An Inconvenient Truth and Discussion

By


This Tuesday, Feb. 6 at 5 pm, the Society will be showing An Inconvenient Truth, followed by a short discussion in Taylor Building room A19. Check back here for discussion and responses by the audience.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Constitutional Right to Female Sexual Pleasure?

By
Although a right to “sexual pleasure” usually does not fare among traditional rights enshrined in constitutions, such a right was nevertheless proposed by a female member of the Ecuadorian parliament when debating a forthcoming new constitution. Reuters report that the idea behind the proposal was to facilitate gender equality and to avoid sexual violence. Ultimately, however, and in spite of this noble cause, the proposal failed.
Read more

Should the Media Shoulder Legally Neutral Obligation?

By
Although many people are heatedly discussing Tibetan issue, Tibetan terrorists or criminals, who infringed on the fundamental human rights of many innocent victims, should be punished according to existing law and the rule-of-law principle. Currently, many websites and newspapers maintained by volunteers exposed some lies and distortions in some western media, which always reported how Tibetan protestors were‘protecting their human rights’, but neglected and scarcely reported expression from Chinese common people. Basically, there is expressive freedom in Western countries and some lies and fabricated stories, especially in some prestigious media are not charged with any legal consequence. From the other perspective, some distorted opinions do arise nationalism within most Chinese people, who reflect totally different from the opinions as to 1989 Tian-an-men Affair. If these reports are prejudicial to China and distorting some truths, should the media freely be forum of helping certain...
Read more

Supreme Court Ruling on Punitive Damages

By
Image
The Supreme Court issued two 5-4 decisions this Tuesday. They indicate that new Chief Justice John Roberts may not be as adept at compromise as many had thought. When Roberts was nominated for the court, many praised his diplomatic and well-reasoned answers at his Congressional confirmation hearing. The cigarette damages case is particularly interesting, and creates a difficult and contradictory due process analysis. The Ruling in Phillip Morris USA v. Williams will hardly be praised by subsequent scholars for its clarity. It sets up a confusing analysis for evaluating punitive damages. The original lawsuit was brought by a smoker's widow. Her husband, Jesse Williams smoked 2 packs a day for 45 years. He died of lung cancer 9 years ago. In Oregon State court, a jury awarded the widow a record $79.5 million in punitive damages. The Oregon State Supreme Court upheld the verdict. Williams argued the cigarette industry committed "massive market-directed fraud" which m...
Read more