Here are some of this week’s best links that we missed on All Things Consider:

1. The ACLU is suing the Obama administration for refusing to disclose information on the assassinations of three American citizens in Yemen.

2. A former chief economist at the IMF explains why a global economic recovery will fail without breaking the “financial oligarchy” that is blocking essential banking reform. A long piece, but well worth your time.

3. An October Gallup poll showed the majority of Americans supports marijuana legalization. Why won’t Washington touch the issue?

4. While our university did just commit $14 million to sustainable energy initiatives, we also have $814.8 million invested in the traditional energy sector.

5. The Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation defunded Planned Parenthood, pushing a top official to resign from the foundation.

6. Russian scientists are about to drill into an underground lake that hasn’t seen light for twenty million years. Will there be life?

7. Congressional Republicans had the “Gasland” director arrested for trying to film a congressional hearing on fracking.

8. A tough winter is putting a damper on anti-Putin protests in Moscow.

By: Mike Guisinger

(Photo by Trey Ratcliff under a Creative Commons license)

Albert Pujols, the baseball superstar who left the World Champion St. Louis Cardinals to go to the Los Angeles Angels via free agency, will no longer have a St Louis restaurant named after him.  The Pujols 5 owners recently announced via Twitter that they will no longer be calling the bar the Pujols 5, but instead the St. Louis Sports Hall of Fame Bar and Grill.

Albert Pujols did leave St. Louis for the Angels, but he has done so much for the city of St. Louis and should still be honored for it.  The restaurant owners should be proud that they have a restaurant named after Pujols.  He is from Missouri and had lived there most of his life.  He also has a charity called the Pujols Family Foundation that helps families that are affected by Down syndrome in some way.  Not to mention the Championships he has helped the city win.

Now, the restaurant is taking Pujol’s departure in stride– they’ve added angel food cake to their menu in honor of his move to the Angels of Anaheim. Regardless, it is still going to be tough moving his bronze statue out front.

By Chris Swift

(Photo by BaseballBacks under a Creative Commons license)

Last night, I went to the men’s basketball game against Indiana. I had an amazing time, and we won! Attending the game with friends itself was really fun, but contemplating the environment and the rules and laws that governed the game proved a fascinating exercise. Within the walls of the stadium, there are many interesting patterns of human behavior and governance at work such as the system of laws, the assignment of authority to enforce these laws, and even the very definition of a law.

Societies tend to write laws in order to govern and control human behavior with some idea of a happy and beneficial society as the ultimate goal. Societies differ depending on the individuals within that societies’ conception of a happy life (though one can also argue that the basis of each law is morality and that morality is universal because it is derived from an objective standpoint). Basketball, however, exists by virtue of the rules that create it. A player’s objective is to score points (and of course have fun and entertain) so that his team can win. Winning, however, requires uniformity of conduct within each game. The only way a Big Ten champion can be declared is if each game that led to the finals followed the same rules of conduct on the court; otherwise the players are playing different games and cannot be in competition with one another.

One line of argument posits that laws exist only insofar as they are enforced or adhered to. Thus, each society needs not only law writers and authors, but also enforcers and implementers. A police officer writes a ticket when you exceed the speed limit. A judge orders you to court when you refuse to pay the fine. And the police physically drag you to prison when you refuse the court order. But laws are not only enforced by threats and the power to force behavior. Individuals do not sign record deals, but laws make it possible to profit from one’s musical talents. Even so, positive laws that create opportunities (such as pursuing a music career) rather than limit behavior (such as driving really fast) need an authority to enforce the law. Such an individual at a basketball game is endowed with the authority by the players and official rule makers to evict players for disorderly conduct and identify the team in possession of the ball after it tumbles out of bounds. The referees must however interpret human behavior in order to determine if a law has been broken. During the game, when fans disagreed with the ruling on the court, they can yell their disapproval to the ref, which often resulted in a review of the play on the TV screen. Refs can be dismissed from refereeing because they make poor calls, or interpret the acts of the game incorrectly in conjunction with the rules of the game.

Society does not enforce certain ambiguous realms of behavior, such as requiring citizens to act virtuously or not act rudely. Rather, it can only encourage virtuous behaviors themselves or outlaw specific acts of rudeness. Similarly, during the basketball game, players found ways of manipulating the situation to their advantage, such as by falling down on the ground to make it look like they were pushed. One really remarkable example is that apparently during the last couple minutes of the game, the winning team will hold onto the ball carefully, so as not to score but also not to let the losing team score. In order to prevent time from running out on the clock, the losing team tries to foul the ball holder. In order to benefit from this situation, the winning team gives their best free shot thrower the possession of the ball the most during the last couple minutes of the game. So, within the rules of the game, the players have managed to develop a strategy consisting of a behavioral loop that maximizes their objectives. This behavior is not demanded, but nor is it not forbidden. This describes the way most of us live our lives: behaving in ways we choose as long as it isn’t disallowed. But at the same time, I can’t help but wonder: is refraining from acting a certain way a form of demanding that I do act a certain way? Just as the basketball player cannot “travel” with the ball, is this not the same thing as requiring that he dribble it?

By: Naomi Scheinerman

(Image by Tennessee Journalist under a Creative Commons license.)

Nearly a year ago, Apple faced the beginnings of a PR catastrophe. Wired magazine published an expose on Foxconn, the Chinese manufacturer that handles the final assembly of the iPhone and many other Apple products. Seventeen people had jumped to their death off the roof of their Shenzhen plant over the preceding few years, most blaming grueling working conditions and low pay. The most shocking part of the story was Foxconn’s response. Instead of addressing growing concerns over the working conditions in their factories, the company installed a perimeter of safety nets around the building to catch any would-be suicide jumpers.

Foxconn was in the news again two weeks ago, when an estimated 150 employees at an Xbox manufacturing plant stood on the roof of the building and threatened mass suicide. So reporters began looking back into the conditions at Foxconn factories, and what they found is not surprising; it’s still an awful job.

Mike Daisey, a self-described Apple fanatic, travelled to China for This American Life to discover how his favorite products were being manufactured. What he found shouldn’t be too surprising: workers are asked to sign a “no suicide” pact. He found 13-year-olds working 12 hour shifts (Chinese law prevents anyone from working under the age of 16, though this is rarely enforced); some adults worked 36 hour shifts. Some long-term employees had dismembered limbs and serious mental health problems. Mr. Daisey wrote and starred in a one-man play based on his findings, titled “The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs,” which is restarting a run at New York’s Public Theatre this month. The New York Times published an even more detailed report of conditions at Foxconn factories.

What really grabbed my interest was a story on The Atlantic Wire yesterday, which reported that thousands of Chinese laborers lined up outside an employment agency when recent openings at a Foxconn plant were announced. This seems to disrupt the recent narrative on Foxconn working conditions. Thousands of Chinese want to work there. Many commenters on the NYT’s piece, and many from within China, agreed with the sentiment, casting Apple as a philanthropist for offering such comparatively better opportunities.

When criticizing sweatshop conditions abroad, economists and casual observers are quick to point out that workers take these jobs willingly, and that these jobs are better than no jobs. If the jobs weren’t an improvement, why would thousands be lining up outside Foxconn?

Yes. There are worse places to work in China. Foxconn is an improvement over some smaller factories and certainly, for most, preferably to rural poverty. But this line of ethical thinking is deeply flawed. When examining the ethicality of labor conditions abroad, you must consider them on a case-by-case basis, i.e. individually and out of context. Does the fact that workers at another factory may be working 40-hour shifts make a Foxconn worker’s 36 hour shift any more acceptable? No, it does not. If you agree that Foxconn working conditions are unacceptable, it shouldn’t matter how much better they are comparatively. If a situation is not just, the fact that its “more just” than any other situation shouldn’t have any bearing; justice is always the goal.

By: Mike Guisinger

(Photo by Tony Law, courtesy of Wired)

Fantasy Football All-Star and NFL Pro-Bowl quarterback Aaron Rodgers claimed that he was disappointed in the NFC’s effort in the Pro-Bowl played this past Sunday.  When watching the game, the best players in the NFL looked to have been going half speed in order to avoid injury.  The game was a shootout and the AFC won 59-41.

Many say that no one even watches the Pro Bowl and it is pointless, but their arguments don’t seem at all valid.  The Pro Bowl had about 12.5 million viewers watching on Sunday and was the fourth highest rated television broadcast last week.  It would be much better, however, if the All-Star players had some incentive to play harder to make it more exciting. For instance, during the All-Star MLB game, the winner was given home-field advantage during the World Series.

Some ideas for the NFL include making the winning conferences have the choice for who gets the ball in the Super Bowl, rather than have a coin toss.  Another idea suggests that for the Super Bowl or during the season when an AFC plays an NFC team, the winning conference gets the ball automatically when it comes to overtime instead of leaving it to a coin toss. I am sure that there are many alternatives in addition to these suggestions, but it’s safe to say something needs to be done to vamp up the Pro Bowl game.

By: Chris Swift

(Photo by Defense Media Activity (DMA) Hawaii under a Creative Commons license)

It’s Tuesday yet again, and as promised, I have another cover artist to present to you. I’ve been listening to Alex Goot‘s covers for months now, and I think it’s about time you all do the same.  Alex plays the piano, drums, sings, and much much more.  He currently lives in New York, and posts videos of both innovative covers and his own originals.  I am especially drawn to his covers.

His voice has this fantastic range that is infectious, and his ideas for his covers are highly intriguing.  Plus, he covers songs that we have all grown to love. He’s going on tour in March and will be performing here in Ann Arbor on March 30th at the Blind Pig. Give his rendition of “We Found Love” by Rihanna ft. Calvin Harris a listen. If you like it and want more, you can purchase tickets online to see him live.

Check out Alex’s Goot’s full YouTube Channel here.

By: Brandon Klein

(Photo courtesy of Alex Goot)

If there’s one news story you read this week, check out the New York Times article on Sheldon Adelson.  Adelson, 78, is one of the richest men in America (reputedly worth $22 billion) and a huge financial backer of Newt Gingrich—he’s contributed $17 million dollars in support of Newt in recent years.  It’s pretty interesting to read about the lives of incredibly rich people, but it’s also important to realize that when someone has as much money as Adelson, his or her personal interests and political commitments can have a disproportionate effect on the political process.  To be good participants in an American democracy, it’s important for us to be aware of these people and the role they play in our system.

But I also think there’s something misleading about simply calling out the bigwigs like Adelson or the Koch brothers.  Though these people have remarkably outsize influence in politics, it’s not as though cutting off the political influence of certain individuals would magically end the corrosive power of big money in politics.  The upper class exerts its influence not through a few well-positioned individuals but through a complex network of social practices and relations, everything from the revolving door of finance and close ties between contractors and certain government branches to think tanks that connect legislators, academics, and the powerful financial backers of both. It’s these structural problems that undermine the integrity of our democracy, and the very wealthy individuals we tend to hone in on are simply extreme manifestations of the defects of the system.  Only by moving on from personal attacks to attempts to address these structural problems can we make any progress in making every American’s voice heard.

By: Aaron Bekemeyer

(Photo by Bectrigger under a Creative Commons license)

The placebo effect, however, is not without a great deal of mystery and in need of classification. A now common treatment for Parkinson’s disease, a degenerative central nervous system disease which causes slow speech and tremors, is deep brain stimulation (or DBS)– the insertion of a stimulator deep into patient’s brain. When activated, the device releases pulses that compensate for the lack of dopamine activity in the brain and greatly helps improve the patient’s speech and lessen the tremors. It fascinates me that when Parkinson’s patients who’ve received the deep brain stimulation in the past come in for another treatment and are told the stimulator was activated when it was not, their hands ceased shaking and they were able to speak coherently and comfortably. A disease so specific to the brain and whose cure is supposedly purely chemical can also be fooled into becoming better by simply being told that it is.

So perhaps I’ve described the placebo effect incorrectly: if the placebo is so effective in “curing” or at least alleviating such things as pain, fevers, cancer, Parkinson’s symptoms, etc, then are they actually “fake” or simply another method of treatment? After all, when it comes down to it, everything we put into our bodies has to do with chemistry and physiology, whether described in mental or physical terminology. Could the placebo effect simply be a psychological trick rather than a physiological one?

But what about the ethics of using the placebo? Can a doctor prescribe a placebo to a patient and not tell the patient that it is only a placebo? There are a number of important considerations here. First, the placebo effect would not work if the patient were informed that he or she is receiving the placebo and not the “real thing.” Second, the doctor would be lying to the patient if she told the patient that she was prescribing a drug that she in fact was not. Third, there is as yet no accurate and reliable way of measuring or predicting which patients will respond well to placebos and which ones won’t. That being said, it is also often difficult to know which patients will respond well to “real” drugs or therapies. Does the lack of predictability make the doctor morally culpable in the case of a failed use of the placebo even if the placebo is often documented to work so well? Has the doctor severed an important trust relationship by deceiving the patient and prescribing the placebo even if that treatment is successful? Yes, the doctor has. But if the patient gets better it seems to be worth it.

By: Naomi Scheinerman

(Photo courtesy of sxc.hu)

By: Tanya Rogovyk