What is acceptable journalism?

The head of NBC News stated on the Oprah Winfrey Show that the decision to air images, writings and video of Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho was “good journalism”. NBC received a package from Cho with pictures, video, and writing, but only aired a fraction of the received content. This raises the issue of what is acceptable to air to the public. Is in news companies duties to report all the news, or should it controversial content be censored? There were reports that Virginia Tech students wanted the media to leave them alone. Some students even viewed the media as ‘vultures’ a negative term to describe the media’s fascination with death. In light of this and—to a much lesser degree—the Imus situation, what is acceptable on public media? Does freedom of speech only apply to private citizens? I just wondering about this.

Police: Gunmen line up, execute 23 Kurds in Mosul

A gun man stops a buss and separates the passengers up into two groups and shoots 23 Kurds. Is it just me or has the whole world gone mad. The 30 Virginia Students getting shot and now I read about another pure execution of people. Has this brutality always been in front of my eyes and I have yet to truly understand it or what.

U.S. Builds Wall to Separate Factions in Baghdad

This is a little old but I just saw a fox news report on tv about the 3 mile wall “ to protect a Sunni Arab enclave surrounded by Shiite neighborhoods in a Baghdad area "trapped in a spiral of sectarian violence and retaliation," the military said. The wall will be 12 feet high and will enable US soldiers to monitor everyone entering and leaving the Azamlyah to prevent death squads from entering. For weird reason this wall reminds me of the Berlin wall and ghettos formed during the Nazi gathering of the Jews. I really have a bad feeling about this wall. And how will a wall prevent death squads from killing people. I have fallen off taller ladders before.

Human Rights and the UN

A LOT of optimism attended the birth of the UN Human Rights Council, created last year by a 170-4 vote of the General Assembly. Whereas the United States kept on the sidelines (and confirmed this month it would stay away), many Western states saw the new body as an improvement on the discredited Human Rights Commission it replaced. I was wondering if anyone knew why the United States would not want to be involved with this new body. Why would we shy away from a International Human Rights Commission? I am Stumped?

Suspects talk after Iraqi soldiers do dirty work

A shocking story about how Iraqi soldiers "prepared" three soldiers to talk for the Americans. The images are as shocking as the report itself. Something that particularly struck me were the following statements, "We know how to make them talk. We know their back streets. We beat them. I don’t beat them that much, but enough so he feels the pain and it makes him desperate.” Such things always make me think about how true the confessions are that come out of such acts of torture. By their own admission, these men were made desperate. Could they not then be made to say just about anything, even if it is a false confession?

Torture on the rise in Russia

A study by Russian sociologists and human rights activists shows that ill-treatment and torture are endemic in the country's detention facilities. According to a new study published on March 28 by the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Committee Against Torture, a Russian human rights organization, every 25th person in Russia is tortured, beaten, or harassed by law enforcement officials each year. Russia is one of the allies of the United States in the War against Terrorism, what do you think the U.S. position should be on the growing violations of Human Rights in Russian detention facilities? To what extent will the U.S. ability to criticise Russian authorities be undermined by the fact that the U.S. itself has held captives at Guantanamo?

US eyes fraud in religious visa programs

The USCIS is investigating churches to clamp down on fraud in the visa program. It wants to tighten the regulations for religious worker visas after it discovered that one third of the applications were fraudulent. The review found that many of the churches that were supposed to be sponsoring the immigrants did not exist.
This incident exemplifies the need for the change in immigration laws. If people are going to use churches and religious organizations in order to bend the rules, something is definitely wrong and every area must be inspected. While the USCIS's action might help this problem, more needs to be addressed.

Supreme Court Bans Partial-Birth Abortions

For the first time since 1973, when the Court established a woman’s right to an abortion, the Court justices have no banned partial-birth abortion. Religious zealots and far right conservatives are pleased with the bill, saying that it upholds the ‘sanctity of life’. To be clear the law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than limiting when an abortion can be performed.
Pro-life argues that an embryo is a human being, thus entitled to protection, from the moment of conception and has the right to life. Therefore, abortion is murder. They say if the woman’s life is not in jeopardy, then abortion is wrong. Pro-life also argues that men pressure women into getting abortions, which seems to suggest that women aren’t offered many alternatives to abortion.
Pro-choice, however, argues that a woman’s right to control her pregnancy outweighs any right of the embryo or fetus. Pro-choice does not see the embryo as having the rights of a person. Pro-choice sees abortion as a private matter that the government should not have a hand in. Roe v. Wade (1973) held this belief.
This is a very controversial subject. Pro-life says that an embryo is a human being, but at what point is the fetus evolved enough to be considered a person. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that its 3 months. So one day before that it is not a person? And one day after that it is? There are many other arguments and concerns as well.
Perhaps the most famous is the bodily rights argument by Judith Jarvis Thomson. In A Defense of Abortion, Thomson argues that abortion is sometimes permissible even if the fetus has a right to life. Thomson gives her audience the hypothetical. Perhaps, you wake up next to a famous violinist. The violinist is unconscious with a kidney ailment. You happen to have the right blood type to help, so the Society of Music Lovers kidnaps you and plugged your circulatory system into his so that your kidneys can filter and work for the violinist. If you disconnect him, then he will die, but in nine months he will recover. Thomson believes you may unplug yourself from the violinist even though he will die. This right to life does not entail the right to use another person’s body, and so in disconnecting the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of the use of your body, something which he has no right to use.
But I digress. This new Court decision has the potential to open up the floodgates for abortion restrictions. This could hinder women’s rights and effectively eliminate—or at least narrow—women’s right to choose. I wonder what you think.

Slaking a Thirst for Justice

During the 1970 in Chile and Argentina there was a military coup that place an authoritarian dictatorship in charge of the nations. Under their rule all individuals seen as possible threats to their power were detained, tortured, and killed. Today the families of the detained peoples want justice for the human rights violations inflicted on their family members. Many argue for moving on rather than re-opening old wounds. Others reply that without justice there can be no healing and no guarantee of the rule of law. What do you think? Should those crimes committed in the past, and those who committed the atrocities be brought to justice 30 years later? I concur with what the article later goes on to say. “The rise of international human-rights law has helped those who argue that in cases involving the worst crimes justice must never be sacrificed to peace. Where conflict continues that principle may be hard to apply. Its proponents say justice is essential not just as an end in itself but to deter future tyrants. Until recently, most could expect to get off scot-free. Increasingly, other countries may follow the road pioneered by Chile and Argentina.”

Tradgey at Virginia Tech

At about 7:15am today (4/16/07), a shooting occurred at Virginia Tech. Media reported, first, that at least one student had been killed, and then the number quickly grew. As of now, 7:18pm, there are at least 30 some deaths and many injured. Before the gunman was detained he killed himself. This is the most damage from a school shooting ever. President Bush has made statements on the matter, and groups like the ATF are pulling all available resources to find out what happened.
This tragedy made me think. I thought of the student’s at VT and how the campus is dealing with the problems. Then I thought about Americans’ right to bare arms. I am torn. As a political student, I know the dangers of eliminating a right because of people’s disagreement with the respective right. Yet, I am appalled by gun violence. Do I look at the textual, historical, and structural arguments to find that the “militia” of the Second Amendment consists of the armed citizenry at large, but in no way is the right dependent on actual service in a militia. Or do I look at the prudential (consequences of adoption), and ethical arguments that guns, normally, do more damage than good? Of course there is no easy answer. I wrote a piece over the summer called the impact of small arms, which is available on http://small-arms.blogspot.com/. But, should this extend to pistols, which seem to have no other purpose than killing other people. This tragic event just made me think of the consequences of gun rights and regulations. I am curious to what you all think