Digital piracy. This may not seem like an ethical gray area to some, but for many it has become a sticky quagmire of rights, freedoms, and expectations. Gone are the days of recording mix tapes from the radio on a Saturday afternoon or doing a wavy-line copy from VCR to VCR of rented videos. Today, your grandmother probably has a computer with more processing power than was required to send someone to the moon and bring them back safely; making a perfect copy of a CD or even a DVD is a trivial operation. Just as the use of digital video recorders in the home has become mainstream and given people the ability to record television shows and movies for convenient consumption, websites like hulu.com, youtube.com, and tvrss.net threaten to make the very idea of recording your own content an anachronism. Limited not only to media such as music and video, digital piracy of software is enough of an issue that companies are willing to run the risk of alienating their own customers to prevent copies of games or operating systems from being distributed without their approval. Microsoft introduced its 'Genuine Advantage' tool which forced users to validate that they were using a legitimate copy of Windows before installing certain updates in 2005, but the sheer number of computers running pirated copies of Windows XP worldwide forced them to allow download of critical security updates even to known pirated copies for the general safety and security of the worldwide network (Interestingly enough, a google search for 'Windows Genuine Advantage' returns as many, if not more, hits on how to disable or crack it than Microsoft's own site). Sony is infamous for their XCP 'rootkit' technology which amounted to installing special software on a customer's computer, without their knowledge, in order to prevent piracy when a DVD or CD was inserted. Unfortunately this 'rootkit' itself turned out to contain flaws which caused major instability and even allowed malicious third parties to take control of affected computers. Herein lies the ethical dilemma, where does a company's right to protect their own interests supersede the individual's right to privacy and personal freedom?
Digital piracy has long been an issue among the technical elite but we are now at a point in history when it has become so simple to make flawless copies and distribute them that anyone can become a digital pirate. For many, the issue is no longer IF they can copy and share but rather to what extent WILL they copy and share. Some companies have embraced this new reality and have made efforts to make it simple and inexpensive enough to 'do the right thing' (pay for copies) that many people comply and pay for what could otherwise be had for free with almost no effort. Apple is a fantastic example of a company that has embraced this philosophy, placing no restrictions on the installation or copying of their operating system but selling family-sized licensing packs which allows people to pay a small markup in order to perform multiple, legitimate installations. Broadcast networks have also realized that people can find television shows on the internet and watch them for free with almost no technical know-how and have attempted to counter this by creating a better product instead of cracking down on what they consider illegal viewing. The inevitable arms race between those that want the content on their own terms and the companies who want to control distribution continues to rage on, but it has been pushed below the radar for most people simply because the 'right' avenue is simple enough and cheap enough to use. How is a consumer supposed to navigate these ethical waters when the border between what is possible and what is right is not only blurred but erased with the click of a button? In the United States, the DMCA makes it illegal to make digital copies of anything that a company has TRIED to protect with encryption, regardless of how good a job they have done. What difference does this make to an otherwise law-abiding American who would never dream of cracking encryption (much less have any idea how to)? The simple act of copying a 'Dora the Explorer' DVD to my computer so my children can watch it without scratching, breaking, or peanut-butter-staining the disk makes me a criminal. The encryption that protects DVD videos is so simple to circumvent that it can be done with 7 lines of computer code. Can it really be illegal to distribute 'encryption breaking software' that can be printed on the back of a t-shirt? (btw, here is the elegant DeCss algorithm in 7 lines of Perl).
Does this make sense? Should ordinary people be forced into becoming 'criminals' in order to do what seems natural and normal? Are you a 'pirate' if you copy a CD to your computer and then give the disk to a friend? Many record companies would argue that the answer to this question is a resounding 'Yes', even going so far as to argue that it is illegal to buy 'second hand' or used compact disc. Does it make sense to frustrate consumers who have purchased a video game that is encumbered with anti-piracy software, driving them to download 'cracked' versions from shady websites(I'll refrain from putting a link here ) simply to avoid the hassle of using something they legitimately purchased? The issue of 'Fair Use' has been around for quite some time, but how many people are able to determine whether a button click or even a photocopy is within the bounds of the law, much less ethically correct?
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Police Brutality on New Years Day
This post is from JASON TAYLOR:
It was 2 a.m. on New Years day 2009, when 22 year old Oscar Grant (African American), was shot in the back and killed by Bay Area Rapid Transit Police. At the time Grant was shot, he was unarmed, restrained, and handcuffed. Grant and several others were pulled from a train by BART police after a report of a fight. The train was held, while police detained all of the suspects involved. Three of the suspects were already handcuffed, while Oscar Grant wasn’t. He was cooperative with police officers as reported by witnesses, and as even seen on camera footage. Three officers pulled Oscar Grant from a seated position on the train station wall, to a face first position on the floor. As one officer held Grant by his neck to the floor, Officer Johannes Mehserle (who was on Grant’s back) pulled out his gun, took a step back, and fired a shot right into the back of the restrained Oscar Grant. The bullet entered Grant’s back, went through him, ricocheted off of the concrete floor of the station and punctured his lungs. As Grant lay there choking on his own blood, the police continued to handcuff him, and threatened passengers as well as his friends with arrest. The officers eventually called the ambulance, but it was too late. Oscar Grant died on the way to the hospital. The Officer, who fired the shot, clearly had no reason to even pull out his weapon; let alone fire it. There was even one point in the incident when Oscar Grant held his hands in surrender to the Officers who surrounded him.
What is even more horrific about this situation is that the police tried to confiscate all cell phone videos taken during the shooting, and initially claimed security cameras didn’t record the incident. It would seem that the guilt of killing an innocent man would be enough to convict any sane or rational person, but to try and cover up an obvious wrong with lies and deceit places this matter in an even greater level of unethical, unjust, and diabolical behavior done against another human being. It seems that despite of all the progressions of justice we make as a society, there are even greater strides made to produce an unjust society. The sad reality is that in many cases, those strides of unethical/unjust achievements are made by those placed in power as well as authority to protect and serve the people. What does a society do when angels become demons? What does a world do when the executive branch of the law or government has failed the people and when the protected needs to be protected from the “protector?” These questions really present a challenge of moral decline, and hopelessness in our world. Oscar Grant and so many others are the victims of such moral sin and iniquity committed by those who feel they are above the law, simply because they carry a badge. When we observe the character of our nation, we as people of faith are urged and pressed to pray, stand, and fight against every act of injustice from the police department toward our innocent brothers and sisters who are being slaughtered at this very moment. At this very moment, a four year old daughter is left without a father, due to the actions of Officer Johannes Mehserle on that New Year’s morning. Any police officer, who betrays the people he should protect by taking his or her life, belongs behind bars with all of the other murderers that our nation has claimed to protect society from.
It was 2 a.m. on New Years day 2009, when 22 year old Oscar Grant (African American), was shot in the back and killed by Bay Area Rapid Transit Police. At the time Grant was shot, he was unarmed, restrained, and handcuffed. Grant and several others were pulled from a train by BART police after a report of a fight. The train was held, while police detained all of the suspects involved. Three of the suspects were already handcuffed, while Oscar Grant wasn’t. He was cooperative with police officers as reported by witnesses, and as even seen on camera footage. Three officers pulled Oscar Grant from a seated position on the train station wall, to a face first position on the floor. As one officer held Grant by his neck to the floor, Officer Johannes Mehserle (who was on Grant’s back) pulled out his gun, took a step back, and fired a shot right into the back of the restrained Oscar Grant. The bullet entered Grant’s back, went through him, ricocheted off of the concrete floor of the station and punctured his lungs. As Grant lay there choking on his own blood, the police continued to handcuff him, and threatened passengers as well as his friends with arrest. The officers eventually called the ambulance, but it was too late. Oscar Grant died on the way to the hospital. The Officer, who fired the shot, clearly had no reason to even pull out his weapon; let alone fire it. There was even one point in the incident when Oscar Grant held his hands in surrender to the Officers who surrounded him.
What is even more horrific about this situation is that the police tried to confiscate all cell phone videos taken during the shooting, and initially claimed security cameras didn’t record the incident. It would seem that the guilt of killing an innocent man would be enough to convict any sane or rational person, but to try and cover up an obvious wrong with lies and deceit places this matter in an even greater level of unethical, unjust, and diabolical behavior done against another human being. It seems that despite of all the progressions of justice we make as a society, there are even greater strides made to produce an unjust society. The sad reality is that in many cases, those strides of unethical/unjust achievements are made by those placed in power as well as authority to protect and serve the people. What does a society do when angels become demons? What does a world do when the executive branch of the law or government has failed the people and when the protected needs to be protected from the “protector?” These questions really present a challenge of moral decline, and hopelessness in our world. Oscar Grant and so many others are the victims of such moral sin and iniquity committed by those who feel they are above the law, simply because they carry a badge. When we observe the character of our nation, we as people of faith are urged and pressed to pray, stand, and fight against every act of injustice from the police department toward our innocent brothers and sisters who are being slaughtered at this very moment. At this very moment, a four year old daughter is left without a father, due to the actions of Officer Johannes Mehserle on that New Year’s morning. Any police officer, who betrays the people he should protect by taking his or her life, belongs behind bars with all of the other murderers that our nation has claimed to protect society from.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Paving Paradise
Have you ever heard the song, Big Yellow Taxi by Joni Mitchell? Well, this past week, I’ve had that song in my head and it will not go away. In the words of Joni Mitchell, “Don’t it always seem to go, that you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone. They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.” The paradise I’m thinking about is right here in our own Claremont neighborhood. It is the Bernard Field Station that is just east of our campus. The parking lot that I’m thinking about is the proposed Harvey Mudd College parking lot that will be on 11.5 acres of this land. While plans have not yet been finalized, construction may start as early as this summer.
These 11.5 acres of land sits on 86 acres of the Bernard Field Station. It is a piece of land that many of us see every day as we drive into and out of our own Claremont School of Theology campus. But did you know this land is an endangered coastal sage scrub ecosystem. Tearing down even a small part of this land would have an effect on this ecosystem. For example, if the parking lot or a similar structure was built, the number of vernal pools on the property would grow smaller and this in turn would affect the toad population that breeds in the pools.
The land is owned by Harvey Mudd College. Harvey Mudd is part of the Claremont Colleges consortium. They plan to build an environmentally conscious “green” parking lot. According to The Claremont Independent News, “the planned parking lot would have photovoltaic shades that generate electricity, plug-ins for electric vehicles, and bioswales to capture potentially hazardous run-off to mitigate its impact on the environment and the adjacent [Bernard] field station.”[1] This sounds great and the intention to help the environment is there, but in all seriousness, can developing a parking lot on a natural piece of land truly be the right thing to do?
I attended an undergraduate university that had over 20,000 students. So trust me, I can relate to how hard it is for students when parking is limited. However, I echo the sentiments of Paul Keller Ort, a Pomona College senior and member of the Students for the Bernard Field Station group. Mr. Ort said, “parking lots cannot be green. It violates all principles of environmentalism and sustainability to suggest that the destruction of native habitat for the creation of a parking lot can be justified as green.”[2] I don’t believe the benefit of having more parking spaces for students and faculty outweigh the irreversible harm that would happen to the ecosystem of this piece of land.
I hope the Claremont Colleges consortium looks at other alternatives. My undergrad university had a satellite parking lot that was less than a mile away from the school and offered a free shuttle service to and from the school. Many students, faculty and Claremont residents also believe that the building a parking lot on this land is harmful for the environment. They have written letters to the Claremont Colleges, distributed petitions and even formed website groups. It will be interesting to see what will happen in the months ahead. I hope it’s not too late for us to know what we’ve got ‘til it’s gone!
[1] www.claremontindependent.com/news/2008/12/11/Campus/Paving Our Way to A Greener Future-3572960.shtml
[2]www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/11/07/Paving Paradise?
These 11.5 acres of land sits on 86 acres of the Bernard Field Station. It is a piece of land that many of us see every day as we drive into and out of our own Claremont School of Theology campus. But did you know this land is an endangered coastal sage scrub ecosystem. Tearing down even a small part of this land would have an effect on this ecosystem. For example, if the parking lot or a similar structure was built, the number of vernal pools on the property would grow smaller and this in turn would affect the toad population that breeds in the pools.
The land is owned by Harvey Mudd College. Harvey Mudd is part of the Claremont Colleges consortium. They plan to build an environmentally conscious “green” parking lot. According to The Claremont Independent News, “the planned parking lot would have photovoltaic shades that generate electricity, plug-ins for electric vehicles, and bioswales to capture potentially hazardous run-off to mitigate its impact on the environment and the adjacent [Bernard] field station.”[1] This sounds great and the intention to help the environment is there, but in all seriousness, can developing a parking lot on a natural piece of land truly be the right thing to do?
I attended an undergraduate university that had over 20,000 students. So trust me, I can relate to how hard it is for students when parking is limited. However, I echo the sentiments of Paul Keller Ort, a Pomona College senior and member of the Students for the Bernard Field Station group. Mr. Ort said, “parking lots cannot be green. It violates all principles of environmentalism and sustainability to suggest that the destruction of native habitat for the creation of a parking lot can be justified as green.”[2] I don’t believe the benefit of having more parking spaces for students and faculty outweigh the irreversible harm that would happen to the ecosystem of this piece of land.
I hope the Claremont Colleges consortium looks at other alternatives. My undergrad university had a satellite parking lot that was less than a mile away from the school and offered a free shuttle service to and from the school. Many students, faculty and Claremont residents also believe that the building a parking lot on this land is harmful for the environment. They have written letters to the Claremont Colleges, distributed petitions and even formed website groups. It will be interesting to see what will happen in the months ahead. I hope it’s not too late for us to know what we’ve got ‘til it’s gone!
[1] www.claremontindependent.com/news/2008/12/11/Campus/Paving Our Way to A Greener Future-3572960.shtml
[2]www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/11/07/Paving Paradise?
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Freeganism
This comes as a strange topic in the vast range of topics in which ethics could be applied, but I began to ask myself questions about the ethics of Freeganism. Freeganism is built from the word veganism, which is the rejection of all things made with animal products. With Freeganism, people opt out of the corporate system by refusing to participate in the economic structure by using bartering, alternative human powered transportation, thrift shopping, and the most controversial, dumpster diving.
Yes I, as a 40+ year old seminarian, went dumpster diving with some friends last Sunday. I thought it might make a good academic exercise, and I would see what the big deal was about. What we found spoke volumes about what it means to live in a disposable society, and who can afford to opt out.
We met at a parking lot in Pasadena behind a fast food restaurant. Next door was a well known grocery store that has a lot of healthy food. We waited until the last of the staff left at 10:30 pm and went over. The more agile of the bunch climbed into the dumpster and started opening plastic bags. We found about 20 bags of organic apples that were still crisp and did not appear to have anything wrong. Perhaps apples are going out of season. Bags and bags of bread from sandwich rolls, to crumpets, to whole wheat sourdough and lemon bread were found. All clean because they had been in the bags. Hams, smoked turkey, salmon, lamb tips and cheese that had been thrown away after closing were still cold. Organic tomatoes, and bell peppers where thrown away. Food that expired the next day were also thrown away like bagged salads, and the aforementioned lemon bread. The jackpot to me was one of the spiral cut hams that were sold for Easter.
We took our haul back to the parking lot behind the fast food place, and distributed based on what was needed and wanted. I barely buy meat anymore because of the expense, but smoked ham and turkey is smoked for preservation. There was nothing wrong with it that it was not out on the shelf an hour or two before.
The group was a bunch of young white people with a South American woman and one Asian woman, and I, who also passes as white. So when the security guard drove by, he looked at us and kept driving his golf cart. How different would it have been if we were black, or dressed in gang attire, or obviously homeless? I understand that some security guards put up a fuss at different stores, but we lucked out this time. So another question is, were we stealing? Trespassing? The store had thrown out the stuff, so was it still their property? If everything was packed into clean plastic garbage bags, is there some expectation that this food will be found and taken? What about the hungry, the poor, the homeless? Why can they not be recipients of this largess? I imagine there are safe food handling laws.
I made some meals this week that were like living a much larger income. While I am working on a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle, I was appalled at the amount of meat thrown away. Pounds and pounds of thawing frozen ground turkey and cut up chickens were also there. I have not heard of or suffered any ill effects this week.
Will I go again? I am not sure. But it was an eye opening experience.
Yes I, as a 40+ year old seminarian, went dumpster diving with some friends last Sunday. I thought it might make a good academic exercise, and I would see what the big deal was about. What we found spoke volumes about what it means to live in a disposable society, and who can afford to opt out.
We met at a parking lot in Pasadena behind a fast food restaurant. Next door was a well known grocery store that has a lot of healthy food. We waited until the last of the staff left at 10:30 pm and went over. The more agile of the bunch climbed into the dumpster and started opening plastic bags. We found about 20 bags of organic apples that were still crisp and did not appear to have anything wrong. Perhaps apples are going out of season. Bags and bags of bread from sandwich rolls, to crumpets, to whole wheat sourdough and lemon bread were found. All clean because they had been in the bags. Hams, smoked turkey, salmon, lamb tips and cheese that had been thrown away after closing were still cold. Organic tomatoes, and bell peppers where thrown away. Food that expired the next day were also thrown away like bagged salads, and the aforementioned lemon bread. The jackpot to me was one of the spiral cut hams that were sold for Easter.
We took our haul back to the parking lot behind the fast food place, and distributed based on what was needed and wanted. I barely buy meat anymore because of the expense, but smoked ham and turkey is smoked for preservation. There was nothing wrong with it that it was not out on the shelf an hour or two before.
The group was a bunch of young white people with a South American woman and one Asian woman, and I, who also passes as white. So when the security guard drove by, he looked at us and kept driving his golf cart. How different would it have been if we were black, or dressed in gang attire, or obviously homeless? I understand that some security guards put up a fuss at different stores, but we lucked out this time. So another question is, were we stealing? Trespassing? The store had thrown out the stuff, so was it still their property? If everything was packed into clean plastic garbage bags, is there some expectation that this food will be found and taken? What about the hungry, the poor, the homeless? Why can they not be recipients of this largess? I imagine there are safe food handling laws.
I made some meals this week that were like living a much larger income. While I am working on a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle, I was appalled at the amount of meat thrown away. Pounds and pounds of thawing frozen ground turkey and cut up chickens were also there. I have not heard of or suffered any ill effects this week.
Will I go again? I am not sure. But it was an eye opening experience.
Decades of Denial
Though for some people controversial, many reliable historical and academic sources, documents, photos, and eyewitness’ accounts indicate that 1.5 million Christian Armenians were massacred in their ancestral land by Ottoman Turkey during the Armenian Genocide, which started in 1890s, and reached its climax in 1915. Women were raped in front of their children and husbands, children were brutally beaten and killed in front of their parents, homes and properties were confiscated. Hundreds of thousands innocent people were harassed, abused, robbed, killed and deprived of everything they had in the true sense of the word.[1] To totally eradicate the Armenian population of the Western Armenia (nowadays Eastern Turkey), the Ottoman Turkey employs his long intended project of deportation and death marches made up of women, children and the elderly into the Syrian deserts, Deir ez Zor. During those marches hundreds of thousand were killed by Turkish soldiers, gendarmes and Kurdish mobs. Others died because of famine, epidemic diseases and exposure to the elements.[2] Tens of thousands were forcibly converted to Islam.
During this period of time, numerous Armenian churches were destroyed, and clergy killed, many schools were demolished, and sacred literature burned.[3] In his official telegraph addressed to the
“You have already been advised that the Government, by order of the Djemiet, has decided to destroy completely all the indicated persons [Armenians] living in
All who oppose this decision and command cannot remain on the official staff of the empire.
Their existence must come to an end, however tragic the means may be; and no regard must be paid to either age or sex, or to conscientious scruples.”[4]
This unspeakable crime against humanity, the genocide, could have been prevented, if the entire world would not turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to the tragic happenings. The
Years later, Adolf Hitler, Chancellor of Nazi Germany, in justifying his inhuman atrocities would say,
“I have placed my death-head formations in readiness - for the present only in the East - with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”[6] (This text is the English version of the German document handed to Louis P. Lochner in
Even nowadays, when many of us pretend to be the most just advocates of human rights, and freedom of nations in this globalized democratic world, only a few countries officially recognize the Armenian Genocide. Logically, those who do not recognize and condemn the Genocide are in the line with the deniers like
Every year, on April 24, Armenians in the world come together to commemorate the first genocide of the 20th century. Every year, when the Armenian Genocide Remembrance day approaches, prominent statesmen make promises to recognize the Armenian Genocide but generally, they all betray their promises. Many political scientists, analysts and scholars believe that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by
The only
“I received and read this document [official communication from the Secretary of the Senate of the United States] with great interest and with genuine gratification, not only because it embodied my own convictions and feelings with regard to Armenia and its people, but also, and more particularly, because it seemed to me the voice of the American people expressing their genuine convictions and deep Christian sympathies, and intimating the line of duty which seemed to them to lie clearly before us.”[11]
Unfortunately, domestic opposition led by the Republican Party leveled the good intentions and the plans of the president. Studying the above mentioned document closely, I was struck by President Wilson’s Christian convictions, which he emphasizes so strongly. Biographers affirm that President Wilson was a devout Presbyterian, follower of the Calvinist theological tradition. I believe that
Rosemary Radford Ruether, in her
President Woodrow Wilson was on the same page with Roger Williams. In his mandate for 
ongs to the natives, to those who first settled it.[13]
I think President Woodrow Wilson’s brave expression of morality, ethics and true Christian spirit answers also Jeffrey Stout’s question whether reasoning from religious premises to political conclusions can be considered valid and acceptable.
Mass killings of innocent people continue even today. We are all witnessing the contemporary genocides in Darfur and
[1] Bertha S. Papazian, The Tragedy of
[2] http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/armenian_genocide.php (visited on 04/25/2009)
[3] Torkom Manoogian, Loss of the Armenian Apostolic Church during the Genocide (New York: St. Vartan, 1972), 10.
[4] http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/turkish.php (visited on 04/25/2009)
[5] Sample documents from the above mentioned archives can be found on the web at http://www.armenian-genocide.org/sampledocs.html, http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/austrian.php and elswhere.
[6] Kevork B. Bardakjian, Hitler and the Armenian Genocide (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Zoryan Institute, 1985).
[7] http://www.armenian-genocide.org/hitler.html (visited on 04/25/2009)
[8] http://glendalenewspress.com/articles/2009/04/26/news/gnp-genocide25.art.txt (visited on 04/25/2009)
[9] Teresa Watanabe Christi Parsons, “Marking Armenian Genocide, Many Feel Snubbed by Obama,”
[10] http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-of-President-Barack-Obama-on-Armenian-Remembrance-Day/ (visited on 04/25/2009).
[11] http://www.armenian-genocide.org/Affirmation.64/current_category.4/affirmation_detail.html (visited on 04/25/2009).
[12] Rosemary
[13] http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Wilsonian_Armenia (visited on 04/25/2009)
Fighting in Hockey Games
It’s the Stanley Cup playoff time in the National Hockey League. The question I have is if fighting by hockey players is ethical or morally correct?
Usually, I can’t watch a hockey game all the way through, because inevitably, there is a fight and I can’t stand to watch the gloves off, helmets off, hitting in the head and punching in the face.
Some say its just part of the sport and it’s a way to get the frustrations out (often started by the team that is behind or scoreless). It seems that the officials wait until the fighting players start to slow down before they go in and break it up (because its safer to wait and easier) and then the players who were fighting, go sit in the penalty box and their teams play without them or anyone to take their place.
I don’t understand why it’s even allowed or should I say even tolerated. What does fighting during a hockey game have to do with playing the game of hockey? No one is attempting to get a puck into the net during that time. No one is blocking the puck from going into the goal during a fight. No one is even passing the puck. The game comes to a complete stop. In fact I think the puck is completely ignored during the fight.
The official ruling body doesn’t think there should be fighting, because it is against the rules to fight, and there is a penalty attached if one is caught fighting. The penalty includes five minutes in the penalty box for the players participating in the fight and the team or teams have to play short their players during that penalty time. So the teams are also penalized. If there is a penalty is cannot be considered a part of the game of hockey or at least it is not behavior that should happen during a hockey game.
I will try to refrain from talking about how the penalty for fighting is five minutes and for “misconduct” is ten minutes! This is just not right! Fighting and misconduct are two different rules and penalties. Why they are different, I’m not sure. How misconduct could be “less” of a wrong behavior, I’m not sure. The only sort of concession is that the team has to play shorthanded during the fighting penalty, but not during the misconduct penalty. BUT this is a completely different discussion. Except that society seems to be able to tolerate fighting easier than misconduct. What does that say?
The question is how can fighting be accepted as “part of the game” when it has nothing to do with the game of hockey? “Part of the game” is defined as no suspension and a lesser penalty than misconduct. Why isn’t the penalty as strong as it is with other sports such as football, baseball, and basketball, where the players are suspended for fighting?
Why is it ok to take children to hockey games and let them witness this behavior? Does this not teach them that the behavior is acceptable?
This can seem like such a frivolous subject, but sometimes it’s the little things that the society tolerates that point to bigger issues. I can’t buy the reason that it’s ok to fight during a hockey game because they are just letting off steam. I think that it is ethical and morally wrong.
Usually, I can’t watch a hockey game all the way through, because inevitably, there is a fight and I can’t stand to watch the gloves off, helmets off, hitting in the head and punching in the face.
Some say its just part of the sport and it’s a way to get the frustrations out (often started by the team that is behind or scoreless). It seems that the officials wait until the fighting players start to slow down before they go in and break it up (because its safer to wait and easier) and then the players who were fighting, go sit in the penalty box and their teams play without them or anyone to take their place.
I don’t understand why it’s even allowed or should I say even tolerated. What does fighting during a hockey game have to do with playing the game of hockey? No one is attempting to get a puck into the net during that time. No one is blocking the puck from going into the goal during a fight. No one is even passing the puck. The game comes to a complete stop. In fact I think the puck is completely ignored during the fight.
The official ruling body doesn’t think there should be fighting, because it is against the rules to fight, and there is a penalty attached if one is caught fighting. The penalty includes five minutes in the penalty box for the players participating in the fight and the team or teams have to play short their players during that penalty time. So the teams are also penalized. If there is a penalty is cannot be considered a part of the game of hockey or at least it is not behavior that should happen during a hockey game.
I will try to refrain from talking about how the penalty for fighting is five minutes and for “misconduct” is ten minutes! This is just not right! Fighting and misconduct are two different rules and penalties. Why they are different, I’m not sure. How misconduct could be “less” of a wrong behavior, I’m not sure. The only sort of concession is that the team has to play shorthanded during the fighting penalty, but not during the misconduct penalty. BUT this is a completely different discussion. Except that society seems to be able to tolerate fighting easier than misconduct. What does that say?
The question is how can fighting be accepted as “part of the game” when it has nothing to do with the game of hockey? “Part of the game” is defined as no suspension and a lesser penalty than misconduct. Why isn’t the penalty as strong as it is with other sports such as football, baseball, and basketball, where the players are suspended for fighting?
Why is it ok to take children to hockey games and let them witness this behavior? Does this not teach them that the behavior is acceptable?
This can seem like such a frivolous subject, but sometimes it’s the little things that the society tolerates that point to bigger issues. I can’t buy the reason that it’s ok to fight during a hockey game because they are just letting off steam. I think that it is ethical and morally wrong.
Be a friend to the nature
Do you remember this picture?
A forest fire happened on a mountain in Australia about two month ago.
This picture was taken in the midst of burned forest.
There are a koala and a volunteer, David Tree, in this picture.
This is the description of this news: David found this koala when he was going to somewhere to extinguish the fire with his colleagues. When David found the koala which was alone in a street, David went closely to this koala, but the koala ran away from him. However, the koala stopped running and sat on the heap of ashes. At that time, David went to the koala and then gave him water. This koala drank three water bottles.
Look at a forefoot of a koala.
He put his forefoot on a hand of David.
The koala seems to say that “I trust you” “You are my friend.”
Sometimes, human being seems forget that we are a part of nature.
People separate themselves from the nature although we are the part of the nature which God created.
Also, people misunderstand the nature as our possession. Due to those thoughts which I explained above, people waste resources gained by the nature and destroy the environment. In other words, people have governed the nature during long times.
The reason why people have a sense of a patriarch toward the nature is that human being misunderstood the Bible. Many Christians think that God gave us an authority to govern the nature.
However, this is not true. God’s will is that God gave people just a chance to guard the nature, not an authority to govern the nature.
Therefore, people need to recover our own duty which God gave us.
We are no longer dominators of the nature.
We are guardians for the nature.
We are the part of the nature.
We are friends to the nature.
A forest fire happened on a mountain in Australia about two month ago.
This picture was taken in the midst of burned forest.
There are a koala and a volunteer, David Tree, in this picture.
This is the description of this news: David found this koala when he was going to somewhere to extinguish the fire with his colleagues. When David found the koala which was alone in a street, David went closely to this koala, but the koala ran away from him. However, the koala stopped running and sat on the heap of ashes. At that time, David went to the koala and then gave him water. This koala drank three water bottles.
Look at a forefoot of a koala.
He put his forefoot on a hand of David.
The koala seems to say that “I trust you” “You are my friend.”
Sometimes, human being seems forget that we are a part of nature.
People separate themselves from the nature although we are the part of the nature which God created.
Also, people misunderstand the nature as our possession. Due to those thoughts which I explained above, people waste resources gained by the nature and destroy the environment. In other words, people have governed the nature during long times.
The reason why people have a sense of a patriarch toward the nature is that human being misunderstood the Bible. Many Christians think that God gave us an authority to govern the nature.
However, this is not true. God’s will is that God gave people just a chance to guard the nature, not an authority to govern the nature.
Therefore, people need to recover our own duty which God gave us.
We are no longer dominators of the nature.
We are guardians for the nature.
We are the part of the nature.
We are friends to the nature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
