PHI 2010 T 5:40pm

PHI 2010 T,R 9:50am

PHI 2010 T,R 8:25am

"The most partisan decision since Bush vs. Gore"

This is the blogwork for this week. It's due next Thursday 10pm.

This month The Supreme Court ruled that corporations are protected by "free speech" rights and can contribute enormous sums of money to influence elections is a de jure endorsement of the de facto dominance of corporations over our lives. As William J. Astore of Truhout puts it, corporations are the new citizens, and ordinary Americans, the old "citizens," have become consumers.

It's all about 5-4...

What's at stake? Overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. The 5-to-4 decision was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said that allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy.

The case: A documentary called "Hillary: The Movie," a 90-minute stew of caustic political commentary and advocacy journalism. It was produced by Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit corporation, and was released during the Democratic presidential primaries in 2008. Citizens United lost a suit that year against the Federal Election Commission, and scuttled plans to show the film on a cable video-on-demand service and to broadcast television advertisements for it. But the film was shown in theaters in six cities, and it remains available on DVD and the Internet.

Precedent: The 2002 law, usually called McCain-Feingold, banned the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of "electioneering communications" paid for by corporations or labor unions from their general funds in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections.

One would think this is good enough: Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

I know we tend to consider corporations as individuals in a legal sense, but the comparison stops there. Are corporations really individuals when it comes to the power they yield in contemporary society? Ask yourself if Adam Smith ever would've envisioned the giants of today he would've defined his invisible hand in the same manner.

What the court ruled in favor of is campaign money. And if campaign money cannot be restricted because that would restrict "speech," the court has definitively decided that money equals speech. Since that is now the legal precedent, the court should have likewise ruled that you cannot have equal speech without equal money — i.e., equal protection under the law.

This is my take, but you can have your own and defend it. Go ahead. All points of view are respected and welcome.

Link for Doing Philosophy Textbook

Here is the link for your textbook Doing Philosophy. If you click on Chapters 1 & 7 you'll find the different chapter's sections with flash cards, true or false quizzes, and multiple choice questions. Test yourself and good luck.

You most bring a scantron # 48TSM to the quiz.

I'm closing the comments tonight at 10pm.

Justification vs. explanation

If you hold a belief, you must be ready to justify it. You may explain why your belief is true or how you know you know. Don't confuse explanations justifications. A justification takes the form of an argument. For example, you try to justify why it's wrong to verbally abuse a child. On the other hand, an explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the context and consequences of those facts.

Truth & evidence at work

Forensic anthropology is the application of the science of physical anthropology and human osteology (the study of the human skeleton) in legal -often criminal cases- where the victim's remains are in the advanced stages of decomposition.

I made the point of Descartes' criteria of "absolute certainty" being too tough. In real life, we don't access truth that way. In this video, see Dr. Thomas Muriello addressing the importance of "collecting evidence," and teams of people sharing technologies. Crime evidence are clues, bits and pieces of the whole puzzle. If the puzzle is our 100%, we start with sections of it. Sometimes the whole puzzle may never be reassembled. That doesn't mean we can have a pretty good idea of its form.

We talked a little about Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. This is a good presentation by Robert Pennock.

PHI 2010 TR 9:50am

PHI 2010 T 5:40pm

PHI 2010 TR 8:25am

Pat Robertson's cheap condescending remarks about Haiti's crisis in Miami Bourbaki.

Help to Haiti

The American Red Cross link for info of how to help.

Text HAITI to 90999 to donate $10 to Red Cross Haiti relief.

Here is the Google link.

If you don't have $10, you can text YELE to 501501 for the help of $5. Any amount counts! (Thanks Hanita).

Here @ Wolfson Campus, Student Union is getting help to sent it via air next week. Anything you can give is fine, but they mainly need water purification tablets and baby food. You can also drop can goods @ Ms.Rebecca Sanchez office RM # 3506-18.
Let's help now!

I'm closing the comments this Thursday at 10pm

Update about comments

I just realized that it's better to separate comments per classes.  Those of you that posted comments already, don't have to fix anything. Any new comments, please, do it @ your class time. Sorry about the glitch.

PHI 2010 T, 5:40pm

PHI 2010 T,R 9:50am

PHI 2010 T,R 8:25am