Should We License Parents?

Society needs a new attitude towards children. Parental licensing would provide incentives for parents to become more skilled at raising children and would reduce child abuse. We license doctors, lawyers, pilots, and automobile drivers because they have the potential to do harm if not practicing their activity with skill. And since being a parent can potentially cause harm also, society could license parents. The criteria used for licensing, in general, are two-fold. One, the activity must have the possibility of harm.Two, there must be a minimal competence level necessary to avoid harm (or to do the job well). Parenting meets both criteria.

While some might say that people have a right to have their own children or that people have a right to have their own children without interference into their private lives, The term ‘right’ is ambiguous and, even if they do have the right to have children, that right is limited to protect children. For example people cannot neglect or abuse their children and must provide for their basic needs.

To encourage parents, tax incentives could be offered to parents who successfully show their worthiness to be parents by engaging in classes and testing. This would help parents learn the basics of raising children and would, presumably, ensure that all parents are minimally competent.

There is also much evidence to support the idea that children who are self-confident, self-aware, caring, and hopeful, will be happier, more productive, and more harmonious in society. This self confidence and self-esteem comes from the freedom to explore their own ideas and make decisions for themselves, as appropriate for their ages. When parents are highly skilled and supportive of children, the children will become happier adults and will therefore be more productive, and sociable. Although the licensing of parents may have some difficulties in implementation and enforcement, the benefits outweigh the problems. Where the entire future of our world and its values are at stake, we need to think first of our children.

(Photo Courtesy of Wikipedia)

Should Cities Have The Right of Eminent Domain?

Cities have the right of eminent domain, which is the right to take privately owned property for a public use if the owner of that property is paid fair value for the property. Over the years, what constitutes "public use" has become a problem. At first, public use meant taking property and using it to build schools or roads or fire stations. More recently, public use has come to include situations where a city uses eminent domain to take private property and then sells that property to some other private party who will use the property for a new and better use.

Although I believe cities should have the right to make cities better IF that "public use" results in eminent domain being used for the benefit of the public. However, it should not be used as a tool to benefit developers or commercial interest, regardless of the financial incentive to the city. Developers or commercial business who wish to purchase property should do so on the open market system, that currently exists. For it is unlikely that if the developer is unable to purchase the property on the open market, it is also unlikely that the landowners will truly be offered the fair value of the property through condemnation proceedings. Moreover, it is also unlikely that using eminent domain for the purpose of selling to a private property will result in any kind of real benefit to the community as a whole, and therefore should not be used for such purposes.

Having said that, I do agree that using eminent domain for "public use" should be used for its intended purpose of creating roads, highways, schools and fire stations, etc. which truly do benefit the public; when all other courses of actions have failed. However, that decision should not rest solely with city planners, but with the voters of that community. For it is easy for city governments to abuse eminent domain in the name of, so called, "public use".

Is the United Nations effective?

The United Nations has played a crucial role in the international system since its beginning in 1945. It has been the main place where leaders from around the globe can communicate and work out issues. Its charter is admirable and includes goals, such as “saving future generations from the scourge of war has brought untold sorrow to mankind." The United Nations creates norms against violence, issues sanctions, provides a clearinghouse for foreign policy discussions, and plays a peacekeeping/diplomatic role by creating ‘space’ between conflicted countries. It also helps countries raise their standard of living, creates jobs, and delivers aid to victims of natural disasters or war. The human rights and relief programs that the UN has initiated or supported are impressive indeed.

On the other hand, the organization is over 60 years old and no longer works as effectively as it once did. Some countries have become more significant in world affairs (such as India). Some have become less significant (such as France). The organization, in short, does not reflect the needs of today’s world. There are too many organizations within the UN, each with different budgets, different status, governance, and overlapping mandates. There is competition among agencies, outdated business practices, and unclear missions. The UN cannot successfully deliver results with these handicaps.

Reforming the UN would be a huge process. In 2005, the UN’s high-level panel initiated reform debate by asking members for a consensus on international challenges, approaches to problems, and meaningful actions. The panel looked at everything from the UN’s structure to genocide, terrorism, and what a collective security system would mean. For example, given the interconnections in today’s global economy, terrorist attacks in wealthy nations can affect every nation in the world. So it was important to address terrorism and security from a global perspective. The recommendations from the reform panel included a new Human Rights Council, a new Peace building Commission, increased counter-terrorism measures, new norms for response to genocide, and changes in UN management structure. World leaders at the September 2005 summit endorsed the reforms in principle.

The UN needs to grow in importance over the next two decades as the world becomes smaller. Leaders of all countries need to have a reliable forum in which to discuss common problems and resolutions that affect the entire world. We are becoming more and more interconnected and so are our problems. For example, global warming and terrorism affect everyone on the planet equally. The UN must streamline its operations and look seriously at the structure of the Security Council. It must look at itself objectively and question its representation, voting, and financial issues. It must continue to give priority to all aspects of its charter, including economic development, human rights, and conflict resolution. As Kofi Annan once said, “We will not enjoy development without security, we will not enjoy security without development, and we will not enjoy either with out respect for human rights.”

(Photo Courtesy of Howitworks.com)

When the president approves it, it is not illegal??

When the president approves it, it is not illegal. This is a claim recently made by former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, when asked about waterboarding and torture by a student from Stanford University. What started as a friendly exchange, turned heated, when the student asked Rice about a new Senate Intelligence Committee report which authorized the CIA, under her authroity, to use waterboarding in July 2002.

Rice responded by saying, “The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations, under the Convention Against torture. So that's -- and by the way, I didn't authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency. That they had policy authorization subject to the Justice Department's clearance. That's what I did.”

“By definition,” she repeated, “if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.”

Is Condoleezza Rice correct in her claim??

Well not according to the International Convention on Toture, which is the law of the land, and which does not recognize legal opinions or orders of superiors as defenses against torture.

"Article 2.2 - No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

Ironicially, when she was challenged on her justification, her response was uncannily close to Richard Nixon’s infamous claim, “When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.” A claim which the Supreme Court, in United States v. Nixon rejected, which held that no President has absolute, unqualified executive privilege.

While Condoleezza Rice may believe that the President has unchecked and absolutely authority. That his word is law, and therefore anything he authorizes is legal, the reality is that in our system of government, the president is not above the law. Condoleezza Rice may need to look up the word dictatorship, for the President word is NOT law. The president can violate the law and when he does, he is supposed to be held accountable. That is a democracy, and we would do well to remember that.

(Photo Courtesy of CNN)