Posted in Politics

Logic vs. Amendment 1

Today, North Carolina voters approved Constitutional Amendment 1, “to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.”  This effectively bans same-sex marriage, and all forms of civil or domestic unions or partnerships (including heterosexual ones). 

I’m not going to get angry, because that won’t do any good.  Instead, I’m going to show you why every reason I could find for opposing same-sex marriage doesn’t stand up to logic.  Because that’s what this argument needs: logic.

The logic of Amendment 1 is ultimately that same-sex couples cannot procreate. By this logic, all marriages should legally terminate at menopause, sterile people should be denied marriage licenses, and all forms of birth control should be illegal.

Perhaps that’s the world you want, 60% of North Carolina voters, but me?  I want to be able to marry whomever I want, regardless of their gender, their ability to produce children, and whether or not we choose to use protection.

Middle East Timeline

Since my first semester here at Tufts, I've been studying with the help of technology. And every college student knows there's no technology more intriguing during finals than Facebook. That's probably why I used examples from Facebook to study for Psychology the fall of my freshman year. But with the new Facebook timeline, it only seems fitting that this technology be used for a history course. After all, I've already written about ideas for an historical Facebook of sorts, so this exploration of middle eastern politics is simply the next logical step. Presenting a brief compilation of Facebook-timeline screencaps for important figures of the middle east. Disclaimer: Without having taken the class, you might not find these as hilarious as I do.

If any of that doesn't make sense, try Wikipedia. Back to studying: the final for this course begins in 1 hour.

Is it Okay to Turn the Homeless into WiFi Hotspots?

A company recently came up with the idea of turning homeless people into wireless hotspots. Piloted in Austin this past month, the group allowed people wireless internet for 15 minutes for $2, a fee which went directly to the homeless person.

A huge debate erupted over the ethicality of turning the homeless into wifi hotspots. Both sides asserted pretty compelling points.

Is it immoral, inhumane, dehumanizing, or humiliating to turn homeless people into wireless hotspots? I actually really want to hear readers’ input on this. Personally, I’m ambivalent.

NO!:

They’re people, not routers. The fact that they have to wear those shirts is rather humiliating, too. The very diction “I AM a wireless hotspot” sounds almost like something from Huxley’s Brave New World. The whole thing is just so tasteless and contributes to the alienation of the homeless from our society.

YES!:

Why is this any less ethical than buying a newspaper from a homeless person? In both cases, you’re paying for information...

Evan solves the Falkland Islands controversy!

Because everyone reading this is a well-read and jet-setting internationalist, you all know everything about the Falkland Islands controversy already.  On the off chance that you’ve stumbled upon this blog (hello!) and don’t know about it, or even where the Falkland Islands are (it’s OK – residents of London can’t even find it on a map) well, I’ll be glad to talk to you about it. …through screens and text and… well, you get the point.

The Falkland Islands are a pair of tiny islands of the southeastern tip of South America and have been under British influence and sovereignty (with a short interruption, which I’ll get to) since 1833.  Argentina also claims them, however, going so far as to make the declaration of ownership of Las Malvinas (the Argentine name for the Falklands) part of their constitution in 1994.

The islands have no military value (the comedian Eddie Izzard joked that Britain keeps them for “strategic sheep purposes”), are economically self-sustaining through ecotourism...

Shalom & Salaam

I just came back from a lecture and discussion with David Keyes regarding "The Arab Spring: Human Rights and Revolution in the Middle East." The event was part of Israel Peace Week, the second annual Friends of Israel event promoting the peace process in the Middle East. This week followed so-called "Israeli Apartheid Week," a protest by the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) against the state of Israel.

Having listened to, and spoken with, SJP members railing about Jewish supremacy and Israeli rights violations, I was at first appalled. But during the Keyes lecture, one Palestinian Tufts student raised her hand and (unlike her more disruptive peers at the previous day's speaker) agreed with much of what Keyes had said. She then asked where her place was as a Palestinian who does not support Hamas, does not idolize suicide bombers, and does not teach hatred of Jews and Christians. Keyes' answer:...