British Professor Calls for Control on Caffeine.

Britain’s government has been called upon to provide for tighter controls on the sale of high caffeine energy drinks. It has been suggested that there should be greater obstacles in the way of youths under the age of 16, in line with the consumer advice recommended by the Soft Drinks Association. Nutrition expert Prof. Mike Lean from the University of Glasgow expressed his concern to the BBC, comparing the sale of energy drinks to children as being similar to selling alcohol to children.

Gavin Partington, a spokesperson for the Soft Drinks Association has claimed that the responsibility ultimately rests with parents, and it is their place to make an informed choice. This would suggest that there will be no push from the SDA for greater legal control on their recommendations.

It is not the first country where high-caffeine drinks have come under legal scrutiny. After a high-profile case in which a student died following an assault linked with the drinks, Australian law has had progressively stricter laws concerning the drinks, especially combined with alcohol. In Western Australia, it is already illegal to sell energy drink cocktails past midnight in clubs and there is reason to believe that further restrictions are a possibility.

In Sweden, there is no legal restriction on the drinks, but social disapproval has lead to a rare “Self-imposed” rule on the sale of the drinks. Two major convenience store chains, 7-Eleven and Pressbyran, started to ask for I.D on the sale of energy drinks, selling only to those 15 and older. This private restriction soon became culture, and many others followed suit. 

With this kind of public disapproval towards the underage use of the drinks, perhaps there could be no need for restriction but there is still a culture of either unawareness or lack of respect for this industry-mandated advice elsewhere. It is in these places where more firm restrictions could be needed in the near future.

Politics and the Straw Man

In terms of political debate, the Straw Man argument is one of the oldest examples of a fallacious argument. In essence, it is the act of exaggerating the point of one’s opponent, then defeating the exaggerated argument. It is likened to replacing your opponent with a scarecrow, attacking and beating scarecrow, and then making it look as though you somehow won. For those of you in my audience, you will want to pay attention for this kind of fallacious argument, since it is easily the most common in debates over an emotive subject. That is to say, it is an argument used to reinforce the beliefs of one’s own party against another rather than actually convince a reasonable opponent. I personally dislike the straw man because it makes a mockery of ordered debate, and so I hope to enlighten people of his existence, that he may be more easily rendered silent. 

Let’s have an example of a straw man. Mr. A says “We need to have lower prices for college fees, since not every student can afford the current one”. Mr. B responds with “What, free fees for everyone? We could never afford that!” Mr. A never suggested that the fees should be free, nor should lower prices be extended to every single student beyond the ones who can’t afford it. However, it is easier to beat a straw man than a real one, so Mr. B replaces the “Cheap fees” with “Free Fees”. This is what’s known as a non sequitur, a deviation from the argument resulting in an invalid remark. This is the nature of politics these days though, anyone with a few long words in their vocabulary thinks they can argue.

 

So, this is just one hypothetical example, how could this possibly relate to real life? Well, Independent Senator Ronan Mullen said in the Senate with all seriousness that allowing women to choose abortions where the child is suffering from fatal foetal abnormality would lead to women terminating pregnancies where the child is merely disabled, and (This man is an elected official) the demise of the Special Olympics. This is a blatant straw man, because nobody had ever suggested the possibility of terminations being allowed for foetus with disabilities. In fact, Ronan Mullen was discussing a law which could possibly be passed off the back of this law five or ten years down the line. This is non sequitur, a brilliant answer for a question that nobody asked, and a response full of sound and fury for a cause nobody asked him to fight. Like I said, it seems these days anybody thinks they can argue, and anybody who thinks they can argue can become a politician.

Olympics Committee Lobbied Over Russian Law

The Winter Olympics were revealed to be held in Sochi some years ago, however that may change as the International Olympics Committee has met with widespread public outcry over recent laws. The laws, labelled “Anti-Propaganda” laws expressly forbid open homosexuality in Russia, and human rights groups unilaterally agree that they have been used to cover more serious human rights violations in the country. It also labelled the providing of information about homosexuality to minors as being propaganda.

The author Steven Fry wrote a moving open letter to the Committee, which claims that a boycott of the games is “Simply Essential”, while drawing firm comparisons to the Berlin Games of 1936. He continues on to say that allowing the games to take place in Sochi would be a black mark on the Olympic flag. American President Obama, while he did not call for a boycott of the games entirely claimed that discrimination of athletes at the games would not be tolerated.

”I think Putin and Russia have a big stake in making sure the Olympics work, and I think they understand that for most of the countries that participate in the Olympics, we wouldn't tolerate gays and lesbians being treated differently,“

Some groups also claim that this would be counter-productive. American gay professional figure skater Johnny Weir told the BBC “To attack Russia is silly... We aren't attacking the public of Russia... it’s not Russia's public's fault that their government is so bigoted and creating so many problems for a minority group.” On the other hand, human rights groups have also pointed to the human rights abuses in Russia being committed by members of the public, and reports from LGBT groups of hate crimes being ignored by the police.

Russian officials still show no signs of moving on their laws, with sports minister Vitaly Mutk previously suggesting that any athlete starting to “Propagandise” will be “Held accountable”. It is understood that the Committee has taken on board the suggestions of a boycott, and are “Monitoring the situation closely”.

Japanese Minister Mis-quoted in Paper

The current Japanese deputy Prime Minister and minister for Finance has apologised for the confusion surrounding his remark regarding the Weimar Republic. He retracted the remarks in a statement earlier this week. He was quoted as suggesting that Japan should change its constitution through undemocratic hidden means such as the Weimar constitution:

“The German Weimar constitution changed, without being noticed, to the Nazi German constitution. Why don’t we learn from their tactics?”

The remark came under fire from anti-fascism groups as well as other Asian nations, where Japan’s involvement in the second world war caused massive turmoil and destruction, especially in China.

It is now believed that the Minister was mis-quoted by a local newspaper. In fact, the minister was suggesting that constitutional reform should not be pulled through during a time of turmoil lest the power be too much. He did cite the Weimar republic, but only as a negative example. It was meant as a rebuttal to other ministers who intended the constitution to be changed quietly:

“So, saying “we should do it quietly” is also relevant to the Weimar constitution – it was changed without anyone even noticing. How about we learn from their methods? I have no intention of denying democracy, but I do not want to decide something like this in the midst of an uproar.”

The media has also suffered negative backlash from the public in Japan, who now believe that the Minister’s speech was deliberately taken out of context for the sake of a story. This seems to be supported by the fact the word "Nazi" was apparently not in the original speech.

 Whether it was an innocent mistake or wilful misinterpretation, the problem of the constitution in Japan is rapidly coming to a head. It was a post-war constitution brought into play after the Japanese surrender. It bans the holding of military forces in the island nation, and aside from that it is essentially similar to the American constitution. The problem is that now, decades after its ratification, Japan is beginning to feel increasingly uneasy with its close proximity to the military titan of China. Even more moderate politicians seem to believe total, consitutional de-militarisation to be unrealistic in future.

Twitter – Social Media’s Step Too Far?

Since the development of the original BBS systems online, the course of discussion through social media has gradually widened the scope of the average internet user. Year by year, the debates widened and the arguments grew deeper and more fascinating - the bar slowly rose. Then Twitter arrived on the scene, and the bar tunnelled straight down into the Earth’s inner core. As one hears more and more frequent talks of what goes wrong on Twitter, it poses the question of what inflames people here more than anywhere else? What is it about Twitter that causes argument to dissolve into abuse? 

One possible answer is the personal nature of a Twitter account. A professional and a private person are entirely different. In one recent case, a particularly obstreperous game reviewer took to the personal Twitter account of a game developer. The resulting arguments lead to the cancellation of a hotly-anticipated game in development, representing a huge loss to the community. In my opinion, the critic completely overstepped his professional bounds. Instead of reviewing the art, he was now reviewing the artist. This naturally enraged the developer, and lead to an explosive result. By comparison, on Facebook, one has to befriend another user in order to see them. This limits the criticism to the artist’s work, where it belongs.

Twitter not only fails to prevent such personal attack, but encourages it with its “Trending” format. Since any post that attracts a lot of attention can rise into the “Trending” column, what will become most popular are not well-spoken words which carry weight. Instead it’s the divisive ones which infuriate and inflame the community that reach notoriety, such as the “Cut for Beiber” Twitter trend. In essence, the site is built around the toxicity and conceit of its community, rather than its intelligence.

This question of intelligence and literacy brings me to the next factor - the 117 character post limit. I defy you to find a writer who can write an appropriately worded and thought out piece of writing in 117 characters. On top of this, it encourages a lazy reader. Anything which can’t be immediately understood within 117 characters is not worth reading. It is a medium which intentionally limits the debate, and when debate is limited, it is quickly reduced to insults. In fact, I believe 117 characters to be appropriate length only for abuse. An example is a case previously reported on The Record on a woman who was threatened over Twitter. There was no effective argument within a single post, and so the verbal assailant resorted to death threats. 

Finally, fatally, it encourages a sense of self-importance. A Twitter commenter is often much more interested in being heard than hearing, and frequently approaches an argument with the assumption that their opinion is inviolate. Their goal is to convince, not to be convinced - To teach, and not to go through the bother of learning. As writer Steven Fry once said of holding control of a column:

 “It makes you believe as that you deserve to be listened to!”

The effect of free publicity on Twitter has a similar effect, only with the added negative circumstances of a shortened post size, illiterate and/or disinterested community and access to a rival’s personal account. It is for this reason The Record has never had, and will never have a Twitter account. It is in my opinion a simple toy only for casual social use and not the tool of the debater, the politician or the critic. The sooner people understand this, the better.

(Opinion by J.Nolan)

American Senate Approves Groundbreaking Immigration Reform Bill

Last Thursday, the U.S Senate passed a bill that would allow documentation to be granted to the millions of illegal immigrants that currently exist in the country. It is thought this could naturalise over 11 million people currently living without documentation, whereas currently they would face deportation if they went to the authorities. This represents a Democrat victory in the senate, where they have been attempting to overhaul a law introduced in 1986. 

Unusually, the issue caused divisions within the Republican Party. The majority of Republicans are opposed to the bill which they view as an amnesty for criminal illegal immigrants. As Reuters points out:

“Any bill in the Republican-controlled House is expected to focus heavily on border security and finding immigrants who have overstayed their visas”

However in the Senate, 14 Republicans voted in favour of the bill, demonstrating a multi-party support of its introduction into law. There are number of possible reasons for this, such as the potentially unrealistic task of tracking down every illegal American, or the party’s difficulty in winning the votes of the country’s legal immigrants. Many of these immigrants view the hard-line immigration laws as already being overly restrictive.

It is noted that there could be great difficulty in passing the bill through the largely Republican Lower House. 

In an attempt to ease this, the Senate also approved a border security amendment that promised to cut illegal immigrants. This would spend 46 billion dollars over 10 years to place 20’000 more agents on the U.S-Mexico border, construct a 1’125km fence on portions of this border and retrofit surveillance equipment in the area. Critics of this bill have pointed out that this measure would put huge pressure on the already strained American taxpayer. The largest industrial manufacturing city in America recently went bankrupt, and the country is still struggling with the serious risk of a budget deficit.

Criticism Over Ross Douthat’s Abortion Article

Ross Douthat’s article in the New York Times titled “The Texas Abortion Experiment” was not a greatly flawed piece of writing by any stretch of the imagination, yet reading it one cannot help but feel like he does not understand the enormity of the problems in Ireland. I shall start by saying Europe in general is one matter, for it is true that most countries in Europe do indeed have a time based restriction on most pregnancies. This is partly for the possible trauma inflicted on the baby, but it’s also because it is well documented that the procedure is more painful and dangerous the later the term of pregnancy. Ireland as a specific case, on the other hand, is an entirely different story.

Firstly, he mentions casually that women with the resources can simply go to a different country to have an abortion – Does this not undermine everything he is about to say? It is simply not a credible argument to point to Ireland’s relatively low prenatal mortality rate and relative gender equality and say this is still possible with abortion unavailable, but then point out the fact that abortion is not only available but widespread. I will add that it is widespread too, it's not a matter of "Some go abroad", we're talking thousands of women yearly. Hence, Ireland’s maternal mortality may be relatively low, but this is nothing to do with the absence of abortion.

Secondly, he goes on to dismiss the point that in Ireland women are more likely to be taken advantage of because of the lack of widely available abortion. We’ll set aside for a minute he has already undermined this point by mentioning the availability of abortion in other jurisdictions. The fact is that many Irish people do feel these laws are unfair towards women. For example, a woman who has been raped and becomes pregnant can’t seek abortion, and if she does, she faces a jail term twice the length of that of her rapist. The original version of the law was introduced in 1861, a time when gender equality was mere myth in Europe. Let’s be generous and assume there is no misogynistic intent behind this law, and say it’s there purely for the baby. It does not change the fact this is not a gender-equal law.

Finally, he directly associates liberalism of healthcare as an answer to abortion - “Abortion can be safely limited only when the government does more to cover women’s costs in other ways”. While it is true that a great number of abortions happen because the mother believes she cannot afford to raise a child, simply supplying money in terms of benefits will not fix the problem. I have made this argument before over rogue Fine Gael TD Peter Mathew’s speech in the Dáil. Not only is it unrealistic in all but the richest of countries to pay this kind of benefit, it doesn’t change the fact that raising a child is a full-time job. Once again I’ll be generous and assume that the mother is able to survive on these benefits without a partner – She still is not in the work place, she’s not advancing her career, she’s not becoming powerful. Is it so difficult to assume that a woman might just have aspirations in life beyond having a child?

In short, reading through Doudhat’s article where it covered Ireland was like hearing the observations of a man who owns a mine on the conditions for the people who work for him (Without the assumed difference of status). I felt like he trivialised our situation. You can sort of see how he might understand see it this way, but it’s written from a perspective detached from the reality of Irish life. I believe he needs to come down to the coal face, get his hands dirty, and hear some of the stories with his own ears to gain a true understanding of Ireland.

(Opinion by J.Nolan,  Photo from the New York Times)