Conference on World Affairs Assignment

Trevor Jones

4/21/17

Per. 8

Panel #1 - Torture: Human Rights and Wrongs

1. The main theme of this panel is the controversy regarding the practice and efficiency of torture in, but not exclusively, the United States military. The panelists each voice their opinions on the efficiency, morality and effects of torture along with their own personal history and experiences regarding the topic.
2. The theme of the panel is mostly valid because it addresses a controversial and current topic, but fails to give both sides of the efficiency and morality or torture (the panelists mostly stuck to how inefficient and immoral torture is).
3. Mark Fallon makes the points in his argument that torture is immoral, inefficient, not a necessity and against America’s core values. Mark elaborates his argument by saying torture is counterproductive, often producing false information, and rapport building techniques involving psychology are much more humane and efficient ways of extracting information. Janet B. Smith seemingly mirrors Mark’s opinions and gives examples of how destructive torture is to a people and a country with her experiences in Chile and Saudi Arabia.
4. Mark Fallon served as a Deputy U.S. Marshal (2 years), an NCIS Special Agent (27 years) and a Department of Homeland Security Senior Executive (2 years), as well as the author of Unjustifiable Means, giving an inside look into the dark side of torture in the U.S. Mark Fallon presents a plethora of descriptive facts and history regarding his stance on torture, easily sufficient enough to prove his point. Janet B. Smith gathered immense information on torture though her travels to Saudi Arabia and Chile and her interactions with individuals tortured for information. Janet B. Smith offers an abundance of information regarding torture outside of the United States, sufficient enough to support her argument.
5. I believe all of the information presented in the panel was accurate, due to the immense knowledge of the topic at hand, however the information was heavily opinionated and did not give both sides of the argument. The lack of both sides of the argument would not compromise the accuracy of the information presented, though.
6. The argument is being made from the perspective of a United States law enforcer and a wealthy reporter, for all intents and purposes.
7. I believe this is a valid perspective to take the stance on torture that they have taken, and certainly have the background knowledge and history to uphold their validity.
8. There is not, in fact, a multiplicity of perspectives given. The core perspective given is how torture in inefficient, inhumane and unnecessary. Torture is a controversial enough topic that opposition to this perspective would be greatly despised.
9. The key perspective left out is how efficient and humane torture is by an individual that has been tortured for information. Though this perspective would be very difficult to attain.

The panel ended with final questions addressed to both panelists forcing them to expand on their opinions towards torture. In my opinion this was a very informational panel because it taught me a lot of history regarding torture inside and outside of the United States, and presented me with perspectives on how torture is negative in almost every way and can be substituted with much more effective and humane alternatives. This being said I would highly recommend this panel to anyone who is interested in the topic.

Panel #2 - Clues to Prehistoric Times, Found in Blind Cavefish (TED Talk)

1. The main theme of this panel is how adaptations in species of blind cave-dwelling fish can be compared through their genetic composition to find a common ancestor, in order to prove how the continents broke apart millions of years ago (Pangea).
2. This was a very brief panel, an obvious summary of a career’s worth of work, but was backed by facts and easily provable information. This being said, the theme of the panel is valid and deals with a popular current topic.
3. The sole panelist, Prosanta Chakrabarty, spoke on how adaptations in the expression of rhodopsin (the pigmentation that allows for eyesight in animals) in fish over millions of years allow for fish originally with eyesight to lose the vestigial structures (eyes) that served no purpose in the dark cave environments. The study of similar fish thousands of miles away lead to the discovery of a common ancestor between the two, leading Chakrabarty and other Ichthyologists to proof of a conjoined prehistoric continent, namely Pangea.
4. Prosanta Chakrabarty is the Associate Professor and Curator of Ichthyology at Louisiana State University, and focuses on recovering the relationships of fish in order to better understand evolutionary and geological processes. Chakrabarty has devoted over a decade of his life studying and collecting data on the topic, providing an excellent summary of his work in the panel. The information provided is just sufficient enough to clearly express his work, but vague enough to maintain audience attention and comprehension.
5. Based on the above reasoning regarding Chakrabarty’s career studies, I believe the information presented in the panel is accurate and can easily be justified with work done by other acclaimed scientists.
6. This argument is being made by a successful field studies Ichthyologist.
7. This is a valid perspective because it presents a phenomenon and then addresses it through his collected data and findings.
8. Chakrabarty addresses his perspective which is the only perspective necessary to the panel because it is exclusively his work.
9. No perspectives are left out that were not addressed in the panel.

The panel ends with Chakrabarty telling the audience about how a newly discovered extinct cave-dwelling fish may give more information regarding ancient geological processes, perfectly concluding the panel by reintroducing the main idea. I thought this was a good panel because it presented an interesting phenomena that has been thoroughly researched by Chakrabarty and his team, resulting in actual, provable, theories. I would highly recommend this panel to anyone interested in biology because it is extremely interesting to hear about new information relating adaptation in an animal’s genome to something as wide-scoped as the formation of the earth’s continents. 

Link to TED Talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd7lvPpDDUg

The Election of 1912 | Progressive Era Video

                          by Trevor Jones, Timmy Cropanzano and Ben Deitsch

Political Figure's Influence on Reconstruction (Washington vs. Du Bios)

Trevor Jones
1/13/17
Per. 8

Washington vs. Du Bois

               Major political figures of the time, Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois both had drastically different views on how reconstruction should improve the life of blacks in the south. While Washington promotes a much more peaceful and smooth option, his plan is far too submissive and too closely resembles life as it was for blacks before to make change. The reason that I believe Du Bois offers the better plan for improvement is because it offers a much more progressive plan that enforces the rights of blacks and rejects their "alleged inferiority" as Washington's did not. Du Bois argues that is is not possible to effectively progress in society under economic lines if they are deprived of political rights and do not strive to improve themselves. Du Bois' plan also argues that the initiative of the richer and wiser black community will arouse encouragement for others to succeed. For these reasons, I believe W.E.B. Du Bois holds a much better plan for improvement.