Torture and Science

Torture seems to be a recurring topic in our weekly discussions, so I've posted an article that discusses the science (or lack thereof) related to current interrogation techniques. Hopefully the research paper to which this article refers will be available soon.

www.arstechnica.com

Regulation Dramatically Increasing Cost of Health Care

Medicare, as well as private insurers, approves of a clunky $8000 computer for its speech synthesizing software but will not approve of a $300 iPhone ($100 now!) with a $150 application that serves the same purpose. Their reasoning? The worry is that these patients will use a device such as an iPhone for other purposes unrelated to their medical condition, e.g., browsing the web. Is this reasonable? If so, is it worth the cost?

http://www.nytimes.com/

Update: A letter to the New York Times from famed film critic Roger Ebert, who is facing the same dilemma.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/opinion/l19speech.html?_r=2

Torture and Hypocrisy in America

From Glenn Greenwald comes a pair of good blog posts, with several links, on the hypocrisy of the Obama administrations detention policies.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/15/bagram/index.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/16/delusions/index.html

Obama Asks Court to Dismiss Challenge to Anti-Gay Marriage Law

The Justice Department has asked a federal court to dismiss a challenge to a federal Anti-Gay Marriage Law that denies equal federal tax benefits to married homosexual couples. Though unsurprising, since Obama has never really been a supporter of gay-marriage, it is upsetting both as a potential setback for LGBT rights and because of it is yet another reminder of how the executive branch sticks its nose into everything.

I thought this might be a nice opportunity to touch on both gay marriage rights - (do they exist? Should the government be involved in marriage at all?) as well as the current state of our governement, with its scales ever tipping toward total executive power and influence.

Obama vs. Gay Marriage

The Ugly Side of War

A hot topic in recent news has been the AP's decision to publish a photo of a mortally wounded solider, despite his family's opposition. There has been much debate over whether this was a proper decision (most notably, Sarah Palin has inserted herself into the matter with a screed against AP).

So, does right to privacy trump free press in this case? Should the family of the deceased have been able to prevent such a personal matter from being published?

And equally, regardless of its legality, is this a violation of journalistic integrity, or would not publishing it be? Do journalists have a duty to publish even graphic images to show the real ugly face of war? Or should they avoid images that might be upsetting or traumatizing.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/135954.html

http://www.ap.org/fallen_marine/story.html

Army Internet Regulations

The U.S. Army may be placing new regulations on how soldiers are allowed to use the web. Are such regulations necessary to maintain order in the military? or are they a violation of the 1st amendment?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/us/09milblogs.html?ref=politics

John Ashcroft Can Be Sued for Detentions

A federal appeals court has ruled that John Ashcroft can be sued for potentially illegal detentions in the aftermath of 9/11. Will this set the stage for more high-level lawsuits and prosecutions of high ranking Bush administration officials?

Ashcroft Can Be Sued for Detentions

Annoying Speech and the First Amendment

Our brief discussion of annoying speech as not protected by the first amendment brought to mind this article about an Arizona bishop who was convicted of disturbing the peace for having excessively noisy church bells.

Where does one draw the line between freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and your right to peace and quiet? Last week we talked about the increasing tendency of western governments to limit free speech. This article should serve as a good example of the limitations of free speech as understood in our constitution.

Church Sued for Noisy Bells