Monday, April 16, 2012

The Palaver Tree

The Palaver Tree system is a mode of thinking that is harmony over truth, hearing from all involved, community rituals and gatherings. This is a unique way of decision making that does not have the component of urgency or rushing that we often feel in today's society.

If we truly took the time to relax, and think about our decisions fully, we may live in a very different world. Although this is an extremely broad idea, consider the upcoming election. This is an interesting thought to relate to the Palaver Tree. The Palaver Tree is all about inclusion and cohesiveness. I would say something must people struggle with in our country and the source of much conflict is that of politics. Of course in a country like the United States, there is no way everyone will agree. However, we have come close to narrow it to two parties. Yes, there are major differences among Republicans and Democrats. However, if we look at what is important to people in both parties, we would find some significant similarities- just different ways of getting there.

In applying the Palaver Tree to our current political and economic situation, it is easy to see how the adjectives one would use to describe this system would be very different than how one may describe Politics in America today. However, with politics comes thousands of decisions and opinions. Think about politics and the upcoming election in relation to harmony, hearing from all involved, and the idea of gathering together. Relating this Palaver Tree idea, it is probably safe to say we may go about the election and politics in a different way. Instead of emphasizing the differences between the two groups, do it in a way with harmony and inclusion in mind.

Yes, this is ideal. Having everyone get along and be included is what many think of as a perfect world. However, if we stop to think about these values before big decisions, I think we would find ourselves making some difference choices.

Sunday, April 1, 2012

Duty to Seek Truth and Report It.

An earlier post is about the major TCU drug bust that occurred in February of this year. Details of the drug bust excluded, there was much controversy surrounding the media coverage.

Many felt that too many details were revealed about those arresting, including mug shots and the affidavits, because those arrested were just accused, and had not had their day in court or found guilty. On the other side, many felt the public had the right to know what was happening in the TCU community.

Regardless of what is right, there are many values that can be examined. Telling an accurate story versus making a profit or satisfying ratings. Good stories sell, but is it always right? Reporters have an obligation to seek the truth and report it. It is important to not blur this with the sensationalism and attention that comes with a good story.

Amazon: A Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure

On November 10, 2008, a book became available on Amazon.com, titled "A Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure."

As one can imagine, this created immense backlash. At first, Amazon defended itself, explaining that it wanted to offer the free marketplace for people to exchange ideas. Amazon continued to to say that not allowing this book to be for sale is censorship.

However, later that day, Amazon pulled the book without making a statement.

In this case, it is important to examine the values at stake here. In my opinion, the most important values would be safety or children, moral obligations, freedom of information, and respect. It is important for Amazon to be a free marketplace of ideas, including the important of freedom of speech and the press.

That being said, maintaining these important ideas is important. However, when it comes to safety and the good for all people involved, what is the best decision? Probably pulling the book. There is no other motivation behind this book, other than promoting something that is against the law. Therefore, I believe Amazon ultimately did the right thing. They should have made the decision sooner, and issued a statement explaining their position- regardless of what it was.

Susan G. Komen

Last month, Susan G. Komen for the Cure was involved in a very controversial situation involving their grants to Planned Parenthood. Komen, as the largest organization in the country dedicated to breast cancer research, treatment, and prevention, is in the public eye and its decisions affect many people across the country. Komen gives millions of dollars in grant money to different health organizations each year. In the grant bylaws, it states that Komen cannot give money under any type of federal investigation. Recently Planned Parenthood fell into that category, as it was under federal investigation related to federal money going to Planned Parenthood, specifically to fund abortions. It is well known that abortion is a very controversial topic. Therefore, this caused much attention.

Shortly after announcing that Komen would no longer fund Planned Parenthood, there was a mix of reactions. Planned Parenthood and its supporters were very vocal about their opinions. Meanwhile, those who do not support Planned Parenthood or abortion, including many Catholic organizations, showed their support by donating to Komen directly.

One day later, Komen announced that it is revised its bylaws, therefore, reversing the decision.

As you can see, this caused much attention. Many angry and many happy, Komen lost many of its supporters. As an intern for Susan G. Komen in the Greater Fort Worth Affiliate, I was able to see first hand how this affected the Komen affiliates.

In addition to having to return many donations that Komen received after the first decision, the affiliates were not as informed about the situation. Headquarters made these decisions behind closed doors, not giving much advance warning to its affiliates.

In this case, the ethical system of Utilitarianism should be applied- making the best decision for the greatest amount of people. A major issue with this situation is that many who were voicing their opinions were not informed as to why Komen was making the decisions it made. However, if supporting Planned Parenthood can provide more women with the opportunity to receive breast cancer health, and no money going toward abortion, then that is probably the best decision.