Bi-DD

Boom.  Posted.  I’ve managed to post two Bi-DD’s in two days.  A bit more serious in tone, 

Troy Davis is sent to be executed, made to stay, and then executed. 

and here

    In sum, this was a controversial case where Troy Davis, a Georgia man, in 1991 was accused of gunning down a police officer while working as a security guard.  AKA, 20 years ago.  Controversy occurred because of a) implementation of death row and b) apparent reasonable doubt for his conviction from what I’ve read.  And this isolated case publicized a much larger and publicly resonant issue:  should the death penalty be present in our modern American society?  No matter how political you try to make policy, there’s always a moral reasoning behind it.  The two are intertwined.  And concerning something like the death penalty, where you’re dealing with human life, the moral aspect weighs in heavily.  I’ll disclose my opinion through a series of vague questions.  

1.)  The state (as in, governmental institution) doesn’t grant life, so should it have the right to take it away? The Declaration of Independence says that all men are entitled to certain unalienable rights, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness, endowed by the Creator, so a strict interpretation would have it that these are kept.  But, we know that these are conditional, as when one takes their individual rights to deprive another of their own.  

2.)   Is the death penalty strictly centered on removing a threat to society?  Is it more effective than doing so than a life sentence?  Or is it about having a readily made moral example of the costs of high crime? Or is it about revenge?  

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, right?  But on paper, that’s perfectly just.  You hurt me, I hurt you, it’s fair.  It’s an even exchange.  But what about Matthew 5:44?  Matthew 7:1?  In Christianity, the whole concept of grace and salvation in general?  You know, where humanity in no way was deserving of an intermediary, but got one anyway (John 3:16, everyone knows that verse).  And isn’t being a Christian about exemplifying Christ?  It begs a lot of questions to be answered if you hold the above to be applicable in your life, which I do.  But I feel the moral offense of taking a life for life is a universal question, I just relate it in terms I know.

3.)  A 20 year trial period is ridiculous.  Over that time, defendants can convince themselves they are innocent, eyewitnesses can convince themselves that the accused is guilty, opinions can change, it’s costly, the list goes on.  I understand the need for a just case, but is holding over such a dynamic time period just?  Accounting for the fallibility of the mind, and its ability to perceive truths about the past that may or may not have happened.  Like that really cool thing that happened to you that you just had to make cooler by adding something when you told your friends, and that addition becomes part of the reality you remember.  You know what I’m talking about.

4.)  Fun fact: it’s actually more costly to hold someone on death row rather than life-long imprisonment, check it:  here.  So if you don’t care about the life-aspect of it, you can relate to the monetary expense.  

5.)  Oh, and weird how a man with reasonable doubt to be innocent is executed, and Casey Anthony is still free.  Though her life may be pretty suckish.  

6.)  AND, myself included, I bet A LOT of people didn’t know about the Troy Davis case until very recent.   

Those are my thoughts on the matter for now, roughly.  Open to argument, debate, etc.  I only know so much at my age.  Moving on:

This Gave Me Chills…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6YlmEVyGrE

In a good way.  I wish I could embed it, but a link will suffice.  »» Biebs.  I’ve got a new show to follow now.

LIGHT, Y U NO TRAVEL FASTER?!?!

   May just be a goof in measurements, but a particle traveling faster than the speed of light could have a huge impact on ‘cardinal rules’ of physics.  Even if it was just a mistake, goes to show that everything in this life is a progressive realization, and what we think we know pales in comparison to what may actually be out there.

Just a comment on the new Facebook changes:

THEY SUCK.  I don’t like the creep feed, the harder to make status tab, the lack of a dislike button.  I’m going to Google+ like the social elite I am.  It’s basically the Apple of social networking at this point.  If only someone would invite me.

EDIT: It has been brought to my knowledge, in all CAPS, by my roommate, that you don’t need an invite to Google+ anymore.  Whatadouche.  But thanks.




 

Bi-DD

Bi-Daily yada yada yada

Today’s issue:  Politics/Economics

MEGA ARTICLE (on the middle class, or hypothesized lack thereof)

And some selected commentary.

It’s an exhausting article, I believe its excerpted from a book actually, but well worth the read.  It’s a very interesting analysis of the way the American economy has transitioned in the past century (basically from an industrial focus to a service focus) and how that plays on the stratification of American society.  

A service oriented economy, mechanizes its industry, causing a loss of manual labor jobs (like in the industrialization of the agricultural industry).  While more efficient, the human (well, morally and consequentially) is higher.  So, what happens?  Do we just leave them behind and tell them to fend for themselves while the rich (pioneers in the burgeoning industry, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerburg, or investing giants, like Buffet) get richer?  Or do we compromise (seeming) progress to maintain a degree of economic equality, violating the apparent rights of some to protect those of others.

 After all, middle class prosperity is what drives the economy, and cause the majority or transactions, a driving force behind capitalism, so without a capable middle class there’s a polarization of economic power.  Thanks to globalization, the super rich can outsource to other, cheaper venues and maintain.  The poor, not so fortunate.  And what about the potential for social unrest if such a polarization occurs?  Are we just stuck in a self-feeding cycle destined to end in destruction (or at least falling back a few spots on the global positioning scale) or what?  

There’s two competing schools of thoughts it seems concerning economic policy:  The one that calls for a set of rules to be abided by all, and we applaud the winners, or those who make the best gains under the uniform rules.  Like in real sports.  

There’s also the one that calls for an equalizing force, that takes the hand out from under the “rich” and puts it under the “less rich” (to euphemise, and emphasize that contrary to popular circumstance, we are much more blessed than many of the countries in the world).  The one where everybody gets a trophy, like in little league.

But that’s strictly an economic perspective, ignoring the human element that makes reality SO much more complicated than simple ideals.  Personally, I support the first school.  I like equal opportunity, and equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome.  I know there are those in need, and those who have should constantly and consciously reach out not only to help them, but also to help themselves.  (James 1:27 sort of, and the whole “teach a man to fish” deal).  

And that seems so simple.  So easy to live by.  Then you add the human element, and it gets complicated.  Can you legislate morality?  Or does that annul what the concept of morality is to begin with?  (Consider separation of church and state, can you institutionalize religion (for lack of a better word), but that’s an entirely different discussion)

The problems of society will never be solved through the hands of man because every man has a different idea of what the problem is.  

Feel free to make that your status.  We need outside intervention it seems, but we’re too full of pride to admit so.  We pride ourselves in being self-sufficient decision makers, but self-sufficient decision making is what has ultimately led up to this.  But if we aren’t meant to play a part in the decision making, what purpose do we serve then?  Find balance between the two.  That’s the key.  I feel I may have taken it a bit too far, I never proof read these, which may result in a very vague conveying of thoughts.  How meta of me.  I’m done for now, thanks for reading this far if you did.  I leave you these:

Related Video, Intense Language, but a good rant.  Definitely should watch it.

SO TRUE

8D0AD.png (344×721)