Wednesday, December 28, 2011
This paragraph from the article is a good summation of why this process is more effective at reaching the aforementioned ends:
"The collaborative process minimizes stress on the attorneys as well. Meetings in the process are scheduled between the parties and not subject to the court calendar. Attorneys are not required to browbeat their clients to agree to a settlement that a judge has recommended. The attorneys are not pitted against each other, and the resolution is not viewed as a win for one side and a loss for the other. Instead, the resolution addresses the issues important to each client in a manner acceptable to each. Each party also fully understands the responsibilities of the resolution and is more likely to adhere to and carry out future obligations. The parties are happier with the results and more satisfied with their lawyers, because they have reached an agreement in a process in which they participated."
Monday, December 26, 2011
In a more ironic observation, how is it that Islamists cry foul at colonialism at all when they were the first real colonialists? Although Western colonialism is more prevalent in the history books, it was the Islamists that pioneered the practice--i.e. Islamic conquests across the middle-east, Africa, and even southern Europe to name a few. Before the Crusades or Western Colonialism ever entered the history books, Muslims were already invading, overthrowing, and erecting their own socio-political structures. Sure, they allowed the people of the Book (Jews and Christians) to remain in the land and continue to practice their religions, but only by paying taxes to their Muslim rulers and becoming second class citizens (dhimmis).
All this quote represents is a rhetorical tool; a subversive discourse in true Focaultian fashion. Don't deny that the West practiced colonialism (and in some ways still does), but don't allow the past sins of one culture to validate and justify the practicing of the same sin in another. The answer is not to be found in some political system or organization, in west or in east. The answer is to disregard the desire to assert power over your fellow man and to live in peace with one another by desiring liberty for all.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
"'The law has been hijacked by profiteers who are motivated not by compassion, but by money,' said Melinda Haag, one of California's U.S. Attorneys, at a DOJ press conference on October 11, 2011."
This statement exposes the economic ignorance of those in the federal government. First off, how are business to function without making a profit? As John Mackey said profit to a business is like air to a human. One needs to breath in order to survive, but that is not the reason for one's existence.
Of course, the government folk will say that they are not against these people making a profit, just not obscene profits. So their solution is to put these 'profiteers' out of business so that neither compassion nor profit can be realized. And in the absence of these legal entities, illegal enterprises will spring up to supply the demand for this want (and in the legitimate cases, a need). These illegal enterprises are also known as drug dealers. You know, those people that care only about profit and obscene ones at that.
We can keep trying to repress the individual while wasting our wealth on enforcement programs than have never worked while they curtail our liberties or we can allow this industry to exist in society. It will exist regardless, might as well have it exist in the way that makes money and doesn't kill people or destroy their futures in the process.
Saying drugs ruin people's lives is nothing more than a guess--one who've assumes that ex-users can't turn their lives around. But when we have the policies we do now it is a self fulfilling prophecy.