Unit 7 Democracy, Equality, Justice - Project

Write a one-page, double-spaced paper describing one situation in which justice was compromised due to the inability of some party to combat what we have called an elite institution.

The Chappaquiddick incident is a great example of how an elite institution can not only see justice compromised, but thwarted altogether. In a strange twist of fate, Ted Kennedy, a married Senator from Massachusetts found himself leaving a party with a woman who was not his wife in the passenger seat of his car. His wife did not leave the party with him because she didn't attend the party with him. She was home, pregnant with a child that she would later lose to miscarriage. Incidentally, the woman in the car with Mr Kennedy, Mary Jo Kopechne, left the party without her purse, or the key to her hotel. The two of them left without the Chauffeur, who had driven Senator Kennedy to the event. For a regular person, this situation already sounds suspicious, but in this case, it gets worse. Near the time of the incident, a police officer spotted a car matching the description of Ted Kennedy's automobile, down to three of the digits on the license plate. The officer didn't get a good look at the plate because the car was speeding past him after having been parked on a deserted side street. Later on, the car ended up roof down on the bottom of the water on the side of a bridge. Somehow, Ted was able to escape the vehicle, but Mary Jo Kopechne was not. Ted Kennedy did many things over the next few hours, but none of them seemed like an honest effort to rescue Mary Jo from his car, which was submerged in eight feet of water. When Mary Jo's body was finally retrieved from the car, she was found with blood in her mouth, and on her dress. She was also found with her head in a bubble of trapped air. The autopsy showed that the young lady died of asphyxiation, and not drowning. For any normal person, the situation alone would lead all rational minds to think that this involved foul play. This situation reeks of foul play even if you don't look at Kennedy's behavior during the incident, and since. Though the incident occurred at around midnight, Ted Kennedy did not come forward to the police until the next day. When he did come forward, it was only after a heated discussion with some of his friends that had helped him in his attempts to rescue the girl. The diver who did retrieve the body said that he could have had her out in twenty minutes, and that it probably took her about two hours to die. Kennedy's behavior since the incident has only served to back up the notion that he was some sort of political version of Jack the ripper. Once, at a restaurant, Kennedy and another senator, Chris Dodd, were in a private room. According to the waitress, Kennedy waited for her to enter the room. As she walked in, he grabbed her, threw her down on Chris Dodd, who had been seated at the time, and jumped on top of her. This was witnessed by two waitresses, because while they were assaulting her, another waitress happened to walk in. The tendency of the man is well established. In this, we see the tendency of the establishment. I wouldn't have to try too hard to list and illustrate a small books worth of incidents of congressional misbehavior. The fact that it is common enough to not be considered shocking is evidence to the fact that the an infestation of elitists is detrimental to justice.

References

A SOBER LOOK AT TED KENNEDY: GQ Features on men.style.com. Available at: http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5585&pageNum=5 [Accessed October 6, 2009].

Anderson, Jack, and Daryl Gibson. 1999. Peace, War, and Politics: An Eyewitness Account. New York: Forge.  

Barry, Ann Marie. Visual Intelligence: Perception, Image, and Manipulation in Visual Communication. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Available at: http://books.google.com/books?id=ZiTpRxkTMwUC [Accessed October 6, 2009].  

Baughman, James L. The Republic of Mass Culture: Journalism, Filmmaking, and Broadcasting in America since 1941. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.  

Bly, Nellie. 1996. The Kennedy Men: Three Generations of Sex, Scandal, and Secrets. New York: Kensington Books.  

Boller, Paul F. 2004. Presidential Campaigns: From George Washington to George W. Bush. Oxford University Press.  

Boyle, James A. 1970. Inquest into the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. Edgartown, MA: Edgartown District Court.  

Damore, Leo. 1989. Senatorial Privilege: The Chappaquiddick Cover-up. New York: Dell Publishing.  

End of the Affair. 1970. Time magazine. Available at: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944017,00.html?iid=chix-sphere [Accessed October 6, 2009].  

Jack Olsen|Olsen, Jack, and [[Jack Olsen|Olsen, Jack]]. The Bridge at Chappaquiddick. Little, Brown and Co.  

James, Susan Donaldson. 2009. “Chappaquiddick: No Profile in Kennedy Courage.” ABC News. Available at: http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=8212665 [Accessed October 6, 2009].  

Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. 1996. Packaging The Presidency: A History and Criticism of Presidential Campaign Advertising. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.  

Klein, Edward, and Klein, Edward. 2009. Ted Kennedy: The Dream That Never Died. New York City: Crown Publishers.  

Mary Jo Kopechne : Biography. Available at: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKkopechne.htm [Accessed October 6, 2009].

Taraborrelli, J. Randy. 2000a. Jackie, Ethel, Joan: Women of Camelot. Warner Books.  

Taraborrelli, J. Randy. 2000b. Jackie, Ethel, Joan: Women of Camelot. Warner Books.  

Trotta, Liz. 1994. Fighting for Air: In the Trenches With Television News. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.  

Wills, Gary. 2002. The Kennedy Imprisonment: A Meditation on Power. 1st ed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.  

I was recently involved in a debate with some friends which made me remember why I love politics. Looking over the text, I came to the conclusion that my points were pretty coherent, and that they made a pretty good standalone argument. I don't "need to be right" here, if you spot something that you think needs revision, I welcome your facts. Here it is.

Tax and subsidize governance invariably leads to economic ruin. Freedom means that the customer focused companies like Wal-Mart can focus their business on the customer. As you can see from the level of employment maintained, and taxes paid by Wal-Mart, the employees and the free market benefit. In truth, the only thing that damages the free market is the government. Freedom of choice prevents any single entity from getting a monopoly. Government intervention is still the only way any company can monopolize an industry. The actions of the Obama administration illustrate one point very well. When you sacrifice freedom, you sacrifice prosperity. What cliches and platitudes have I used? If I am a doomsayer, I say it with a fair amount of evidence. We are approaching 10% unemployment in this country. This didn't happen under Bush, and it is happening under Obama without the intervention of the Republicans. If you doubt this, Please let me know what criteria you are using to evaluate the situation. A realistic assessment would exclude the Republicans, and it would note that many of the economic changes since January, 2009 have been in direct response to actions taken in Washington. Unemployment is on the rise, the markets are down. Stating it, or noting the fact that it is the "Chaos" that the Obama administration values (in the words of Rahm Emmanuel) is not a cliche or a platitude. Actually, Obama has been in office, and his actions appear to have caused it. The markets have responded directly to his words and actions. I have posted the chart showing the drops and the speeches/bills signed several times. I find that oBots are rarely affected by facts, so I won't hurry off to get it right now. As far as what he was "...handed", If I handed you $4.80 and you came back to me with $9.5, I would say that's a pretty impressive increase. Bush handed Obama 4.5% unemployment, and Obama turned into 9.5% unemployment. Bush didn't hand Obama 9.5% unemployment. Looking at the chart, you will see that the trending of unemployment from 2000 to 2008 was manageable with no major jumps. That leap in unemployment was Obama's star rising. Why would you expect anything different? Going into office, he said he would raise taxes, make it more expensive to employ people, and make it much more expensive to consume energy. What does the trending of that unemployment rate look like to you? Unemployment was 4.5 in April of 2008 and 6.5% in November of 2008. Of course, this is after John McCain had all but conceded the race. I'm referring to his dropping out of the race at one point, and at another, saying that we had nothing to fear from an Obama presidency. People frequently assume that an attack on Obama is a defense of Bush or McCain. Don't waste your time. I try to avoid defending against Straw Men arguments. Even if I were inclined to defend them, they are not the president, and their parties are not running Washington. Look again at that chart, What does it say to you? If it were a stock chart, I would say "something very bad happened in 2000, and something good happened in 2008". I would say 2000 would be a very good time to buy, and 2009 would be a good time to look into selling. I would wonder what happened in April of 2008 to start the skyrocketing. As it is, the chart is unemployment, and the same "objective" assessment applies. Some will say that “causation does not equal causality”, and I say that this is true. It is also a logic flaw to ignore the connection between cause and effect. For the sake of argument, lets assume they are correct. The sudden rise in unemployment is just a fluke. It has nothing to do with actions taken in Washington, like the Stimulus passed under Bush and the following stimulus passed under Obama. Let's look at the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The DJIA seems to be doing the exact opposite of the unemployment rate, at roughly the same time. If I were an investor looking at this data, I would say, "In January of 09, things seemed to take a turn for the worse, and it doesn't look like it's getting any better." After that, I would ask, "What happened in January of 09?" Hey, wait a minute, A new president took office. As you can see, the markets actually gave him the benefit of the doubt, taking a little rise as he took office. What happened next to make the markets tank? Was it Chuck Norris? Bruce Lee? No, it was legislation. The unemployment rate is not always a lagging indicator. People are just saying that because Obama told them to. In this chart, you are looking at a lagging indicator. Employers, like investors, have to look to the future. While the investor has to look to the future for the dollar, the employer has to look to the future for the employees. Hiring and firing employees is not a cheap endeavor. There is a cost associated with the two words "you're hired". The decision to let one go is the decision to let go of the training invested in the employee as well. What am I getting at with this? I am saying that an investor can wait for a little dip to provide an indicator of what move to make. For an employer, the "ship" is much larger and the changes are more difficult to adjust to. They need to have an eye on the situation farther ahead than the investor. They can't afford to lag too far behind in their adjustments. Looking at the three charts, you will see that they both do the same thing (take a turn for the worse) at nearly the same time. What is the difference? The unemployment rate is trending up towards the end of 2008, while the DJIA started to tank in January of 2009. The teleprompter told Obama to say that the unemployment rate is a "lagging indicator", and it's accepted as God's word. Here, you can see that the same thing is happening to different areas of the economy, and that the unemployment rate follows the same pattern, but not at the same time. It's not "lagging". It's doing the same thing as the S&P 500, it's tanking. I expect you (oBots in general) to evaluate him on factors other than his performance. You haven't let me down so far. I'll keep presenting facts in an unemotional manner hoping to get through the fog of emotion that surrounds the cult of personality. I am sure that someone will say that I have accused Obama of being responsible for every ill in sight. This is not true. I am making the point that Liberal policies lead to economic ruin. That happens no matter who is in the drivers seat. Economic policy in America requires the Administration and Congress. Obama is not alone in lighting this fuse, but he responsible. Look at California, New York, Michigan, Louisiana, New Jersey, or any other Liberally run state. They are ALL in economic ruin. One huge difference between people who are objective and people who are not is this: Thinking objectively about a scenario, I focus more on the cause and the effect, the who, what, when, where, and why. People who are not objective focus primarily on the "who" and derive the “what”, “why”, and “how” from that. I don't care if you say it's the fault of "Obama" or "that Big Eared Muppet and the Congressional ClownSquad", as long as your evidence supports your claim. My major point here is that Liberals will close eyes and open mouths, not paying attention to what salty snack they are getting, as long as they are getting it from Democrats. Some people will refer to me as "feisty", which I find amusing. People who know me can attest to the fact that I am probably one of the least emotional, least feisty people you would meet. I am more interested in the facts than anyone's opinion of them. I have seen the current Liberal attitude before. Where Conservatives say "our side is right and will do what is best for America", Liberals say "If what's good for America isn't good for our side, to hell with America. Our side, right or wrong!" It's not a new perspective. It's actually a pretty old one. We have had plenty of "change", but little improvement. As I understand it, the position on the left is that they refuse to associate any negative changes with the actions of the current government, which is entirely democrat, because it's their gang that's burning down our house. Is that a correct assessment of the position?

References

^DJI: Basic Chart for Dow Jones Industrial Average - Yahoo! Finance. Available at: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^dji [Accessed July 22, 2009].

Employment a Lagging Indicator? Not Always. Using Outdated Economic Data and Trends for Future Financial Models. Just Because Stocks Rebound doesn’t Mean the Fundamentals are Good. Available at: http://www.mybudget360.com/employment-a-lagging-indicator-not-always-using-outdated-economic-data-and-trends-for-future-financial-models-just-because-stocks-rebound-doesnt-mean-the-fundamentals-are-good/ [Accessed July 22, 2009].

the_obama_recession.jpg (JPEG Image, 1000x531 pixels) - Scaled (42%). Available at: http://www.antiobamablog.com/files/the_obama_recession.jpg [Accessed July 22, 2009].

Unemployment rate - Google - public data. Available at: http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&q=unemployment+rate+chart [Accessed July 22, 2009].

As a Conservative, I see politics to be a part of life. Politics are not my life. If I had never talked politics with a close friend, I wouldn't discount them as an individual. I would simply think that they are who they are, and we disagree about this or that subject. I have noticed something about the liberals I have met. When they find out that I am a Conservative, it is important that they characterize me because of my opinions. While I refer to myself as an "Objectivist", I see that as a part of who I am. It does not define me, it represents me (to an extent.). I think Liberals see "Liberalism" as more of a major component when it comes to who they are. That is odd to me, because they constantly have to change who they are. Liberals have been referring to themselves as "progressives" for a few years now. When they are called "Liberals" they frequently bring up some side conversation about why we have to use labels. I think that this is a red herring. I won't get into it now. I just saw an interview with Jeanine Garofilo about her part on the cable TV series 24. The interviewer said to her [I know you are progressive, and I want to know if you had any conflict starring on a show that supports torture]. For a Conservative, the question wouldn't need to be asked. I think a Conservative would think, "I am an actor, this is a job. While I don't agree with his (the writer's) politics, he has a profession and I do. He has opinions, as do I. We are not the same." For a Liberal, the fact that 24 does not represent their own opinions is an obstacle. For a Liberal, different opinions are not to be evaluated. Anyone with different opinions is to be silenced, not considered. More importantly, the arguments, conclusions and evidence that they present is not to be considered. I think that Revelations (mark of the beast), Atlas Shrugged, Brave New World, and 1984 have something in common. They are the future. This concept has multiple sources. The Bible is a religious text. Ayn Rand was a devout Atheist. I think that all stories represent life under Liberalism.

Gay marriage?

My grandmother is an old black woman. She goes to a small church that brings in very little money. The other members are mostly a lot of other old black people. Many of the women are raising their granddaughters, and they rely heavily on their shared concept of God to give them strength to manage the task. I think it would be safe to say that in the course of their lives, none of them has ever gone out to bash gays. I think it would be safe to say that in the course of a year, none of them even thinks about gays. Gay marriage, as I understand it, means that the people in this small church could be taken to court for not performing gay marriage ceremonies. My concern comes primarily from the precedence set by the case with the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts is a private (not taking tax dollars) organization that was taken to court over the inclusion of Homosexuals. To me, this is not like refusing to sell someone Gasoline at a convenience store, because the organization exists to promote its values (like the NAACP, NARAL, or the KKK) and form fellowship among its members. Before you start calling me a racist homophobe, please take into account the fact that I am a Black man who has had gay and Lesbian roommates. The decisions of the court are backed by the government. The decisions of the court are backed by men with guns. Sometimes, it seems like the gays fantasize that everyone who is not gay either loves or hates them. In truth, most of us generally go through our lives trying to live comfortably, keep a little money after taxes, and make it to Wal*Mart before the sale ends. We are pretty focused on ourselves, we understand the "Virtue of Selfishness". With that in mind, I wholeheartedly resist and reject the notion that the government should send men with guns to force churches that do not believe in gay marriage to perform gay marriage ceremonies, just as I would oppose the government forcing the NAACP to allow members of the Ku Klux Klan to attend. Does that sound like hate to you?

Unit 4: Assessment, Diagnosis, and Research of Psychopathology - Discussion

Mental illness in young children (1 of 2)

This unit’s reading, Younger children diagnosed with personality disorders, discusses the concept of preschool children being diagnosed with psychological disorders previously thought to be in adolescents and adults exclusively. Using critical thinking, what is your opinion on treatment at the earliest signs of mental distress in children? Support your ideas with specific references to the article and the text book

I think that is a catch 22. What sensible parent, given the knowledge that their child could have a psychological disorder, would not act to correct matter immediately? How long does it take a “normal” child to realize that they are being treated differently from their peers? Children live for attention, and they are very aware of the kind of attention they get, always comparing it to the kind of attention given to them with the attention given to those around them. If we start early enough, I am somewhat convinced that we can establish any disorder in any child. This, of course, does not negate the possibility that disorders can arise early on in life. I am merely pointing out the fact that conditioned response can arise at any time in life. Going back to a point I made earlier in the semester, the thing that makes brain science particularly difficult to try and trust is the brain itself. Among the researchers and the children in a study of this sort, I would be just as inclined to suspect a 'conditioned response' scenario among the researchers as the researched. If discovery of personality disorders were to have a negative effect on the researchers (A loss in pay, or perhaps a mild electric shock?), would they find as many children with personality disorders?

It's odd how quick we are to tamper with the mind. I noticed a drug on TV the other day for smoking. While the commercial was upbeat and positive, they mentioned suicidal tendencies as a possible side effect. I would love to know how many people died before they made that connection. I wouldn’t be the one to say “never medicate”, but I think we in the U.S. engage in too much overmedication.

It may sound cynical, but I wonder how long these disorders would last if there were no profit to be made in selling the cure. According to the CDC, Americans are overmedicated. If advertisements are any indication, the trend is growing. The effects of this overmedication affect our health, and our finances. America’s prescription drug addiction claims about one hundred twenty five thousand lives annually. To me, it sounds like the “war on drugs” has been fighting on the wrong front. It’s one thing die purchasing and using illegal narcotics, but these are people who die from using doctor prescribed medications, which are controlled substances to begin with. I am not questioning or complaining about the fact that elderly people take drugs to prolong the lives, and the quality of the time they have here. I am questioning the fact that drugs are marketed directly to the public, making “pit stop” by the doctors’ offices, as a legal formality.

CDC Says Americans Fatally Overmedicated. Available at: http://awurl.com/NnDvUqVuX [Accessed November 14, 2008].

Personality tests (2 of 2)

Although the short personality test you participated in was not as in-depth as those that are given by psychologists, it gives you a very good idea of the types of questions that are on the formal tests, as well as the personality profiles. Many employers require that their potential employees complete a personality profile before they are hired. What are some of the benefits a company would gain by requiring a personality profile of applicants? What are some potentially negative aspects of employers requiring a personality profile of applicants?

Personality profiles allow the company to establish a “baseline” of reference for the employee attitudes. The personality test may not tell you directly that a customer service agent is going to have a habit of getting short with elderly people, but the fact that everyone starts out with the same personality test may provide some additional metrics. The baseline score can be compared with actual performance. This sort of data mining can give evaluators an idea of what type of scores they want to look for in new hires. For example, you might find that potential hires that get short with the elderly have a lower amount of time spent with grandparents living nearby than hires who deal well with them. I am not inclined to think that a personality test alone can tell us a whole lot about an individual. Using that personality test, and comparing it to the results of others and observations in real life can tell us something about how similarities express themselves. By the same token, a personality test is only a test, and is nowhere near being infallible. One could argue that additional test data tells us more about the test than it does about the individual respondents. I would not recommend using Personality tests as the only determinant of whether or not to make a hire. Most people would rather be judged on individual abilities, not personalities. That’s why people frequently respond to nosy questions by saying “that’s personal”.

This has been a great day. I went hiking when I left the office, and I made it back in time to eat and go study. At the coffee shop, I sat and studied, and as I was leaving, a guy compliments me on having the gonads to sport a McCain sticker on my auto. We started talking, and as it turns out, he's not only a conservative, he's also the husband of the owner. We sit and chat well into the night. Each of us was somehow refreshed by the fact that we were not the last of our kind. He's a history major, so his part of the conversation included a lot of stuff I didn't know. I seem to know more about history than many Liberals I know in conversation, but in my own assessment, I am far from being a scholar. In the end, I came to a conclusion that I am going to seek to have broken. My conclusion is as follows. I have never met a conservative that could not comprehend Liberalism. I have also never met a Liberal that could understand what it means to be a Conservative. That is why people always ask “when did you become a conservative?”