Tuesday, March 31, 2015
News & Views: Genetically Modified Food
Today while reading I came across this link -- http://is.gd/F4fJIl
Summary: This editorial opinion says how majority of the scientist says its safe to eat Genetically Modified Foods (GMF), and hence extrapolate that 'We don’t need labels on genetically modified foods'
Opinion: I think there are two points here that needs to be underlined.
1. People need to know what they are reading if they are interested. The right to know/transparency is an important part of the democracy.
2. This is not even 50 years old. To understand the full effects of it you need at-least three generations of a family, the first gen that had started eating GMF, second that was born to them and grew up eating GMF, and the third which had parents who grew up eating GMF and now they are too. Only when this third generation matured to old age can we be sure about its side-affects. Until then we are dealing with theories and probabilities.
Saturday, March 21, 2015
James Risen. A journalist worth idolizing!
This was a intriguing account of the James Risen case in USA. (Click here)
In short, the story is about how easily can government get access to information about an individual and use the same to stifle the journalists' sources and intimidate people in such a way that there are no "future leaks" from the government, no matter how wrong is the government.
After reading through this article and looking through various others, my conclusion is that perhaps we need to re-look at spirit with which the founders of any democracy had hoped or wanted to set as precedent.
The solution, in USA's case, would be to create a new witness protection program run and linking it to new laws which will give full sanctuary to whistle blowers. If it sounds complicated let me explain with an example.
In this case where,
The moment the story was blown and cases came in-front of judges. Each case had to be looked from the following aspect --
1. Was the government wrong not by current law but when their actions and reactions are measured against the 'Declaration of Independance'?
2. Did the people try to take down a government which was corrupt?* There is an old adage, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
*But when a long train of abuses and usurpation, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
If the answer, as it looks in this case, is 'Yes'. Then the case is not admissible and it should be thrown out. Also a strict action should be taken against the prosecutor or the one leading the case. As far as the witness or the corroborator is concerned then s/he be put under the witness and whistle blower program and their safety should be guaranteed.
In short, the story is about how easily can government get access to information about an individual and use the same to stifle the journalists' sources and intimidate people in such a way that there are no "future leaks" from the government, no matter how wrong is the government.
After reading through this article and looking through various others, my conclusion is that perhaps we need to re-look at spirit with which the founders of any democracy had hoped or wanted to set as precedent.
The solution, in USA's case, would be to create a new witness protection program run and linking it to new laws which will give full sanctuary to whistle blowers. If it sounds complicated let me explain with an example.
In this case where,
The moment the story was blown and cases came in-front of judges. Each case had to be looked from the following aspect --
1. Was the government wrong not by current law but when their actions and reactions are measured against the 'Declaration of Independance'?
2. Did the people try to take down a government which was corrupt?* There is an old adage, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
*But when a long train of abuses and usurpation, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
If the answer, as it looks in this case, is 'Yes'. Then the case is not admissible and it should be thrown out. Also a strict action should be taken against the prosecutor or the one leading the case. As far as the witness or the corroborator is concerned then s/he be put under the witness and whistle blower program and their safety should be guaranteed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)