Act 3

TCA3 0015 version 1.00 10/11/07 10 pages private

Act 3

The Truth Commission

"The Evils of Capitalism"

This Act provides more evidence of the evils of capitalism. Scene 1 vividly describes what happens when you have millions of people that relay of a complex system of commerce, and you take away one element, gasoline, and you get to see how it turns out.

Scene 2 talks about how the capitalists control the law, by looking at an example. Then we see how poverty effects the lives of children. How is it morally ok to allow children to starve? We then talk about the environment, and then close with a discussion of what truth is.

________________________
Scene 1
"The Riots"
________________________

Riots break out in most major cities when the Capitalist's cut off our gas supply. Without gas, there is not more food deliveries to major cities. When you have 500,000 people living together, and they have no food, it tends to get a little bit messes.

End of Act 3 Scene 1




________________________
Scene 2
"The Law of the Elites"
________________________

Corporate Law-

Jack

"How did the Elites control everything? They did not make the law, did they?
Lets take a look at an example of a law. Who's interest do you think this law serves? The people, the government, of the Capitalist?"

How Current Legal Debates from a
Sociological Perspective Felon Disenfranchisement

By David W. Coon
Sociology of Law Law and Society Soc 385
Professor Ryan King
Fall Semester
December 5, 2005

Abstract: Felon disenfranchisement is when the state, or other governing agent takes away a felon’s citizenship. They are, in most states not allowed to own handguns, run for office serve on jury duty or vote. And because this is huge population of mostly minorities, has this issue of not being allowed to vote, has this affected the elections? A brief history of why and how Felon disenfranchisement came about. In 1868 the 14th amendment “Equal (treatment) protection under the law. And the 15th amendment in 1870 that said “cannot not deny suffrage based on race”. In a response to the federal government giving blacks more power, mostly southern that states that had high black prison populations made more Felon disenfranchisement laws.

Zeal

"Why wouldn’t they want to give felons a right to vote?"

Jack

"Because it’s a way of controlling the minority population. Some of the southern states have been doing this for years, with gerrymandering, literacy tests, poll taxes and other kinds of disenfranchisement's. "

Blacks get more power ~ power threatened ~ FD laws ~ Blacks lose political power [---------------------l-------------------------------l-------------------------------------]
time line (1860s-1870s)

Not all states have felon disenfranchisement laws. New York does not allow convicts in prison and parolees to vote. Ex-felons are allowed to vote in New York. Vermont has no Felon disenfranchisement laws at all.

Why do some areas of the world have felon disenfranchisement laws and some do not. It is not uncommon that democracies and republics through out the ages have limited voting to a small group of adults. Groups that have been denied the right to vote have included “women, youth, the non-propertied, workers, poor people, racial and ethnic groups and others (Uggen and Manza ).” However over time universal suffrage has become the key to our democracy in both theory and practice. However there are several countries that deny voting rights to inmates including the United Kingdom, Russia and many of the post modern Soviet republics. The United States is the only one that extents its voting restrictions to non-incarcerated felons (page 778

ASR).

There are a number of countries that allow inmates to vote, theses include Ireland, Spain, Denmark and Greece. The United States is the only country that allows for total voting restrictions for life. Why does the United States still have felon disenfranchisement laws? The United States also has the highest incarceration rates out of many of similar countries. “The US incarceration rate in 2000 was 686 per 100,000 population, compared with rates of 105 in Canada, 95 in Germany and only 45 in Japan (778 ASR)”

There is more law used in US, then in other similar countries. We are quicker then other countries to put people in jail and we still have some states that use the death penalty regularly. In the past 50 years, the US has become more punitive and has had harsher penalties as a means a deterrence. This has increased the number for inmates’ and felony convictions. “Federal prison populations have also grown by over 600 percent; from fewer than 200,000, in 1995, to almost 1.4 million (page 781). Not all states disenfranchise all felons. It started in the post-Revolutionary era as a part of a larger strategy to disenfranchisement African Americans.

But does felon disenfranchisement threaten democracy. Why is it ok to disenfranchisement this one section of the population? Disenfranchisement is dangerous to democracy only when enough people are disenfranchised that it will affect the election out come. There is definitely disproportional racial impact of felon disenfranchisement. “Racial Minorities are significantly overrepresented in the US criminal justice system. We estimate that 1.8 million of the 4.7 million felons and ex-felons currently barred from voting are African Americans (page 780)”.

Since African Americans are mostly democratic voters, felon disenfranchisement reduces the number of eligible African American voters. “Of the 22 million black adults in the US in 1995, 767,000were held in prison, 990,000 were on probation, and another 325,000 were on parole. Blacks make up 12 percent out the total US population. Yet they comprise on half of all prison inmates.

Over the course of a lifetime, a black man has a one-in-three chance of spending at lease one year in jail (Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 1999, page 61)”. Also the white felon population is comprised mostly of poor or working class offenders, who are also likely to vote democratic. Most have not even completed high school.

The southern states have the most restrictive felon disenfranchisement laws and the out comes of the elections are affected by felon disenfranchisement because it takes net votes away from the Democratic Party. (781) Felon disenfranchisement is not supposed to be discriminatory, because the Voting rights act of 1965 says that you can not deny anyone the right to vote base on race or color.

Felon disenfranchisement applies to all felons, not just the minorities, but because of the states that’s still have felon disenfranchisement laws are the states with high black prison population, and are mostly the racist southern states, it clearly is discriminatory.

There are been many other ways that states have tried to prevent a certain group of people from voting, one way being a poll tax. In the recent stories concerning Georgia's photo ID requirement for voters; much has been made of a possible violation of the Voting Rights Act. However, a higher authority is available -- the Constitution.

The 24th Amendment bars a poll tax in federal elections, and poll taxes in state elections were barred under the 1966 Supreme Court decision in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections . If citizens are required to purchase a photo ID, at a cost of $20 every five years, in order to vote, I hope the Supreme Court would see that as the equivalent of a poll tax (Washington Post, November 23, 2005). If the Supreme court would see something like that as a violation to the 24th amendment then I’m sure they would see felon disenfranchisement as a violation to the Voting rights act of 1965.

The federal government acting through Congress, has been trying to get the southern states to re-enfranchise since the 1957 voting rights act. However this act was not very effective at making the southern states comply. Years later the 1965 voting rights act was successful for a few reasons, it had the backing of the federal government’s executive branch and it also took up a policy of strict liability. With this new power, the federal government was able to increase the black voting percentage in the Southern states. It was 12 percent in 1947; it increased to 60.8 percent by 1986 (Sutton page 169).

As far as I know there has not been a specific Supreme Court case yet to make a final decision on this matter. If there was, based on the evidence, including analysis of other similar countries, the discrimination that is clearly obvious and the impact on the credibility of our Democracy, I would venture to say that felon disenfranchisement would be unconstitutional. According to the dynamic court view, a view that says that the courts can make an impact on society, the supreme court could rule on this matter then there would have had a difference in outcome President of the United States in the 2000 election.

Sources- Democratic Contraction?

Political consequences of felon disenfranchisement in the United States. By Christopher Uggen, Unversity of Minnesota and Jeff Manza, Northwestern University. http://www.jstor.org/view/ Law and Society. Origins, interactions, and change. By John R. Sutton. Journal of Blacks in Higher Education “felony disenfranchisement removes 1.4 million black men from the voting polls” the impact on the black vote. Winter 1998-1999 www.WashingtonPost.com ROY G. SALTMAN Columbia

End of Act 3 Scene 2


________________________

Scene 3
"Save the Children!"
________________________

November 7, 2005

(Race, Ethnicity and Inequality Soc 341, Written by DW for Professor Gwen Moore)

Racial and Ethnic Stratification Assignment

Children are not any one racial or ethnic group, they are the future of our world, however there are lots of children that don’t have very good chances at even making it to becoming adults. There are hundreds of millions of children in poverty and something needs to be done about it.

Save the children is an organization that helps children that are in need. Many children are facing a life-or-death situation following the natural disasters around the world. These include the gulf coast hurricanes, the earthquakes in south Asia and the famine in Africa. Save the Children is responding to urgent needs for shelter, blankets for protection from the weather, food, warm clothing for children, and first aid kits.

Mission and Strategy: Save the Children is the leading independent organization creating real and lasting change for children in need in the United States and around the world. It is a member of the International Save the Children Alliance, comprising 27 national Save the Children organizations working in more than 100 countries to ensure the well-being of children.

How was Save the Children founded? “The history of Save the Children is a story of positive change and people - millions of people in thousands of communities around the globe - working together to create opportunities for the world's children to live safe, healthy, and fulfilling lives. In January 1932 in a small room in New York City, a group of concerned citizens gathered to respond to the needs of the proud people of Appalachia hard hit by the Great Depression.” – Official Save the Children USA website savethechildren.org

This organization is a response to social inequalities. Its reminds me of Amazing Grace by Jonathan Kozol, which was a book about the lives of children and the conscience of our nation, children in this country. There are so many children around the world that don’t have the necessary requirements for living a healthy life. Kozol worked to get everyone’s attention to the problem and organizations like Save the Children are doing something about it. They provide children with not only the necessities but also economic opportunities, education, and help ,them have happier lives. They take donations on there website so anyone that wants to help can do so there. Brad Pitt and Bill Gates are some of the people involved in this noble project to help end some of the social inequality and to help Save the Children.

End of Act 3 Scene 3

________________________
Scene 4
"The fate of the earth: can we preserve the global environment?"
________________________

(Based on Rachel Carson The Obligation to Endure)

Jack

“The history of the life on earth has been a history of interaction between living things and their surroundings.”

In the modern global world, we as humans have the obligation to take care of our planet. We are suppossiedly the first intelligent species, I say why don't we act like it. Keck the Jerks that think it is ok to polute out of power, and lets start doing something today."

Man has created some very Lethal materials. Mans tampering with the atom, has created some very scary things. However...

The chemicals in which life is asked to make its adjustment are no longer merely the calcium and silica and copper and all the rest of the minerals washed out of the rocks and carried in the rivers to the sea: they are the synthetic creations of man’s inventive mind, brewed in his laboratories, and having no counterpart in nature.

Endless stream of new chemicals. 500 annually find their way into actual use in the United States alone.

500 new chemicals that the bodies and men and animals are somehow required to adapt too.

Life has to adjust to these new chemicals. Time is the essential ingredient, and the modern world there is no time.

Man is waging a war against a foe whom he will never beat. A war with one of his oldest and strongest enemies: nature. However man is now using a new kind of warfare: chemical warfare. Since the 1940s, man has created over 200 basic chemicals used for the sole purpose of killing. Insects, weeds, rodents anything thing that we consider “pests”.

Carson says

"that we should not call the“insecticides” or pesticides but “biocides”.

Nature has a funny way of fighting back. Darwin’s principle of survival of the fittest has evolved super races of bugs and critters immune to our clever try at exterminating them.

What doesn’t kill them, literally makes them stronger."

End of Act 3 Scene 4

________________________
Scene 5
"What is Truth?"
________________________

Expository Writing
March 5, 2006 Jack

Jack

"What is “Truth” Objective, universal, relative?"

Speaker

"What is truth? After 9/11, many people tried to understand what happened. Other people tried to figure out why it happened. What caused this violence? “We would like no more violence, from us as well as from you” (Nye, page 313).

In To Any Would-Be Terrorists by Naomi Shihab Nye, Nye’s response to the September 11 attacks, as a Palestinian American, I think represents many Americans as well as how most people from the Middle East feel about the attacks. She says that Islam is a tolerant religion and that it will be peace, not violence that fixes things. Is this truth?

“Have you noticed how many roads there are? ... There is no way everyone on earth could travel on the same road, or believe in exactly the same religion” (Nye, page 312). Could she be saying that there are different ways of thinking, and maybe even different truths? She also points out that there are millions of people in the United States that that are very aware of the long unfairness of our country’s policies regarding Israel and Palestine. However there is not that much that ordinary citizens can do about it. In The Algebra of Infinite Justice by Arundhati Roy “The American people ought to know that it is not them, but their governments policies, that are so hated”(340). Isn’t that usually the case? Well the since we all seem to agree that its not the people’s fault and it is clearly the governments fault, then why are terrorists attacking the people?

I have to say that I have studied terrorism a little bit and I don’t completely understand it. To illustrate my understanding of terrorism I use the events from the September 1, 2004 terrorist attack on a Russian school. The terrorists took over 400 students’ hostage, ages from 7-17. They demanded that Russia pull its troops out of and to put an end to the war in Chechnya. Of course Russia didn’t give in to the demands and it all ended in bloodshed. However I understand the cause of this terrorism. These terrorists were from Chechnya, and the Russian government has destroyed their home with the plight of war. I can only imagine how that must feel, to have Russian tanks roll through your country. I don’t ever agree with terrorism but I do understand this kind of terrorism. These so called terrorists were trying to save their home, and who wouldn’t do anything to save their home?

But what does this have to do with the September 11 attacks? I know that terrorist have been trying to blow up the World Trade Center for some time now, but why? What is it that they were trying to accomplish? At least the terrorist in Russia had a clear goal, which was not just limited to that attack, they told Russia that even if they failed, that their alliance will attack again and again until the war is ended. That they will continue to cause terror until their demands are met! When asked “how can you kill innocent children for your cause?” they responded, “the Russian government didn’t seem to have a problem killing thousands of children in Chechnya.” Not just to cause terror, for terror’s sake, but they did have a noble goal, to try to save their country. For the longest time I believed that the 9/11 attacks were pointless violence, with no message.

However with new information I have come to believe something else. They did have a message, its just that the American news and media is so bias and one sided that they failed to tell me what it was. Did they attack us in response to some stupid thing that our government did, it doesn’t surprise me a bit if the U.S. media left out that little piece of information. Truth is based on what knowledge is available. And if America chooses to believe that we are innocent, we are in for a rude awakening. Maybe one of the reasons that 9/11 happened is a result of our actions. Could it possibly be the “500,000 Iraqi children that have died as a result of economic sanction the U.S. insisted upon them”(page 340)? Or does it have something to do with the CIA and Pakistan’s SIS. What exactly did our government do that would cause these people to hate us so much. Was it when the U.S. used the jihad and the Taliban to wage war on Russia? Maybe the 9/11 attacks aren’t so different from the terrorists from Chechnya after all. Why would it be any different? There is just as much of a motive and reason. And perhaps it is about time that some one stood up to the barbaric actions of our government. No country in the world would dare stand up to the might of the U.S. And maybe it’s about time that our government takes some responsibility for their actions. Our government can’t just go around and do what ever it wants to who ever it wants. It’s absurd to think that the U.S. can “stomp out terrorism with more violence and oppression” (page 342).

In Todd Gitlin’s Blaming America First essay, he calls it “damnable yet understandable payback…rooted in America’s own crimes” (page 334). But are the American people responsible for the actions of their elected governments? “When a rulers view command popularity, this can only be because the entire population has been brainwashed, or rendered moronic, or shares in its leaders monstrous values”(pg 335). Gitlin say that we are brainwashed or we may just be stupid.

Jack

"How do you define “truth”? How is truth related to experience? What does truth and experience have to do with terrorism?

Nietzsche argues that truth is just something that the human intellect can never understand completely. So we make up our own truth from our experiences and that’s what we believe. Truth is totally relative to each individual and what information that individual has. What ever one self believes whole heartedly to be truth, unless otherwise proven to be false, is what is truth for that person. This is not just true for individuals, but for societies as a whole. “To be truthful means using the customary metaphors-in moral terms: the obligation to lie according to a fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all…” Nietzsche.

Some people in this world do not feel an obligation to these conventions. These people are often called rebels or terrorists, as they are trying to change the world for the better (Chechnya terrorists wanted to end war) if they are successful they are called revolutionaries. These people have their own ideas of truth and they want to be heard. How else would you get the attention of the entire country? How else do you stand up to a stubborn, greedy superpower that has no one else to control them? This cycle of violence is not the answer; it is a wake up call. Everyone please, let’s try to get along. And that includes the greedy bastards that run our country.

I do not know everything about everything. Therefore how can I be so sure that what I know is the truth? What does truth refer to? Does truth refer to objective reality? And can I ever understand reality. If I can not see the whole picture then how do I know what I believe to be true is really the truth? God is the only one that knows the truth. God is the only one that can see and know everything, that is the only way to know objective truth and reality. What I see and know is only a fraction what is real. What I know and believe to be the truth is only my relative truth; however it is true for me. I think that God is the answer, and from with my limited knowledge of the world, I think that Islam is closer to the truth then our conservative government.

Works Cited

Ed. Gilbert Muller The New World Reader: Thinking and Writing about the Global Community. New York: Houghton Mifflin. 2003: 310-344 Naomi Shihab Nye Essay To Any Would-Be Terrorists pages310-314 Arundhati Roy Essay Algebra of Infinite Justice pages333-338 Todd Gitlin Essay Blaming America First pages339-344 The portable Nietzsche, translated by W. Kaufmann Source for Chechnya Terrorism http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/01/russia.school/

End of Act 3 Scene 5

________________________

Please move onto Act 4


Copy Right (c) 2007 David W Coon

Part of The DW Antholoy, a free eBook