New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

Get ready for the dramatic rise in sea levels that Al Gore warned us about in An Inconvenient Truth because it’s about to happen 30 years earlier than scientists previously thought. The new study used “satellite data and visual confirmation of Arctic ice”, different methods that the computer models employed by the IPCC in their global warming report. Not only will the melting of the Arctic ice caps induce dramatic flooding in nearly all cities at current sea level, but it will escalate the rate at which global warming is currently progressing at.

“Right now … the Arctic helps keep the Earth cool,” Scambos said in a telephone interview. “Without that Arctic ice, or with much less of it, the Earth will warm much faster.”

That is because the ice reflects light and heat; when it is gone, the much darker land or sea will absorb more light and heat, making it more difficult for the planet to cool down, even in winter, he said.

This news comes at a time before what may be a turning point in human history. Not only is the Kyoto protocol scheduled to wrap up in 5 years, but a new President is scheduled to be elected in 2008. The next few years are essential to what happens to our world. Currently, only a handful of European countries have been successful at reducing their carbon footprints.

This has to change! We already know that reversing climate change is going to be a hard and arduous task. We already know that even if all the nations of this world stop emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere today, that global warming will continue to get worse before it gets better. People across the globe need to snap out of it and realize that their planet is in danger. No planet; no life. This threat is the greatest we’ve ever encountered and I’m not sure if we’ll be smart enough to overcome it in time.

It’s unfortunate to think that it may just require the disappearance of Arctic ice and extreme flooding around major cities on the world for civilisation to wake up and begin taking action.

Popularity: 45% [?]

United States presidential candidate Ron Paul, an outspoken libertarian, has called for removal of gun laws which he claims oppose civil liberties and encourage shootings. Paul stated that more guns could have prevented tragedies such as 9/11, or this week’s killing at Virginia Tech: “A concealed gun carried by a responsible person — that might have ended the problem that they had at Virginia Tech with one person being killed or two people being killed.”

But the key in his strategy is the word “responsible.” It requires the general public to be able to make informed decisions, and separate emotion from logic and reason, something currently only mandated to the police. Despite the large potential corruption of cops, there is far greater possible harm from arming everyone with a gun who wants one.

Having easily available guns in tense situations is just a recipe for disaster. I do not believe that the majority of people would be “responsible” with a gun, especially in America. Frankly, I would not want to enter a country that had such lenient laws towards something as life-threatening as a gun. I can just imagine a situation with a group of people all at gunpoint with each other.

I believe that nobody should have a gun. Maybe even in an ideal society, police would only need tasers (and far less harmful ones at that). There is certainly no need for the public to have them. Even hunting, I don’t see why they exist. Why does someone feel such an intense need to kill another animal? Can’t they just go pick up a less destructive hobby, like golf? And if you live in a place where you think you need a gun for personal protection, what does that say about you, your neighborhood, local police, and country?!

I simply feel like more can be achieved through education. If a truly intelligent and altruistic society did exist, where we all got along and were really able to make informed decisions by separating emotion from reason, would there even be a need for guns? People would be able to agree to disagree, and just get on with their lives.

If there was a reformed education system in place to nurture such a society, and drugs were legalized to eliminate the gang culture that supports the destructive use and illegal distribution of guns, then there would no longer be a need for the general public to have guns for self-protection. Then maybe we can put those gentler tasers in the pockets of police instead of guns.

Popularity: 70% [?]

Late last week, British Prime Minister Tony Blair claimed that “black culture” is causing many of the recent murders in London. With harsh frankness in his final weeks at the top of Britain’s Parliament, Blair was not afraid to confront political correctness head on. Meanwhile, a large majority of responses disagreed with the Prime Minister, declaring the real problem was “social deprivation”. In staunch retaliation, Blair stated that “Economic inequality is a factor and we should deal with that, but I don’t think it’s the thing that is producing the most violent expression of this social alienation. I think that is to do with the fact that particular youngsters are being brought up in a setting that has no rules, no discipline, no proper framework around them.”

I find it particularly intriguing how politicians tend to let their true feelings known when they have the least to lose. Their thoughts are always provocative, and Blair’s message was head-on with one of the largest issues concerning crime in developed countries. Frankly, I do basically agree with him, although I would perhaps word it differently. The problem here is the gang culture, which you can be born into or just as easily dragged into. It’s almost as bad as the poverty cycle. However, the fact remains that the majority in this culture are black people.

Not to blame pop culture, but just listen to the lyrics of rap music. That is the prime example of what gang culture is. Whether or not a teenager falls into it during drug experimentation relies very heavily on his or her upbringing and current situation in life. Although, if born into it, it’s quite natural that you yourself would join in the “family business”.

Obviously, the whole issue is quite a large and hard one to tackle. But, I assume one would want to eliminate the gang culture itself to make any real progress. Drug legalization would go quite far in reducing what is the main feature of the culture. With no drugs to deal, or perhaps rather far less people to sell to, the market would be literally destroyed. This would immediately reduce the number of gang attacks.

From here, by properly funding and aiding organizations who help people get out of the poverty cycle, we could ensure those formerly in the gang culture get proper training or education to get real jobs. This in turn helps create a stable financial situation in which a more acceptable lifestyle can be adopted.

Of course, it’s necessary to boost policing to get the crime leaders off the streets and into a rehabilitation process. Couple that with proper education to teenagers about drugs, alcohol, sex, and the law, as well as extracurricular activities abound. Ta-da: Gang culture eliminated!

Whatever the case, I think the PM made a very strong and important statement by throwing political correctness out of the window. It needed to be said by someone.

Popularity: 68% [?]

Schools in the UK are planning to drop the required teaching of the Holocaust and the Crusades in an effort to dodge any criticism from religious parents. One school was “strongly challenged by some Christian parents for their treatment of the Arab-Israeli conflict-and the history of the State of Israel that did not accord with the teachings of their denomination.”

The teachers who refuse to explain to students the seriousness of these issues, out of fear from any religion, should immediately have their teaching certificates revoked and be fired. Schools have an essential responsibility to society to provide an unbiased understanding of society and prepare children for life in the real world. This is one reason why I disagree with certain private schools, as they are allowed to bend what’s taught. However, with true “separation”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-state_separation of religion and state, there should not, in any circumstance, be the removal or addition of curriculum simply based on religion. Private schools provide a venue for religious teachings. This should not be intersecting with secular, government-run schools.

This argument is quite similar to the Kansas School Department agreeing to teach intelligent design, alongside evolution, based on the demands of local Christian parents. It’s not right to advocate a theology that completely eschews the fundamentals of science. It should not be part of the science curriculum, just as schools should not be sidestepping history in the history curriculum. Something as important to the 21st century as the Holocaust simply cannot be ignored into today’s world.

The UK Department of Education’s submission to the religious demands is simply sickening and deplorable to the fundamentals of true, transparent education. This should not be happening anywhere in the world. The people of England should be demanding that ALL of their schools refuse to rewrite history just because a few loud theologists demand it, out of respect to their religious beliefs. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

Popularity: 70% [?]

Cigarette smoke continues to be banned across the world in restaurants, schools, offices, bars, and other public places. But, is Toronto going to far with the potential banning of smoking in rooms of all apartment buildings in Canada’s largest city?

Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman has announced that it is time for the public to begin to debate over the merits of a ban. Many highrises and apartment buildings do not have the proper ventilation systems in place to ensure that smoke does not filter into other suites. While he would like the market to take care of the situation, Smitherman said it would be interesting to have the discussion over whether any legislation should be in place.

We all know smoking causes many health problems. While the number of smokers has certainly diminished in recent decades, and a growing stigma is attached to those with cigarettes in their mouths, I do believe that more laws are required to move the situation forward. Smoking should be banned wherever it can encroach on someone who does not welcome it. Only if the area has sufficient ventilation, such as proper closed off smoking rooms in bars, or in a large park, should smoking be allowed. A certain radius around bus stops or the front of public buildings should be smoke-free by law. The smoke in such an area can travel with the right gust of wind, and it annoys anyone in its path. It shouldn’t be up to the non-smoker to move out of the way.

If smoke is leaking into the rooms of non-smokers, those buildings should be designated as “smokey.” From here, I could see two situations: either buildings are designated as smoke-free or not; or, under harsher laws, the landlords of the “smokey” buildings would be required to fix the ventilation within a certain date or face closure. With option 1, you could even provide incentives like lower property taxes in exchange for cleaner and healthier air for citizens, while a “smoke” tax could also be applied to those buildings who do not conform with the smoke-free status.

Popularity: 48% [?]

In a move that’s sure to annoy some in the White House, China and Russia strengthened their outer space cooperation today by announcing that they are preparing a joint mission to put a probe on Mars. The Chinese are providing the probe, named the “Phobos Explorer”, to collect samples of the red planet, while the Russians are building the spacecraft. The two countries have maintained ties throughout the years, beginning their relationship back in the 1950’s when the Soviets helped their Communist brethen establish the Chinese Space Program. While China’s space efforts are hindered by their lack of technological development, agreements such as this one will push its program forward.

However, perhaps the most interesting piece of the news to ponder is how America will react. While the joint launch is something the United States successfully completed a few years ago, NASA hasn’t had much to show for its space program since the Apollo missions. Is this the impetus for another race to space? Maybe not quite, but I’ll certainly bet that US officials are uneasy with the idea of their former enemy teaming up with their new enemy in an area such as space travel. But at least society will see some benefits with competition in space programs, versus something like, oh, say, nuclear armament.

Popularity: 54% [?]