Jus494hotdoggwater's Weblog

Final thoughts

hotdoggwater — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 04:07:14 +0000

My final thoughts on this subject have not changed nor will they no matter how many justice studies courses I take. We need inequality. The liberty to accumulate wealth is the motivator behinds today’s greatest inventions. Capitalism is the catalyst behind production, which is the driving force of economic growth. While the theory that one day we could all be enslaved by our technology is a valid theory, it is no excuse for technological equality. The theory of the end of days is also a valid theory for the disarmament of nuclear weapons, but the bloodiest wars throughout the history of the human race should be evidence as to why we should keep them. There will always be war and indifference. Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-founder of natural selection, believed the human race was a special species with a metaphorical picket fence surrounding them from natural selection. The truth is, while the human race is the most advanced species on the planet, they are also the most flawed. The ability to reason, seen by most as a leg up in the animal kingdom, may actually be a hinderence. Inequality isn’t the solution to the flaws of the human race, its simply an outcome. This is what happens when you have a species with rationale thoughts and complex emotions. Inequality becomes the checks and balances of the imperfections. While equality is a pipe dream, it is the by product of a different dream. The dream of a perfect species would be the only thing which could result in equality. And I think we all know how unrealistic that is.

Vietnam/China compare and contrast

hotdoggwater — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 03:48:10 +0000

Upon doing my presentation for my topic, “The Role Technology Played in The Cold War”, professor Lim presented me with a question which is somewhat relevant to this week’s topic. The question was, “Which contributes more to economic growth, political ideology or economic principles?” I immediately answered economics of course. However, after giving it some thought along with what we learned about China this week, perhaps it does have something to do with politics. My reasoning behind economics is simple: the state which keeps the people producing more is the one which will receive the most growth. By that rationale, capitalism is the superior system because it gives the most incentive to produce. China now appears to be a flaw in this logic. While they have recently adopted some capitalistic principles, the political ideology is still that of a totalitarian state. Therefore, my answer is still the same. The catalyst behind economic growth is production. And both the United States and China have a system in which it influences its citizens to be productive. The difference is the United States is definitely the more liberal of the two. In the United States, we are free to do whatever we like as opposed to China where anyone gets out of line seems to just disappear as evidenced by the protestors in Tiananmen Square back in 1989.

Curitiba

hotdoggwater — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:08:52 +0000

For me, Thursday’s lecture about Curitiba conjured up thoughts of deforestation in the tropical rainforest. My thoughts on the subject are as follows.

As globalization continues to be a constantly advancing force upon the world, there is much which is left demolished in the wake of its hostile takeover. The force which is exerted by globalization has been devastating to those living in less developed countries. Lives have been ripped apart by what some would call “broken promises” by the global north. Promises which if fulfilled would provide a better standard of living, jobs with better pay and safer working conditions, better housing, and an overall more industrialized social infrastructure. But what free trade agreements such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas and Central American Free Trade Agreement really provide is a wider gap between the rich and the poor, a ruthless exploitation of cheap labor by means of the indigenes people inhabiting the land, and the destruction of the environment.

A large portion of deforestation in Brazil can be attributed to land clearing for pastureland by commercial and speculative interests, misguided government policies, inappropriate World Bank projects, and commercial exploitation of forest resources. Slash and burn agriculture is destroying the rainforest in order to provide land for farming. With the removal of forested areas comes a change in climate and soil fertility of the land. The soils in the Amazon are productive for just a short period of time, and the farmers are therefore constantly moving and clearing more and more land.

Since the introduction of the first multi national corporation in history, the Dutch East India Trading Company, the goal of the corporation has always been money. In the hell bent attempt to accomplish this goal, any natural of living thing delivered to fate is considered collateral damage. In other words, it is not the corporation’s objective to destroy the rainforest. However, if there is a profit to be made in the destruction of the rainforest, then the rainforest be damned.

election day

hotdoggwater — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 19:38:02 +0000

For election day, I started out bright and early. I wanted to get to the polls as soon as they opened because I knew long lines were being anticipated by the media. I got to the polls at about 5:55 a.m. I went to Lindberg elementary to vote. Lindberg was the school I went to as a kid as well as the polls I’ve used for the last three elections. So for me, it feels a little like home. This election wasn’t much different albeit the lines were a little longer than before. When I showed up in the morning, the line was past the 75 foot rule, but not by much. I was in the voting booth by about 6:25 a.m. and back home by 6:40. So by the time I left to the time I got back it only took an hour. I’m not going to state every person or thing I voted for because it would simply take too long. I will however say if did vote for everything on the ballot except for the justices, I left those blank.

When I got home I turned on Good Morning America and saw people standing in line for hours. I was glad I got up early to go and take care of business before the peak hours hit. Later that night however, I found out my sister went during lunch time and had less of wait than I did. The same was said for my brother in law. We all went to the same polls so maybe something can be said for that. One of the poll workers said the lines would be shorter there than pretty much anywhere in Arizona. I guess I have to chalk my short wait up to good polls as opposed to good timing.

In the three elections I have voted in, this is the first time the person I voted for did not win. Now that I have cast a vote for the losing party, I am beginning to understand why people feel their vote doesn’t matter. And because McCain won the state, I have to imagine if I had cast my vote for Obama, it would have had an element of inferiority as well. I would much rather my candidate lost the state but still won the election as opposed to the other way around. But it just seems like all the states McCain won, it doesn’t matter who you voted for, none of them would have counted other than in the popular vote.

Still, the most disappointing thing about this year’s election wasn’t just who got elected commander in chief, but all the propositions that got shot down. How is Obama going to get elected and yet the ban on gay marriage and environmental initiatives aren’t going to get amended? In Arizona, we didn’t have the proposition on environmental initiatives. And since this is a conservative state, I’m not surprised the gay marriage proposition did not pass. In California however, a state that Obama won and one of the most liberal states in the union, did not pass the gay marriage or the environmental propositions. I even voted for gay marriage to pass, and I’m a conservative. This just proves that Obama is more of a celebrity than he is a political figure. Either that or America is a land of homophobes who aren’t the least bit concerned about global warming. Maybe it’s a little of both.

Back in September, my conservative friends weren’t at all concerned with the possibility of McCain losing the election. I seemed to be the only one who was predicting that not only was Obama going to win, it was going to be a landslide. I was predicting that CNN would call it 5 hours after the polls closed. As it turns out, I was wrong. They ended up calling it a lot sooner than that. The very next night I watched a brand new South Park. I felt South Park captured the two sides of this election better then anyone. The Obama supporters were partying and getting drunk in the streets, while the McCain supporters were either trying to kill themselves or hiding out in fallout shelters for fear of the end of the world. It got me to thinking of my doomsday predictions in the wake of Obama coming into power and how ridiculous it is to think like that. I guess all there is to do now is see what was fact and what was spin presented by the conservative media. But I still think I’m going to have to throw my conceal carry permit in the trash.

technology and education

hotdoggwater — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 22:21:35 +0000

I remember growing up watching stuff like “Back to the Future 2” and “The Jetsons” thinking that was what the future is going to be like. There will be flying cars and hover boards and I couldn’t wait to get a hover board. Now that were almost into 2009, I think many people believe the pre conceived notion we had of the future back in the 80’s didn’t really pan out as we expected, but I think it did. If you look around, we are living in a different world. Just because it didn’t happen overnight, many of us have failed to realize it. We may not have flying cars or hover boards just yet, but we do have a world wide web, flat screen televisions, ipods, cell phones and the best video games at our disposal. If you took someone from the past and brought them to our time, I believe they would be impressed by the advances we’ve made. And if it weren’t for our culture of anti-intellectualism, the technology of today could make us more efficient learning machines. After all, we have seen how dramatically technology has shaped and changed education. It is up to us to decide which direction we want the human race to go. If we decide only to use the technology at our disposal to share pornography and bitch about movies, then we are going to have a dumbing down effect. But if we use it to better ourselves, then maybe we can have a human race with intelligence far superior to anyone in the past.

Dr. J.W. Smith’s anti American lecture

hotdoggwater — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 15:01:32 +0000

For Dr. J.W. Smith’s encore, I honestly thought he was going to set fire to the American flag which was two feet directly to his left. I am graduating this December and I have to say the thing I am most happy about is that this is my last justice studies class. Semester after semester it has been insulting to have to sit and listen to these Marxist professors continually spew out their anti American propaganda. If you hate this country so much, I really wish you would just leave. This is the greatest place in the world to live. If you don’t think it is, then excuse my language but you’re just an asshole. And that leads me to my theory on why so many college professors are influenced by Marx. Their academic careers have instilled in them a false sense of intelligence. They believe they’re degrees and accolades translate to ultra talent and superior intelligence. So then they ask themselves, “Why haven’t I gone farther in life? I’m super smart, I mean, smarter than everyone I’ve ever met. So then why am I not super rich?” They blame the system instead of themselves. But maybe if they weren’t such self absorbed know it all jerks, they’d realize capitalism is a quid pro quo game which their pompous attitude and social retardation won’t allow them to participate in.

There are so many elements of Dr. Smith’s presentation which I absolutely hated, but I can’t get to them all or I’d be here all day. Therefore, I’ll just pick one. Dr. Smith’s view on the state of nature is completely flawed. In his lecture he states we pay too much in property taxes for something which is ours by nature. What Dr. Smith doesn’t take into account is that in the state of nature, I would be able to blow his commie brains out of his head and take everything he owns. There would be no one to help him or stop me or anyone else from killing one another and taking their possessions. The moment when people assemble to stop these murders and robberies, then a government develops and the state of nature dissolves. While human rights are one thing, no one is owed material possessions simply by existing. That is why we enter into a government who protects our lives and what we own. This also explains why it costs what is does.

I could pick apart Dr. Smith’s lecture all day but I simply do not have the time. I will say this about his so called life’s work however. It is pretty pathetic if it took him his whole life to plagiarize communist manifesto, because that is something I could do in about ten minutes. After all, in my second paragraph I paraphrased John Locke, and that didn’t take hardly any time at all.

nuclear power

hotdoggwater — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 02:14:24 +0000

The question as to whether or not we should strive for the disarming of nuclear weapons worldwide is a debate with great arguments on both sides. For the stance of keeping our weapons, one could say they keep wars small. As current events have shown, they do not eliminate war entirely. However, they do keep wars small and out of a state of total war. The world could not sustain a state of total war for a lengthy period of time unlike the minor engagements of today which it could sustain indefinitely.

On the downside of this argument, we run the risk of destroying ourselves. It is true nuclear weapons keep wars small because the only other option is the end of the world. If there is another world war the popular opinion is that it will be the apocalypse. It is for this reason why it is in the best interest of the world to keep nuclear technology out of the hands of anyone reckless enough to engage in nuclear warfare. Parts of the Islam world who hold martyrdom in such high regards would be extremely dangerous with a nuclear weapon in their possession. This is why Iran, who is the sworn enemy of Israel, needs to have their nuclear program disabled. Since no one except Iran knows where they stand in terms of self preservation, they simply cannot be trusted as a nuclear state.

Globalization (extra credit)

hotdoggwater — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 06:22:23 +0000

On the topic of globalization, I find it difficult if not impossible to find a solution to bridging the gap between the rich and the poor. Mostly it is because I feel all the solutions go against my beliefs. I love capitalism and neo-classical liberalism. I know when money is left up to market logic, it creates a paradigm where one side gets everything and one side is left with nothing. In the monopoly game that is globalization, the developed countries have hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place, and every other property for that matter, while the developing countries have nothing. The socialist reform it would take to even out the playing field is not something I can get on board with. I’m sure it is greedy, but I wish to keep playing the game so long as we have all the property. Besides, if I can quote Gordon Gecko, “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.” I’ll admit, I’m a selfish person. I don’t want to give up all the luxuries this country and its superior economic capabilities have afforded me just so someone in Mexico or Cambodia with eighteen kids can have a piece of the pie. And why do people of less developed countries have so many kids anyway? If you can’t afford to take care of yourself, isn’t it a little irresponsible to try and take care of someone else? The only solution I can get on board with is to sterilize the third world in order to decrease the birth rate. Then the nation’s GDP per capita will go up and people will be able to live comfortably. That is the only thing I can think of because I’m not giving up my house, Lexus, or big screen TV. I’ve simply worked to hard for them.

week 7 [5 vs. 500 rule (slightly off topic for the week)]

hotdoggwater — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:25:53 +0000

This week’s reading was Simon A Cole’s take on how DNA technology can create inequalities in the justice system. I had a huge problem with this article for a couple of reasons. For one thing, it is the justice system itself which creates inequalities between the rich and poor. These inequalities are going to exist whether or not DNA technology exists regardless. But what really irritated me about the writing were the liberal hippie conspiracy theories Cole uses to make his examples. At one point Cole states, “Today inequalities are less explicit; sometimes racial inequalities are encoded, as, for example, in the harsher punishments mandated for possession or sale of equal quantities of crack versus powder cocaine.”

As a justice studies major, I’ve heard this subject come up at least once in every justice studies class I’ve ever had. I’m not trying to stray from the main idea of the week, but I feel it is important to address this matter. There is a perfectly good reason why crack cocaine carries such a harsh punishment and it has nothing to do with race. Anyone who does any research into this subject would understand this concept instead of merely seeing a discrepancy of 495 grams. Crack cocaine has higher addictive properties than that of powder cocaine. Crack cocaine is the most addictive form of cocaine as well as one of the most addictive out of all narcotics. While powder cocaine user’s ratio of recreational to habitual is about 3 to 1, almost all crack cocaine users are habitual. Its withdrawal symptoms are damaging, as opposed to powder cocaine’s, which are healing. Powder cocaine is the easier habit to kick out of the two. This is not to say powder cocaine users are not at a high rate for relapse because they are. Still, crack cocaine users are at a higher rate for relapse and a much more damaging one at that. With the exception of heroin, there is no drug which has ripped apart more communities and destroyed more lives than crack cocaine. For an analogy, think of powder cocaine user’s as affluent high flyers who find themselves in a tail spin. Most of these people, or at least all of the ones who want to, will be able to pull out of this tail spin before they crash and burn. Crack users on the other hand are more like planes still on the runaway ready to take off. However, on their approach their wings get clipped and now they’ll never be able to fly.

Lastly, I must address the biggest misconception which asks the question, how much is 5 grams of crack? I’m not asking how much it cost but rather how much of an amount is 5 grams of crack is. 5 grams of crack is a lot in terms of who would be walking around with that amount in their possession. A crack cocaine user, who is poor, unemployed, maybe even homeless will never have 5 grams of crack, or 4, or 3, or even 2. Users will more than likely have somewhere between 0 to 1 grams, maybe over a gram in certain circumstances. I only bring this up because every liberal hippie kid at ASU who has talked about this in a justice studies class never knows how much 5 grams of crack is. They don’t know how much it costs or how long you can get high off of it. The only people with 5 grams of crack or more are drug dealers who are selling it to kids and deserve to be in prison.

So if any justice studies majors happen to read this, don’t just look at something and call it racist. Actually think about something before you form an opinion. Besides that, wouldn’t it be more racist not to enforce harsher punishments and simply let blacks destroy themselves with this god awful drug? The answer is no. This drug rule targets bad guys in order to aide the good. There is a perfectly good reason for it.

~There, now I’ve vented~

Reflection week 6 (distributive justice)

hotdoggwater — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 02:34:56 +0000

Many people have an opinion on what distributive justice is. This opinion is based on what people believe liberty really is. Some believe liberty is the American dream, the freedom to come from the gutter and become Donald Trump. However, opponents of this view argue the capitalistic system the American dream revolves around tends to favor those who are more talented and skilled. It is unfair to give such a huge advantage to those who are more naturally blessed. Proponents of the American dream believe a classless society is oppressive. A classless society makes education and hard work obsolete. It does not reward great technological ideas and thus, does not generate growth. But can inequality truly be considered just when speaking in terms of distribution?

The opinion of this blogger is that ours is the superior system. It is true both systems have flaws, but only because people are flawed. If people were perfect, then Karl Marx would be right in saying a classless society would be utopia. However, the fact is that some people work hard and make good decisions and others are lazy alcoholics who fornicate with disease ridden prostitutes. The greatest weapon against not being dragged down by these prostitutes and the people who sleep with them is capitalism. While capitalism may leave the less talented by the wayside, their demise is not in vain. They are martyrs for the greater good. It’s either them or all of us.