To what extent should the right to bear arms be restricted?

 Gun Rights or Gun Control?

The history of gun rights in this country is a history of laws. The right to own guns is the subject of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. For nearly a century, both gun rights and gun control advocates have battled back and forth over restrictions on the types of guns a citizen can own, and who can own them. However, the issue always returns to a broader discussion of civil liberties: whether a right guaranteed to American citizens can be abridged or even denied under any circumstances.

At first glance, these images seem very different, but look closer. They have something in common. What we see are two American militias. On one side, we see an illustration of a colonial militia of the American Revolution. American general John Stark is depicted leading troops against the British at the Battle of Bennington in 1777. In the modern photo, we see the South Michigan Regional Militia Wolverines, a private nationalist paramilitary group. 

These images show some of the more difficult aspects of gun rights in this country. When the Bill of Rights was added to the U.S. Constitution in 1791, the Second Amendment guaranteed citizens the "right to bear arms." The young country had no army. Instead, citizens served in temporary militias. They needed guns to carry out their duties. But today, the U.S. has a professional military. The Michigan Militiamen in the photo carry guns because they choose to do so. The context for gun ownership has changed considerably in 200 years. The question is, should the right to bear arms change with the times or is it a right that must remain unchanged forever? 

DO YOU THINK THE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES AND POW ABUSES HAVE BEEN JUSTIFIED BY THE UNITED STATES?

 Current debate over the ethics of war has in part been prompted by the American invasion and its ongoing presence in Iraq and the war on terror. For centuries, philosophers and leaders have tried to make rules for resorting to armed force and waging war. To obtain and maintain widespread moral support, a government strives to demonstrate that it is waging a just war. Today, however, many people in the United States and around the world question whether American policy has violated ethics of war. 

On September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four airplanes and crashed them into different targets in the United States. Thousands of Americans lost their lives. Most Americans wanted justice and punishment for those responsible for organizing the attack. The Al Qaeda organization was soon identified as the guilty party. After the Taliban government of Afghanistan refused to give up Al Qaeda's leader, Osama Bin Laden, an American-led coalition intervened to force a change in the government of Afghanistan. The George W. Bush administration promised to prevent future attacks by taking preemptive action against America's enemies. In March 2003, the United States organized an invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Arguing its case before the United Nations (UN), the Bush administration's justifications included the presumed existence of weapons of mass destruction and links with Al Qaeda. The invasion and its aftermath has revealed no evidence of these charges and caused many to question whether the Iraq War was a just war and whether it had violated ethics of war and international law on a systematic basis. Opponents and supporters of current American policy are divided over issues ranging from justification for the invasion of Iraq to treatment of prisoners to civilian casualties. 

Invasion of Iraq

The Bush administration justified its invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by citing UN resolutions dating back to the Persian Gulf War of 1991. These included resolutions requiring Iraq to give up all weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to allow inspectors free access to verify that fact. On November 8, 2002, Resolution 1441 was passed by the UN Security Council ordering Iraq to comply with earlier resolutions. The Bush administration cited this resolution, and Iraq's failure to completely comply, as justification for an invasion. Other countries—including France, Germany, Russia, and Syria—disputed this interpretation, believing that 1441 did not automatically give any country the right to use force. Countries that supported the U.S. interpretation included the United Kingdom, Spain, and Italy. 

Following the invasion, investigations failed to show any ongoing Iraqi program of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon research. They also did not turn up ties between terrorist groups and the Hussein regime, implied by the Bush administration as justification for invasion. Opponents of the war in the U.S. Congress and around the world have used the non-existence of these weapons and terrorist ties as proof of an unjust war. However, the administration has cited such accomplishments as the end of Hussein's dictatorial rule, a new Iraqi constitution, free elections, and the promise of rights to the Kurdish minority as signs of a successful regime change. 

Treatment of Prisoners

Documented treatment of some prisoners taken in Iraq and in the war on terror are also considered by many as violations of ethics in war. At Abu Ghraib Prison near Baghdad, photographs and videos revealed that some prisoners were tortured and humiliated by coalition forces with methods that violated the Geneva Convention. As a result, 17 American soldiers were removed from duty and dishonorably discharged from the army. Seven soldiers were convicted by courts martial and sentenced to prison terms, some as long as ten years. Additionally, the commanding general of the prison, Janis Karpinski, was demoted to colonel. Disciplinary actions were intended, in part, to demonstrate that the United States did not condone such treatment of prisoners; nevertheless, the images and stories that emerged negatively impacted America's image. 


Stories also surfaced of prisoners—many of whom were suspected members of Al Qaeda—tortured at the Guantanamo Bay facility. The U.S. government has denied that these detainees have rights under American law. Instead, the Bush administration claimed they were enemy combatants, as if they belonged to organized military units. Prisoners have been subjected to interrogation methods ranging from sleep deprivation to extended periods of cramped confinement. The most notorious method used has been waterboarding, in which the subject is restrained on his back while his face is covered by cloth and water is poured on it. Intended to give the victim the sensation of drowning, waterboarding can result in pain, lung damage, and injury to the brain from oxygen deprivation. A public debate over whether waterboarding is torture took place. The Bush administration and other defenders of such methods asserted that the interrogation of enemy combatants allowed authorities to prevent a number of terrorist attacks. In February and March 2008, Congress passed a bill to prevent the use of extreme interrogation tactics and restrict CIA interrogation methods to those authorized by the U.S. Army Field Manual FM 2-22.3. 

Civilian Casualties
Many believe just war standards require a nation to use force that is proportionate to the results it hopes to achieve. The United States has been criticized for the large number of Iraqi and Afghan civilians who have been killed in the fighting in the respective countries. According to the nonpartisan group Iraqi Body Count, by May 2008, the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the invasion just over five years earlier was around 90,000—a figure based on reports from the media, hospitals, morgues, nongovernmental bodies, and government offices. Civilians have been killed by terrorist attacks and sectarian violence and by American military forces. Insurgent and Al Qaeda attacks have often been aimed at easy civilian targets, such as the March 27, 2007, truck bombings in a marketplace in Tal Afar that killed 152. American weapons such as laser-guided bombs have been used to kill insurgent leaders but may also kill and injure nearby civilians. As in any war, mistakes can be made by troops on the ground, resulting in civilian deaths by gunfire. Supporters and opponents of the American invasion continue to argue whether long process of establishing stability in Iraq after the fall of Hussein made the United States ultimately responsible for civilians killed by insurgents. 

Outlook

Whether or not the United States has failed to observe ethics in war continues to be a hotly debated issue. Consequently, it has divided the American population. Opponents of the Iraq War in Congress have demonstrated their position with public statements and attempts to block funding for the war. Increasing numbers of ordinary Americans have demonstrated against the war. In the election of 2006, dissatisfaction with the conduct of the war contributed to defeat for many Republicans in Congress who had supported the invasion. Many voters were unhappy with the progress of the war in Iraq under Republican direction, and wanted a change in leadership. The issue has also played an important role in the 2008 presidential campaign. Sen. Barack Obama has touted his vote against authorizing an invasion while criticizing Sen. John McCain for his early support. Opinion polls show that many Americans rank the war as a top concern when considering for whom to vote. 

Questions over the conduct of the Bush administration in pursuing the war in Iraq and against terror has also affected American standing around the world. Many people around the world polled by Zogby International view the American activities since 2003 as those of a self-proclaimed superpower for whom international law and custom have little meaning. They fear that American policy may have become based upon a sense of entitlement and unilateralism. As a result, recent military actions intended to increase national security may have contributed to an increase in terrorist activities around the world. Ironically, any failure to observe the ethics of war may have cost the United States one of its greatest weapons: the ability to cite the justness of its cause. 

This has to be a TCHS student!!! (Happy Holidays...Mr. W)

DOES AMERICA STILL HAVE AN "UNREALISTIC VISION OF BEAUTY" THAT CAUSES EATING DISORDERS, OR DOES YOUR GENERATION HAVE MORE REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS?

According to the National Eating Disorders Association, "Eating disorders are extreme expressions of a range of weight and food issues experienced by both men and women. They include anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and compulsive overeating." The typical person who struggles with this disorder is a teenage or young woman. But there is more recent evidence that among the many other groups who struggle with anorexia nervosa are prepubescent and postmenopausal women and males of all ages. As society learns more about the practices of those with issues with food and weight, the disorder itself has become more easily and quickly identified and diagnosed. However, successful treatments have remained as difficult to implement as ever. 

Eating disorders have been around for a very long time. We catch glimpses of them in stories like those of the ancient Romans who gorged at feasts, then purged, or St. Catherine of Siena, who ate only herbs and vomited everything else. They were not scientifically acknowledged until the late 19th century, when British physician William Gull and French doctor Charles Lasegue both noticed incidences of "self-starvation" among adolescent girls. They believed it was tied to irrational female behavior; a common medical practice at the time linked nearly all health problems in women to female biology. In the 1930s, researchers began to realize that eating disorders were legitimate diseases with both physical and psychological components. 

Public discussions, available resources, and society's awareness of eating disorders has grown dramatically since the 1980s. In 1983, popular singer Karen Carpenter died of complications from a long battle with anorexia. People suffering with eating disorders began to appear on such early talk show television programs as Phil Donahue, Oprah Winfrey and Sally Jessy Raphael. The scientific community took note and began to study the phenomenon as well. It is now widely believed that eating disorders are a by-product of individuals' sometimes unacknowledged and often repressed emotional, psychological, and sociological struggles that become intricately connected to one's body image, self-esteem, and behaviors. 

In order to treat any of these disorders, what must be addressed first are the underlying feelings that may be causing the person to have issues with weight and food. These may include low self-esteem, poor or inaccurate body image, depression, anxiety, loneliness, a lack of control over one's life, perfectionism, fear, sense of failure, and troubled family and personal relationships. 

Anorexia nervosa is an eating disorder that is characterized by an intense and irrational fear of body fat and weight gain that leads to extreme and unhealthy levels of dieting, irregular eating behaviors, and unusual food preferences. Frequently a person who is struggling with anorexia nervosa engages in rigid, ritualized, and often secretive behaviors that reflect an unusually strong determination to become thinner and thinner even when the person's weight is at or below a healthy level. In many instances, such people hold a distorted misperception of their body weight and shape that is not reflected in their actual weight or the perceptions of them by others. Individuals can have episodes of engaging in behaviors associated with anorexia nervosa or struggle with the disorder for years. If extreme and left unaddressed, individuals can starve themselves to death or cause irreparable and irreversible harm to their bodies.


Bulimia nervosa is characterized by ongoing cycles of binge eating and purging. When a person engages in binge eating, he or she consumes an unusually large quantity of food in a rapid, automatic, and uncontrollable way. The typical binge eater can consume 5,000 to 10,000 calories in one episode and is often filled with self-loathing that leads him or her to want to purge what was consumed by self-induced vomiting or by resorting to a combination of excessive and restrictive dieting, excessive exercising, using laxatives and diuretics. Exercise bulimia refers to one kind of bulimia nervosa in which a person engages in a ritualized cycle of consuming a large quantity of food and then exercising in an excessive amount, usually cardio, in order to burn off the extra calories. 

Binge-eating disorder or compulsive eating is characterized by periods of impulsive gorging or continuous eating. While there is no purging, there may be sporadic fasts and repetitive diets. As with bulimia nervosa, a person who struggles with compulsive eating may be of low, normal, or obese body weight. One sign of a person with such a disorder may be a high degree of fluctuation in weight in a short amount of time. 


As far as we know, eating disorders are not common in every culture. They seem to be most common in the West. Some researchers and feminist groups have noted that certain cultural conditions seem to encourage the development of eating disorders. The Western media has long had an obsession with slimness, presenting it as the equivalent of beauty and happiness. The objectification of the human body, particularly among women, may further the prevalence of eating disorders in places like the Americas and Europe. While images that join thinness with happiness may not cause eating disorders by themselves, they may provide a channel for those persons pre-disposed to eating disorders to focus unhealthy impulses. They may also blind society to the seriousness of the problems eating disorders can cause. 

Many organizations and resources are now available to help individuals, their families, and friends who are struggling to address any of these eating disorders. From online chat groups, autobiographies, self-help books, and support groups, every individual can find help to address an eating disorder. However, according to most eating disorder groups, rates of eating disorders continue to rise, among both sexes and all ages and ethnic groups. 

SHOULD JUVENILES BE TRIED AS ADULTS? WHAT AGE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE?

A chain link fence. Prior to the 20th century, there was no "juvenile justice system" in the United States. The initial purpose of juvenile courts was to treat or rehabilitate juvenile offenders. Now, the emphasis has shifted to punishment, with many courts seek to hold juvenile offenders accountable for their actions. [PhotoDisc]

A 15-year-old boy rapes and kills a 14-year-old girl. How should society handle this teenager? Focusing exclusively on the behavior, many states put convicted murderers to death for their actions. But this case is different. Why? Because the offender is a minor or juvenile; that is, he has not reached the age at which society considers him an adult. In the United States, we have created a separate system to deal with juvenile offenders, youths under a specified age who are accused of committing an act that violates the law. Society recognizes the harm caused by the actions of the youth described above, but also distinguishes between the behavior of adults and children. Nevertheless, the way in which the justice system would handle the 15-year-old varies significantly depending on the historical period in which he committed the act. Over the past few hundred years, our approach to juvenile justice has changed dramatically. 

Juvenile justice as we know it today is a relatively recent institution. Prior to the 20th century, there was no "juvenile justice system." As a result, deviant youth were handled in the same manner as adult criminals, and often detained in the same facilities. English common law held that children under the age of seven years old could not be punished for their behavior because they were unable to form criminal intent. Children between the ages of seven and 14 could be held responsible for their behavior, but their age could be used to justify a reduced punishment. Historically, children as young as 14 or 15 were considered adults and were frequently subject to brutal corporal punishment and extended periods of confinement. 


In England, the Latin concept parens patriae (state as parent) was used by kings to exercise their control over others, particularly children, in their kingdom. In the United States, state authorities have used parens patriae as justification to intervene in the lives of families to protect children who are not being protected by their parents. Delinquency is taken as a sign that parents are failing to control their children and therefore the state must step in as surrogate parent. 

In the mid-1900s, there came the realization that the juvenile court had failed to live up to its promise. Many children were being detained for extended periods for relatively minor offenses. For example, in 1964, Gerald Gault, a 15-year-old from Arizona, was sentenced to six years at a state training school for making a prank phone call. The same offense committed by an adult carried a maximum sentence of two months in prison and a $50 fine. The United States Supreme Court reviewed the Gault case and found that his constitutional rights had been violated. The decision established that due process rights must be provided in delinquency adjudication hearings. That is, children who face the possibility of confinement have many of the same constitutional rights as adults during adjudication (right to assistance of counsel, protection against self-incrimination, right to confront accusers, etc.). The Gault decision is arguably the most important Supreme Court decision ever rendered concerning juvenile justice, because it reshaped the juvenile system into one that is effectively very similar in look and feel to the adult system. 


The 1980s and 1990s also witnessed significant changes in the juvenile justice system. Increases in violent crime led to public demand for "get tough" approaches to criminals of all ages. Some observed that America had become soft on juvenile delinquents because the authority of the juvenile court expired at a certain age (usually 17 or 18). That is, kids who killed could only be punished in the juvenile court until the age of 18 or so. As a result, many states sought to extend the age jurisdiction of the juvenile court and make it easier to try kids in adult court. This process is called waiver. In some states, certain juvenile offenders (such as those accused of murder or rape) are automatically waived into adult court. As discussed above, the initial purpose of the juvenile court was to treat or rehabilitate juvenile offenders. Now, many juvenile courts seek to hold juvenile offenders accountable and protect public safety by detaining delinquent youth. This has led some observers to comment that we no longer need a separate court to handle juveniles, because the juvenile court has evolved into a mirror image of the adult court.

HAPPY GOBBLE GOBBLE!!!!!!

 NICE!!!

DOES "SOCIAL DARWINISM" GIVE US THE RIGHT TO USE SO CALLED "LESSER SPECIES" IN LAB EXPERIMENTS?

Social Darwinism, term coined in the late 19th century to describe the idea that humans, like animals and plants, compete in a struggle for existence in which natural selection results in “survival of the fittest.”

Inside the Oxford animal lab

By Fergus Walsh  BBC News medical correspondent

Exclusive look inside the animal research lab at Oxford with BBC Medical Correspondent Fergus Walsh.

Oxford University says the first animals have been moved into a new biomedical sciences centre in the city.

The building will bring together animal research currently conducted at around half a dozen facilities in the city.

Construction began five years ago but building work halted for more than a year when the contractors pulled out, citing intimidation from animal rights groups.

The four storey Oxford animal lab is still surrounded by anonymous wooden hoardings topped with barbed wire.

It is ringed with cameras and is a highly secure building.

Inside, biosecurity is a key feature.

Before getting to see the first animals I had to put on protective overalls, plastic shoe covers and a hairnet.

This is mostly to protect the animals from any germs I might bring in.

The first animals moved in were mice, which is perhaps appropriate given that rodents will make up 98% of the inhabitants.

Eventually there will also be zebrafish, tadpoles, frogs and small numbers of guinea pigs, gerbils and hamsters.

There will be no cats or dogs and no farm animals.

Macaque monkeys

But most controversial of all, there will be macaque monkeys.

Like man, macaques are primates and have a highly developed brain.

Scientists at Oxford say this makes them crucial for research into neuro-degenerative disorders like Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's.

An entire floor of the new building is given over to macaque research.

Around 100 monkeys will be housed there.

There are several monkey holding rooms, each with a large u-shaped cage which is subdivided into five play and five living areas.

The University says the macaques will spend very little time in individual cages.

There are ladders and shelves to climb on and rubber tyres.

The macaques have not been moved to the new building yet, but I did see the current monkey facility.

The University points out that it meets all the requirements laid down by the Home Office for animal research, but it has less individual space than the new lab and there is no access to natural daylight.

Operating theatres

I wasn't allowed to see animal experiments, but I did get to look at the two operating theatres on the new primate research floor.

It looks like a hospital - only the operating tables have still to be fitted.

What will go on here will appal those who are opposed to animal experiments.

Under general anaesthetic monkeys will be given brain lesions to mimic the effects of Parkinson's disease.

Oxford scientists say this has already helped lead to new treatments for the condition.

And they point out that all animal experiments - especially those involving monkeys - are strictly controlled.

Animals can be used only if experiments with cells or computer models are deemed inappropriate.

Stroke research

Very few Oxford animal researchers are prepared to give interviews. But Professor Alastair Buchan did speak to me.

Animals are needed within research in order to understand and to prevent disease Sarah Wolfensohn  University of Oxford

He treats stroke patients and heads a research programme which studies rat brains.

He says animal research is essential: "Without the observations in animals we would not have started in humans and there would be no treatment for stroke.

"I can't think of any way you can do that in a culture.

You can't make a head injury in a dish, you can't create a stroke in a test tube you cant create a heart attack on a chip it just doesn't work."

Animal welfare

The University says animal welfare will be greatly improved in the new building.

For the first time vets will be based on the same site as all the animals.

Sarah Wolfensohn, the head of veterinary services at Oxford University says the new research lab will be better for the animals and produce better science: "Animals are needed within research in order to understand and to prevent disease.

"Prevention of disease is the holy grail, which will benefit both animal and human health."

Opposition

Four years ago, Cambridge University cancelled plans for a primate research centre, because of concerns over spiralling security costs linked to animal rights.

We are here to highlight that Oxford University are mutilating animals on a daily basis  Amanda Richards  SPEAK

It marked a huge victory for animal rights protestors, who then moved their campaign to Oxford.

The vast majority of protests have been entirely lawful.

But the police say a small minority of extremists have carried out acts of arson and vandalism against the university, building contractors and anyone they suspected of being linked to the new laboratory.

In 2004 the contractors pulled out citing intimidation.

Shareholders had been sent hoax letters urging them to sell.

Legislation

The government introduced new legislation making "economic sabotage" linked to animal research a crime.

Ministers promised to help with the security costs.

After a 16 month delay work resumed, with building workers covering their faces to avoid identification.

A court injunction limits protest outside the building to four hours every Thursday afternoon.

Amanda Richards is one of many who turn up each week.

She says the SPEAK campaign believes in lawful protest and that it is crucial that someone represents the animals.

"We are here to highlight that Oxford University are mutilating animals on a daily basis.

"Our intentions are to continue campaigning to persuade them to change this from an animal torture to a lab which is looking at the alternatives which will drive medicine forward."

SPEAK says animal research is not just immoral, but worthless.

Two years ago, to counter the opposition to the lab, a group called Pro-Test was set up by sixteen year old schoolboy Laurie Pycroft, which attracted support in Oxford and beyond.

Hundreds of scientists signed a declaration saying that animal research is vital if new treatments for cancer, heart disease and other conditions are to be found.

So for some the new laboratory will be seen as a crucial centre of medical progress.

For others it will continue to be a place of animal suffering.