The Jeffersonian

Are you an environmentalist? If so, what does that mean to you? Let me tell you what it means to me, not in an intentionally vituperative manner, but hopefully in an eye opening, or at least reflective one. I understand the desire to see and appreciate nature,  to have clean air and water, and to generally appreciate and nurture our resources and the source from whence they come. I also understand how these sentiments, when carried too far, are in direct conflict with sustained growth, improved human condition and welfare, and the physical and emotional health of the middle and lower classes.

There is no more a regressive tax than those policies and regulations that impact energy production and costs. My wealthy friends that have 3,500 square foot homes and summer condos, that regularly vacation abroad, are slightly annoyed when their electric bill or gas prices rise. These types of people rarely, if ever, reflect on the real hardships these price increases have on people that live paycheck to paycheck. These  price increases are often truly destructive.

When so many of the policy choices promoted by people like Al Gore, his “fly-over” celebrity friends, and wealthy coastal liberals come from equal parts appreciation for nature, a desire to maintain their own personal open spaces (both seen and unseen), and a simmering disdain for American culture as it appears in rural and suburban energy reliance, it is hard to ignore the hypocrisy in the anger these types direct at carbon emissions. This is when they are usually in the top 1/10 of 1% of personal carbon emitters in the world and produce more personal carbon from their home air conditioning in a year than the average Kansan does driving her F150 to and from her job site.

But the harm to the working class is not the only problem. There is the major, but oft dismissed notion of “to what end?” It is generally accepted that curbing our own carbon emissions through regulation and tax will not actually curtail the growth of world carbon emissions. We are constantly meant to be frightened into action with calls that if we don’t act today (literally, today!), then it will simply be too late to stop the total devastation of the earth’s sustainability. Yet, the continued growth and economic development throughout the world, at exponential rates, particularly in China and India, will not only replace the growth currently attributed to America, but vastly exceed it. This worldwide growth makes irrelevant and irrational the imposed sacrifices on the working poor and lower socioeconomic classes.

One only need look at the probable rationales of other countries in instituting policies and treaties, already routinely ignored by most current signatories, on the currently uncommitted United States. It is an understandably seductive idea to emerging economies that it is their “turn” as countries to grow, and that America should now pay for its past successes to their benefit. However, if America ever succumbs to these pressures, it will undoubtedly result in the same universal failure that socialist dogma has befell all previous blind believers throughout history.

Of course, there are the carbon offsets. When Al Gore found that people would look at other causes of carbon emissions than low mileage SUV’s or industry production when evaluating his words on global warming, and realized that he was undoubtedly one of the worst abusers in the world by his own measures, he did not deign to modify either his stance or his lifestyle. Instead, Gore rather brilliantly, if equally absurdly in its blatant disregard for all logic and reason considering his public demeanor on the subject, decided he could profit, and profit handsomely, by creating the carbon offset. Mr. Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize in spite of, or even because of, it all.

This offset became a business which allows the sinner to buy her way into heaven without actually sacrificing in any meaningful way her cherished lifestyle, while still being able to profess her status as an environmentalist and exude public scorn for both the unabashed industrialist and capitalist sympathizer. A modern day indulgence. In my mind, the act speaks for itself as to the merit and the motive of the Nobelist’s message, but let’s look at an analogy for further clarification.

It is eerily similar to the 80s television evangelists who would proclaim us sinners and demand we repent in action and with our paycheck. People would do so only to discover in the end that the greatest sinners were the preachers themselves. Our shame was not only in having listened to those castigating us for the very things they were so blatantly guilty of themselves, but in having made them rich by appealing to and preying on, our genuine and good natured guilt. The modern environmentalist is no different.

Does that mean to call oneself an environmentalist one must be the stereotypical tree hugger, someone who has removed herself from the capitalist system entirely, one who desires a world and state of nature and seeks to govern as such? It is possible that you must do so if you want to be consistent in your words and deeds, or at least care for those with fewer comforts and opportunities than yourself, but no fewer desires. Certainly so if you continue to embrace the all encompassing carbon emitting capitalist structure.

I would ask you to take it a step further and consider that if you personally advocate less energy development (of actual, usable, cost efficient fuels; we all want the magic pill, but it isn’t here yet, so we deal with reality), if you like the idea of European like gas prices and the taxes and regulations that cause them, if you propose severe carbon taxes to curtail exploration, development, and production, both in energy and industry, in my opinion, and I hope you have considered it before, or if not, will do so now, you might not realize the actual effects of your cause, but it is almost surely increased human hardship. I often compare the environmentalist on the left with the defense hawk on the right and the bogey man we choose to see. The Republican voter, to use a generalization, who obfuscates the efforts of “sustainable” endeavors obviously wants clean air, water, and a nice park here or there in the city or the hinterland to visit, just as the Democrat who seeks military cuts and does not see the merit in “peace through strength” wants a safe, protected and peaceful world. I often think the best solution would be to put the environmentalists in charge of defense and the defense hawks in charge of the environment.

On October 1, 2012, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that would decide the extent to which U.S. courts can adjudicate violations of international human rights abroad.   The case addresses whether individuals and corporations can be liable under U.S. law for their role in perpetrating human rights violations on foreign soil.  Central to this debate is Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, a case involving the alleged role of three foreign oil companies affiliated with Royal Dutch Shell in assisting the Nigerian government in violently suppressing environmental protestors through torture and even murder.  The case was first argued in February 2012, but the Court requested that the parties return to discuss the central issue of extraterroriality.  Access to U.S. courts was granted to the Kiobel plaintiffs through the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). 

The ATS was passed in 1789 by the first Congress in an attempt to provide a remedy for international wrongs.   Since then, the ATS has opened the doors of U.S. federal courts to non-citizens who allege violations of international law, even if the violations occurred outside the U.S. and were perpetrated by individuals with no direct connections to the U.S.  The statute has been used to punish corporations for their roles in torture, extrajudicial executions, and even genocide.   Companies like Exxon Mobil Corp., Rio Tinto Plc, and Nestle have been implicated under the ATS.   The statute effectively opens the doors of American courtrooms to individuals with no other recourse, either in their home states or in other nations. 

Critics of the ATS argue that U.S. law should not apply to conduct occurring on foreign soil by individuals with no connection to the U.S.  “No other nation in the world permits its court to exercise universal civil jurisdiction over alleged extraterritorial human rights abuses to which the nation has no connection,” stated Justice Kennedy.  The justices’ concerns seem to hinge on issues of jurisdiction and state sovereignty, and the lack of connections between Royal Dutch Shell and the U.S. has been a source of contention for the justices.  The Court’s ruling could limit the applicability of the ATS to American corporations only and potentially, to acts committed on U.S. soil alone.    

If the Court insulates companies from liability for human rights violations committed abroad, the Court could forge a new future for the conduct of global corporations.   Justice Breyer posited the question during the first round of oral arguments, asking whether individuals could incorporate in order to commit human rights violations and evade liability due to their corporate status.  Further, the notion that corporations are somehow separate and distinct from individuals does is not compatible with recent Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United, which recognized that corporations possess certain constitutional rights.   With certain rights come responsibilities, including the responsibility to obey international law at home and abroad. 

Denying relief to victims of torture, to the loved ones of murdered individuals merely because they are not American citizens, or because the acts were committed outside the U.S., sends a message that the U.S. is not entirely committed to ending violations of international human rights laws.  In a time when our reputation as a nation is at its most fragile following the years plagued by torture at Guantanamo Bay and at Abu Ghraib, the U.S. should intensify its commitment and recognition to international human rights at home and abroad.  Denying access to our courts, when we here hold them in such high esteem, sends the message that if it is not in our backyard nor committed by one of our own, we just don’t give a damn.  Have we already forgotten the oath we have all taken as the People of the United States to establish Justice?  

A chill is finally in the air, well at least for a couple of days.  With the chill of fall comes the thrill of Halloween for many.  You may be asking yourself, what should I do? 

Well, if you hadn’t heard, TJSL is throwing a major bash on October 26 at one of San Diego’s newest and hottest places, the Pussycat Doll’s Playhouse Nightclub.  According to SBA sources, students get exclusive access to a VIP area that includes a private entrance.  Everything starts at 9pm, and non-TJSL students are welcome.  Talk to your section reps for tickets, which are priced at $25 and include two drink tickets, but get them before they sell out.

If you love fall and Halloween, and one fun night just isn’t enough, the city offers other experiences too.  Haunted San Diego offers year round tours Wednesday through Sunday.  You’ll be driven from scary site to scary site.  If you enjoy story telling by guides who are completely decked out, this may be your thing. Some of the sites include the Horton Grand Hotel, Old Town’s oldest cemetery, and one of the most haunted houses in America according to the Travel Channel, Whaley House. Check http://www.hauntedsandiegotours.com for details.

If you’d rather skip the tour and go right for the goods, you can go directly to Whaley House for an extended tour.  Events include ghost tours, ghost hunting and the house is open until midnight several nights in October.  Check http://whaleyhouse.org/events.htm for more details.

For all the moms and dads, aunts and uncles, or people with friends who have kids, it can be tough to find Halloween events for everyone.  But Balboa Park Halloween Family Day could be the answer.  On Oct. 29 not only will the park host a Family Day, but many of the museums located there will open their doors to children under 12 for free.  Balboa Park is home to so many amazing attractions, it’s hard to list only a few.  However, here are some offering the free-under-12 tickets (some stipulations may apply): The San Diego Zoo, Hall of Champions, Mingle International Museum, and many more.  Visit http://www.balboapark.org/visit/halloween for a complete list.

And finally, for anyone who can’t live without being scared to death . . .

Check out The Haunted Hotel http://www.hauntedhotel.com/pages/video or The Scream Zone http://www.thescreamzone.com/home.html.

Whatever you decide to do this Halloween have a ghoulishly good time, and don’t forget to stay safe out there. 

Because I don’t pay to park downtown I typically have to park a few blocks away.  I don’t really mind the walk, but the tradeoff is that for every block I drive east or south, the seedier things seem to get. 

Our campus sits on a rather socioeconomically precarious lot.  Sometimes it seems too easy to forget about our surrounding East Village neighborhood, ignoring the unsavory elements that seem to proliferate here.  The contrast can be quite striking and takes little venturing from the comforts of our sleek and sophisticated bubble of 1155 Island Avenue.  Hours are spent each day discussing cases in our streamlined classrooms yet it is often in the two or three blocks walking to my car where I am able to actually see the various legal issues presented in our casebooks play out in real time. 

“You straight?” is a question I’m consistently asked when walking to my car. The question does not have to do with my sexual orientation.  I am pretty sure I’m being asked whether I want to purchase drugs, but I don’t really know that for sure - it is an inference from the context.  The scenario reminds me of the discussion of criminal conspiracy and how to analyze the particular communications in question.  I reply with an, “I’m good,” and continue on my way.  I also routinely hear, “Cigarettes?” and this is phrased in such a way as to be understood as a sales pitch.  I also infer the cigarettes in question are contraband. 

Last year, I was still taking public transit, from within a trolley car I witnessed an assault on the corner of Island and Park. Three men jumped another man, kicking him in the head while he was on the ground.  I thought about somehow trying to get off the moving trolley and interjecting myself into the situation, but instead just watched.  The truth is I did not want to get involved and was somewhat thankful that I was witnessing this from a moving trolley.  I felt guilty about that and I suppose I still do. 

People routinely ask me for money when I go to the 7-11.  Maybe they see my Apartment 9 dress shoes that I bought on sale at Kohls and think I have it made or maybe they just ask everyone who passes them on the street.  There is one woman that has approached me on several occasions.  I do not think she remembers having asked me for money before.  She gives me the same spiel each time about how and why she needs money for food. I really do not believe her, there is something in her routine that seems too staged and rehearsed.  She did not sell me on her plight well enough and I find myself thinking about how she could have maybe won me over had she been more genuine so that I could have actually empathized with her.  This is the type of emotional appeal a good trial lawyer must make to a jury.

There are far more instances I could speak of, some probably more interesting, some less.  These various encounters are a regular reminder that for better or worse we are a part of this community.  TJSL has not called the East Village home for very long, but already it is clear from the school’s enriching activities and events that we are a positive contribution to a neighborhood that is doing what it can to survive these tough economic times.

October is the designated “Breast Cancer Awareness and Research” month across the country! Millions of men and women show their support by raising money, participating in sponsored marathons and walks. Celebrities speak about the cause and consumers are buying merchandise that donates a portion of their proceeds to a breast cancer research organization (that’s what the pink ribbon means on products).

In the spirit of promoting awareness, there are ways in each TJSL can be well informed of breast cancer and its ripple effects.

Early Detection is Key to Prevention

Women and men die each year from breast cancer. For the most part, early detection would have saved their lives. Even though it is 100 times less likely for a male to get breast cancer, precautionary measures should be taken by men to detect any possibility of it to occur. Women should check regularly for lumps and anything that “feels funny.” This could be a job for your significant other, as there is strong evidence demonstrating that another person who checks your breasts is more likely to find lumps or anything inconsistent with the texture of tissue.

The most common way of detecting possible lumps are via mammogram, a test  covered under insurance, so take the opportunity to check. A new innovative test that detects “hot spots” much earlier than mammograms is a thermography. This uses digital infrared thermal imaging (DITI) to find “hot spots” within the tissue of the breast, and can detect areas within the breast that could be cancerous years in the future. Thermography is approved by the FDA, but is not covered under most insurance policies. However, there are many who have been tested by thermography and having such early detection by years prior to a cancerous lump ever surfacing, and this test well worth the investment to them. Regardless of whichever method you use, it’s important to start today!

Where does Breast Cancer Come From?

Breast cancer has exponentially claimed lives recently, and it’s not a coincidence. Many daily products we use on our hands, faces, body and hair have carcinogenic ingredients in them. These ingredients significantly increase the production of estrogen in women’s bodies, which then can catalyze tissue cells’ growth and become cancerous. Common ingredients in lotions, moisturizers, soap, sunscreen, lip moisturizers, shampoos, conditioners, hair mouse, fragrances, deodorant and the like are parabens, ethylene oxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbens (PAHs), placental extract, lead and aluminum. So the next time you want to buy lotion or soap from your favorite store in the mall, make sure to look at the ingredients. Chances are, the more a company brags about how well their lotions or soaps moisturize your skin, the more likely it has one of these dangerous ingredients making your skin silky smooth.

The Funny Thing About Those Pink Ribbons

Many retail and product companies have jumped on the pink ribbon bandwagon and do donate a portion of their proceeds to some kind of breast cancer research and awareness fund, but the funny thing is that some of the products that consumers are buying from these companies have ingredients that can cause breast cancer. Remember the ingredients listed above? Those very  same ingredients are in the products that proudly display a pink ribbon on the labeling. These companies  are supporting the very organization that is trying to put them out of business (or at least eliminate those carcinogenic ingredients). But the only way those companies will change their ingredients to a healthy alternative is if consumers stop buying their products!

True Support

To truly combat this epidemic, volunteering for a breast cancer research center, participating in a sponsored marathon or walk, or just spreading the word about early detection will tremendously help. To donate money, the best method is to give  directly to the local breast cancer center, as they’re the ones that are putting millions of dollars toward innovations in preventing and slowing breast cancer. There is a breast cancer center unit in UC San Diego and there is a county hotline dedicated to answering questions about breast cancer and any related resources, the number is 2-1-1.

Resources To Consider

Here are a few resources providing detailed information on breast cancer, its causes and effects, and where to seek help:

- http://www.211sandiego.org/susan-g-komen/

- http://www.breastcancerfund.org/clear-science/chemicals-linked-to-breast-cancer/cosmetics/

- http://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/life/style/2012/10/05/think-pink-products-for-breast-cancer-awareness-month/1616135/

- http://drsherri.wordpress.com/category/breast-thermography/

-http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancerinMen/DetailedGuide/breast-cancer-in-men-detection

As a hot topic of discussion, bullying has recently taken center stage. It has become an underestimated, pervasive problem that hinders academic and social success for many individuals. Today, one in four children will be bullied, and a growing percentage of students miss at least one or more days of school per month in fear of bullying.[1] In San Diego County middle-high schools, at least 63% of students have avoided going to school restrooms out of fear of bullying, and over 10% of students drop out each year because of bullying.[2] Looking at the bigger picture, we ask ourselves: what can be done to curb this problem?

A 16-year-old bullied student in West Branch, Michigan took matters into her own hands. Whitney Kropp of Ogemaw Heights High School decided the best coping mechanism was her self-confidence. Bullies had engineered a cruel prank to nominate Whitney for homecoming queen. Whitney said she felt like trash. Fearing that no one cared about her, she contemplated suicide as a way to escape the cruelty.[3] In an inspirationally brave stand, Whitney committed to appear at the homecoming dance, despite the bullying. Her town and others across the nation, rallied behind her: donating her gown, providing a makeover, and creating a Facebook support page. Support Whitney Kropp. Supporting Whitney’s decision to not let the bullies get her down, the public gave Whitney the push she needed to go to the event. Whitney arrived glowing and overwhelmed by the adoring fans watching her entrance. Whitney told the world to “go with your heart and go with your gut. Stand up for what you believe in. That’s what I did, and look at me now. I am as happy as can be.”[4] As an inspiration to so many, Whitney is a role model of self-confidence, and a modern day Cinderella.

Like Whitney, so many individuals around us suffer from bullying. Many are searching for ways to create their own coping mechanisms. In San Diego, the new anti-bullying legislation, nicknamed “Seth’s Law,” requires California public schools to provide and update anti-bullying policies and programs.[5] Committed to providing equal rights and opportunities to students, California passed the legislation to ensure schools address bullying immediately. The legislation holds school administrators accountable for student safety by providing an academic atmosphere encouraging student success. Some schools are seeking unique methods of bullying prevention in response to the legislation. One school provided a “bullying box”, an anonymous complaint box for students to report bullying.[6] Another school has implemented ways to monitor cyber-bullying and social networking sites, which tend to expand the power of bullying.

The bigger picture is that the community is progressing and exploring new avenues to approach prevention. Every effort and helping hand will make a difference in the movement. The local San Diego Boys and Girls Club has implemented “Be a H.E.R.O.”[7] It is a program designed to eliminate and reduce bullying by instituting a prevention curriculum, and training peer helpers to utilize anti-bullying skills in real life situations. The San Diego County Bar Association (SDCBA) Children At Risk Committee provides a peer mediation and conflict resolution program. The committee is currently seeking volunteers to work alongside SDCBA members in participating San Diego schools by teaching students conflict resolution skills.[8]

Legislation has opened doors to further policy decisions, but an open door does not necessarily induce individuals to walk through it. We are the first leaders in the move to change the attitudes of the following generations. Society must change the way individuals discuss, learn about, and cope with bullying. Fortunately, the movement has begun to stir change. Thanks to individuals like Whitney, and community initiatives, bullying is no longer an accepted right of passage of youth adolescence.

In The Presocratics, edited by Phillip Wheelwright in 1997, we learn of a fragment handed down to us only through the writings of Aristotle and his students: a man named Thales once said, "The first principle and basic nature of all things is water.”

Western Philosophy, beginning in Greece, drew on many influences in its early stages. The first philosophers, by modern standards, lived in an area of the world known as Miletus, now modern Turkey in the first millennium B.C.E. Miletus, located in an area known as Ionia, was at the outskirts of the Persian Empire in a region more akin to Greece than the eastern civilizations with which it shared a continent. The Milesian philosophers could access knowledge from a convergence of cultures through trade. To the extent that their predilection dictated, these men, as inhabitants and residents of Miletus, could treat their thinking with cross-disciplinary ideas, including the influence of Athenian culture, and the cultures of other ancient Greek city states, as well as religious principles and philosophies that came to them in Ionia through from the south and from the east.

What did Thales mean by his assertion that the basic nature of all things is water? He was trying to describe the invisible nature of his world (“all things”) in a way that he could not possibly have observed through the lens of science, or a scientific method, as we moderns do today. Thales speculated about the basic nature (the basic element) that composed him and everything that he perceived in the world. In his view, the nature of the world, and the nature of his being, was water. This is a line of reasoning that presents implicit in cultural mythology throughout the world, and it is explicitly emphasized by scholars and psychologists such as Joseph Campbell and C.G. Jung. We need only look to the idea of baptism, or walk several miles through a hot desert, or around the block on a hot day, to realize how psychologically integral water is to human beings both as an unconscious symbol (in whatever form it takes hold of us) and a quantified, life-sustaining resource. To Jung, water symbolized the unconscious psyche, which at a certain depth (Jung originally named this depth the “collective unconscious,” but in his later works referred to it as “the objective psyche”) contained an archetype (an unmovable, physically imbedded principle of human experience), which he called the self. In Jung’s analysis, the self was often represented by a ring or a circle. In his scholarly works, and in recorded interviews captured toward the end of his life, Joseph Campbell speaks passionately about the importance of mandalas as symbols and expressions of the self and of life. Insofar as Thales, Jung and Campbell believed in unverified but accessible information contained within the psyche of every individual human being, which manifested their nature as symbols in the objective reality of our world, they agreed that water, at least theoretically, is representative of a basic nature regarding existence and experience that can be known by means observation and reason.

The Pre-Socratic philosophers, and the keepers of knowledge, like Aristotle, who followed in their footsteps, through record-keeping and conscious thought, laid the groundwork for, and the distinctions between, science, philosophy, mythology, religion and psychology that we so fight so desperately to keep separated in our own minds today. But what if Freud had not taken the religion out of science and enlisted the idea that mythology manifests factual evidence of the inner workings of every human mind? What if other psychologists and scholars had not built on this line of thinking? Where does mens rea enter any question of law? How do we define our standards for what is reasonable under a given set of circumstances? At what point do we draw the line between that which can be scientifically or rationally proven beyond doubt, and that which we refuse to acknowledge as fact? Perhaps it is better to take a cross-disciplinary, cross-cultural view of certain issues before trying judge them one way or another; in fact this seems to be the very reason lawyers exist. The purpose of a lawyer is to think critically, to rationalize, categorize and organize human behavior, and justify it from one perspective or another.

Our task as law students goes to the heart of what the first philosophers did for their own sense of virtue. At least virtue is the justification given to us by the early philosophers for their overanalyzing of what would seem like otherwise trivial matters (look to Pythagoris’s feelings on beans). As students, we might justify our own predispositions towards critical thinking and overanalyzing language by more practical measures; some of us have already decided on our professional ambitions, some are interested in highly specialized career paths, and maybe some of us want our J.D.s and our rights to practice law with the distinctions we deserve as learned professionals in a society made up of civilians haling from every class imaginable.

The philosophers of ancient Greece and the keepers of their words have passed on to us a manner of thinking, not just through the Socratic method or its variants, but in a generalized way of questioning the world we live in and learning from experience. We have been provided with many divergent methods of analysis to meet the end of understanding our world (religion, myth, psychology, science) but we have chosen the law as our specialized field to provide us with the most just terms available for our purposes as individuals.

Other philosophers from Miletus and the surrounding city-states in Ionia, as well as later Greek and western philosophers looked at the world around them, and wondered if it should be taken at face value. Their instincts, or rather their natural born capacity as human beings to reason, led them to question the “facts” that were presented to them by their senses. The first western philosopher of whom any record was kept, Thales, contributed relatively little to the collective great library that has been uncovered through many years of archaeology and scholarly research; and what we know of Thales survived only through those who thought his ideas worthy to remember, passed through the course of hundreds of years, maintaining their integrity long enough to enter the writings of Aristotle, an indirect successor of a standup philosopher we call Socrates, the benefactor of the man who immortalized his wisdom in writing, whose name we know as Plato.

What was Thales really trying to say about first principles and basic natures? Surely he didn’t conceive of water as an element in the sense that we, as scientifically educated modern human beings understand that word, or did he? Now, we know as fact that elements (or basic natures) belong on a chart. They are the basis of all that we consider matter. How is it possible that Thales, an ordinary, rational man, could have conceived of such a modern scientific concept six to eight hundred years B.C.E.? If we were to ask Carl Jung, or Joseph Campbell this question they would point us to the inner workings of our own minds for an answer, and I hope that this article will accomplish a similar goal. By this I mean that my hope is to cause reflection in other students, as well as professors, on their own reasons for continuing to study and practice the ancient traditions of law and reason.