goskers95 - Tumblr blog

[goskers95]

Sparked again by the footage of George Floyd pleading for his life below the knee of a white Minnesota police office, Derek Chauvin, the #BlackLivesMatter movement has inspired many Americans to view the plight of their black neighbors. But, BLM supporters are not solely concerned with bringing about awareness of unlawful killings of innocent black Americans by police. BLM is focused on dismantling the biased police system of the United States that has been gifted military-grade equipment and riot gear. Gear that has been used to wage violence at legal peaceful protests resulting in Americans exercising their freedom of speech ending up on the pavement with blood gushing from their ears, rubber bullets lodged into their eye sockets, and the electricity of a taser paralyzing their bodies for simply driving a car. Some police departments have reprimanded their officers, but suspending them without pay or firing them is simply opening a spot for the next “hero” to step in to “protect and serve.” Social media sites like Twitter and Facebook show thousands of videos of police instigating violence, but mayors and chiefs of police rarely condemn entire units of police and instead only punish the officers whose badge numbers and names can be spread by social media users. For decades, police departments have hired recruits without any system for evaluating any affiliations with hate groups. PBS reported 4 years ago that the FBI has reported for over a decade that there is a serious lack of any process for gathering evidence about racial bias in recruits (source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement). Yes, understanding the daily struggles of black Americans is the first step to creating a more perfect union. But a police force that upholds a system that was never meant to protect black Americans will always be a tool for maintaining racial inequality.

[goskers95]

Thirty-one years ago this year, the Chinese Communist party forcibly suppressed pro-democracy protests being conducted by Chinese young adults. The climax of the suppression came on June 5th, 1989, when the “Tank Man”, a Chinese protester, blocked a procession of Chinese Army tanks in Tienanmen Square, Beijing. This event was captured on film and smuggled out of China bringing awareness to the world of the intensity of Chinese Communist force being used against its own people. After experiencing months-long protests in opposition to new Communist party security measures, Hong Kong has recently made it illegal to mock the Chinese national anthem--an offense that could land an offender in jail for up to three years. Despite restrictions, Hong Kong protesters have continued to gather in large numbers to voice their discontent with the Chinese government’s attempts to reel in the province. Having lived in the US all my life, it is impossible to imagine the American government successfully suppressing freedom of speech against its national anthem without widespread condemnation from all Americans. Yet, if I were vacationing in China right now, I would not have to be told twice to not disrespect the government for fear of repercussions. Why is that I would abandon my beliefs to fight for freedom of speech as soon as I leave America’s borders? Are my beliefs true, or are they only true because I have certainty that I won’t be prosecuted for professing them?   

[goskers95]

Since May 15th, Brazil, Russia, Britain, and the United States have had the highest numbers of coronavirus cases among the largest countries in the world. David Leonhardt and Lauren Leatherby note that each country is lead by the same style of leader: a male “radical right illiberal populist.” These countries’ leaders all use country-first rhetoric that disregards the findings and pressures of medical experts and scientists. For example, President Trump’s reasoning for not imposing harsher quarantine restrictions centered around supporting the U.S. economy, but economic experts have argued that controlling the virus is the best course of action. These leaders proclaim to be voices for the people and in Trump’s case, to be the figurehead for making our country “great again.” If they are champions for their countries, then why would they ignore scientific information that is for the benefit for everyone? If they are in a position of power that is given authority by the people it governs, then how could not doing everything in your power for those people be seen as a good thing? In many ways the virus has been the ultimate test for a government’s ability to care for its vulnerable and the United States has failed. 

[goskers95]

This is a very interesting case of the exercise of free speech as it involves the use of an individual exercising criticism of the government using personal property. However, it also involves the use of a religious entity voicing opinion on politics which many would say is the violation of separation of church and state. I wonder how members of the congregation feel and whether anyone feels misrepresented by the pastor’s words. While I would feel totally misrepresented, I do agree that the pastor exercised their freedom of speech. As far as the church holding services while practicing social distancing, I see no problem with the reopening of the church as far as it adheres to guidelines since many people feel it vital to their exercise of religion to attend.

Recently, controversy was sparked by a Virginia Church’s message board that read “Rev. 14:17 Gov Northam Son of Anti Christ”. I am deeply bothered by the use of this message board, and I can see why man would find it offensive. Nevertheless, as much I believe that communities should strive to encourage others and provide hope in this time of crisis, it was within the Pastor’s right to post the message on the Church board. Since it was on the property of the Church and not something like a privately owned social media account (which would have the right to take the post take in the site wished to), this is still an expression of free speech. Moreover, the message is not inciting violence.

Another level of controversy is occurring because the church also held a service during lockdown orders. The pastor argued that shutting churches down that can still operate under guidelines is a violation of free speech and right to practice his religion, citing the first amendment as his defense. On the other side, some think that this is unnecessary risk during the time of pandemic and a flagrant violation of the governor’s orders, saying the pastor does not have the right to keep the church open. The governor is not saying that a person cannot believe in their religion. The governor is not oppressing the church communities right to express their beliefs openly. What the governor is doing is calling a protocol in a state of emergency that is for the safety of people that should apply to all – not just religious communities. That protocol does not allow for this type of gathering. According to the Supreme Court “an emergency may not call into life a power which has never lived,” but “emergency may afford a reason for the exertion of a living power already enjoyed.” Moreover, States can exercise what is known as “police power”, and they can make laws for the sake of health and safety and its citizens.

Upon further research, I found a similar situation where the church filed a lawsuit. The church can hold over 200 people. However, there were 16 in the church during the gathering rather than 10. The Justice Department sided with the church in the dispute over lockdown orders. In the  Justice Department’s filing they said “The United States believes that the church has set forth a strong case that the orders, by exempting other activities permitting similar opportunities for in-person gatherings of more than 10 individuals, while at the same time prohibiting churches from gathering in groups of more than 10 — even with social distancing measures and other precautions — has impermissibly interfered with the church’s free exercise of religion,”. However, the court denied the church’s request to block enforcement of the governor’s orders. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/virginia-lockdown-church-coronavirus-justice-department/

Personally, I believe that under the condition that other businesses or communities are allowed to meet and there is for some reason a higher standard for churches and others religious institutions that bars them for opening during the pandemic, that is an obvious discrimination against free practice of religion. If the church is practicing COVID-19 regulations and other places are able to open, then the church should be allowed to be open as well. If all locations are being held to the same standard for the sake of the health of citizens, that is a different story. I am interested to think about what Kant (we should obey the government even if we didn’t choose it) and Locke (you have a right to life, liberty, and property as long as it doesn’t infringe on others) would think about this issue.

[goskers95]

Following the wrongful death of George Floyd, a black man from Minneapolis, thousands of people took to the streets in cities across the country to voice their disdain for the continual mistreatment of black Americans by the police. In Minneapolis some areas of protest were met with rubber bullets, tear gas, and riot shields. Floyd’s arrest, caught entirely on multiple cameras, included a white Minneapolis police officer forcing his knee continually onto Floyd’s throat despite Floyd crying out the familiar phrase “I can’t breathe.” Floyd died in police custody shortly after his arrest. Many people have taken to social media as well as the streets to voice their opinions on the situation, but what I am concerned about is the amount of people who have not. The past ten years of social media has shown that Floyd’s death is not an anomaly for the black community in America. If we are to claim pride in our country, how are we to do so while remaining silent on the conditions of those that may not be similar to us in identity? This issue affects us all. Identifying as white is no qualification for avoiding this issue. Silence is violence and in many parts of this country the silence is deafening.  

[goskers95]

The Rwandan genocide was a terrible tragedy that became (very quickly) the worst example of the United Nations failing to fulfill its duties to protect those who cannot protect themselves. With several other failures following, our generation of emerging adults has grown up with the notion that the UN acts too slowly to effectively curb the outbreak of violence in certain parts of the world and for good reason. So, I would also take any agreement or pledge at face-value, but I am curious to see the impact of social media in coming years creating new norms that political leaders are still learning how to respond to. Much of the world is now connected through sites like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and future generations will only be more connected not knowing a world without such sites. It can take less than a day for a citizen in Syria to have their video of a gas attack on children being watched by members of the White House staff. Channels of information broadcasting and collecting that existed during Rwanda no longer exist today. Of course, videos and photographs online are not always what they seem, but with so many people being able to know what the conditions of another people are like, leaders may be forced to act much quicker and remain true to their promises in the future.

The Rwandan Genocide of 1994 was a horrific example of the devastation that human beings are capable of wroughting against one another. The international abandonment of Rwanda and worldwide refusal to intervene in favor of “honoring” state sovereignty rather than to protect citizens who were being massacred by their own countrymen allowed the mass killings to further bleed across the regions of the country. The top financier of the Rwandan Genocide, Felicien Kabuga, was arrested last weekend after 26 years of evading justice and capture. It is a triumphant victory for survivors and the families affected by the genocide that this man, even after all of these years, will be held answerable to the law and accountable for the horrific crimes he funded. 

I know that the international peacekeeping interventions and UN peacekeeping strategies of today would now not allow another genocide such as the one that took place in Rwanda in 1994 to go unfettered. However, I am not completely certain that there would be any “teeth” in a pledge to respond to a potentiating genocide if one were to take place (for example, the nonintervention and in some cases furtherance of deaths and conflict in Yemen, Israel, Turkey, etc).  Any thoughts?

[goskers95]

Researchers from Columbia University have estimated that tens of thousands of American deaths could have been prevented if social distancing measures were enacted sooner. It has also been shown that thousands of cases had already been within the country earlier than the first reported cases. With the United States initially taking a less unified approach to social distancing than other countries (e.g. Italy and Israel), is the federal government to take the blame for not curbing the statistics earlier or was the hesitancy to avoid larger economic shutdown a result of traditional American ideals of personal liberties? Would more Americans have been willing to sacrifice individual freedoms if they were to know the estimated number of people that would have not been dead, or has our tradition of exercising our constitutional rights gotten the better of us?

[goskers95]

Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party are making efforts to increase governmental control over Hong Kong to deter and thwart protests against the government. The Chinese government says that controlling the globally-connected city would be in the best interest of the sovereignty of China since external actors could create a foothold of sedition in Hong Kong. Compared to our discussion on Burke, would it be in the best interests of the Chinese to limit the protests, or is the Chinese population so divided that progress towards individual freedoms can only be made by city-wide protests? Is Western support of these protests an attack on Chinese sovereignty? Personally, I believe that the culture of Hong Kong’s population and economy is too different from mainland China for progress to be made incrementally.

[goskers95]

While I do agree with Fairbanks’ view that sex offenders are a danger to society and that Condoluci should be viewed with suspicion for his past, I do not agree with his act of taking justice into his own hands. Fairbanks claims that he saw Condoluci exhibiting predatory behavior and decided to jump to the conclusion that eliminating Condoluci all together was the safest option for his community. Why I do not agree with this is Fairbanks and Condoluci both were living in Omaha which has established and continues to carry out both local and federal laws that citizens (whether formerly convicted or not) are expected to adhere to. It is the legal responsibility for Fairbanks to continue to give the use of force to local trained law enforcement. Condoluci may have had dependents relying on him for their well-being. Whether that is the case or not is irrelevant given that Fairbanks couldn’t have known the entirety of Condoluci’s life based on the several instances that he was observing him. Living within Omaha comes with the expectation that you will continue to dedicate power to the government. Fairbanks did not do this.

This is a really interesting case that relates to our discussions on Locke’s ideas of the state of nature and social contract. The article explains that an Omaha man, James Fairbanks, decided to fatally shoot a registered sex-offender, Mattieo Condoluci, and then publicly confess in order to prevent the sex-offender from harming future children. Under a state of nature, he could be seen as taking an act of self-defense against someone who has harmed people and potentially could again. Yet Fairbanks isn’t in a state of nature. He’s in America where murder is illegal. The question is then: was what he did right or wrong?

What’s interesting about the whole situation is that people on social media, at least from what I’ve seen, are agreeing with Fairbanks and saying that the sex-offender deserved to be killed to save children from harm. The sex-offender’s daughter even suggested that Fairbanks should only get probation because she recognized her father was a danger to others.

In contrast, by committing an act of vigilante justice, Fairbanks could be breaking the social contract and actual laws he passively consented to by living in American society. Chief Deputy Douglas County Attorney Brenda Beadle said, “It’s a really dangerous thing, when people start taking law enforcement into their own hands. That’s why we have a justice system.”

So what do you think? Was Fairbanks promoting or harming others’ human rights by killing Condoluci?

Also, here is a link to Fairbank’s public confession on the Omaha Scanner facebook page if you want to see it: https://www.facebook.com/OmahaScanner402/posts/593811288156291