Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Tuesday January 12, 2010


Marketablility

Are certain goods not marketable?

Please read the following as pertains to surrogacy. Over the next two days, write your thoughts on this particular case. Then ponder whether the selling of organs. You might want to do some background reading on organ selling.

Mary Beth Whitehead, the genetic mother, was artificially inseminated with William Stern's sperm, making her the surrogate mother of his child. Whitehead responded to an ad in the Asbury Park Press seeking women willing to help infertile couples have children.[1] Despite what was stated in the surrogacy contract, Mr. Stern's wife, Elizabeth, was not infertile but had multiple sclerosis and was concerned about the potential health implications of pregnancy. A medical colleague had warned her that his own wife, who also had multiple sclerosis, had suffered temporary paralysis during pregnancy.[2]

On March 27, 1986, Whitehead gave birth to a daughter, whom she named "Sara Elizabeth Whitehead." Within 24 hours of transferring custody to the Sterns, Whitehead returned to ask for the baby back and threatened suicide. Whitehead then refused to return the baby to the Sterns and left New Jersey, taking the infant with her.

In 1987 New Jersey Superior Court judge Harvey R. Sorkow awarded custody of Baby M to the Sterns under a "best interest of the child analysis", validating the surrogacy contract.[3]

On February 3, 1988, the Supreme Court of New Jersey, led by Chief Justice Robert Wilentz, invalidated surrogacy contracts as against public policy, but in dicta affirmed the trial court's "best interest of the child" analysis. The Supreme Court remanded the case to family court. On remand, the lower court awarded William Stern custody and Mary Beth Whitehead visitation rights.[4][5] The court specifically addressed the issue of surrogates who were genetic parents, leaving open the question of whether gestational surrogates also had parental rights and whether gestational surrogacy also violated public policy.[6]

The case attracted much attention, as it demonstrated that the possibilities of third party reproduction had novel legal and social ramifications. The case exposed the dilemma of a birth mother created by contractual agreements and biological bonding. The case also split feminists who, on one side, argued that a woman has rights to her own body (that is, that she can decide to be a surrogate if she wishes), but who were also sensitive to the issue of potential exploitation. The surrogacy arrangement was heavily criticized.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Monday January 11, 2010



Conscription and Capitalism

"Any man whose name was drawn could escape service in one of the two ways: he could buy a flat commutation fee of $300.00, which exempted him unless and until his name was drawn again-or he could hire a substitue to go to war for him."

I'd like you to reflect and blog on two things here: Was this a fair system? Why or why not? And how does this compare to our all volunteer army?

Friday, January 8, 2010

Friday January 8, 2010

Folks were mostly in agreement over the Tiger Wood's incident as related in the article. Bravo to those who also commented on the writing itself. Rather than an article, here is more of a philosophical question to ponder:

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

(this actually ties into the last three blogs!)

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Thursday January 7 2010


Thoughts: please make sure you write thoughtful responses, following the usual critical thinking formula of making a statement followed by support. Your responses should give reasons for your agreement. You folks are coming up with some interesting perspectives. Awesome.
(By the way, Happy Birthday, Jala!)

Third blog: The following is the article published last week in Vanity Fair. It is essentially a summary of the Tiger Woods' incident. Since the article will take a while to read, let's plan on responding to the incident over two days. There is lots to talk about here. This will be due by the close of Friday.

Tiger in the Rough

When Tiger Woods finally fell from his pedestal—the car crash, the angry wife, the tales of kinky extramarital sex, the link to a controversial sports doctor—it was one of the greatest recorded drops in popularity of any nonpolitical figure. Given Woods’s impenetrable mask of perfection, and the hints of trouble from one strange glimpse behind it, the revelations were inevitable and very, very costly. Annie Leibovitz catches the icon, pre-scandal, in prophetic isolation, while the author finds the clues in the wreckage.
By Buzz Bissinger
Photographs by Annie Leibovitz
February 2010 Photograph by Annie Leibovitz.


It wasn’t until after the early-morning hours of November 27—when Tiger Woods got into his Cadillac Escalade closely trailed by a golf club carried by his likely very furious wife, drove his car far less distance than he putts a golf ball, and hit a fire hydrant—that the tens of millions of us who admired him suddenly came to a realization: this was the first time we had ever seen him do something human, except perhaps for when, at the Buick Open last year, he was caught on video shaking his leg, apparently farting, and then grinning like a frat boy.

We know all too well the unraveling that has gone on since the crash. Tiger’s little car ride was as pregnant with imminent implosion as the one taken by another sports celebrity on the San Diego Freeway, followed by a convoy of Los Angeles police cars, in 1994. Tiger’s story has been driven by sex, tons of it, in allegedly all different varieties: threesomes in which he greatly enjoyed girl-on-girl, and mild S&M (featuring hair-pulling and spanking); $60,000 pay-for-sex escort dates; a quickie against the side of a car in a church parking lot; a preference for porn stars and nightclub waitresses, virtually all of them with lips almost as thick as their very full breasts; drug-bolstered encounters designed to make him even more of a conquistador (Ambien, of all things); immature sex-text messages (“Send me something naughty ... Go to the bathroom and take [a picture],” “I will wear you out ... When was the last time you got [laid]?”); soulful confessions that he got married only for image and was bored with his wife; regular payments of between $5,000 and $10,000 each month to keep his harem quiet. It’s all there and more in what is the greatest single fall in popularity of a nonpolitician in the history of public-opinion surveys: a drop in approval from 87 percent in 2005 to 33 percent, with an unfavorable rating of 57 percent, according to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.

But why? When soccer player David Beckham was rumored to have been in sexual trouble, it may have been disappointing to his fans, but it was hardly surprising. Beckham just had the look of someone who was born to screw around. The same with Alex Rodriguez. The same with Kobe Bryant. (Is there a player in pro basketball who doesn’t screw around?) The same also with Bill Clinton and John Edwards and David Duchovny and Colorado minister Ted Haggard.

But not Tiger Woods. In an age of constant gotcha and exposure, he had always been the bionic man in terms of personality, controlling to a fault and controlled to a fault, smiling with humility and showing those pearly white teeth in victory or defeat, sui generis in the world of pro golf, where even fellow pros and other insiders didn’t really know him, because he didn’t want anybody to know him. With Woods, everything was crafted to produce a man of nothing, with no interior—non-threatening and non-controversial.

I’m aware if I’m playing at my best I’m tough to beat ...
It will always be the ball and me ...
No matter how good you get you can always get better ...
My main focus is on my game ...

That was Tiger Woods, all of which made him the perfect man and pitchman for our imperfect times, a charming nonperson.

In the movie Up in the Air, George Clooney’s character, Ryan Bingham, travels nearly 330 days a year to fire people with a sympathetic look on his face. He lives his life in airports, and his very emptiness, masked by calculated caring and aphorisms, makes him effective. So it was with Woods, making millions of dollars for endorsing a consulting company called Accenture with smooth and sophisticated ads emphasizing the noble but totally nebulous concept of “high performance.”

But even Ryan Bingham is ultimately no match for Woods. “To know me is to fly with me,” Bingham says at one point, and there is truth in that. But there was no way of ever knowing Tiger Woods—not in golf, beyond witnessing the machine-like relentlessness that made him the most remarkable athlete of our time, and not outside of golf, because he never showed any real part of himself off the course, never stepping outside of the cocoon that he and his handlers, primarily International Management Group, had created. Nothing was left to chance, not even his wardrobe during major tournaments, a careful mix of dark pants and golf shirt and hat picked out in consultation with Nike. He had the trappings of a life: a beautiful blonde wife, Elin Nordegren, who was a former Swedish model; a little boy and a little girl; an obligatory mansion in Florida, outside Orlando. But so much of it now seems like requisite window dressing, props for the further crafting of image and garnering of those hundreds of millions of dollars in endorsements—Nike, Gillette, Gatorade, Tag Heuer, AT&T. It now seems that when he returned home after a tournament and vanished back inside his gated community, the persona he left behind, the one he so obsessively presented to the public, was as empty as Bingham’s Omaha apartment, pieces of furniture without any meaning, a life without meaning.

There was no way of ever knowing Tiger Woods—beyond witnessing the machine-like relentlessness that made him remarkable.At the end of Up in the Air, Clooney realizes the error of his ways, that a life shielding human emotion is not worth living, that not everything can be controlled or should be controlled. But Woods, to the bitter end and with a kind of hubris that revealed his fundamental arrogance, still felt he could beat the tidal wave back. When he was taken to the hospital for injuries, a fake name was used. When the highway patrol came knocking, he refused to speak to them for three straight days. It was only when his paramours started pouring out of every cupboard like tenement cockroaches that Tiger expressed some sort of awareness that he was in deep shit, though he did not do so in person but on his Web site. He must have thought the merest acknowledgment of impropriety would be some type of antidote: he was Tiger. For the second time in his life he badly estimated, just as he had a few days earlier when he apparently thought that most fans would accept the story that his wife had a golf club in hand to free him from his Escalade instead of trying to beat the hell out of him for his infidelity. Once again it was sheer arrogance from a 33-year-old man—not “a kid,” as his I.M.G. agent, Mark Steinberg, still idiotically calls him—who continued to think he could fool the world.

There was once, in fact, a sustained glimpse of the real Tiger Woods. In 1997, Charles Pierce, writing for GQ, got inside. Tiger was 21 at the time, on the eve of winning his first of four Masters. For somebody who at the age of two had appeared on The Mike Douglas Show (where, with a perfect swing, he miraculously hit a stunning shot into the center of a net), he seemed remarkably naïve and remarkably stupid about the ways of the media. The interview was largely a series of profane quips by Tiger, such as “What I can’t figure out is why so many good-looking women hang around baseball and basketball. Is it because, you know, people always say that, like, black guys have big dicks?” At another moment, during a photo shoot where four women attended to his every need and flirted with him as he flirted back, he told a joke: He rubbed the tips of his shoes together and then asked the women, “What’s this?” They were stumped. “It’s a black guy taking off his condom.”

There came another joke about why two lesbians always get to where they are going faster than two gay guys: because the lesbians are always going 69. Pierce’s interview, which he taped, was the only honest and open one Woods has ever given. After that the steel wall of insulation came down, spearheaded by I.M.G.

Joe Logan, who covered golf and the P.G.A. tour for 14 years for The Philadelphia Inquirer and saw Woods play close to a hundred times, invariably observed the same thing whenever Tiger appeared at a press conference during a tournament: he came into the room with an entourage that included several security officials from the P.G.A., Mark Steinberg, and often Nordegren, after they got married in 2004. An almost imperceptible nod would come from Steinberg to begin, and a half-hour of questions and answers would start. Some pro golfers, such as Phil Mickelson, wear their hearts on their sleeves during these sessions. Mickelson could talk candidly about his game and the impact of his wife’s having breast cancer. He could also be snarky and pissy. Never Tiger.

“Tiger learned very well to talk forever and say nothing,” said Logan, a co-founder of a Web site called MyPhillyGolf.com, which covers the game both nationally and in the Philadelphia region. For Woods, Logan remembered, an emotional response to a flawless round was “I had a pretty good day.” He never got rude or rattled. He never got irritated with a stupid question, in large part because he knew the camera was always on him. The press conference would go on until Steinberg would give another nearly imperceptible nod that it was over. Afterward, Logan, like other golf writers, would walk out and realize that virtually nothing Woods had said, whatever the cordiality, was usable.

During a tournament, it was not unusual for Logan and fellow writers to go out to dinner and see other golfers, who would at least acknowledge them. But not Tiger. Once a round was over, he did not linger. He often stayed in private houses during tournaments, and the rumor during one British Open was that he took out the existing furniture and moved in his own.

If he was unknowable to writers who covered him, he was equally unknowable to virtually all the other golfers on the tour. They admired him and were thankful for him. They knew of his remarkable 71 P.G.A. victories during his 13-year pro career. They knew he had won 14 major tournaments, leaving him only 4 behind the record set by Jack Nicklaus. Most important, they knew that purses for P.G.A. tournaments had gone from $71 million in 1996 to $279 million in 2008, virtually all of the increase attributable to Woods. But there was always an arm’s-length relationship, this sense that Woods as a golfer was superhuman and they were not, though he was always affable, never antagonistic. Early on, he had learned that one of the rules of pro golf is to conform, a commandment only heightened in his case by his being black in a white man’s game. “He tried to present himself as a normal person,” said Michael Bamberger, a senior writer for Sports Illustrated, who has covered Woods’s career. “What seems clear now is that he lived a very abnormal life all his life in a sport in which guys are very conventional, and if you are not conventional you get ostracized right away.” Whatever demons lurked, he kept them well hidden. Too well hidden.

In the wake of the steamy revelations, Logan, like the general public, feels that Tiger willfully, and fraudulently, created an image designed to make him as much money as possible: “He held himself out to a higher standard he created and built and cashed in on. Everyone feels duped and betrayed. It’s not like some guy who got drunk and jumped in the sack with some waitress.”

With the number of alleged paramours reaching 14 as of mid-December (a figure bound to multiply), it is safe to say that behind the non-accessible accessibility and seemingly perfect marriage to a beautiful woman was a sex addict who could not get enough. There is nothing wrong with that, given that the opportunities for Tiger were endless. But it is hard not to conclude that the only reason he got married was to burnish that precious image even more, family man on the outside and what Logan calls “this whole alternate life” on the inside. Even Hugh Hefner publicly disapproved of Woods’s behavior, decrying not that he had sex with other women but that he tried to lie and cheat his way through his liaisons without manning up to the fact that the marriage wasn’t working.

It was the age-old clash of image versus reality, the compartmentalization of two different lives that inevitably merge, whoever you are.Things are only continuing to cascade downward for Woods. Sexcapades aside, the most damning blow to his reputation may well be his link to Anthony Galea, a doctor who has been charged in Canada with trying to smuggle an unapproved drug into the country. In the United States, Galea is reportedly suspected by federal officials of dispensing illegal human-growth-hormone drugs to athletes, an allegation he denies. According to news accounts, Woods saw the doctor on several occasions to aid his recovery from knee surgery. There is no proof that Woods took performance enhancers, and sources say Woods is not part of the federal investigation, though as far back as 2007, sportswriters covering him could not help but notice that from the back he was beginning to look like Barry Bonds. But since he was Tiger Woods, they gave him a free pass. Now, whether Tiger is innocent or not, suspicion will linger. There have also been reports that his wife plans to leave him despite Woods’s frantic attempt to keep the marriage intact with what the New York Post called a $5 million “re-signing” bonus. Going forward, it is impossible to trust the motives of Woods on anything, whether he wants to be married for real or to reclaim an image so bloodied that his endorsement career is almost certainly over.

The swirling question is if, and when, he will return to golf. Most observers think he will, but with companies such as Accenture, Gillette, and Tag Heuer basically fleeing for the hills, he would simply be a golfer trying to win a tournament. His focus is such that he can likely still win, whatever the insanity surrounding him, but life will be different. Donald Trump thinks he will come back “bigger than ever,” a sure sign the opposite will happen.

In the end it was the age-old clash of image versus reality, the compartmentalization of two different lives that inevitably merge at some certain point, whoever you are. He exhibited the same superhuman confidence off the golf course that he exhibited on it, apparently convinced he would never be caught despite the stupid sloppiness at the end—text messages, voice-mail messages. He deluded himself into thinking he could be something that he wasn’t: untouchable. The greatest feat of his career is that he managed to get away with it for so long in public, the bionic man instead of the human one who hit a fire hydrant.

Buzz Bissinger is a Vanity Fair contributing editor.

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Wednesday January 6, 2010

As with yesterday's prompt, lets start a conversation about the new law in Colorado.
I went through yesterday's blogs. You have a C if you only wrote for yourself, a B if you did one response and an A if you did two. You can finish those up today to get full credit. thank you.


Marijuana No Longer Criminal in Colorado Ski Town
by Kurt A. Gardinier


The new year brought new, sensible marijuana laws to the vibrant ski town of Breckenridge, Colorado. In November, citizens voted by nearly a 3 to 1 margin to remove criminal and civil penalties for adults over 21 carrying up to an ounce of marijuana and smoking paraphernalia. The law takes effect today, January 1, 2010.

“There is no sense in criminalizing a substance that is far less toxic, less addictive, and less problematic than alcohol,” said Brian Vicente, executive director of Sensible Colorado. “This is a huge step toward more a more sensible policy, in which adults are no longer punished for making the rational, safer choice to use marijuana instead of alcohol.”

The new law doesn’t change laws prohibiting use by minors, smoking in public, or driving under the influence. It also doesn’t allow for the possession or use of marijuana while skiing. While conflicts with state and federal law remain, this first and necessary step toward ending marijuana prohibition sends a strong message to lawmakers in Colorado and around the country.

Tuesday January 5 2010


First blog: The following is the Michael Pollan's blog from yesterday, where he addresses the health care crisis.

You should have a minimum of 20 people on you friend list. I've checked and some of you folks do not. Please recitify that first. Then read Pollan's blog and respond in a thoughtful manner. Once you have done so, start checking what other folks in the class wrote. Choose two and repond to those. You should have a total of three writing exercises for this: one personal in depth response and two responses to those of a classmate. Grading is easy: I read and count! New blog post on Thursday.

"Food Rules": A Completely Different Way To Fix The Health Care Crisis


Michael Pollan Author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," "In Defense of Food"
"Food Rules": A Completely Different Way To Fix The Health Care Crisis

The idea for this book came from a doctor--a couple of them, as a matter of fact. They had read my last book, "In Defense of Food", which ended with a handful of tips for eating well: simple ways to navigate the treacherous landscape of modern food and the often-confusing science of nutrition. "What I would love is a pamphlet I could hand to my patients with some rules for eating wisely," they would say. "I don't have time for the big nutrition lecture and, anyway, they really don't need to know what an antioxidant is in order to eat wisely." Another doctor, a transplant cardiologist, wrote to say "you can't imagine what I see on the insides of people these days wrecked by eating food products instead of food." So rather than leaving his heart patients with yet another prescription or lecture on cholesterol, he gives them a simple recipe for roasting a chicken, and getting three wholesome meals out of it -- a very different way of thinking about health.

Make no mistake: our health care crisis is in large part a crisis of the American diet -- roughly three quarters of the two-trillion plus we spend on health care in this country goes to treat chronic diseases, most of which can be prevented by a change in lifestyle, especially diet. And a healthy diet is a whole lot simpler than the food industry and many nutritional scientists -- what I call the Nutritional Industrial Complex -- would have us believe. After spending several years trying to answer the supposedly incredibly complicated question of how we should eat in order to be maximally healthy, I discovered the answer was shockingly simple: eat real food, not too much of it, and more plants than meat. Or, put another way, get off the modern western diet, with its abundance of processed food, refined grains and sugars, and its sore lack of vegetables, whole grains and fruit.

So I decided to take the doctors up on the challenge. I set out to collect and formulate some straightforward, memorable, everyday rules for eating, a set of personal policies that would, taken together or even separately, nudge people onto a healthier and happier path. I solicited rules from doctors, scientist, chefs, and readers, and then wrote a bunch myself, trying to boil down into everyday language what we really know about healthy eating. And while most of the rules are backed by science, they are not framed in the vocabulary of science but rather culture -- a source of wisdom about eating that turns out to have as much, if not more, to teach us than nutritional science does.

What follows is a small sample of "Food Rules", a half dozen policies that will give you a taste of what you'll find in the book: sixty-four food rules, each with a paragraph of explanation. I think you'll see from this little appetizer that "Food Rules" is a most unconventional diet book. You can read it in an hour and it just might change your eating life. I hope you'll take away something you can put to good use, and maybe get a chuckle or two along the way. And do let me know if have any food rules I should know about. I'm still collecting them, at pollanfoodrules@gmail.com.

#11 Avoid foods you see advertised on television.

Food marketers are ingenious at turning criticisms of their products -- and rules like these -- into new ways to sell slightly different versions of the same processed foods: They simply reformulate (to be low-fat, have no HFCS or transfats, or to contain fewer ingredients) and then boast about their implied healthfulness, whether the boast is meaningful or not. The best way to escape these marketing ploys is to tune out the marketing itself, by refusing to buy heavily promoted foods. Only the biggest food manufacturers can afford to advertise their products on television: More than two thirds of food advertising is spent promoting processed foods (and alcohol), so if you avoid products with big ad budgets, you'll automatically be avoiding edible foodlike substances. As for the 5 percent of food ads that promote whole foods (the prune or walnut growers or the beef ranchers), common sense will, one hopes, keep you from tarring them with the same brush -- these are the exceptions that prove the rule.

From "Food Rules":

#19 If it came from a plant, eat it; if it was made in a plant, don't.

#36 Don't eat breakfast cereals that change the color of the milk.

This should go without saying. Such cereals are highly processed and full of refined carbohydrates as well as chemical additives.

#39 Eat all the junk food you want as long as you cook it yourself.

There is nothing wrong with eating sweets, fried foods, pastries, even drinking soda every now and then, but food manufacturers have made eating these formerly expensive and hard-to-make treats so cheap and easy that we're eating them every day. The french fry did not become America's most popular vegetable until industry took over the jobs of washing, peeling, cutting, and frying the potatoes -- and cleaning up the mess. If you made all the french fries you ate, you would eat them much less often, if only because they're so much work. The same holds true for fried chicken, chips, cakes, pies, and ice cream. Enjoy these treats as often as you're willing to prepare them -- chances are good it won't be every day.

#47 Eat when you are hungry, not when you are bored.

For many of us, eating has surprisingly little to do with hunger. We eat out of boredom, for entertainment, to comfort or reward ourselves. Try to be aware of why you're eating, and ask yourself if you're really hungry -- before you eat and then again along the way. (One old wive's test: If you're not hungry enough to eat an apple, then you're not hungry.) Food is a costly antidepressant.

#58 Do all your eating at a table.

No, a desk is not a table. If we eat while we're working, or while watching TV or driving, we eat mindlessly -- and as a result eat a lot more than we would if we were eating at a table, paying attention to what we're doing. This phenomenon can be tested (and put to good use): Place a child in front of a television set and place a bowl of fresh vegetables in front of him or her. The child will eat everything in the bowl, often even vegetables that he or she doesn't ordinarily touch, without noticing what's going on. Which suggests an exception to the rule: When eating somewhere other than at a table, stick to fruits and vegetables.

Monday, January 4, 2010

Monday January 4, 2010



The French songwriter Jacques Brel wrote the following. It is lovely message I wish to share with you all as a nod to the New Year.

Our Deepest Fear.......

Je vous souhaite des rêves à n'en plus finir
Et l'envie furieuse d'en réaliser quelques uns.
Je vous souhaite d'aimer ce qu'il faut aimer
Et d'oublier ce qu'il faut oublier.
Je vous souhaite des passions. Je vous souhaite des silences.
Je vous souhaite des chants d'oiseaux au réveil
Et des rires d'enfants.
Je vous souhaite de résister à l'enlisement, à l'indifference, aux vertus négatives de notre époque.
Je vous souhaite surtout d'être vous!


Our Deepest Fear.......(English translation)
My wish for you is that you have a neverending series of dreams and a furious desire to realize a few of them.
My wish for you is that you love what must be loved and forget what must be forgotten.
I wish you passions. I wish you silences.
My wish for you is that you hear the songs of birds and the laughter of children at your awaking.
My wish for you is that you resist the downtroddenness, the indifference, the negative virtues of our era. My wish for you especially is that you be YOU!


New ASSIGNMENT:

We have three weeks left in this term and will spend it blogging. What this will entail is that every couple of days, you will have an article prompt to which you will respond. These responses should be subjective, much as one would write an editorial; however, they should not be diatribes, but insightful, reflective observations. At the same time, again like an editorial, there will be some controversy. Not everyone will have the same reaction.

Mechanics:
1. You need to connect to each other on the blog. Early on, I put together a list of folk's blog addresses. I'll hand out a copy to everyone. In class, let me know what is incorrect and I'll update it for tomorrow. In the meantime, put everyone in.

2. Read the article. They'll be one Tuesday.

3. Respond and post your article.

4, Now read some of your classmates' responses and respond to at least three of these. Again, these are not attacks, but thoughtful reflections and obserrvations. You may want to do a little background reading to support your arguments.