Furman Engaged

Furman Engaged was interesting, I suppose. I'd say it was pretty much what I was expecting, but then I really wasn't expecting much of anything. People had been mentioning it for a while, and most teachers included it in the syllabus-schedule. Still, I don't think anyone ever bothered to explain in depth what it was, so I actually had no clue leading into it. All I knew was that there was no class, and who could object to that?

I'd heard from a few friends that they were going to be giving presentations, and I also came across a couple that I hadn't expected to see—including my good friend Jocelyn, a sustainability/biology major, who was showing off her research on urban gardens. She explained to me the variety of reasons why urban gardens were important, and how she had looked at their distribution throughout the Greenville area using GoogleMaps data. Basically, with data from a few year span she sought to determine what factors led to the survival of an urban garden, in hopes that this information could then be used to plan future gardening initiatives. Apparently they were still analyzing their data or something, so they only had preliminary sort of findings to show. It was shown that gardens next to schools are significantly more likely to survive, and those next to churches even more so, suggesting the important of community engagement.

I also stopped by a couple other presenters. One girl who I listened to for awhile had been a part of a study that looked at prospective memory and the effect of multitasking on spontaneous retrieval. It's hard to recall exactly, but there was something about a deep semantic task and a shallow semantic task, and there was a processing theory and a threshold theory, and there was particular focus paid to the differences between younger and older adults. It was pretty interesting, and I was actually quite impressed with how official it all seemed; they had a surprisingly high sample size for the experiments, both of old and young participants.

Truth be told, the highlight of the day was probably going to the International Food Festival in Watkins. On top of getting to talk with some good friends (and briefly trying to make eye-contact across the room with Dr. Shane Herron), I got to eat lots of delicious food. Several of the cooking groups didn't have their food all out and ready right off the bat, so the appearance of dishes was actually a pretty gradual one—I had to keep going back as new things appeared. In the end I'm sure I tried everything, from the Korean to the Chinese to the Japanese to the Indian to the Mexican to the Russian, and probably ate more of it than anyone else. Not that I didn't somewhat earn this though, by driving some FUISA members to Publix the day before to buy ingredients.

It's all Greek to me

I think I should probably admit right of the bat that, frankly, I have absolutely no interest in the Greek system. At all. I didn't feel any desire to join a fraternity and I don't really have any desire to talk about them now. As a target for ridicule, Greek life is a bit stale; chastising them is too obvious. Why bother to waste your breathe making an argument that makes itself? Well, that's part of it. Also, in all honestly, I may not know enough to make any definitive judgments. All those letters people are always throwing around sound like some kind of foreign language. I'm pretty sure (though not positive) that the number of sororities and fraternities on campus could be counted on two hands; even still, I couldn't name half of them. Still, I guess I know a little bit... and since when does blogging demand anything more than that?

Fraternities are what they are. Surely everyone knows this. There really isn't all that much to be confused about, and we shouldn't suddenly act surprised whenever we hear about a hazing incident or come across some sign of group conformity and close-mindedness. Any kind of close-knit group is going to encouragement group mentality, especially when its set up as this exclusive brotherhood with its traditions and rituals. Brady is right, of course, to suggest that people will inevitably fall into this very Orwellian state of mindless "groupthink." And to some extent this is alright; usually it's all pretty benign and no one has to get particularly hurt. People are giving up part of their individuality--and, yes, some of their money--when they join a fraternity, but we all barter those things away on a daily basis. No one is immune to social pressure or free from the influence of others. But unless things are reaching a very dark, cultish level of zombie-obedience I think it'll be fine. I permit frat bros and sorority girls to go right on ahead doing what they're doing, including going through a thoroughly miserable pledge process. They have that right. They also have the right to be racist and sexist and homophobic and whatever else. So long as they realize they're living in an age of increased consequences, where ever is keeping a wary eye on them.

P.S. I would just say that if the worst thing about rushing is having to stay up until 2 in the morning, I don't see what all the fuss is about. That's earlier than I normally go sleep. Six hours of sleep may not be all that great but it's more than enough to be able to function like a normal person...

Racism

As someone from South Carolina, which is nearly 30% black, it's hard to imagine being from a state that is 97% white. Then again, I don't suppose the size of a racial minority says too much about the inclusivity it will find. In fact, greater numbers can probably impede assimilation to the whole and led to the formation of a separate community. Honestly, I think it's fair to say that most white and black South Carolinians interact primarily with white and black persons, respectively. Is this such a bad thing? Well... maybe it's not a good thing. I mean, personally I enjoy hanging out with international or non-white American friends.  I think it's good to get outside your comfort zone and challenge your world views and have meaningful interactions with those from different backgrounds. But I'm not out to force some diversity on everyone's interpersonal relationships. People may naturally tend to drift towards those they consider most similar, and who am I to try and tell everyone they can't have their best friends and significant others be of the same ethnicity?

On the topic of the n-word, I'm not sure how much I have to say. It's one of those arguments that's been going on for so long and has so often devolved into such nonsense that I've become pretty apathetic towards it. On one hand, a single word can only have as much power as you choose to give it--I think that's the whole idea of re-appropriating the word. Of course that doesn't mean there aren't certain words you should be sensitive enough to avoid using, sure, and it's not illegitimate to be upset by the use of hateful language. But the whole "nigga" versus "nigger" distinction is so vague and pointless to me; all that's changed is the pronunciation. AAVE is largely non-rhotic, so the difference isn't more significant than between "better" and "betta", or "after" and "afta."

And as our good friend Huey (in reference to a controversy surrounding the n-word) wonders above: when making these arbitrary standards, who really gets to decide when a word is and isn't acceptable to use? Who gets that right? How can you tell people they can't use a word because it offends you, while you continue to use it in spite of other black people  (i.e. Oprah, the NAACP) having made it perfectly clear they find the word just as despicable when you use it? How is that fair or logical? That being said, I don't understand, nor will I ever understand, the white people who feel personally victimized by the fact that they don't "get" to say the word. Is the status-quo hypocritical? Sure. Is not being able to address random black guys on the street as "nigga" impairing your quality of life? Probably not. So get over it.

As for the whole SAE video... yeah, sadly there's really nothing shocking about it. It's pretty damn racist, but nothing new when it comes to southern fraternities. It's probably only fair to acknowledge that none of these boys, in all likelihood, endorse lynching. Not saying much, I know. It isn't an excuse to say they're normal college guys being idiots, falling into mob mentality, thoughtlessly singing a racist chant that seems relatively harmless within the particularly insulating community of which they're a part. They should face consequences for their actions, starting with the ridicule of their peers and the national fraternity. A public university expelling the students may a little troubling in terms of freedom of speech, but we can always ignore those wider implications for the sake of conveniency. 

Probably about time to abort this conversation

We've talked about a lot of controversial topics and talked a lot about "controversial topics," but I think abortion might still be the most controversial thing out there. It also tends to spawn some of the least productive conversations. You can occasionally alter someone's opinion on gun control policy or immigration laws, and maybe even berate them into admitting they don't have a good reason to oppose gay marriage. Changing someone's opinion on abortion? Forget about it. I told Daniel I thought he did a good job handing the topic, and I think the class actually managed to keep things surprisingly civil. But I don't think anyone did any big 180's.

Probably a lot of it has to due with simply irreconcilable feelings about sexuality. Some people hold very stigmatized views of sex and don't want anyone doing it for fun; anyone who breaks their rules of what constitutes "proper conduct" needs to be shamed for their licentiousness. Most people aren't so extreme about it, but I don't think we can fail to acknowledge that this stigmatization underlies this entire debate in a big way. Any talk of women facing the consequences of their actions tends to be laced with slut-shaming judgment.

There's also the partially distinct matter of opposing ideas over how to conceptualize a newly conceived embryo; some say its a life, some say it isn't (yet). It's all very subjective... But at the very least, I don't think you can claim it's alive in the same sense as you or me. It doesn't truly have consciousness until birth, and hasn't even formed much of a brain by the time an abortion would likely be occurring. We should probably stop going overboard with the anthropomorphizing

As I said (twice, somehow?) in my comment on Tucker blog: Personally, I feel like this discussion of what the child would want, while well-intended, is a bit absurd in all its abstractness. We're talking about the retrospective will of a theoretical person that doesn't even exist and may never exist. Of course most currently living people aren't going to wish they were never born, regardless of the adversity they may have faced. But that's a big different than this, which is essentially a debate over the desires of an imaginary individual.

With all the suffering in the world, do we really have time to be worrying about imaginary individuals? Yes, sure, every time a women gets an abortion that's a child that could have been. It's a potential child. But every time a guy and a girl are in a room together there's a potential child about nine months out on the horizon; are they murdering a child if they don't do it right then and there, in whatever space available?  Every time a woman's ovaries release an egg she could be making a baby; is that baby's blood on her hands when she's ovulating and doesn't take the opportunity to have unprotected sex? Are condoms actually the most lethal weapon man has ever created?

Look, babies are all good and fine, but I'm skeptical of the suggestion that we share a moral responsibility to create as many of them as possible. Putting aside the technical difficulties of maximizing productivity, I don't know what we'd do with them once we had them. The planet is already passing carrying capacity, particularly given our consumption patterns, and I'm not sure as a nation we're prepared to properly support these millions of people some want to force into existence. We already neglect a lot of the ones we do have. I don't know... Honestly, sometimes it seems that those most interested in life prior to birth are not nearly as concerned as they could be with helping actual, living, breathing human beings with feelings and consciousness.

I won't pretend I like abortions--they aren't fun and cheery. But they serve a legitimate function and I don't think we should be trying to limit access to them.

Interesting Education

I'm not really sure what to say on the idea of making sure teachers are more interesting. While I agree with Isaac on the big impact that feeling engaged and having a good relationship with the teacher can have on a student's learning, I don't really know that teachers need to be particularly exciting. I mean it may be a nice bonus if a teacher has an especially friendly and energetic disposition― I think we've probably all had at least one ancient math teacher devoid of all humor and emotion, and it does makes 5th period pretty dry. But I don't think being fun necessarily means being a good teacher, or vis versa. The pretty much universally acknowledged "coolest" teacher at my high school didn't teach her students a thing; her class was a joke. If she weren't funny and you weren't happy to be having no homework, you'd probably question where your tax dollars were going.

Anyway, "personality" is too vague and arbitrary to be used as a criterion for hiring teachers, much less firing them. Every teacher, just like anyone else, is going to seem likable to some people and not others. The most important thing is simply that they know the material and are willing to work with students..

I do think that today's education system isn't as conducive to creativity as it could be. Basics like literacy and arithmetic aside, it may not be a bad idea to allow kids more freedom in pursuing their personal educational interests, or at least more intellectual freedom with the way they're working and the pace. We shouldn't throw all standards out the window, nor do I think we can really do away with tests (despite what some people may say), but there could be room for more flexibility and specialization. I'll leave the exact plan of action to someone else. Obviously we have a compelling interest in having kids who have a reasonable foundation in scientific ideas, and learning to read and write is  fairly essential to living as a full member of society. Kids may not like it, but then few students are ever going to report to liking schoolwork―not even your valedictorians and salutatorians, most likely.

You can bend over backwards trying to get kids to learn, but ultimately the ball is in their court. And really, I'm not sure classwork is supposed to be entirely enjoyable at all times. We've talked about schools teaching kids relevant life skills, and learning to meet your responsibilities and do things you don't necessarily want to be doing is as important as anything. Life is full of boring or bothersome things that you have to do; kids need to learn to suck it up and improve their outlook. After all, to a large extent things will be as interesting as you choose to make them be.

To Spank or Not to Spank

So, corporal punishment. Or, maybe more specifically, spanking. It’s not actually something I feel so strongly on, just because I don't think it's going to have a big impact on a kid either way—assuming it doesn’t reach the level of serious abuse (whatever that means). So long as there aren’t any bruises, and it’s used sparingly, and there’s plenty of “You know I don’t want to do this, but here’s why I have to…” talk, then whatever. I recognize that there really is a distinction to be made between spanking your child and actually beating them, though I would still say I’m against the use of physical punishment in general. Obviously Hana and her brothers weren’t traumatized from occasionally being spanked, nor were Daniel or RJ, nor were my siblings and I, but did it really have such a positive effect? Not likely, I don’t think. Maybe with younger kids, in the short term, spanking can keep them from doing a particular thing. But I don’t buy that it has any lasting effect on moral character or one’s respect for authority. Having the threat of being spanked didn’t make me more respectful. If anything it made me more belligerent, as I was offended by how belittling and pointless it was. Plus it almost makes it more of a personal challenge to push the envelope and see what you can get away with. Really, it would be more effective to just level with the kid and explain to them why something is wrong or right. You can’t hope to get respect from someone if you can’t show them any, even if they’re not an adult.

Still, I’m not about to make it my mission to stop people from spanking they’re kids if they so choose; if it makes you feel better as a parent, go for it. I’m just surprised that Daniel was ever paddled in public school—even in Alabama! I wonder how prevalent it is nowadays. Apparently it’s legal in the state of South Carolina as well, though I’ve never heard of it happening. It may vary by school district, but I’m sure it used to happen way back when. Looks like it's on its way out.

再来年日本の大学に留学したい。（でも、いつかイギリスに行きます）

I would agree with Kat on studying abroad being a great opportunity that everyone should pursue, assuming there isn’t some personal complication making it unfeasible. Rarely will there ever be as ready a chance, with so many options, as when you’re in university. I mean, hey, why not? The prospect of getting to travel to and live in another country seems so amazing that I shouldn’t even have to bother selling it; being able to travel across the seas, meet new people, learn new language, try new foods, experience all sorts of culture and history you’d never find at home… Truth be told, as a white, nth generation American where n is too high a number to call to mind, it’s easy to feel as though I don’t even have much of a culture, that the United States is this modern, consumeristic, assimilating global power absent of genuine culture of its own. This widely (if vaguely) held assessment maybe isn’t quite fair, but even putting aside the age of buildings or numbers of historical artifacts, there is something inherently different about the sense of shared culture and identity you’ll find in many of the more nation-state-like countries of the world—varying in degree and precise character, of course, between each of them.

Personally, I never had any doubt that I’d study away as a college student, even as far back as elementary school. As someone who spent the better part of their childhood wishing they were British, I think I generally assumed the UK would be my destination—maybe Oxford or Cambridge or Edinburgh, if Hogwarts was off the table. I guess partially it was an ancestral decent thing, but mostly I think it was a matter of shared language and all the British books, music, TV shows and movies I loved. Perhaps the idea of me learning another language seemed too far-fetched. Later I started giving more consideration to other countries, namely in Western Europe, where I could always get by with English as I work on my German or French or Dutch or Swedish. There’s no shortage of places I’d like to go; the problem is picking one. Well, that was the problem anyway. Now I’m pretty sure that I want to spend my junior year at Waseda University, in Tokyo. 

This plan would probably come as a surprise to the me of a year or two ago, who despite some interest in Japan had never placed it foremost on the list of places I wanted to go. But I chose Furman and got to go on a free, two-week trip to Japan, which was awesome, and now I may even be getting a major in Japanese Studies. So given that, and that I really want to reach a high level of foreign language fluency, this particular exchange program is hard to pass by. An entire year in the world’s largest city, at one of the nation’s most prestigious universities, with plenty of time-off to interact with locals and explore the rest of the country—maybe even take a trip to Korea. Plus one of my best friends (who’s half-Japanese) wants to go, so I’ll have benefit of having a familiar face who’s already pretty proficient. Though with only two spots available let’s hope we don’t face too much competition.

I can’t say I see myself ever moving to Japan permanently. It’s a friendly place for gaijin (foreigners), especially Americans, but not exactly known for readily accepting immigrants as full members of society. If I end up an expat it’ll still probably be somewhere in Great Britain, as I’ve always wanted. And I haven’t given up my dream of properly traveling Europe!

Who ever accused money of having good taste?

I wouldn't go so far as to say I dislike sports, even when I'm not participating in any way. I'm pretty faithful with the big events, your Olympics and World Cups and the like, and I've practically been to every home USC home game during my lifetime. Still, as someone who has never been anything resembling an avid fan, I'm as baffled as anyone when it comes to the huge amount of money that flows endlessly into the sporting world. Assuming they haven't cured cancer or solved world hunger, does a football or basketball player really deserve $30 million? Is that even remotely fair? 

Well, maybe not. Then again, look how much money we as a society have given to the Kardashians or Justin Bieber or the people on Jersey Shore. Or Stephanie Meyers—objectively, I think it's hard to argue that writing four lowbrow vampire novels should earn someone upwards of $100 million. But hey, if you the consumers are willing to spend that much on these things, more power to you. That's capitalism! The power to make wholly unremarkable people appallingly wealthy in return for whatever inane entertainment they (or the corporate puppetmasters being them) are peddling. Making millions upon millions to participate in a seemingly fun pastime may appear unfair to those who have to show up to work every day—to those in the military or civil service, to scientists or teachers—but a point Jack noted should be some consolation: their careers will be over soon and they'll have blown through all their money in a flash.

Really though, it's not like we've ever striven for complete fairness in the way we compensate people. Supply and demand can look illogical. You don't get paid based on how kind you are or how intelligent you are, or even by how much good you do for others. There's definitely no perfect correlation between salary and level of effort put in.

If we're going to go back to the sports topic, just look at college athletes. A star college football player has to put in as much work as an NFL player and can generate just as much revenue and excitement from fans. This on top of having to keep up the "student-athlete" pretense, and yet they aren't paid anything at all. Personally, I don't think the amount of money in professional sports is half as troubling as the amount in the NCAA. And yet somehow with their billion-dollar profit they receive tax exemptions as a non-profit organization.

Greek Drama

In perhaps the epitome of that "interest in a boring topic" thing we've discussed, I actually find the whole Eurozone crisis to be pretty interesting. It's probably attached to a more general interest in the EU, and Europe itself for that matter, but the problems and negotiations that come with having a currency union certainly bring no shortage of political complexity. And what’s more complex than the ongoing mess that is Greece? No doubt you’ve seen plenty of mention of it in the headlines.

To make a long story short(er): five years ago in the midst of the big financial crisis, the struggling Greek economy was bailed out by the so-called ‘Troika’ (comprised of the Eurozone countries, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund) in a deal worth €240 billion, or about $320 billion. Creditors were also forced to accept a ‘haircut’ of about €100 billion, loosing more than half the face value on all Greek government bonds, on top of lowered interest rates and extended maturity dates.  As a condition of this bailout, strict austerity measures were agreed upon, with Greece essentially agreeing to slash spending and be generally less wasteful. For a number of reasons, things are still a long way from fixed.

Tax evasion has long been a big problem, one that European leaders and the IMF have very clearly told Greece that it needs to address. Almost the entire country seems to share in a fierce aversion to paying the government what they're supposed to. And, unlike in most of the West, little stigma exists around this evasion—something that stems in part from the centuries of Ottoman occupation. According to Aristides Hatzis, professor of law and economics at the University of Athens, "Greeks consider taxes as theft." As he puts it, "Normally taxes are considered the price you have to pay for a just state, but this is not accepted in the Greek mentality." A government can't possibly sustain itself when employers, employees, and consumers are engaged in a culture of collective avoidance of income and consumption taxes whenever possible, without fear of being audited. Add to this the fact that Greece has long spent beyond its means, with its bloated, overpaid public sector, its low retirement age, its generous benefits, and its extensive social programs—to say nothing of massive corruption—and it isn’t difficult to see how it ended up where it has.

More than half a decade since the 2008 crisis, Greece has still yet to the see the signs of economic recovery that most of Europe has—even its fellow basket cases like Spain, Portugal, and Ireland have had some improvement. Its unemployment rate is still higher than 25%, and youth unemployment is upwards of 50%. The forced austerity policies, though considered fair and reasonable “tough love” by the German, are widely hated in Greece as cruel and abusive. The rise of Syriza, the anti-austerity, anti-establishment party that took power in January, with Marxist finance minster Yani Varoufakis, has caused plenty of nervousness in global markets. (Its name might be enough make some uneasy, “Syriza” being an acronym for “Coalition of the Radical Left.”) They won’t soon be taking down the much-derided ‘Troika’ or ending austerity or securing a large debt write-off, despite what they claimed while campaigning, but EU exasperation may let them get further than their predecessors.

The bailout agreement was due to expire on 28 of February, but Greece managed to secure a four-month loan extension last week. In return for the loans, Greece said it would commit to a list of new reforms, including a crackdown on tax evasion, and fuel and tobacco smuggling. It also said it would hold off on plans to implement minimum wage increases. The European Commission has approved this agreement, but now individual states must accept it. What happens if the deal fails?

Well, while Greece's government still has enough to get by for a few more months, its banking system is on the brink of collapse, especially with wealthy Greeks abandoning ship and trying to pull all their money out of the country's banks. More than 18 billion euros have already poured out of Greek banks since December. Failure to agree to a deal could even lead to a Greek exit from the Eurozone--the so-called 'Grexit.' From what I've read, Angela Merkel's camp maintains that Europe now has sufficient defenses in place to let Greece fall out of the Euro-bloc, but at this point the potential repercussions are enough to make both sides think twice. The Bundestag will likely agree to the deal, as will others, but no doubt Germany’s patience is wearing thin from all the inconsistency and posturing. Apparently Varoufakis and Schäuble, his German counterpart, can hardly stand to be in the same room. Earlier in the week, before consensus had been reached, Mr. Varoufakis was calling the EU's offers "absurd" and criticizing their vague, "nebulous promises" concerning flexibility. Immediately after the extension was signed he was back to demanding that a chunk of the debt be written off. The intemperate tone he and Syriza maintain won’t win any friends in the international community. Then again, I suppose that isn’t exactly their first priority.

Frankly, Greece should never have been let into the Eurozone to begin with; their deficit and GDP to debt ratio never met the standards required for entry. That’s an opinion that many, including Merkel, have made quite clear. It was a foolish oversight made possible by naïve sentiments of Greece as the birthplace of Western civilization and democracy, and by the intentional falsification of financial information. Greece was sick man of Europe then and they still are. And with the stipulations of the bailout they accepted, combined with the fact that they don’t have their own currency that they can independently control, largely ties their hands in initiating the sorts of policies they may want to.

This approval from the Eurozone nations may be the first step in allowing Greece to get its act together—it gives them more time, and staves off the threat of a default—but it certainly won’t solve the huge economic problems facing the Mediterranean nation. Unsurprisingly, it seems to fall a great ways short of meeting the many promises Syriza made. From what I heard on the BBC World Service, the people asked on the streets of Athens seemed to be withholding judgment for the time being, still hoping the new leaders can make good and bring some much-needed relief. The Grexit has been avoided, at least for now, but whether or not the cradle of Western civilization is going to be back on its feet anytime soon is anyone’s guess.

(I’m not really sure how many centuries it’s been since it was properly on its feet…)

Admitting Uncertainty

So, false accusations of rape… It’s a delicate issue to cover. One that can easily become distorted into some vague, emotionally charged battle between two opposing, preconceived judgments: the man is a rapist, or the woman is a vicious liar. As a society, which should we be defaulting to? I guess the easiest thing would just be to fall back on that classic mantra of, “Hey, innocent until proven guilty!” That’s American Judicial System101, but still, it does give me reason for pause. While it may sound like a good policy, and is certain preferable to “guilty until proven innocent,” it isn’t difficult to imagine the insidious consequences that comes with it. Certainly you could argue it contributes to the general skepticism and animosity towards women who report being raped; it’s black and white, he either raped her or he didn’t, and if she can’t clearly prove it we should default to considering her a lying, attention-seeking slut. Or possibly crazy. 

Obviously we shouldn’t presume guilt. To suggest we ought to convict people of crimes without having proof would be absurd. The problem, however, with me saying that we should assume all accused rapers are innocent until indisputably proven otherwise is that in doing so we’re inadvertently calling the other side—the women—liars. And unfortunately, concrete evidence is often unobtainable, regardless of whether or not someone was raped. This is a large part of what causes so many victims to not come forward: the fear of being put unofficially on-trial themselves, of being attacked and scrutinized and unable to prove their innocence. With the historical track record in mind, and the unequal power dynamics that still underly sexual relations between males and females, is it any wonder that many people will rush so quickly (albeit blindly) to the side of the woman? Inevitably, these people will want to hastily sweep aside cases of false accusation out of fear that they’ll be taken as some sort of norm, an excuse to trivialize rape or reinforce misogynistic views of women. It might be a good move for women’s rights at large, but on the individual level it’s hard to justify the throwing of innocent men under the bus for a greater socio-political cause. Neither option looks great in this dichotomy of guilty v. innocent.

It might be valuable to look to Scotland, briefly. Scottish courts have long been in the practice of handing out three potential verdicts—even back in the time of our good friends Adam Smith and David Hume. Unlike in the US, they distinguish between those who are guilty, those who are innocent, and those who are not proven either. The legal consequences of “innocent” and “not proven” may be the same, given that in both cases the defendant is acquitted, but in principle it’s an important distinction. Defendants aren’t assumed guilty or innocent when they come in, and there’s no need to default to one of these loaded options when reasonable doubt remains. If a court is to conclusively declare “not guilty” they ought to have evidence to support that, particularly in cases where they're simultaneously declaring the guiltiness of the one that brought the charges.

Thus, rather than a presumption of innocence, perhaps a presumption of potential innocence would be better. The important thing is that we give everyone an equal chance to make their case, and listen fairly instead of jumping to knee-jerk conclusions. And also realizing that we don’t have to make a definitive judgment when we really have no way of knowing.

The Right to Life: inalienable or not?

If you’ve turned on the news in the past couple weeks, you’ve probably seen something about ISIS, who’ve been even busier than usual creating videos that make demands and show the gruesome murders of foreign hostages: first Haruna Yukawa, then his Japanese countryman Kenji Goto, and now Jordanian pilot Moath al-Kassasbeh—the first soldier from the US-led coalition to die. There’d been a lot of back-and-forth negotiations and threats going on, with Jordan threatening to swiftly execute all prisoners affiliated with ISIS if Kassabeh wasn’t released. When he wasn’t, and when a video was released Tuesday showing him burning alive, Jordan quickly followed through by killing two prominent jihadists. Seeing as even al-Qaeda leaders have criticized their “barbaric propaganda,” I don’t think I need to devote this blog post to denouncing ISIS. A better starting point for interesting questions, I think, is with Jordan’s response.

It’s hard to feel particularly saddened by the death of two long-since-convicted terrorists. This may point to a troubling desensitization to the loss of human life, but then plenty of people are killed daily in the Middle East, and many die at the hands of such violent extremists. I wouldn’t really say I’m surprised towards Jordan’s actions, much less resentful. The death of Kassabeh can’t be equated to those of Ziad al-Karbouli and Sajida al-Rishawi, the latter two having sat for quite some time on death row after being convicted by Jordan, a sovereign state—plus, you know, they weren’t burned alive on camera for the sake of internet spectacle. Still, it’s hard not to see some parallel when their deaths were a direct result of his, following immediately. What was Jordan doing if not trying to send a message and intimidate its foes? There’s something at least slightly off-putting about a nation being so willing to manipulate its judicial system in sudden retaliation against a terrorist organization like ISIS. What does trying to meet them in their merciless action accomplish? I doubt fear of execution will do much to prevent terrorism. Rishawi is only alive because her explosive-filled vest didn’t detonate properly.

Capital punishment isn’t something that I think much about, but it is worth considering. They say you can judge a society on the way it treats its prisoners, so... take that to its obvious conclusion. Carrying out the death penalty is clearly an act of vengeful violence, albeit government-sanctioned violence. By its very definition it is legal, so we can’t call it murder, and in theory it occurs only with good reason. But what end does it serve? A recent study from the University of Colorado found little evidence of the death penalty doing much to deter crime; the study found that more than 88% of the near 70 criminologists surveyed agreed with its lack of effectiveness. No apparent correlation suggests a link with lower crime rates. Just looking at the US (since comparing Sweden and Sudan might be unfair), decades of data show states without the death penalty having lower murder rates. But hey, maybe employing the death penalty isn’t strictly about preventing future crimes from occurring. Maybe, instead of practical concerns, it’s about the principle and people getting what they deserve. The answer to that, of course, would be that the right to life is the most basic of all human rights, and human rights by definition are supposed to be inalienable; they aren’t given and they can’t be taken away; we all have them by virtue of our humanity.

When it comes to the philosophical question of whether or not capital punishment is acceptable under any circumstances, I don’t know that I have a strong opinion either way. Despite all the reasons against it, there’s still a primal sense of “Come on, some people deserve it.” If I had to pick a side, I think it would probably come down on the same one as all of Europe, Canada, Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, etc. No offense to fine folks like China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Syria, Somalia, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, or Sudan. You guys do you.    

To be (right and/or left) or not to be...

Youth culture in America is inherently more on the liberal side. This feels so obvious, and so undisputed, that there’s little need to offer evidence or examples. I think we all know at least a handful of raging secularist liberals who’s parents are a part of the religious right, but how often do progressive atheists end up with a little bible-wielding conservative? Personally, I don’t know of any cases. Still, it may be a bit of an exaggeration to make young Republicans out to be some kind of endangered species. The country may be shifting steadily towards the left, at least on many issues (see: gay marriage), and the 18-29 voters have consistently cast their ballots for Democratic candidates over the past decade. But clearly more than a handful of people in this category are voting Republican: in 2012 it was 37%, and in 2014 it was 43% (not to make too much of the rise; it isn’t surprising, given the typical midterm blues of a second-term President).

I think it would have been interesting if John had described a bit more clearly in his post where he falls on social issues, since there was almost a hint of apology for the religion-based, moralistic social policies. The implication seemed to be that youth siding with Democrats do so solely on the basis of social policies, in spite of the party’s economic policy, while people who realize the economy is important know to set these matters aside; same opinions, different priority. The logical extension of this argument seems to be that Republicans don’t necessarily agree with the party’s own social positions, and are just swallowing the anti-immigration, anti-climate anti-choice, anti-gay pill for the sake of our financial security. I’m not sure either side would find this portrait flattering, or particularly accurate.

Anyway, the idea that the right is better suited to handle money, and that the left is too emotional in all its idealism and compassion to be trusted with the keys to the economy, seems to be a perception founded on the most lazily simplified of rhetoric. The only four years of government surplus in the past forty-five years were all under Bill Clinton, and the notion that Barack Obama’s tenure has been an economic disaster isn’t based much on fact. Unemployment is below what it was when Obama took office, GDP is growing at a good rate, the stock market is at record heights, and on the whole the United States did a much better job at recovering after the 2008’s recession than most countries. The negative economic narrative seems so deeply ingrained in the public conscious that most people don’t stop to question it, even a large portion of Democrats. And Obama, for whatever reason, hasn’t shown much willingness to stand up and explain to America why he’s doing a better job than people give him credit for. I think he considers it beneath him… Of course, I’m sure there are fair and reasonable criticisms to be made of him, but sadly I’ve seen very few people take the time to make them.

You know, I’d be curious, actually, to see some comprehensive data on where Furman’s student body falls on the political spectrum. I’d agree that the right probably constitutes a majority at Furman (maybe not so much amongst the faculty), and the atmosphere certainly seems more conservative than at the average liberal-arts college. But I don’t know. The school might be more diverse than people give it credit for, and even among the general conservative camp the traditional values don’t run so deep.

The problem in judging, of course, is how vague, varied, and overlapping ideas of “conservative” and “liberal” can be, to the extent that it’s hard to know if we should put a great deal stock in them—even within this post I’m not sure that I’ve kept my usage consistent. If we could survey each and every student to discover which of the two terms they preferred, it might not tell us much about the specific beliefs they held on various topics. For a lot of people who choose one of these sides maybe intellectual reasons aren’t so important; it’s a social and cultural identity as much as anything else, and they’ve decided it feels right. So good luck reasoning them out of it.

P.S. Apparently Obama won Furman's informal student polls in both 2008 and 2012—take that for what it’s worth.