are more likely to punish individuals that have a different world view. (Kasser and Sheldon 348) Similar experiments have also demonstrated that people are less likely to use symbols of society in a manner less than respectful when confronted with mortality salience. (Kasser and Sheldon 348) Using this evidence, psychologist hypothesized that those in a consumer dependant society like America would increase their desire for accumulation of wealth when confronted with their mortality. (Kasser and Sheldon 348)

Volunteers filled out a survey weeks before the experiment describing their current desires and expected wealth. On the day of the experiment, volunteers completed several filler surveys, along with two surveys for the experiment. Half of the group was given a survey that asked questions pertaining to their death. The other half had a separate survey. The last survey the volunteers completed asked them to rate their expected income and spending in fifteen years. The psychologists then took the data from the surveys to determine if mortality salience had an effect. The test found that overall, volunteers exposed to mortality salience expected to have more wealth and spend more money on pleasure items in the future. (Kasser and Sheldon 348-349)

This experiment was reinforced by another similar experiment. Volunteers were given surveys, half of which caused the volunteers to address their mortality. Afterwards all the volunteers conducted a forest management exercise. They were to act as the head of a company making bids on how much of a forest to harvest. They were informed how bids too high could cause the forest to deplete and bids to low could cause their company to lose money. The volunteers were asked to make first year bids and evaluate their expected profits versus their competitors. The results demonstrated that those who were exposed to mortality salience demonstrated a greater inclination to greed in their profits and a first year bids on average 12 to 13 acres larger than the control group. ((Kasser and Sheldon 350)

These experiments demonstrate how mortality salience can affect greed and consumption. We live in a capitalist society that emphasizes the individual as a consumer. When exposed to mortality salience, we reinforce this societal view through consumption. It may be that mortality salience could be an effective means of stimulating the economy. Certainly, there are ethical and other issues involved, but the solution to America’s spending problems may lie in mortality salience.

Sources
Kasser, Tim and Sheldon, Kennon. “Of Wealth and Death: Materialism, Mortality Salience, and Consumption Behavior”. Psychological Science. 2000.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

The United States Declaration of Independence mandates that "all men are created equal" (U.S. Congress, 1776), but the U.S. military's way of treating homosexuals does not reflect this belief. The policy for homosexuals in the U.S. military is noninterventionalist, at best, but intervention is necessary to repair the prejudiced laws and create equality. In this day of professed equality and desegregation, the amount of official prejudice in this facet of the government definitely surprises me. It suggests that homosexual military officers are not equal to their heterosexual comrades, and it is completely unfair.

The U.S. armed forces blame societal prejudices for the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, which "allows gay and lesbian individuals to serve in the armed forces as long as they do not publicly engage in homosexual behavior...[, and it] also prevents military leaders from asking a service member about his or her sexual orientation" (CNN, 2008). The policy was implemented when some of the senior officers expressed fear "that homosexuals would disrupt unit cohesion and morale" (CNN, 2008). This could be interpreted in two ways. The first interpretation is that heterosexual officers would be uncomfortable (due to societal or personal prejudices) working and living in such close quarters with homosexuals. With this, the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is theoretically protecting homosexuals from prejudice. The other interpretation is that the military in general, like Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, believes that homosexuals would be "disruptive" to the unit with their "inappropriate passive/agressive actions common in the homosexual community" (CNN, 2008). This explanation is obviously based on stereotypes, and if true, it shows that the U.S. military is the prejudiced group, not society.

Let's give the majority of military officers the benefit of the doubt and say that their intentions were based off of the first interpretation. In that case, society is shown to be uncomfortable (at the least) with homosexuals. "Intolerance for the lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) community is often intensified by a lack of knowledge and understanding between heterosexuals and the LGB community" (Getz & Kirkley, p. 857, 2006). It wasn't too long ago that many United States laws operated off of this lack of understanding, too. Gay people were considered mentally disabled because of their sexual orientation, and two gay men could be arrested for having sex with each other. Recently, however, society has shown its willingness to accept gays by no longer classifying homosexuality as a mental illness and by decriminalizing homosexual acts between consenting adults (Segal, Gade, & Johnson, p. 37, 1993). In addition, "a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 75 percent of respondents supported allowing gays to serve openly in the military, up from 62 percent in 2001 and 44 percent in 1993" (CNN, 2008). This shows that the U.S. military's assumption about society's prejudices is now inaccurate.

As time goes on, new research about homosexuality continues to bring more knowledge and understanding to the country. Prejudiced laws are being reversed, and society is looking at homosexuals more as equals than ever before. The United States armed forces are not following this trend, however, and the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy continues to force homosexuals to hide their true selves, at the threat of being discharged. The policy takes away from a homosexual officer's honor of duty, and it restricts his/her freedom to openly and honestly serve this country. It is ironic, in fact, that some of the men and women who risk their lives to fight to defend the freedom and principles that this country was built upon are not allowed their own freedom of expression while they do this fighting.

References:

CNN. (2008, July 23). House weighs overturning 'don't ask, don't tell' . CNN Politics, Retrieved December 02, 2008, from http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/23/dontask.donttell/

Getz, C.; Kirkley, E. (2006). Shaking Up the Status Quo: Challenging Intolerance of the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Community at a Private Roman Catholic University. College Student Journal. 40(4), 857-869.

Segal, D.R.; Gade, P.A.; Johnson, E.M. (1993). Homosexuals in Western Armed Forces. Society. 31(1), 37-42.

U.S. Congress. (1776). The Declaration of Independence

False Confessions: How effective is torture?

False Confessions: How effective is torture?

Torture has been used for centuries as a means of coercing information from people. Even American detectives and investigators use certain interrogation tactics to make one uncomfortable enough to give up information. However, the information given may not be as accurate as it seems at first glance. The information retrieved from people during interrogations may be falsified due to the stress the person is put under.

Saul Kassin writes about the different kinds of falsified confessions. He writes that there are three main types: voluntary, compliant, and internalized (Kassin). Voluntary confessions are just that, those that are given freely by innocent people without prompting from authority figures. Compliant confessions are those given to remove oneself from an uncomfortable situation, or avoid some kind of punishment. Internalized false confessions, Kassin writes, are those given by highly vulnerable individuals under severe stress from interrogation techniques (Kassin). He also states that 20-25 percent of those exonerated from crimes actually confessed to committing the crime.

Investigations put so much faith into the information they gain from interrogations; however this information is in some cases far from the truth. The stress that one is put under during interrogations can cause them to make up stories or, as stated before, confess to crimes they did not commit. Interrogations can even to so far as to cause people to create false memories for the crimes in which they did not commit. Henkel and Coffman write that in experimental trials, confessions proved to be the greatest influence on conviction rates, and are more powerful than eyewitness testimonies and character witnesses (Henkel and Coffman).

Interrogation tactics and torture are clearly effective in putting the mind and the body into uncomfortable situations and gaining information. But the effectiveness of these techniques is completely put into question when the stress of the situation gives false information. False confessions leads to innocent people being punished or even executed for crimes they did not commit.

In the broader scheme of things, torture is an ineffective tactic on prisoners or war. Not only is the act of harming an individual to try and obtain information morally questionable, it lacks the support to prove it is a reliable source of information. They may gain information, but the information is likely to be inaccurate and even fabricated within the mind of the individual due to the stress they have been put through.

Coffman, Kimberly J., and Linda A. Henkel. "Memory Distortions in Coerced False Confessions: A Source Monitoring Framework Analysis." Applied Cognitive Psychology 18.5 (2004): pp.567-588.
Kassin, Saul M. "False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform." Current Directions in Psychological Science 17.4 (2008): 249-53.

Is Intervention a Responsibility?

In recent years, especially with the conflict and genocide that occured in Rwanda in the 90's, and the ongoing genocide in Darfur, there is the constant question of: should the U.S. get involved? Is intervention a responsibility or a right? Should it even be considered?

This issue has two polarized views with many people falling somewhere in the middle. The humanitarian and human rights activist feel that it is the responsibility of the U.S. to defend the rights of the individual, no matter where in the world atrocities are occurring. However, many conservatives view that the U.S. should only use military force in order to protect its own interests.

We have no interests in Rwanda. The international community left Rwanda to its civil war and to the genocide that was being committed. China does have interests in Darfur and that is some of what is blocking intervention there. But, for the most part, support for humanitarian intervention has decreased since the incident in Somalia when U.S. soldiers were killed and dragged through the streets. Also, the U.S. military is wrapped up in Iraq and the war on terror.

Despite the ongoing war in Iraq, there is still the question of whether it is our responsibility to become involved in Darfur. According to U.N. law we would have to get involved if a genocide is occurring. The international community, U.S. included, has said "never again" to genocide, after the Holocaust, after Rwanda, yet there is not much being done to put an end to the genocide in Darfur. In the past, intervention has often been too little, too late, or just purely ineffective. Not only do the cases of Rwanda and Darfur come to mind, but so does the failure of the U.N. to prevent the massacres that occured in Serbrinica.

If the U.S. does not have any interests in Rwanda, then why should it be involved? Countries have and are becoming much more globally intertwined and rely on each other to support their own. The duhumanization that occurs in genocide is something that none of us can afford any longer. The equality and right to be free of all human beings cannot be support by laws that have loopholes and declarations that it will no happen again.

Works Cited

Evans, Gareth. "Banishing the Rwanda Nightmare: The Responsibility to Protect." Ghosts of Rwanda. 31 Mar. 2004. Frontline. 28 Nov. 2008 .

"Ghosts of Rwanda." Frontline. PBS. 10 May 2005.

Torture and Responsibility

Torture and Responsibility

The use of torture abroad by the United States to gather information has reached extremes in recent years. As Molly explains lower in her blog, it is fueling the anti-American sentiment all over the world, and for good reason. What happened in 2004 in Iraq is unacceptable on many levels. According to CBS news, the abuse that took place at Abu Ghraib prison included physical abuse, threatening with dogs, forced masturbation and sexual humiliation in front of a camera (Abuse at Abu Ghraib). This was similar to, if not worse than the terrible things that were taking place at the prison when Saddam Hussein was in power. Former CIA Bureau Chief Bob Baer recalled, "If there's ever a reason to get rid of Saddam Hussein, it's because of Abu Ghraib...It was an awful place." Yet after the liberation, American forces kept up the horrific atmosphere in the Middle Eastern version of Hell.


So we can all agree that this is an unacceptable way for anyone to act, especially soldiers representing our country. But who gets the blame? Where does responsibility fall? There's little doubt that those directly responsible, those with the blood literally on their hands, should have consequences taken out on them. Even if they were just following orders, it is still unacceptable to commit crimes such as these regardless of circumstance. But there is doubt on how high up the blame can go. Can the warden, Captain Donald J. Reese be blamed, even if he took no part or maybe didn't even know what was going on? Can some guilt drop to First Lt. Lewis C. Raeder, accused of not training troops thoroughly on the Geneva Convention prohibiting mistreatment of POWs? Can the Brigade General Janis Karpinski be held responsible; who was in command of the Army Reserve unit was in charge of the prison at the time of the abuse? Can we trace it all the way back to Lt. General Ricardo S. Sanchez, the top Army General at the time, or even Donald H. Rumsfeld, the U.S. secretary of Defense? Staff Sergeant Frederick said about the investigation, "I hope the investigation is including not only the people who committed the crimes, but some of the people that might have encouraged the crimes as well. Because they certainly share some of the responsibility as well." (Abuse of Iraqi POWs)


There is evidence that suggests the guilt of those higher up in the system, such as the comments made by some of the soldiers on the scene. Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick said that upon questioning some of the procedures, he received the response, "This is how military Intelligence (MI) wants it done." (Abu Ghraib) Frederick also commented, "We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my chain of command for certain things...like rules and regulations. And it just wasn't happening." (Abu Ghraib) So clearly the guilt should be traced higher, and some argue all the way to the top. That argument is related to the term representation. These people are representing America by their actions, and the privates and specialists are representing their elder statesmen in the Army. So if they do something reprehensible, the leaders must accept responsibility for the actions of those representing. That's not to say Rumsfeld should be thrown in jail, but he should accept that bad things took place under his watch and actions need to be taken to prevent this from happening again.


All of this brings to mind a song by a peaceful surf-rocker Jack Johnson called Cookie Jar. The song goes through a progression of denial, starting with a young gun toting boy, and continues through his parents, the media man, the musical lyricist, and eventually down to us, the people. Johnson claims that everyone is partially responsible for the child's action, by allowing it to happen. The song is about the evils of television, but his points about responsibility are applicable here as well.

l'd turn on the TV, but it’s so embarrassing
to see all the other people, i don't know what they mean
it was magic at first, when they spoke without sound
but now this world is gonna hurt, you better turn that thing down
turn it around

it wasn't me, says the boy with the gun
sure i pulled the trigger, but it needed to be done
because life's been killing me ever since it begun
you cant blame me because i'm too young

you cant blame me, sure the killer was my son
but i didnt teach him to pull the trigger of the gun
its the killing on his tv screen
you cant blame me, its those images he seen

you cant blame me, says the media man
i wasnt the one who came up with the plan
i just point my camera at what the people want to see
its a two way mirror and you cant blame me

you cant blame me, says the singer of the song
or the maker of the movie which he based his life on
its only entertainment, as anyone can see
its smoke machines and makeup, you cant fool me

it was you, it was me, it was every man
we've all got the blood on our hands
we only receive what we demand
and if we want hell then hells what well have


So, does this mean we can be held responsible for what happened in Abu Ghraib? Not necessarily. But it stands to argue that maybe we should accept that as Americans we cannot allow our soldiers, those that represent us overseas, to commit such acts, and now that they have, accept that we, as Americans have made a regrettable mistake and make steps to ensure that it never happens again.


Bibliography


"Abuse Of Iraqi POWs By GIs Probed." 60 Minutes II 28 Apr 2008 1-3. 25 Nov 2008 .


"Abuse at Abu Ghraib-Interactive link." 60 Minutes II 28 Apr 2008 25 Nov 2008 .


Johnson, Jack. "Cookie Jar." On and On. 2003.

Torture in War

We began discussing in class whether torture during a war was acceptable and, if commited, who should be punished for the acts. Judging by comments in class, I am sure most of you will disagree with me on the topic of torture. However, it is necessary to hear both sides of an argument to fully understand your own opinion. I believe that torture can be an effective strategy in a time of war.

We have all heard the saying, "All is fair in love and war," and I completely agree with those words. War is not a fun experience, it is not fair, or gentle; war is brutal. When someone is captured in a time of war, I would feel safer at home knowing that our soldiers are doing everything necessary to get any information that they can out of these prisoners. If they need to torture someone to get critical information that could help the war, then by all means torture should be used. Don't get me wrong, I would hate for our soldiers to be tortured, but our soldiers are not forced into joining the war forces. They know exactly what they are getting themselves into by joining the army or the marines, etc. Our soldiers are valiant and brave, not stupid; they know what can happen to them. As an example, John McCain knew that during war time there was the possibility of capture and torture. Both of which, he endured.

"A new study suggests that abuse of prisoners of war is widely condoned by many veterans, and possibly by many in the military today. Even rape of a prisoner was judged acceptable by more than half of the 351 participants in the study," (Holmes). This study may or may not surprise you. Eighty-four percent of the veterans in the study agree that many forms of torture are acceptable during war (Holmes). These are the men and women who have experienced war first hand and know what it is like. Citizens back home do not have the same experiences and therefore, can not judge the acceptability of any act during war. Only those who are in the midst of such can begin to understand the need for such drastic measures.

What is worse, mass murder or torture? "Torture and inhumane treatment may be wrong, but mass murder is worse, so the lesser evil must be tolerated to prevent the greater one" (Twisted Logic). Let us look at the Ticking Time Bomb Scenario (Uelmen); Military personnel have captured a terrorist that has placed a bomb in a huge metropolitan area. He says there is not enough time to evacuate the city before he activates the bomb. Military personnel know from past experience that through torture they can get information out of the terrorist. Would you rather they torture the terrorist to get the information to find the bomb and deactivate it, or would you prefer them to be humane and let the entire metropolitan city be blown to pieces?

Torture can be very effective during war. We can gain information we would not have been able to without it. Torture is not the same as killing; torture can heal. War is a terrible thing, and there is no way to keep wars humane. Yet, if being tortured is an alternative, it may prevent many soldiers from being murdered needlessly. During drastic times such as war times, we often need to take drastic measures. Torture may be one of those drastic measures.

Works Cited

Holmes, William C.. "Would You Condone Torture in War?." ABC News 14 Feb 2007 1-3. 25 Nov 2008 .

"The Twisted Logic of Torture." Darfur and Abu Ghraib Jan 2005 1. 25 Nov 2008 .

Uelmen, Amy. "Torture and the Ticking Time Bomb." Living City 31 July 2006 7-9. 25 Nov 2008.

Preemptive Strikes Justified?

Wars get started for a number of reasons, but perhaps the oddest one that people have come up with is preemptive war. The idea is that two countries foresee an armed conflict somewhere in the future but decide to act upon it now rather than waiting. While the idea of protecting the citizens of a country is perhaps the most important, it brings up the question of where the line is drawn between aggressor and victim. When one country views another as imminently threatening, does it have the right to strike first in defense?

The popular answer, in today’s age, seems to be yes. A specific definition which is generally agreed upon has two main conditions. One is that the preemptive strike has to be equal or proportionate to what the perceived threat is. Meaning that one countries strike can’t be overwhelming when compared to the perceived threat. The other condition is that the threat level has to have reached a level where a first-strike strategy is a requirement and that it has to be a quick and not prolonged affair (Welsh). His type of thinking seems a little backwards, that in order to prevent a war in the future, a war must be started in the present. It’s almost a lazy approach to politics in that the countries have decided there is a problem but that there is nothing which they can do to help it other than go to war.

Whether or not preemptive attacks are morally justified, there are examples of them being accepted worldwide. For instance, in 2007, Israel destroyed a nuclear facility in Syria with nearly no reaction. There was no immediate threat of Syria using some sort of nuclear based weapon. However, the jump from developing weapons to nuclear power isn’t an overnight one. The attack was deemed preemptive, as a threat could be seen down the road and off in the future (Cooper). There is also the example of the United States invading Iraq, which was justified as a preemptive strike. The Bush strategists were probably realist politicians when it came to war, in the sense that conflicts are inevitable and that they should only be conducted if necessary. Seeing as a conflict was inevitable with Iraq, there was a push to get the first strike in first to eliminate the perceived threat (Orend). This would be an example of a preemptive strike which possibly used much more force than called for, as well as lasted much longer than required to take away the perceived threat.

Cooper, Helene, Mark Mazzetti. “An Israeli Strike on Syria Kindles Debate in the U.S.”. New York Time, October 10, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/washington/10diplo.html

non-violence

From Martin Luther King Jr. to Gandhi, social activists and world renown leaders have been practicing non-violence as a means of protest or in order to make a public statement for years. Non-violence is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary on one hand as simply the lack of violence. Also, it goes on to define it more elaborately as "the doctrine, policy, or practice of rejecting violence in favor of peaceful tactics as a means of gaining political objectives." Some may say non-violence corresponds directly to the definition of negative peace, or simply the lack of war, but there is much more behind non-violence than just that lack of violence, as I will later explain. The point is, though, that non-violence can be an effective way of dealing and succeeding in getting a point across in possibly violent situations.

Dr. Martin Luther King, in "The Meaning of Non-violence", describes the philosophy behind his non-violent tactics and why it is more than just the absence of violence. He describes it as a third method of dealing with oppression, after acquiescence which is a cowardly way out, and violent hatred, which would just escalate, and is morally inadequate.(mkgandhi) He said that he "believe(s) that nonviolence is the method that can achieve the ideals and goals and principles of the new age." (mkgandhi) But what exactly is non-violence? King goes on to make several points about the "undergirding philosophy" of it. (mkgandhi) First, the emans used to reach an end must be as pure as the ends desire to be reached. (mkgandhi) Immoral means cannot bring about a moral end, but moral means will most definetely bring about a moral end. (mkgandhi) Means and ends are inseparable in this way.
Secondly, at the heart of non-violence is the belief that injury should never be inflicted upon the opponent, known in Indian philosophy as ahimsa. Ahimsa, along with many of these beliefs, but especially ahimsa, is in direct agreement with the ideas and beliefs of Mahatma Gandhi as well. Now there are two different forms of practicing ahimsa, on =e being the obvious physical external violence that is avoided. But it also entails always moving closer to not hating your enemy. Eventually, the hope is, you will love your enemy not in the affectionate friend type of way, but you love your enemy because God loves you. That same kind of unconditional love that requires nothing in return is the key to effective non-violence. This is why Gandhi claims that one must have a strong faith in God to have a faith in practicing non-violence. (mkgandhi)
There have been numerous examples of effective non-violence being practicced as a means to get a point across or introducing ideas. From the trials and travels of Gandhi to the work of Dr.Martin Luther King Jr.; from India to the U.S. to the Velvet Revolution in the Czech Republic and all over the world in less documented cases, non-violence has proved its worth as an effective means of stopping oppression and violence. The question is, can we translate that effectiveness to a means of stopping or at least slowing larger scale problems such as the wars that plague the world's countries today. It is yet to be seen, but it is certainly a possibility worth further exploration.

bibliography

"nonviolence." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 06 Nov. 2008. .


King, Martin Luther. "Peace, Non-violence, and Conflict Resolution." mkgandhi. 6 Nov 2008 .

Should it really be illegal?

I have always wondered why everyone makes such a big deal about marijuana, making sure to focus only on the negative points. Some people that I have met claim that they think that marijuana is a bad thing because alters a person’s state of mind and messes with their sense of judgment. In all reality, this is the same effect that alcohol produces (if not slightly milder), but alcohol is completely legal. In fact, the law judge of the Drug Enforcements Administration claimed in 1988 that “marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.”[1]I’m shocked that the American government still hasn’t decriminalized marijuana, knowing how much revenue the country misses out on by keeping it illegal.

There are around 700,000 arrests a year for marijuana charges in America.[2] When seen from a financial standpoint, it has been estimated that over 10 million dollars goes into just enforcing marijuana laws. With the country in such a financial crisis with the war in Iraq continuing, it seems odd that they wouldn’t take advantage of saving these costs by simply reforming laws against marijuana. Why waste millions of money spent by tax payers only to enforce a law that any disagree with? Instead of cracking down on people with petty amounts of marijuana, why not turn the efforts into making profit off of marijuana by legalizing and taxing it like cigarettes? The economy may be horrible, but if the government would rethink its decision on criminalizing marijuana, we could decrease the national deficit by a significant amount.

[1] Nadelmann, E. “An End to Marijuana Prohibition: The Drive to Legalization Picks Up.” National Review July 12, 2004 pg. 1-7
[2] Federal Bureau of Investigation, Division of Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States: 2002. P.234.

What If Woman Ran the World?

What If Woman Ran the World?

Men and woman are obviously two different types of people. They handle states of stress differently. Men tend to become more physically aggressive in moments of conflict. Women in turn are more likely to gossip, start rumors, and be more inadvertently violent towards one another without causing physical harm. Men have always been viewed as the providers, primarily due to their stronger physical strength and the ongoing social tradition. Stereotypically men "bring home the bacon". Women have historically been viewed as the caregivers and the gentle nurturers.

While women are in the military, the larger percentage of those in the armed forces who actually see combat are men. Women are not only physically weaker than men, but they can also be seen more emotional than men. Women are therefore often viewed as the weaker sex because emotions can lead them to make emotional and irrational responses to situations. With the problems of co-ed bunking and other such reasons, women are kept away from the battlefield. However, it has been shown that men more inclined to react aggressively and violently in retaliation to a stimulus. Campbell writes that there is 1 violent offending male for every 9 compared to the 1 for every 56 women (Campbell).

Campbell also states within the article that provocation increases aggression, and rightfully so (Campbell). It is part of human nature for one to retaliate to an attack on their person as a means of self defense. The study showed that with lower levels and much higher levels of provocation men and women showed to be somewhat equal in regards to the likelihood of aggressive retaliation. However, major differences showed when it came to the intermediate levels of provocation. Men proved to be much more likely to use aggressive retaliation.

While the difference might be slight, women are still less likely to engage in aggressive behavior. If women were more prominent within the government and the military, it is possible that a decrease in violence would occur. Women might be able to think more clearly in times of provocation which could prove to counterbalance the male tendancy to act aggressively more quickly. Whether this be on the battle field or in meetings with Heads of State, it is possible that women can decrease quick aggressive responses.



One might argue the fact that women are also more emotional and may be more prone to act irrationally due to emotional responses to a situation. And with the stress of diplomatic decisions one also might argue that the gap between differences in aggressive responses to a situation will be closed by the amount of provocation. But, if men and women were more equally present within the diplomatic society it is possible there will be a decrease of aggressive retaliation to a situation.

Campbell, Anne. "Sex Differences in Direct Aggression: What are the Psychological Mediators?" Aggression and Violent Behavior 11.3 (2006): 237-64.

War and Warfare

War no matter how major or minor is devastating. But what seems like one of the most devastating disaster of humans is something that it seems every generation must witness. Today the world is facing the War on Terrorism and the Iraqi War, but less than a decade ago is was the Persian Gulf War in the early 1990s, and before that the Vietnam War that started in the 1950s and continued well into the 70s, and even before that was the Korean Wars, World War II, and World War I.




Human beings have a history of destruction. At the end of the movie Fifth Element starring Bruce Willis, the “fifth element” asks Korbon (Bruce Willis) “What’s the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?” The “fifth element” asks this after she see pictures and the devastation in the wars that we have fought. She aked this question because it was up to her to save the world from a ball of death and it brings up a good point. But in retrospect, how much death is really the result of war? In the book Peace and Conflict Studies it says that even with 20th century’s modern warfare and its enormous destruction its directly responsible for fewer than 2% of all deaths occurring in the past century. (Barash 16)


War is still horrible even if you put that statistic into the equation.One cannot ignore the indriect killing as well as cost of war. But how does modern warfare compare to pre-modern warfare? According to Peace and Conflict Studies it’s the weapons that have changed warfare over the centuries:

We can identify three major eras of weaponry: (1) the earliest period (encompassing the entire pre-industrial period), based primarily on muscle power; (2) an intermediate period (from approximately the Renaissance until the first half of the 20th century in the West and still the case in most of the rest of the world), powered by chemicals, especially gunpowder, as well as steam and internal combustion engines; and (3) the most recent period, the second half of the 20th century, dominated by the threat of nuclear weapons and other weapons of potential mass destruction (especially biochemical weapons). (Brash 20)

If you look at those three periods and just see how much technology has advanced in the last century you can understand how the idea of war is terrifying. But if we know the chance of mass destruction, will that stop us from unleashing possible obliteration ? The United States felt the fear of a nuclear assault during the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960’s. As a result of that it’s hard to rely on the hope that “each side will presume that the other will be deterred by the prospect of annihilation and, therefore, expect the other to back down, while remaining determined to stand firm.” (Barash 22)

Perhaps the most disturbing of all, the fact remains that human beings, including decision makers, are influenced by many things beyond a cool, rational calculation of their perceived best interests. Wars have been initiated for many reasons, often including mistaken judgment or faulty information. And when war takes place, the combatants make use of whatever weapons they have. Never is the history of human warfare has an effective weapon been invented and then allowed to rust without at some time being used. (Barash 23)

Even with that hope people can’t overlook the irrational minds of other people. This world has already faced two world wars, each remarkably more destructive to the last. As Albert Einstein once said, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” From the trends that we see in our advances in warfare, when the world has to face World War III be prepared for massive destruction on a global scale. Its unfortunately not a question of “ff” it’s a questions of “when” that will happen.


Works Cited:




Barash, David P., Charles P. Webel, Peace and Conflict Studies. SAGE, 2008.

The Fifth Element. Dir. Luc Besson. Perf. Bruce Willis, Milia Jovovich, and Gary Oldman. Columbia Pictures, 1997.