| OCR Text |
Show Consumers should reconsider economic relationship with China T homas L. Friedman, New York Times journalist and author of the influential globalization treatise "The World Is Flat: A Brief History of The Twenty-first Century," wrote in 2004, "When I was growing up, my parents used to say to me: 'Finish your dinner — people in China are starving' I, by contrast, find myself wanting to say to my daughters: 'Finish your homework — people in China ... are starving for your job:" Unfortunately, Friedman was probably more literally right than he knew. The Chinese government is complicit (along with its American corporate partners) in the abuse of unethical work practices for economic gain. As NPR reported earlier this year, "though the U.S. maintains a list of goods made by forced labor in China, including electronics, shoes and clothes, these products still find their way into the U.S. — and American homes!' NPR reported that the People's Republic of China pairs labor camp output with that of legitimate "sister" factories to disguise the nature of the products produced. This approach is not always successful. CNN reported in June that a retail shopper in Ireland discovered a note in an article of clothing from a prison camp laborer, mirroring a similar story of a U.S. shopper finding such a note in a Halloween toy in 2011. President Clinton's bipartisan push to engage China in open trade and approve the country's membership in the World Trade Organization were initially widely opposed by labor rights groups; the House of Representatives heard detailed descriptions of the country's use of slave labor production in 1994 and 1997. It seems that American hope for the democratization of China through a sort of SPORTS economic glasnost has done little to soften the government responsible for Tibetan genocide and the 1989 Tiananmen massacre. The continued, violent persecution of the Falun Gong should eradicate all faith in the PRC's 2013 claim to have ended such human rights abuses at its labor camps. Ignoring China's currency manipulation and the resulting American trade deficit, these human rights abuses should be reason enough for U.S. consumers to moderate their consumption of Chinese products and for U.S. politicians to get tough on international trade regulations. Artificially low prices achieved at the expense of slave labor do not represent a success of globalization. American jobs outsourced overseas to forced laborers are not a symptom of fair competition. It is blatantly immoral for American companies to profit from a lack of enforced workplace safety standards, child labor laws, minimum wage requirements and environmental regulations. Due to the PRC's purchase of the bulk of "The War on Terror" debt and the instantaneous and interconnected nature of the modern economy, it's unreasonable to expect that the U.S. would be able to surgically extricate itself from its immoral ties to China's forced labor market. However, it should be apparent that more stringent controls are needed on international trade; U.S. politicians should be taken to task on this issue. Americans can and should step up to their responsibility to take greater care as consumers and vet the commercial vendors they purchase from. Despite the difficulty of altering a rabid "consumer culture," this is a moral imperative. A country supposedly committed to the ideals of free exchange and human dignity cannot remain so and support its economy with goods manufactured by slaves. letters@chronicle.utah.edu IN THE BIG 12 I he College Football Playoff in its inaugural season was supposed to get rid of any BCS bias or controversy that has plagued college footGRIFFIN ball for years. It was supposed to determine a true champion, but ADAMS it's possible the best team may not even be among the final four squads. On Sunday afternoon, the CFP committee decided the four best teams in the country were, in order, Alabama, Oregon, Florida State and Ohio State. Just a week ago, nowNo. 6 TCU sat in the third spot, and this last Saturday Baylor made a valid argument to represent the Big 12 in the CFP after its win over Kansas State. IT'S TIME GRADUATE PROGRAMS AT WESTMINSTER IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS: Business Communications Community Leadership Counseling Education Nursing 111101 111 WESTMINSTER SALT LAKE CITY • UTAH 801.832.2200 westminstercollege.edu/grad The mess college football was in during the BCS era carried over into the CFP one, and there may be even more controversy than before. But let's not crucify the committee members just yet. First off, they were in a no-win situation. No matter what teams they decided should be in the playoff, the committee would have been wrong. When the rankings came out, it didn't really matter what fourth team was there because a number of college football fans would not have agreed. I think the committee sent a message by picking the Buckeyes, and that message is you need to be a clear conference champion to make the CFPThe Big 12 is one of the best conferences in all of America, and it's a shame that neither the Horned Frogs nor the Bears will have a chance to prove their worth, but neither is a true champion.Yes, Baylor did win the head-to-head matchup between the two, and if a Big 12 team were to get in, I believe it should have been the Bears, but not playing in a conference championship game really ruined their chances, as well as the Big 12's. I know, Ohio State plays in the Big 10, possibly the worst Power 5 conference in all of college football, but the Buckeyes have been on a tear as of late. Throw in the fact that they used their third-string quarterback and still routed No. 11 Wisconsin in the Big 10 Championship game, and it goes to show that this team is pretty well rounded. But most importantly, Ohio State is a true conference champion. Not only did it upend Michigan State in early November, but the Buckeyes won the rest of their games en route to a Big 10 Championship — the ultimate, deciding factor to the CFP committee. So really, it wasn't about Ohio State being actually better than TCU or Baylor. Hell, I still think if the Buckeyes square up against either of those squads, they lose the game. However, to the committee, winning a conference championship is more important, and as unfortunate as that is for the Big 12, it's not a bad precedent to lean on. And why not use that as a criterion? If you can't win your conference, should you really be in the playoff? Baylor should technically be the champion of the Big 12, by virtue of its victory overTCU earlier in the season, but the conference chose to name the Bears and Horned Frogs co-champions, and that gave the committee pause and kept Baylor out. If the Bears had been the clear Big 12 champion with no questions asked, I think there's no doubt it makes it into the playoff, but thanks to Trevone Boykin and TCU, they can't represent the Big 12, and if Baylor can't, then no one can. In the end, the committee wasn't going to satisfy everyone. Someone, somewhere would have had beef no matter who was put into the CFP. The members have used a number of metrics and equations to determine who the best four teams in the nation are, but in the end, playing in a conference championship game appeared to be the difference. g.adams@chronicle.utah.edu @GriffDoug Sentient animals deserve legal "personhood" while I do not always abide by it, I truly love the law. In this tumultuous, shadowy world, the law is designed to be humanity's guiding light. At its heart, it is a projection of our intangible yet immutable moral code. The progress of our legal system reflects the development of our collective principles and ethics. It is a means for the oppressed to seek recognition and retribution. This noble system of ours is far from perfect, but its beauty lies in its ability to respond to the dynamic will of those it governs. The law transmutes the emotions of the masses — fear, sorrow, anger, indignation — into a logical formula for pursuing and achieving justice. It is a brilliant outgrowth of the fallible, but well-intentioned soul of humanity. When wielded properly, the law is capable of enlightening us and improving the ways in which we interact with one another and the world at large. But when the law is misused or abused, it can be a tool for reinforcing cruelty and tyranny. America's legal history is peppered with ignorantly callous policies that make us cringe when we look back on them. Some of the greatest examples of juridical injustice can be seen in antiquated acts regarding slavery in the South. Take the spirit of a 1669 South Carolina law, for instance: "The slave, being personal chattel, is at all times liable to be sold absolutely, or mortgaged or leased, at the will of his master" When I reflect on this heart-wrenching perception of people as property, I am immensely grateful for the 14th amendment, which was implemented as a remedy for that sick, social sentiment. However, the unsettling truth is that our contemporary legal code continues to deliver grave miscarriages of justice. Sadly, there are too many to mention in this single article, but a recent ruling from the New York Appellate Court is, in my mind, particularly worthy of discussion. The Nonhuman Rights Project is an organization dedicated to securing legal rights and recognition for great apes, elephants and cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises). Like the Lorax, this group speaks for those who cannot speak for themselves and has argued that the aforementioned animals should be granted the legal right of "personhood." If these creatures were recognized as legal persons, they would be entitled to the rights of bodily liberty and bodily integrity, meaning that they could not be unlawfully imprisoned or physically abused. As of now, the law treats some of nature's most intelligent and majestic beings as mere property to be acquired, traded and trashed. Great apes can learn to read and count. Elephants can paint beautiful pictures. Dolphins play games with each other, such as tag and catch (sometimes using a sea turtle as a ball). In addition to aweinspiring intelligence, these animals possess an extensive emotional capacity. They experience and express a range of emotions that are strikingly similar to human emotion. They feel love and joy as well as fear and anguish.They are social creatures who become discernibly depressed when they are forced into isolation. They are fully capable and deserving of empathy. How is it that we can honestly equate these self-aware, autonomous, emotional creatures to inanimate objects? It's obvious that animals are not people, but isn't it just as obvious that they are more than objects? In a ruling this week, the NY Appellate Court denied the Nonhuman Rights Project's request for humane empathy towards chimpanzees and, by extension, all self-aware, autonomous animals. The NhRP petitioned the court to recognize chimpanzees as legal "persons" and to grant them the right of habeas corpus. The right would have enabled captive apes to be represented in court and to be potentially released from unlawful imprisonment. The NhRP argued that apes being held captive for private or public entertainment and research should be released to primate sanctuaries, where they would not be subjected to the cruelties of confinement and torture. Had the NhRP won their suit, it would have set a legal precedent to recognize and release the myriad, emotionally intelligent animals being abused and held against their will across the country. Although the NhRP lost this particular battle, the war against animal injustice wages on. They will take their case to the higher NY Supreme Court, where they believe a favorable ruling would have more of a substantial impact. If they lose at that level, they will proceed to put forth new petitions in different states across the country. While the legal leap required to recognize animals as "persons" is unprecedented, the process of reversing the commodification and objectification of emotional, intelligent beings is not unfamiliar legal territory. The abolition of slavery was one of the crowning accomplishments of the American legal system, but the fact that slavery existed at all is a permanent, gut-churning stain on American history. I find the enslavement of cognizant, sensitive and charismatic animals to be similarly sickening, but I have hope that our collective moral code, reflected by our legal system, will eventually prevail over the innumerable, individual instances of ignorant wickedness towards our mammalian companions. letters@chronicle.utah.edu .1 l or r Alailyutahchronicleco Letters to the Editor lettersOchronicle.utah.edu w SSEY D NCL FHEATRJE D ERRYL YEAGER • FOUNDER/AHrlsrie DIst J1116_ maw i c ketsAll" SALE NOW!! Discou nts GALORE !!! Check out our web 06'1 Dec 17-23 @ Kingsbury Hall Go to odysseydance.com for tickets and information The Nut-Cracker, like you've never seen it before! |
