Motions: This house would go vegetarian; this house would stop consuming meat
Background:
Vegetarianism is the practice of following a plant-based diet including fruits, vegetables, cereal grains, nuts, and seeds, mushrooms, with or without dairy products and eggs. A vegetariandoes not eat meat, including red meat, game, poultry, fish, crustacea, and shellfish, and may also abstain from by-products of animal slaughter such as animal-derived rennet andgelatin.[1][2]
The earliest records of (lacto) vegetarianism come from ancient India and ancient Greece in the 6th century BCE.[12] In both instances the diet was closely connected with the idea of nonviolence towards animals (called ahimsa in India) and was promoted by religious groups and philosophers.[nb 1] Following the Christianisation of the Roman Empire in late antiquity, vegetarianism practically disappeared from Europe.[14]Several orders of monks in medieval Europe restricted or banned the consumption of meat for ascetic reasons, but none of them eschewed fish.[15] It re-emerged during the Renaissance,[16] becoming more widespread in the 19th and 20th centuries. In 1847, the first Vegetarian Society was founded in the United Kingdom;[17] Germany, the Netherlands, and other countries followed. The International Vegetarian Union, a union of the national societies, was founded in 1908. In the Western world, the popularity of vegetarianism grew during the 20th century as a result of nutritional, ethical, and more recently, environmental and economic concerns.
The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada have stated that at all stages of life, a properly planned vegetarian diet is "healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provides health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases". Large-scale studies have shown that mortality from ischaemic heart disease was 30% lower among vegetarian men and 20% lower among vegetarian women than in nonvegetarians.[23][24][25] Necessary nutrients, proteins, and amino acids for the body's sustenance can be found in vegetables, grains, nuts, soymilk, eggs and dairy.[26] Vegetarian diets offer lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein, and higher levels of carbohydrates, fibre, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals.[27]
Vegetarians tend to have lower body mass index, lower levels of cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and less incidence of heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, renal disease, osteoporosis, dementias such as Alzheimer’s Disease and other disorders.[28] Non-lean red meat, in particular, has been found to be directly associated with increased risk of cancers of the esophagus, liver, colon, and the lungs.[29] Other studies have shown no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or prostate cancer, although the sample of vegetarians was small and included ex-smokers who had switched their diet within the last five years.[24] A 2010 study compared a group of vegetarian and meat-eating Seventh Day Adventists in which vegetarians scored lower on depression tests and had better mood profiles.[30]
The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada have stated that at all stages of life, a properly planned vegetarian diet is "healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provides health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases". Large-scale studies have shown that mortality from ischaemic heart disease was 30% lower among vegetarian men and 20% lower among vegetarian women than in nonvegetarians.[23][24][25] Necessary nutrients, proteins, and amino acids for the body's sustenance can be found in vegetables, grains, nuts, soymilk, eggs and dairy.[26] Vegetarian diets offer lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein, and higher levels of carbohydrates, fibre, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals.[27]
Vegetarians tend to have lower body mass index, lower levels of cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and less incidence of heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, renal disease, osteoporosis, dementias such as Alzheimer’s Disease and other disorders.[28] Non-lean red meat, in particular, has been found to be directly associated with increased risk of cancers of the esophagus, liver, colon, and the lungs.[29] Other studies have shown no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, or prostate cancer, although the sample of vegetarians was small and included ex-smokers who had switched their diet within the last five years.[24] A 2010 study compared a group of vegetarian and meat-eating Seventh Day Adventists in which vegetarians scored lower on depression tests and had better mood profiles.[30]
Arguments for:
Healthier to eat vegetarian (note background information)
Unethical to eat animals-reduces animal suffering
• Animals go through incredible abuse and suffering through our process of breeding them and killing them for meat. If we get rid of that system, we get rid of the suffering for animals
Environmental benefits
• Modern farming is one of the main sources of pollution in our rivers. Beef farming is one of the main causes of deforestation, and as long as people continue to buy fast food in their billions, there will be a financial incentive to continue cutting down trees to make room for cattle. Because of our desire to eat fish, our rivers and seas are being emptied of fish and many species are facing extinction. Energy resources are used up much more greedily by meat farming than my farming cereals, pulses etc. Eating meat and fish not only causes cruelty to animals, it causes serious harm to the environment and to biodiversity.
Arguments against:
We should let people choose how they want to live, not tell them
• A government has no right to dictate the life choices of people, whether they are better for the people or not.
• People have the right to choose whichever lifestyle they please, and it is not the government’s role to be involved in that choice
The current system abuses animals and causes suffering
• We have options today that reduce suffering of animals (free-range, organic farms)
• We should reform the system if we want the conditions to be better, not completely eliminate it altogether
It is natural to eat animals
• We are above the animals because we use the environment to our advantage and consume everything that we can from it.
• We have the biological adaptations (sharp canine teeth, digestive systems) that are perfect for eating meat, fish and vegetables. We should eat what our bodies are made to eat.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Brief-Iranian Sanctions
Motion: This house would repeal the sanctions placed on Iran
Background:
In 1979, after the U.S. permitted the exiled Shah of Iran to enter the United States for medical treatment, and after rumors of another U.S. backed coup and re-installation of the Shah, a group of radical students took action in Tehran by seizing the American Embassy and taking hostage the people inside.[1] The United States responded by freezing about $12 billion in Iranian assets, including bank deposits, gold and other properties. Some assets — Iranian officials say $10 billion, U.S. officials say much less — still remain frozen pending resolution of legal claims arising from the revolution.
After the invasion of Iran by Iraq, the U.S. increased sanctions against Iran. In 1984, sanctions were approved prohibiting weapons sales and all U.S. assistance to Iran. The U.S. also opposed all loans to Iran from international financial institutions. In 1987, the U.S. further prohibited the importation and exportation of any goods or services from Iran.
In April 1995, President Bill Clinton issued a total embargo on U.S. dealings with Iran, prohibiting all commercial and financial transactions with Iran. Trade with the U.S., which had been growing following the end of the Iran–Iraq War, ended abruptly. One exception is that US-made goods can be supplied to Iran under certain circumstances as long as they are shipped to Iran from another country.
In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Iran–Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA). Under ILSA, all foreign companies that provide investments over $20 million for the development of petroleum resources in Iran will have imposed against them two out of seven possible penalties by the U.S.:[2]
• denial of Export-Import Bank assistance;
• denial of export licenses for exports to the violating company;
• prohibition on loans or credits from U.S. financial institutions of over $10 million in any 12-month period;
• prohibition on designation as a primary dealer for U.S. government debt instruments;
• prohibition on serving as an agent of the United States or as a repository for U.S. government funds;
• denial of U.S. government procurement opportunities (consistent with WTO obligations); and
• a ban on all or some imports of the violating company.
In response to the election of Iranian reformist President Mohammad Khatami, President Clinton eased sanctions on Iran. A debate in the US Congress on whether to allow the expiration of ILSA, which some legislators argued hindered bilateral relations, and others argued would be seen as a concession on an effective program, ended on August 5, 2001, with its renewal by the Congress and signing into law by President George W. Bush.[3]
After being elected president in 2005 Ahmadinejad reversed the retroactive nuclear policy and lifted the suspension of uranium enrichment, that had been put in place by the reformists. This raised red flags in the United States government, which began pushing for international sanctions against Iran over its atomic ambitions.[6]
Iranian financial institutions are barred from directly accessing the U.S. financial system, but they are permitted to do so indirectly through banks in other countries. In September 2006, the U.S. government imposed sanctions on Bank Saderat Iran, barring it from dealing with U.S. financial institutions, even indirectly. The move was announced by Stuart Levey, the undersecretary for treasury, who accused the major state-owned bank in Iran of transferring funds for certain groups, including Hezbollah. Levey said that since 2001 a Hezbollah-controlled organization had received 50 million U.S. dollars directly from Iran through Bank Saderat. He said the U.S. government will also persuade European banks and financial institutions not to deal with Iran.[7]
As of early 2008, the targeted banks, such as Bank Mellat, had been able to replace banking relationships with a few large sanction-compliant banks with relationships with a larger number of smaller non-compliant banks.[11] The total assets frozen in Britain under the EU (European Union) and UN sanctions against Iran are approximately 976,110,000 pounds ($1.64 billion).[12] In 2008, the US Treasury ordered Citigroup Inc. to freeze over $2 billion allegedly held for Iran in Citigroup accounts.[13]
In June, 2010 in the case United States v. Banki, the use of the Hawala method of currency transfer led to a criminal conviction against a U.S. citizen of Iranian origin.
On June 9, 2010, the United Nations Security council passed 12-2 a resolution to impose new sanctions on Iran for the continued disagreement over its nuclear portfolio.
On June 24, 2010, the United States Senate and House of Representatives passed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA), which President Obama signed into law July 1, 2010.
Arguments for:
The sanctions are hurting people, not the government
They hurt the U.S. more than they hurt Iran
• According to Bloomberg News, Exxon and Boeing have said that the new sanctions would cost $25 billion in U.S. exports
• According to the U.S. National Foreign Trade Council, Iran could reduce the world price of crude petroleum by 10%, which would save the U.S. up to $75 billion annually, if we were to repeal the sanctions
• Due to the strict restrictions on the Iranian economy, Iran was actually protected from the global recession that began in 2007.
• We as the U.S. are losing money, and we could be gaining so much more economically if we repealed these sanctions. We are really only protecting Iran, and since this is the fourth set of sanctions since 2006, it’s obvious that Iran will not concede anytime soon. It’s better to cut our losses now for the great gains that we can make in the future
The sanctions actually push the government further away from negotiating
• "The goal of these sanctions is to change the political behavior of the government - in the nuclear field," Mohammad Nahavandian, the head of the Iran Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Mines said. "But instead it has intensified their political stances."
• By stifling the Iranian economy, we have only hardened their stance to continue attempting to enrich uranium. The sanctions are not leading to a true solution of the problem
Arguments against:
The international community is in danger
• This is the best way that we have to prevent Iran from enriching uranium and developing nuclear weapons
• Iran has shown over and over again that they wish to use nuclear force against the U.S. and Israel
• If we simply repeal the sanctions, we are opening the door for Iran to use nuclear weapons against us or our allies
We cannot concede to a totalitarian dictatorship
• Iran’s leader, Ahmadinejad, runs a dictatorship that shuts off any opposition or questions about his authority. We have a duty as leader of the free world to stand up for our Western democratic values and not let a dictatorship like this win out in this conflict
• If we simply concede, we send a message internationally that we are weak and will back down easily
Sanctions are successful
• Case study: Indonesia
o In a time when Indonesia’s economy was crippled and the threat of bringing sanctions upon financial institutions in Jakarta was given, we saw that the Indonesian government gave in to international demands and pushed back the militias that were preventing East Timor from gaining independence. (1999)
Sources
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/9/obama-hails-un-vote-new-iran-sanctions/?page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sanctions_against_Iran
http://www3.mb.com.ph/articles/261467/iran-sanctions-good-us
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LF11Ak04.html
http://www.cfr.org/publication/22607/limits_of_new_iran_sanctions.html
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=177983
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65859420100610
Background:
In 1979, after the U.S. permitted the exiled Shah of Iran to enter the United States for medical treatment, and after rumors of another U.S. backed coup and re-installation of the Shah, a group of radical students took action in Tehran by seizing the American Embassy and taking hostage the people inside.[1] The United States responded by freezing about $12 billion in Iranian assets, including bank deposits, gold and other properties. Some assets — Iranian officials say $10 billion, U.S. officials say much less — still remain frozen pending resolution of legal claims arising from the revolution.
After the invasion of Iran by Iraq, the U.S. increased sanctions against Iran. In 1984, sanctions were approved prohibiting weapons sales and all U.S. assistance to Iran. The U.S. also opposed all loans to Iran from international financial institutions. In 1987, the U.S. further prohibited the importation and exportation of any goods or services from Iran.
In April 1995, President Bill Clinton issued a total embargo on U.S. dealings with Iran, prohibiting all commercial and financial transactions with Iran. Trade with the U.S., which had been growing following the end of the Iran–Iraq War, ended abruptly. One exception is that US-made goods can be supplied to Iran under certain circumstances as long as they are shipped to Iran from another country.
In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Iran–Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA). Under ILSA, all foreign companies that provide investments over $20 million for the development of petroleum resources in Iran will have imposed against them two out of seven possible penalties by the U.S.:[2]
• denial of Export-Import Bank assistance;
• denial of export licenses for exports to the violating company;
• prohibition on loans or credits from U.S. financial institutions of over $10 million in any 12-month period;
• prohibition on designation as a primary dealer for U.S. government debt instruments;
• prohibition on serving as an agent of the United States or as a repository for U.S. government funds;
• denial of U.S. government procurement opportunities (consistent with WTO obligations); and
• a ban on all or some imports of the violating company.
In response to the election of Iranian reformist President Mohammad Khatami, President Clinton eased sanctions on Iran. A debate in the US Congress on whether to allow the expiration of ILSA, which some legislators argued hindered bilateral relations, and others argued would be seen as a concession on an effective program, ended on August 5, 2001, with its renewal by the Congress and signing into law by President George W. Bush.[3]
After being elected president in 2005 Ahmadinejad reversed the retroactive nuclear policy and lifted the suspension of uranium enrichment, that had been put in place by the reformists. This raised red flags in the United States government, which began pushing for international sanctions against Iran over its atomic ambitions.[6]
Iranian financial institutions are barred from directly accessing the U.S. financial system, but they are permitted to do so indirectly through banks in other countries. In September 2006, the U.S. government imposed sanctions on Bank Saderat Iran, barring it from dealing with U.S. financial institutions, even indirectly. The move was announced by Stuart Levey, the undersecretary for treasury, who accused the major state-owned bank in Iran of transferring funds for certain groups, including Hezbollah. Levey said that since 2001 a Hezbollah-controlled organization had received 50 million U.S. dollars directly from Iran through Bank Saderat. He said the U.S. government will also persuade European banks and financial institutions not to deal with Iran.[7]
As of early 2008, the targeted banks, such as Bank Mellat, had been able to replace banking relationships with a few large sanction-compliant banks with relationships with a larger number of smaller non-compliant banks.[11] The total assets frozen in Britain under the EU (European Union) and UN sanctions against Iran are approximately 976,110,000 pounds ($1.64 billion).[12] In 2008, the US Treasury ordered Citigroup Inc. to freeze over $2 billion allegedly held for Iran in Citigroup accounts.[13]
In June, 2010 in the case United States v. Banki, the use of the Hawala method of currency transfer led to a criminal conviction against a U.S. citizen of Iranian origin.
On June 9, 2010, the United Nations Security council passed 12-2 a resolution to impose new sanctions on Iran for the continued disagreement over its nuclear portfolio.
On June 24, 2010, the United States Senate and House of Representatives passed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA), which President Obama signed into law July 1, 2010.
Arguments for:
The sanctions are hurting people, not the government
They hurt the U.S. more than they hurt Iran
• According to Bloomberg News, Exxon and Boeing have said that the new sanctions would cost $25 billion in U.S. exports
• According to the U.S. National Foreign Trade Council, Iran could reduce the world price of crude petroleum by 10%, which would save the U.S. up to $75 billion annually, if we were to repeal the sanctions
• Due to the strict restrictions on the Iranian economy, Iran was actually protected from the global recession that began in 2007.
• We as the U.S. are losing money, and we could be gaining so much more economically if we repealed these sanctions. We are really only protecting Iran, and since this is the fourth set of sanctions since 2006, it’s obvious that Iran will not concede anytime soon. It’s better to cut our losses now for the great gains that we can make in the future
The sanctions actually push the government further away from negotiating
• "The goal of these sanctions is to change the political behavior of the government - in the nuclear field," Mohammad Nahavandian, the head of the Iran Chamber of Commerce, Industries and Mines said. "But instead it has intensified their political stances."
• By stifling the Iranian economy, we have only hardened their stance to continue attempting to enrich uranium. The sanctions are not leading to a true solution of the problem
Arguments against:
The international community is in danger
• This is the best way that we have to prevent Iran from enriching uranium and developing nuclear weapons
• Iran has shown over and over again that they wish to use nuclear force against the U.S. and Israel
• If we simply repeal the sanctions, we are opening the door for Iran to use nuclear weapons against us or our allies
We cannot concede to a totalitarian dictatorship
• Iran’s leader, Ahmadinejad, runs a dictatorship that shuts off any opposition or questions about his authority. We have a duty as leader of the free world to stand up for our Western democratic values and not let a dictatorship like this win out in this conflict
• If we simply concede, we send a message internationally that we are weak and will back down easily
Sanctions are successful
• Case study: Indonesia
o In a time when Indonesia’s economy was crippled and the threat of bringing sanctions upon financial institutions in Jakarta was given, we saw that the Indonesian government gave in to international demands and pushed back the militias that were preventing East Timor from gaining independence. (1999)
Sources
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/9/obama-hails-un-vote-new-iran-sanctions/?page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._sanctions_against_Iran
http://www3.mb.com.ph/articles/261467/iran-sanctions-good-us
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LF11Ak04.html
http://www.cfr.org/publication/22607/limits_of_new_iran_sanctions.html
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=177983
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65859420100610
Brief-Capital Punishment
Motion: This house would abolish the death penalty for all crimes in the U.S.
Background
In the U.S., 15 states and the District of Columbia have abolished capital punishment. Of the 35 "death-penalty states," one-third rarely sentence anyone to death and another third impose death sentences but rarely carry them out. In many states, the only people to be executed are "volunteers" -- death row inmates who abandon an appeals process that would otherwise keep them alive. Eighty percent of executions now take place in the states of the former Confederacy, the vast majority of them in Texas. Death sentences have also decreased in recent years. One reason is that states now give juries the power to impose life imprisonment without parole. Another is that prosecutors advise victims' families that they may be better off seeking a prison sentence instead of capital punishment. That way, they will not have to watch year after year as the murderer goes to court seeking to have the death sentence overturned.
Capital punishment in the United States varies by jurisdiction. In practice it applies only for aggravated murder and more rarely for felony murder or contract killing.[1] Capital punishment existed in the colonies that predated the United States and that were later annexed to the United States under the laws of their mother countries and continued to have effect in the states and territories they became.
The methods of execution and the crimes subject to the penalty vary by jurisdiction and have varied widely throughout time. Some jurisdictions have banned it, others have suspended its use, but others are trying to expand its applicability. There were 37 executions in 2008.[2] That is the lowest number since 1994[3] (largely due to lethal injection litigation).[4][5] There were 52 executions in the United States in 2009, 51 by lethal injection and 1 by electric chair (Virginia).
International
More than two-thirds of the countries of the world have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. While 58 countries retained the death penalty in 2009, most did not use it. Eighteen countries were known to have carried out executions, killing a total of at least 714 people; however, this figure does not include the thousands of executions that were likely to have taken place in China, which again refused to divulge figures on its use of the death penalty.
In 1977, only 16 countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes. As of December 2009 that figure stands at 95 and more than two thirds of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.
Of the 58 retentionist countries, only 18 are known to have carried out executions in 2009.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1948, recognizes each person’s right to life. It categorically states that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (Article 5). In Amnesty International’s view, the death penalty violates these rights.
The community of states has adopted four international treaties specifically providing for the abolition of the death penalty. Through the years, several UN bodies discussed and adopted measures to support the call for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty.
In December 2007 and 2008 the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted resolutions 62/149 and 63/168, calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Since then, other regional bodies or civil society coalitions adopted resolutions and declarations advocating for a moratorium on executions as a step towards global abolition of the death penalty.
Arguments for
The death penalty is too expensive
• A state study in Indiana showed that capital sentences cost 10 times more than life-without-parole cases
• An appeals case in federal court can cost up to $275,000 and people are allowed to appeal multiple times, as opposed to the $20,000 it costs to keep an inmate in prison each year.
• A December 2009 news article from Lubbock, Texas revealed that a capital punishment case in the state at the time cost $1 million whereas the average cost of a case devoid of capital punishment is $3,000. This does not include the cost of appeals in capital punishment cases, either, which can more than double the cost. Then there is the cost while the person is in prison. It costs $47.50 to house a criminal in prison in the state of Texas for one day. If someone were sentenced to life in prison, it would cost $693,500 to house him or her for 40 years. That is still only a fraction of the cost of a death penalty court case. Also, prisoners on death row spend, on average, at least 12 years in prison before they are executed. In Texas, this would mean an extra $208,050 added to the high cost of the court case and appeals process.
• In Florida, budget problems resulted in the early release of 3,000 prisoners. In Texas, prisoners serve an average of 20% of their sentences and rearrests are common. Georgia laid off 900 correctional personnel and New Jersey had to dismiss 500 police officers. Yet these states also pour millions of dollars into the death penalty. The costs of the death penalty are decreasing the amount of police on the streets, and increasing the amount of criminals on the streets, which only increases the danger for our society
• In a small county in Washington, the anticipated death penalty costs are causing them to delay pay raises to 350 of their employees, let one government position to go unfilled, and drain their $300,000 contingency fund. In another county in Washington, $346,000 has been spent to seek the third death sentence for Mitchell Rupe. He is dying of liver disease, but the state is making extreme efforts to keep him alive so they can execute him.
Innocent people get killed
There have been 113 people released from death row since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, but only 907 executions since that time. That means that for every 7 executions in the U.S., 1 person has been found innocent on death row
Case studies of innocent people on death row:
• Gary Gauger - Illinois - Conviction: 1993, Released: 1996 --- He was convicted of killing his parents, but was found innocent after his conviction, when police heard the real murderers talking about the killing.
• Sabrina Butler - Mississippi - Conviction: 1990, Released 1995: --- Convicted of murdering her nine-month old child. When she found her baby not breathing, she performed CPR and took him to the hospital. Even after doing this, the police thought that she was the killer, and she ended up getting sentenced to death. It is now believed that the child died of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome).
• Andrew Golden - Florida - Conviction: 1985, Released: 1995 --- Convicted of killing his wife, even though the prosecution failed to prove that his wife's death was anything more than an accident. He was finally released from death row in 1995, "to the waiting arms of his sons."
It is not effective in deterring crime
• According to the 2009 FBI Uniform Crime Report, the South has the highest percentage of executions (80 percent). Yet from 2001 to 2009, the region saw no significant drop in its murder rate.
• In one study done in Oklahoma, it was found that after Oklahoma resumed capital punishment, no deterrent effect was found - in fact, a brutalization effect (increase in homicides) was reported
• A 1995 poll of police chiefs showed that the police do not believe that the death penalty lowers homicide rates. In fact, they ranked the death penalty last (1%) in effective ways to decrease violent crime
• The studies and evidence show that the death penalty is not effective in deterring criminals from committing murders. Therefore the death penalty is unnecessary and unneeded
The death penalty is racist
• African-Americans constitute 12% of the U.S. population, but make up 40% of the prisoners on death row
• People executed for interracial murders:
o White defendant/black victim – 11
o Black defendant/white victim – 167
• 84% of victims in death penalty cases are white, although only 50% of murder victims are white
• Roughly 98% of our nation’s prosecutors are white
Arguments against
The death penalty is used responsibly
• Last year in the U.S., there were over 15,000 murders, yet only 52 of those murderers were executed.
• Our system works in weeding out the people who deserve the death penalty from those who deserve a different sentence or are innocent
• We rarely convict people who turn out to be innocent, but we have parts of our justice system that allow time for appeals for the truth to be found for when the original trial is flawed or makes a mistake
We could save money in the long run using the death penalty
• It costs an average of $20,000 per year to keep someone in prison. There are currently 143,000 people in prison for life or on death row. To keep these criminals alive and away from society costs almost $2.9 billion a year.
• If we are able to execute these murderers and harmful criminals that are going to sit in jail for life already, then we can save a considerable amount of money
The problem is not the death penalty, it is the appeals system
• Obviously, there is a major problem in the costs and time it takes to go through the appeals courts
• The proper response is not to eliminate the death penalty altogether, but to reform this system so that we spend less money and waste less time
Quotations
“The evidence on whether it has a significant deterrent effect seems sufficiently plausible that the moral issue becomes a difficult one,” said Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago who has frequently taken liberal positions. “I did shift from being against the death penalty to thinking that if it has a significant deterrent effect it’s probably justified.”
Professor Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, a law professor at Harvard, wrote in their own Stanford Law Review article that “the recent evidence of a deterrent effect from capital punishment seems impressive, especially in light of its ‘apparent power and unanimity,’ ” quoting a conclusion of a separate overview of the evidence in 2005 by Robert Weisberg, a law professor at Stanford, in the Annual Review of Law and Social Science.
“Capital punishment may well save lives,” the two professors continued. “Those who object to capital punishment, and who do so in the name of protecting life, must come to terms with the possibility that the failure to inflict capital punishment will fail to protect life.”
Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights#Rights_to_physical_integrity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_debate
http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/thoughts.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html?_r=1
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=106
http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/should-the-us-abolish-the-death-penalty
http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com
https://www.msu.edu/~millettf/DeathPenalty/morality.html
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/crown-point/article_726fe7a3-97df-599e-bc64-599c8b9af3de.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/all-charges-dismissed-against-former-texas-death-row-inmate-139th-exoneration-nationally
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/13/AR2008041302605_pf.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071602717.html
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=13&did=2180165061&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1288922345&clientId=20972
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=14&did=2180165051&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1288922345&clientId=20972
http://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Capital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHMENT.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf
Background
In the U.S., 15 states and the District of Columbia have abolished capital punishment. Of the 35 "death-penalty states," one-third rarely sentence anyone to death and another third impose death sentences but rarely carry them out. In many states, the only people to be executed are "volunteers" -- death row inmates who abandon an appeals process that would otherwise keep them alive. Eighty percent of executions now take place in the states of the former Confederacy, the vast majority of them in Texas. Death sentences have also decreased in recent years. One reason is that states now give juries the power to impose life imprisonment without parole. Another is that prosecutors advise victims' families that they may be better off seeking a prison sentence instead of capital punishment. That way, they will not have to watch year after year as the murderer goes to court seeking to have the death sentence overturned.
Capital punishment in the United States varies by jurisdiction. In practice it applies only for aggravated murder and more rarely for felony murder or contract killing.[1] Capital punishment existed in the colonies that predated the United States and that were later annexed to the United States under the laws of their mother countries and continued to have effect in the states and territories they became.
The methods of execution and the crimes subject to the penalty vary by jurisdiction and have varied widely throughout time. Some jurisdictions have banned it, others have suspended its use, but others are trying to expand its applicability. There were 37 executions in 2008.[2] That is the lowest number since 1994[3] (largely due to lethal injection litigation).[4][5] There were 52 executions in the United States in 2009, 51 by lethal injection and 1 by electric chair (Virginia).
International
More than two-thirds of the countries of the world have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. While 58 countries retained the death penalty in 2009, most did not use it. Eighteen countries were known to have carried out executions, killing a total of at least 714 people; however, this figure does not include the thousands of executions that were likely to have taken place in China, which again refused to divulge figures on its use of the death penalty.
In 1977, only 16 countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes. As of December 2009 that figure stands at 95 and more than two thirds of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.
Of the 58 retentionist countries, only 18 are known to have carried out executions in 2009.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1948, recognizes each person’s right to life. It categorically states that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (Article 5). In Amnesty International’s view, the death penalty violates these rights.
The community of states has adopted four international treaties specifically providing for the abolition of the death penalty. Through the years, several UN bodies discussed and adopted measures to support the call for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty.
In December 2007 and 2008 the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted resolutions 62/149 and 63/168, calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Since then, other regional bodies or civil society coalitions adopted resolutions and declarations advocating for a moratorium on executions as a step towards global abolition of the death penalty.
Arguments for
The death penalty is too expensive
• A state study in Indiana showed that capital sentences cost 10 times more than life-without-parole cases
• An appeals case in federal court can cost up to $275,000 and people are allowed to appeal multiple times, as opposed to the $20,000 it costs to keep an inmate in prison each year.
• A December 2009 news article from Lubbock, Texas revealed that a capital punishment case in the state at the time cost $1 million whereas the average cost of a case devoid of capital punishment is $3,000. This does not include the cost of appeals in capital punishment cases, either, which can more than double the cost. Then there is the cost while the person is in prison. It costs $47.50 to house a criminal in prison in the state of Texas for one day. If someone were sentenced to life in prison, it would cost $693,500 to house him or her for 40 years. That is still only a fraction of the cost of a death penalty court case. Also, prisoners on death row spend, on average, at least 12 years in prison before they are executed. In Texas, this would mean an extra $208,050 added to the high cost of the court case and appeals process.
• In Florida, budget problems resulted in the early release of 3,000 prisoners. In Texas, prisoners serve an average of 20% of their sentences and rearrests are common. Georgia laid off 900 correctional personnel and New Jersey had to dismiss 500 police officers. Yet these states also pour millions of dollars into the death penalty. The costs of the death penalty are decreasing the amount of police on the streets, and increasing the amount of criminals on the streets, which only increases the danger for our society
• In a small county in Washington, the anticipated death penalty costs are causing them to delay pay raises to 350 of their employees, let one government position to go unfilled, and drain their $300,000 contingency fund. In another county in Washington, $346,000 has been spent to seek the third death sentence for Mitchell Rupe. He is dying of liver disease, but the state is making extreme efforts to keep him alive so they can execute him.
Innocent people get killed
There have been 113 people released from death row since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, but only 907 executions since that time. That means that for every 7 executions in the U.S., 1 person has been found innocent on death row
Case studies of innocent people on death row:
• Gary Gauger - Illinois - Conviction: 1993, Released: 1996 --- He was convicted of killing his parents, but was found innocent after his conviction, when police heard the real murderers talking about the killing.
• Sabrina Butler - Mississippi - Conviction: 1990, Released 1995: --- Convicted of murdering her nine-month old child. When she found her baby not breathing, she performed CPR and took him to the hospital. Even after doing this, the police thought that she was the killer, and she ended up getting sentenced to death. It is now believed that the child died of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome).
• Andrew Golden - Florida - Conviction: 1985, Released: 1995 --- Convicted of killing his wife, even though the prosecution failed to prove that his wife's death was anything more than an accident. He was finally released from death row in 1995, "to the waiting arms of his sons."
It is not effective in deterring crime
• According to the 2009 FBI Uniform Crime Report, the South has the highest percentage of executions (80 percent). Yet from 2001 to 2009, the region saw no significant drop in its murder rate.
• In one study done in Oklahoma, it was found that after Oklahoma resumed capital punishment, no deterrent effect was found - in fact, a brutalization effect (increase in homicides) was reported
• A 1995 poll of police chiefs showed that the police do not believe that the death penalty lowers homicide rates. In fact, they ranked the death penalty last (1%) in effective ways to decrease violent crime
• The studies and evidence show that the death penalty is not effective in deterring criminals from committing murders. Therefore the death penalty is unnecessary and unneeded
The death penalty is racist
• African-Americans constitute 12% of the U.S. population, but make up 40% of the prisoners on death row
• People executed for interracial murders:
o White defendant/black victim – 11
o Black defendant/white victim – 167
• 84% of victims in death penalty cases are white, although only 50% of murder victims are white
• Roughly 98% of our nation’s prosecutors are white
Arguments against
The death penalty is used responsibly
• Last year in the U.S., there were over 15,000 murders, yet only 52 of those murderers were executed.
• Our system works in weeding out the people who deserve the death penalty from those who deserve a different sentence or are innocent
• We rarely convict people who turn out to be innocent, but we have parts of our justice system that allow time for appeals for the truth to be found for when the original trial is flawed or makes a mistake
We could save money in the long run using the death penalty
• It costs an average of $20,000 per year to keep someone in prison. There are currently 143,000 people in prison for life or on death row. To keep these criminals alive and away from society costs almost $2.9 billion a year.
• If we are able to execute these murderers and harmful criminals that are going to sit in jail for life already, then we can save a considerable amount of money
The problem is not the death penalty, it is the appeals system
• Obviously, there is a major problem in the costs and time it takes to go through the appeals courts
• The proper response is not to eliminate the death penalty altogether, but to reform this system so that we spend less money and waste less time
Quotations
“The evidence on whether it has a significant deterrent effect seems sufficiently plausible that the moral issue becomes a difficult one,” said Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago who has frequently taken liberal positions. “I did shift from being against the death penalty to thinking that if it has a significant deterrent effect it’s probably justified.”
Professor Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, a law professor at Harvard, wrote in their own Stanford Law Review article that “the recent evidence of a deterrent effect from capital punishment seems impressive, especially in light of its ‘apparent power and unanimity,’ ” quoting a conclusion of a separate overview of the evidence in 2005 by Robert Weisberg, a law professor at Stanford, in the Annual Review of Law and Social Science.
“Capital punishment may well save lives,” the two professors continued. “Those who object to capital punishment, and who do so in the name of protecting life, must come to terms with the possibility that the failure to inflict capital punishment will fail to protect life.”
Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights#Rights_to_physical_integrity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_debate
http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/thoughts.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html?_r=1
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=106
http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/should-the-us-abolish-the-death-penalty
http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com
https://www.msu.edu/~millettf/DeathPenalty/morality.html
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/crown-point/article_726fe7a3-97df-599e-bc64-599c8b9af3de.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/all-charges-dismissed-against-former-texas-death-row-inmate-139th-exoneration-nationally
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/13/AR2008041302605_pf.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071602717.html
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=13&did=2180165061&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1288922345&clientId=20972
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=14&did=2180165051&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1288922345&clientId=20972
http://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Capital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHMENT.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf
Brief-data privacy
Background:
The modern World Wide Web as we know it was first invented in 1989 by Sir Tim Berners-Lee while he was working for CERN. Since that time, the use of the internet and computers in general has exploded exponentially. Now businesses, banks, hospitals, and almost all other areas of society store data via computers and transfer information through the internet.
However, the current system of data storage and internet security still contains many flaws, which have led to security breaches, leaking of information, and robbery. In October 2010, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced S. 3898, a bill that would extend EFTA’s Regulation E protections to certain local government entities, including municipalities and school districts. Another bill, the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act, presented by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) would “prevent and mitigate identity theft, to ensure privacy, to provide notice of security breaches, and to enhance criminal penalties, law enforcement assistance, and other protections against security breaches, fraudulent access, and misuse of personally identifiable information.” These two bills are still waiting to be voted on by Congress.
Motion: This House should increase protections over the data of its citizens
Arguments for:
The current system is not protected enough—the new regulations are not perfect, but they will be better than what we have now
• Organized cyber thieves, meanwhile, have stolen more than $70 million from small to mid-sized businesses, nonprofits, towns and cities, according to the FBI.
• On Sept. 29, computer crooks stole $600,000 from the coastal town of Brigantine, N.J.; seven months earlier, computer crooks stole $100,000 from Egg Harbor Township just 20 miles away. In late December 2009, an organized cyber gang took $3.8 million from the Duanesburg Central School District in New York.
• In 2008 alone, the total cost of data privacy breaches in U.S. corporations was $721 million.
Extra governmental protection for businesses will save money
• If we can provide a system to adequately protect and keep this information safe, then much of the money that is continually lost will be kept and used by the schools, businesses, cities, etc.
The protections will benefit the lives of citizens
• We can further protect the data of individual citizens, as well as important areas in their lives. If hospitals, schools, and towns are all more protected, then they will all be able to offer better services to the citizens in their areas.
• Citizens should have their privacy protected by the government
• American citizens live under a government that is supposed to “promote the general welfare” of its citizens. The government needs to do that in the area of data privacy, where currently it lets its citizens be open to attack, fraud and theft with little to no legislature that would put the criminals in prison.
• We send a message of weakness to our own citizens if we choose not to protect them from such a prevalent problem
Arguments against:
The government has no right to interfere with business
• The government should not involve itself in business affairs. Businesses should be left to decide for themselves which risks to take and how to protect their own information. Letting the government help do the job will only slow down business and bring down profits if businesses have to follow a new, stricter security protocol
• Involving the government will only open up more problems, like who has access to the secure information, and if the government will have access to private business records. There is only a greater chance for security breaches and corruption by bringing in another group to handle this security issue
Citizens should be able to protect themselves
• There are plenty of simple steps to take to ensure that you do not get your identity stolen or have your bank accounts broken into.
• Citizens should have freedom to choose how to protect their information, if at all, without the government telling them exactly which way is the best for them
The government needs to educate and inform rather than step in and take action
• It would be a much better idea for the government to provide some simple (optional) steps for businesses and individuals to take in order to secure their data. This leaves open the option of personal choice, as well as limits the government’s involvement in this area
• Businesses that have a grasp on how to protect themselves can find ways to do it effectively without needing the government’s intervention
Sources
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/564
http://www.mikesprouse.com/2010/10/26/the-online-privacy-debate/
http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/trends/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=228000243&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_All
http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/08/online-privacy-debates-heat-up.html
http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2010/01/privacy-day-sparks-debate.php
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1490
http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/apr2010/ca2010049_718474.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/opinion/25weds2.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/01/eu-online-privacy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/28/filesharing-acs-law
The modern World Wide Web as we know it was first invented in 1989 by Sir Tim Berners-Lee while he was working for CERN. Since that time, the use of the internet and computers in general has exploded exponentially. Now businesses, banks, hospitals, and almost all other areas of society store data via computers and transfer information through the internet.
However, the current system of data storage and internet security still contains many flaws, which have led to security breaches, leaking of information, and robbery. In October 2010, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced S. 3898, a bill that would extend EFTA’s Regulation E protections to certain local government entities, including municipalities and school districts. Another bill, the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act, presented by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) would “prevent and mitigate identity theft, to ensure privacy, to provide notice of security breaches, and to enhance criminal penalties, law enforcement assistance, and other protections against security breaches, fraudulent access, and misuse of personally identifiable information.” These two bills are still waiting to be voted on by Congress.
Motion: This House should increase protections over the data of its citizens
Arguments for:
The current system is not protected enough—the new regulations are not perfect, but they will be better than what we have now
• Organized cyber thieves, meanwhile, have stolen more than $70 million from small to mid-sized businesses, nonprofits, towns and cities, according to the FBI.
• On Sept. 29, computer crooks stole $600,000 from the coastal town of Brigantine, N.J.; seven months earlier, computer crooks stole $100,000 from Egg Harbor Township just 20 miles away. In late December 2009, an organized cyber gang took $3.8 million from the Duanesburg Central School District in New York.
• In 2008 alone, the total cost of data privacy breaches in U.S. corporations was $721 million.
Extra governmental protection for businesses will save money
• If we can provide a system to adequately protect and keep this information safe, then much of the money that is continually lost will be kept and used by the schools, businesses, cities, etc.
The protections will benefit the lives of citizens
• We can further protect the data of individual citizens, as well as important areas in their lives. If hospitals, schools, and towns are all more protected, then they will all be able to offer better services to the citizens in their areas.
• Citizens should have their privacy protected by the government
• American citizens live under a government that is supposed to “promote the general welfare” of its citizens. The government needs to do that in the area of data privacy, where currently it lets its citizens be open to attack, fraud and theft with little to no legislature that would put the criminals in prison.
• We send a message of weakness to our own citizens if we choose not to protect them from such a prevalent problem
Arguments against:
The government has no right to interfere with business
• The government should not involve itself in business affairs. Businesses should be left to decide for themselves which risks to take and how to protect their own information. Letting the government help do the job will only slow down business and bring down profits if businesses have to follow a new, stricter security protocol
• Involving the government will only open up more problems, like who has access to the secure information, and if the government will have access to private business records. There is only a greater chance for security breaches and corruption by bringing in another group to handle this security issue
Citizens should be able to protect themselves
• There are plenty of simple steps to take to ensure that you do not get your identity stolen or have your bank accounts broken into.
• Citizens should have freedom to choose how to protect their information, if at all, without the government telling them exactly which way is the best for them
The government needs to educate and inform rather than step in and take action
• It would be a much better idea for the government to provide some simple (optional) steps for businesses and individuals to take in order to secure their data. This leaves open the option of personal choice, as well as limits the government’s involvement in this area
• Businesses that have a grasp on how to protect themselves can find ways to do it effectively without needing the government’s intervention
Sources
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/564
http://www.mikesprouse.com/2010/10/26/the-online-privacy-debate/
http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/trends/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=228000243&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_All
http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/08/online-privacy-debates-heat-up.html
http://techdailydose.nationaljournal.com/2010/01/privacy-day-sparks-debate.php
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1490
http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/apr2010/ca2010049_718474.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/opinion/25weds2.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/01/eu-online-privacy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/28/filesharing-acs-law
Brief-Net Neutrality
Background:
The basic concept of net neutrality originated in the age of the telegram around 1860. Telegrams were routed “equally” without attempting to discern their contents or adjusting for one application or another. These networks were called “end-to-end neutral”. Current U.S. law classifies telegrams and the phone network (public switched telephone network or PSTN) as common carriers. This means that they are treated as public utilities and are overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). These networks are specifically regulated to ensure fair pricing and access, and to prevent preferential treatment.
Past legal issues
Originally, the Internet was not legally available for commercial use. It became available in the late 1980s.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, consumers and businesses began to attach new devices to their Internet connections, and use Internet services that were not in existence in the mid-1990s.
One reaction of many broadband operators was to impose various contractual limits on the activities of their subscribers. In the best known examples, Cox Cable disciplined users of virtual private networks (VPNs) and AT&T, as a cable operator, warned customers that using a Wi-Fi service for home-networking constituted "theft of service" and a federal crime.[56] Comcast blocked ports of VPNs, forcing the state of Washington, for example, to contract with telecommunications providers to ensure that its employees had access to unimpeded broadband for telecommuting applications.
Cable modem Internet access has always been categorized under U.S. law as an information service, and not a telecommunications service, and thus has not been subject to common carrier regulations, as upheld in National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services. High-speed data links, which make up the Internet's core, are also not regulated by common carrier law. On the other hand, Internet access across the phone network, including DSL, was for a long time categorized as a telecommunications service, and subject to common carrier regulations. However, on August 5, 2005, the FCC reclassified DSL services as information services rather than telecommunications services, and replaced common carrier requirements on them with a set of four less-restrictive net neutrality principles.[7] These principles, however, are not FCC rules, and therefore not enforceable requirements.
1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and
4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
Actually implementing the principles requires either official FCC rule-making or federal legislation. As the principles do not impose specific regulations, they sparked a debate over whether or not Internet service providers should also be allowed to discriminate between different service providers by offering higher network priority to higher-paying companies and customers, allowing some services to operate faster or more predictably and ultimately become more acceptable to end users.
In a June 2007 report, the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) urged restraint with respect to the new regulations proposed by network neutrality advocates, noting the "broadband industry is a relatively young and evolving one," and given no "significant market failure or demonstrated consumer harm from conduct by broadband providers," such regulations "may well have adverse effects on consumer welfare, despite the good intentions of their proponents."[14]
On February 25, 2008, Kevin Martin, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, said that he is "ready, willing and able," to prevent broadband Internet service providers from irrationally interfering with their subscribers' Internet access.[20]
In August 2008, the FCC ruled that Comcast broke the law when it throttled the bandwidth available to certain customers for video files in order to make sure that other customers had adequate bandwidth.[21][22] Comcast also planned to set a cap at 250 gigabytes for how much data users could download and upload each month, with a plan in mind to terminate accounts for a year if they went above the cap twice in a period of 6 months.
January 2008, Time Warner Cable first introduced their intention to move to a "consumption based billing" plan to continue profitable net neutrality. In 2009, information was released that packages would be 10GB, 20GB, 40GB, and 60GB, and featured overage charges of $1 per GB, capped at $75, and Time Warner launched the pricing system in several markets including Rochester, NY, Beaumont, TX and Austin, TX. There was a public outcry. Early April, they announced that they would offer larger packages. Public dissatisfaction did not recede. On April 16, they were forced to abandon the plan altogether.
In May 2010, after reports indicated the FCC would drop their effort to enforce net neutrality, they announced they would continue their fight. It was believed the FCC would not be able to enforce net neutrality after a Federal court's overthrow of the agency's Order against Comcast.[23]
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "network neutrality" obligations on broadband providers.
Arguments For
Nondiscrimination is a foundation of the Internet
• Nondiscrimination is a basic obligation of all network operators under Title II of the Communications Act. Almost 40 years ago, the Federal Communications Commission was confronted with the question of how to handle the transmission of data over telecommunications networks.
• In a series of proceedings beginning in 1968 known as the Computer Inquiries, the FCC decided that the companies providing communications services would not be allowed to interfere with or discriminate against information services. When a federal court broke up Ma Bell in 1982, it required the Baby Bells to provide nondiscriminatory interconnection and access to their networks. These decisions to require the communications network to treat information service in a nondiscriminatory manner were the key building block of the Internet -- its First Amendment.
• Under these protections, the physical wires over which data and information flow were treated differently than the data and information themselves. When network owners can’t mess with the content, the content market remains free and vigorously competitive. This separation of the physical communications layer from the content and applications layers was a cornerstone of telecommunications law--putting control of the Internet in the hands of the users at the edges but in the summer of 2005 -- under intense pressure from phone and cable lobbyists -- the FCC removed this cornerstone.
• In the years since then, these network owners have openly declared that they intend to build business models based on discrimination, extorting money from online content and applications providers and favoring the Web sites and services that they own or with whom they strike special deals. This plan violates the fundamental principle of nondiscrimination that has been law for generations, and which gave us a free-flowing Internet that allows the best ideas to emerge on their own merits.
• Advocates of Net Neutrality are not promoting new regulations. We are attempting to restore tried and tested consumer protections and network operating principles that made the Internet a great engine for free speech and innovation. By passing Net Neutrality legislation we're restoring under law the open Internet's most fundamental principle.
A lack of net neutrality will allow companies to distort the market and undermine competition
• Without net neutrality, companies can give more priority to the sites that give them more money, and they can restrict speed to the customers that pay less for their internet. This is unfair to the consumer, and it not only gives companies too much power to abuse the consumer, it gives them power to keep competition out of the way. For example, if Facebook pays more money to an ISP than Myspace, then Facebook will probably come up first on search results and will run more quickly than Myspace. Companies should not be able to control the internet by their own whims.
Arguments Against
If companies attempt to place restrictions on consumers, there will be a consumer backlash along with many users finding ways around the restrictions. Net neutrality will stay alive without legislation
There are already laws to protect net neutrality
• The Communications Act of 1934 (Title 1) gives the federal government power to protect consumers from online discrimination. Amazon is one of the strong corporate supporters of Net neutrality regulation but even its spokesman has agreed that this gives the FCC power to take action if presented with unfair business tactics by broadband providers.
• In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly recognized federal authority to protect consumers’ online rights.
• Other protections for Net users include multiple antitrust laws, laws against unfair competition and the FCC’s own “Four Principles” for an open Internet. The first principle is clear: “Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.”
High cost to consumers if legislation is enacted
• When Net neutrality emerged in Congress in 2006, a Forrester Research analysis predicted that if Congress passed it, “Legal costs will shoot through the roof – draining the pockets of everyone involved.”
• ISP’s are investing $24 billion in network upgrades this year to handle the oncoming crush of video streams, movie downloads and other online traffic. But given the surging growth of online data, even this by itself won’t be enough. We need smart networks capable of differentiating between a movie stream that needs prioritization and an email that can be delayed a few seconds.
• Net neutrality’s complex pricing regulations would create a legal loophole that pushes the huge cost for tomorrow’s Internet entirely onto the Net user. A net neutrality law would let Google, Amazon and other large online companies avoid paying anything toward the cost of deploying these networks.
Legislation will restrict competition
• Example: Interstate Commerce Commission
o In 1887, the ICC was created to regulate the railroads. The Interstate Commerce Act was very similar to today’s network neutrality proposals: it prohibited discrimination by railroads toward their customers and created the ICC to enforce the regulations. The first ICC chairman was a railroad ally, and the railroads quickly gained full control of the commission. It used its control of the commission to reduce competition from the trucking industry in 1930. The ICC was supposed to protect the consumer from the railroads, but it mostly protected railroads from competition.
o Any net neutrality regulation that Congress passes will be enforced by the FCC, and no one has more influence over the FCC than telecom companies. The FCC has repeatedly promoted the interests of large telecom companies, and it will most likely use the new legislation to promote whatever the big corporations want, which will significantly restrict competition. As an example of a precedent, AT&T used regulatory barriers in the 1960s to prevent another company, MCI, from entering the long-distance market for about a decade
The basic concept of net neutrality originated in the age of the telegram around 1860. Telegrams were routed “equally” without attempting to discern their contents or adjusting for one application or another. These networks were called “end-to-end neutral”. Current U.S. law classifies telegrams and the phone network (public switched telephone network or PSTN) as common carriers. This means that they are treated as public utilities and are overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). These networks are specifically regulated to ensure fair pricing and access, and to prevent preferential treatment.
Past legal issues
Originally, the Internet was not legally available for commercial use. It became available in the late 1980s.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, consumers and businesses began to attach new devices to their Internet connections, and use Internet services that were not in existence in the mid-1990s.
One reaction of many broadband operators was to impose various contractual limits on the activities of their subscribers. In the best known examples, Cox Cable disciplined users of virtual private networks (VPNs) and AT&T, as a cable operator, warned customers that using a Wi-Fi service for home-networking constituted "theft of service" and a federal crime.[56] Comcast blocked ports of VPNs, forcing the state of Washington, for example, to contract with telecommunications providers to ensure that its employees had access to unimpeded broadband for telecommuting applications.
Cable modem Internet access has always been categorized under U.S. law as an information service, and not a telecommunications service, and thus has not been subject to common carrier regulations, as upheld in National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services. High-speed data links, which make up the Internet's core, are also not regulated by common carrier law. On the other hand, Internet access across the phone network, including DSL, was for a long time categorized as a telecommunications service, and subject to common carrier regulations. However, on August 5, 2005, the FCC reclassified DSL services as information services rather than telecommunications services, and replaced common carrier requirements on them with a set of four less-restrictive net neutrality principles.[7] These principles, however, are not FCC rules, and therefore not enforceable requirements.
1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and
4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.
Actually implementing the principles requires either official FCC rule-making or federal legislation. As the principles do not impose specific regulations, they sparked a debate over whether or not Internet service providers should also be allowed to discriminate between different service providers by offering higher network priority to higher-paying companies and customers, allowing some services to operate faster or more predictably and ultimately become more acceptable to end users.
In a June 2007 report, the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) urged restraint with respect to the new regulations proposed by network neutrality advocates, noting the "broadband industry is a relatively young and evolving one," and given no "significant market failure or demonstrated consumer harm from conduct by broadband providers," such regulations "may well have adverse effects on consumer welfare, despite the good intentions of their proponents."[14]
On February 25, 2008, Kevin Martin, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, said that he is "ready, willing and able," to prevent broadband Internet service providers from irrationally interfering with their subscribers' Internet access.[20]
In August 2008, the FCC ruled that Comcast broke the law when it throttled the bandwidth available to certain customers for video files in order to make sure that other customers had adequate bandwidth.[21][22] Comcast also planned to set a cap at 250 gigabytes for how much data users could download and upload each month, with a plan in mind to terminate accounts for a year if they went above the cap twice in a period of 6 months.
January 2008, Time Warner Cable first introduced their intention to move to a "consumption based billing" plan to continue profitable net neutrality. In 2009, information was released that packages would be 10GB, 20GB, 40GB, and 60GB, and featured overage charges of $1 per GB, capped at $75, and Time Warner launched the pricing system in several markets including Rochester, NY, Beaumont, TX and Austin, TX. There was a public outcry. Early April, they announced that they would offer larger packages. Public dissatisfaction did not recede. On April 16, they were forced to abandon the plan altogether.
In May 2010, after reports indicated the FCC would drop their effort to enforce net neutrality, they announced they would continue their fight. It was believed the FCC would not be able to enforce net neutrality after a Federal court's overthrow of the agency's Order against Comcast.[23]
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "network neutrality" obligations on broadband providers.
Arguments For
Nondiscrimination is a foundation of the Internet
• Nondiscrimination is a basic obligation of all network operators under Title II of the Communications Act. Almost 40 years ago, the Federal Communications Commission was confronted with the question of how to handle the transmission of data over telecommunications networks.
• In a series of proceedings beginning in 1968 known as the Computer Inquiries, the FCC decided that the companies providing communications services would not be allowed to interfere with or discriminate against information services. When a federal court broke up Ma Bell in 1982, it required the Baby Bells to provide nondiscriminatory interconnection and access to their networks. These decisions to require the communications network to treat information service in a nondiscriminatory manner were the key building block of the Internet -- its First Amendment.
• Under these protections, the physical wires over which data and information flow were treated differently than the data and information themselves. When network owners can’t mess with the content, the content market remains free and vigorously competitive. This separation of the physical communications layer from the content and applications layers was a cornerstone of telecommunications law--putting control of the Internet in the hands of the users at the edges but in the summer of 2005 -- under intense pressure from phone and cable lobbyists -- the FCC removed this cornerstone.
• In the years since then, these network owners have openly declared that they intend to build business models based on discrimination, extorting money from online content and applications providers and favoring the Web sites and services that they own or with whom they strike special deals. This plan violates the fundamental principle of nondiscrimination that has been law for generations, and which gave us a free-flowing Internet that allows the best ideas to emerge on their own merits.
• Advocates of Net Neutrality are not promoting new regulations. We are attempting to restore tried and tested consumer protections and network operating principles that made the Internet a great engine for free speech and innovation. By passing Net Neutrality legislation we're restoring under law the open Internet's most fundamental principle.
A lack of net neutrality will allow companies to distort the market and undermine competition
• Without net neutrality, companies can give more priority to the sites that give them more money, and they can restrict speed to the customers that pay less for their internet. This is unfair to the consumer, and it not only gives companies too much power to abuse the consumer, it gives them power to keep competition out of the way. For example, if Facebook pays more money to an ISP than Myspace, then Facebook will probably come up first on search results and will run more quickly than Myspace. Companies should not be able to control the internet by their own whims.
Arguments Against
If companies attempt to place restrictions on consumers, there will be a consumer backlash along with many users finding ways around the restrictions. Net neutrality will stay alive without legislation
There are already laws to protect net neutrality
• The Communications Act of 1934 (Title 1) gives the federal government power to protect consumers from online discrimination. Amazon is one of the strong corporate supporters of Net neutrality regulation but even its spokesman has agreed that this gives the FCC power to take action if presented with unfair business tactics by broadband providers.
• In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly recognized federal authority to protect consumers’ online rights.
• Other protections for Net users include multiple antitrust laws, laws against unfair competition and the FCC’s own “Four Principles” for an open Internet. The first principle is clear: “Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.”
High cost to consumers if legislation is enacted
• When Net neutrality emerged in Congress in 2006, a Forrester Research analysis predicted that if Congress passed it, “Legal costs will shoot through the roof – draining the pockets of everyone involved.”
• ISP’s are investing $24 billion in network upgrades this year to handle the oncoming crush of video streams, movie downloads and other online traffic. But given the surging growth of online data, even this by itself won’t be enough. We need smart networks capable of differentiating between a movie stream that needs prioritization and an email that can be delayed a few seconds.
• Net neutrality’s complex pricing regulations would create a legal loophole that pushes the huge cost for tomorrow’s Internet entirely onto the Net user. A net neutrality law would let Google, Amazon and other large online companies avoid paying anything toward the cost of deploying these networks.
Legislation will restrict competition
• Example: Interstate Commerce Commission
o In 1887, the ICC was created to regulate the railroads. The Interstate Commerce Act was very similar to today’s network neutrality proposals: it prohibited discrimination by railroads toward their customers and created the ICC to enforce the regulations. The first ICC chairman was a railroad ally, and the railroads quickly gained full control of the commission. It used its control of the commission to reduce competition from the trucking industry in 1930. The ICC was supposed to protect the consumer from the railroads, but it mostly protected railroads from competition.
o Any net neutrality regulation that Congress passes will be enforced by the FCC, and no one has more influence over the FCC than telecom companies. The FCC has repeatedly promoted the interests of large telecom companies, and it will most likely use the new legislation to promote whatever the big corporations want, which will significantly restrict competition. As an example of a precedent, AT&T used regulatory barriers in the 1960s to prevent another company, MCI, from entering the long-distance market for about a decade
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Fallacy Hunt assignment
Video: BP Demo Debate from IDEA Youth Forum
False analogy: compares violent crimes to protect the environment, with foreign relations. These two are too dissimilar to be an applicable analogy.
Material fallacy: no cited authority on the claim: war is the most environmentally harmful action that you can take.
Unrepresentative evidence: uses story of Shell Corporation in Africa, hurting environment and hurting people’s lives. This example does not reflect all corporations across the board.
Slippery slope fallacy: argued that allowing violence to protect the environment would lead to people killing anti-gays because of their beliefs.
Straw man fallacy: misrepresents the Government side by saying they are advocating militias taking over water sources and selling water to poor people, when the Government case only advocates violence against the sources of environmental harm.
False analogy: compares violent crimes to protect the environment, with foreign relations. These two are too dissimilar to be an applicable analogy.
Material fallacy: no cited authority on the claim: war is the most environmentally harmful action that you can take.
Unrepresentative evidence: uses story of Shell Corporation in Africa, hurting environment and hurting people’s lives. This example does not reflect all corporations across the board.
Slippery slope fallacy: argued that allowing violence to protect the environment would lead to people killing anti-gays because of their beliefs.
Straw man fallacy: misrepresents the Government side by saying they are advocating militias taking over water sources and selling water to poor people, when the Government case only advocates violence against the sources of environmental harm.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Chapter 6, Exercise 1
Construct criteria for the topic: Security is more important than privacy
To support the proposition that security is more important than privacy, we start by arguing that national security equates to life, because the goal of national security is to protect the lives of the citizens. Therefore, our burden is to prove that protection of life is more important than privacy, which essentially only improves the quality of life for someone. We will argue that more rights are more vital than privacy, yet all people value having life. Therefore, we argue that security is more important because it is more vital to the protection of life.
To support the proposition that security is more important than privacy, we start by arguing that national security equates to life, because the goal of national security is to protect the lives of the citizens. Therefore, our burden is to prove that protection of life is more important than privacy, which essentially only improves the quality of life for someone. We will argue that more rights are more vital than privacy, yet all people value having life. Therefore, we argue that security is more important because it is more vital to the protection of life.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
15 Propostions
5 Propositions of Fact
The war in Iraq was a failure
The ends justify the means
The death penalty increases crime
Obama has failed in office
The Colts will win the Super Bowl
5 Propositions of Value
Freedom is more important than security
National security outweighs personal privacy
Losing some freedoms is better than having too many
It is better to kill one to save many
Some regulation of business is better than none at all
5 Propositions of Policy
The United states should isolate itself
This house would negotiate with terrorists
The United States should open its borders
This house should declare war on Israel
The United States should make abortion illegal
The war in Iraq was a failure
The ends justify the means
The death penalty increases crime
Obama has failed in office
The Colts will win the Super Bowl
5 Propositions of Value
Freedom is more important than security
National security outweighs personal privacy
Losing some freedoms is better than having too many
It is better to kill one to save many
Some regulation of business is better than none at all
5 Propositions of Policy
The United states should isolate itself
This house would negotiate with terrorists
The United States should open its borders
This house should declare war on Israel
The United States should make abortion illegal
Monday, September 13, 2010
Chapter 2 Book Assignment
Exercise 2
Argument: cats are not better than dogs
Argument 1: Dogs are better than cats because of their ability to detect health problems in humans. A recent study by the MACH Foundation showed that dogs can detect cancer from breath samples with an accuracy "between 88% and 97%". The study was published in an article in the journal Integrative Cancer Therapies.
Argument 2: Dogs are better than cats because they protect and save their owners. According to information from the Associated Press that was published on msnbc.com, dogs have used their intellect and instinct to save their owners from injury and death. One specific article mentions a dog that dialed 911 when its owner fell.
Exercise 4
President Obama recently compared America to a car, saying that the "D" for drive in a car represents the Democrats, and the "R" for reverse represents the Republicans. He made this argument to say that the Republicans are holding back progress and beneficial policies that the Democrats are attempting to get through Congress.
Test: The two sides are similar as political parties, just as they are both gears in a car in his analogy. In their dissimilarity, they are polar opposites when it comes to their political beliefs and agendas. Because they are so opposite in values, this analogy does nothing more than to state the obvious, that Democrats and Republicans don't get along.
Argument: cats are not better than dogs
Argument 1: Dogs are better than cats because of their ability to detect health problems in humans. A recent study by the MACH Foundation showed that dogs can detect cancer from breath samples with an accuracy "between 88% and 97%". The study was published in an article in the journal Integrative Cancer Therapies.
Argument 2: Dogs are better than cats because they protect and save their owners. According to information from the Associated Press that was published on msnbc.com, dogs have used their intellect and instinct to save their owners from injury and death. One specific article mentions a dog that dialed 911 when its owner fell.
Exercise 4
President Obama recently compared America to a car, saying that the "D" for drive in a car represents the Democrats, and the "R" for reverse represents the Republicans. He made this argument to say that the Republicans are holding back progress and beneficial policies that the Democrats are attempting to get through Congress.
Test: The two sides are similar as political parties, just as they are both gears in a car in his analogy. In their dissimilarity, they are polar opposites when it comes to their political beliefs and agendas. Because they are so opposite in values, this analogy does nothing more than to state the obvious, that Democrats and Republicans don't get along.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Use of ethos, pathos and logos in Obama's speech on the end of the war in Iraq
President Obama on end of Iraq War
Ethos
Constantly looking at audience, shows confidence and personal interaction
Carefully chooses words, sits calmly, shows poise and calmness
Speaks confidently, makes you believe he has a plan that will work
Pathos
Connects with those related to military members with talk about their service, completion of missions, sacrifices that were made
For those who worry about how Iraq will survive, he assures the audience that we will continue to cooperate with them and help them
Logos
Talks about how times have changed, it is logical that our combat strategy should as well
Has a plan to remove many troops, but to keep some there to ensure Iraqi progress and safety, we don’t simply leave the Iraqi people alone
Mentions that attacks are significantly lower, elections that drew large turnouts, shows that Iraq is slowly developing and the situation is improving
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Five Syllogisms
Major premise: People can drink liquids.
Minor premise: Gatorade is a liquid.
Conclusion: People can drink Gatorade.
Major premise: I can wear clothing.
Minor premise: A shirt is clothing.
Conclusion: I can wear shirts.
Major premise: Fish need water to survive.
Minor premise: Nemo is a fish.
Conclusion: Nemo needs water to survive.
Major premise: Rubber does not conduct electricity.
Minor premise: Shoe soles are made of rubber.
Conclusion: Shoe soles do not conduct electricity.
Major premise: Exercise releases endorphins.
Minor premise: Running is a form of exercise.
Conclusion: Running releases endorphins.
Minor premise: Gatorade is a liquid.
Conclusion: People can drink Gatorade.
Major premise: I can wear clothing.
Minor premise: A shirt is clothing.
Conclusion: I can wear shirts.
Major premise: Fish need water to survive.
Minor premise: Nemo is a fish.
Conclusion: Nemo needs water to survive.
Major premise: Rubber does not conduct electricity.
Minor premise: Shoe soles are made of rubber.
Conclusion: Shoe soles do not conduct electricity.
Major premise: Exercise releases endorphins.
Minor premise: Running is a form of exercise.
Conclusion: Running releases endorphins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)