Extra Post: UN chief hits radicals for fostering tension

UNITED NATIONS – Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon railed on Friday against radicals fostering tensions between the Western and Islamic worlds, saying the international community should stand together against those seeking to demonize "the other."
"Let us acknowledge that we live in a world where the smallest group can inflict large damage," Ban said. "That damage can be multiplied by loose language in politics and beyond."
He was addressing a meeting of the Alliance of Civilizations, an initiative aimed at combating extremism through dialogue between different cultures and religions.
"Let us stand against those who seek to demonize the other," he told the grouping that met on the sidelines of the annual summit of world leaders at the United Nations.
Ban's speech came a day after U.S. President Barack Obama and his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad traded accusations about their nations' nuclear programs.
Still, both left the door open to further negotiations about the nuclear impasse.
In his speech Thursday to the annual summit of world leaders, Ahmadinejad also raised the possibility that "some segments within the U.S. government" had orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in New York — a statement that prompted members of the American delegation to walk out in protest from the U.N. General Assembly.
Delegations from all 27 European Union nations followed the Americans out along with representatives from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Costa Rica, an EU diplomat said.
Obama responded to Ahmadinejad in a BBC Persian service interview Friday saying: "Well, it was offensive. It was hateful."
"And particularly for him to make the statement here in Manhattan, just a little north of Ground Zero, where families lost their loved ones, people of all faiths, all ethnicities who see this as the seminal tragedy of this generation, for him to make a statement like that was inexcusable," Obama said.
Iran is expected to remain high on the agenda of the General Assembly's session.
In remarks on Friday, Britain's Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg told the assembly that he had been ready to welcome progress during this week's meeting of the six powers trying to get Iran back to the negotiating table — the U.S., U.N., China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany.
"An issue of grave global concern has been overshadowed by the bizarre, offensive and attention-grabbing pronouncements by President Ahmadinejad from this podium yesterday. His remarks were intended to distract attention from Iran's obligations and to generate media headlines. They deserve to do neither," Clegg said.
Ban joined in criticizing Ahmadinejad's speech.
"I strongly condemn the comments made yesterday by a leader of a delegation that called into question the cause of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on US soil," he said. "It is unacceptable for the platform of the General Assembly of the United Nations to be misused in this way.
The U.N. Security Council has passed four rounds of increasingly restrictive economic sanctions aimed at compelling Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment and return to negotiations on its suspect nuclear program. Iran denies it is trying to build a nuclear weapon, saying its program is meant only for peaceful purposes such as electricity generation.
In his speech to the General Assembly on Thursday, Ahmadinejad noted that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty allows all signatory nations to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
But he said some Security Council members have "equated nuclear energy with nuclear bombs ... while at the same time they have continued to maintain, expand and upgrade their own nuclear arsenals." He added that the United States was spending $80 billion to build up its nuclear arsenal.
Still, Ahmadinejad emphasized that Tehran was prepared to negotiate with the United States, U.N., European Union, and other representatives of the international community, "based on justice and respect."
Obama, who spoke during the General Assembly's morning session and left without waiting for Ahmadinejad's afternoon address, said Iran was the only party to the NPT that could not demonstrate the peaceful nature of its nuclear program.
"The United States and the international community seek a resolution to our differences with Iran, and the door remains open to diplomacy should Iran choose to walk through it," Obama said.
Meanwhile, at least 1,000 demonstrators rallied near the United Nations complex to protest against Ahmadinejad's visit.
Others among the nearly 140 world leaders attending the U.N. General Assembly also addressed the nuclear impasse in their speeches.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said Baghdad believed in the right of all nations to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
"We stress the importance of reaching a peaceful solution in dealing with this issue," he said.
Turkish President Abdullah Gul urged the international community to press for the establishment of a Middle East totally free of nuclear weapons.
Gul's remarks were likely to irritate Washington, which sees any move to raise the issue of Israel's nuclear arsenal as potentially destabilizing at a time of renewed Israel-Palestinian peace talks.
Israel is generally assumed to have assembled a sizable arsenal of nuclear warheads since the 1960s. It has refused to discuss its status as a nuclear power or to join the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to which all other countries in the Middle East adhere.
Just before Obama's speech, Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorin sharply criticized the United States, saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq demonstrated that the "blind faith in intelligence reports tailored to justify political goals must be rejected."
"We must ban once and for all the use of force inconsistent with international law," Amorin told the General Assembly, adding that all international disputes should be peacefully resolved through dialogue.
Associated Press Writers Ali Akbar Dareini And Slobodan Lekic, Associated Press Writers Fri Sep 24, 1:17 pm ET http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/un_un_world_summit/print

Extra Post: Surprising Hike in Suicide Rates Found Among Baby Boomers

 I think this article is interesting "pop culture science", especially when using Durkheim's theories of social integration and suicide.  I thought that older people would be more at risk for suicide, but I suppose anticipating death is worse than actually going about the process of living.  Comments welcome! -Anna C

Suicide rates among middle-age people are going up, according to a new study. The trend seems to be driven by the entrance of the Baby Boom generation into middle age, when chronic diseases rear their ugly heads.

The study, published in the journal Public Health Reports, reveals middle-age suicides to be at odds with the overall U.S. suicide rate, which has been declining. People ages 40 to 59 have long had a moderate suicide rate, according to sociologist Ellen Idler of Emory University in Atlanta, who co-authored the research paper.

"The findings are disturbing, because they're a reversal of a long-standing trend," Idler said in a statement.

Using data from the National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau, Idler and her colleagues tracked suicide rates between 1979 and 2005. By 2000, most people ages 40 to 59 were Baby Boomers and the suicide rate started climbing steadily for these middle-age ranges. The researchers found significant increases of more than 2 percent per year for men, and more than 3 percent per year for women, from 1999 to 2005. (By 2005, all those in the middle-age group were baby boomers, defined as those born between 1945 and 1964.)

Preliminary data from 2006 and 2007, the latest years for which numbers are available, indicate that the trend toward more middle-age suicides is continuing, Idler said. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the suicide rate for 45- to 54-year-olds was 17.7 deaths per 100,000 people in 2007. That's compared with 13 deaths per 100,000 people in the 25- to 34-year-old age group and 12.6 deaths per 100,000 in the 65- to 74-year-old group.

Though many are surprised to learn it, suicide claims more lives than homicide, and that's long been true.

The post-1999 increase in middle-age suicide has been particularly dramatic for those who are unmarried and less educated, the analysis showed. Suicide rates in men aged 40 to 49 who had some college but no degree went up 16.3 percent between 2000 and 2005, while the suicide rate in men aged 50 to 59 went up 29.6 percent. Women showed a similar pattern, with about a 30 percent increase in the suicide rate for women with some college but no degree in both age groups.

Men and women with a high school degree or less also became more likely to commit suicide. Rates in men with a high school diploma went up 11.7 percent in the 40 to 49 age group and 27 percent in the 50 to 59 age group. Women in those groups saw their suicide rates increase by 15 and 17 percent, respectively. Middle-age participants with a college degree appeared largely protected from the trend.

The baby boomers also experienced higher suicide rates during their adolescence and young adulthood, doubling the rate for those age groups at the time. Their suicide rate then declined slightly and stabilized, before beginning to increase again in midlife.

"You might think that the higher rates in adolescence would lead to lower rates later because the most suicide prone people would be gone, but that doesn't appear to be the case," Idler said.

Studies show that knowing someone who committed suicide is a risk factor for people who later kill themselves.

"The high rates in adolescence could actually be contributing to the high rates in middle age," Idler said.

Idler also said substance abuse and the onset of chronic disease could contribute to baby boomer suicides.

"As children, the baby boomers were the healthiest cohort that had ever lived, due to the availability of antibiotics and vaccines," she said. "Chronic conditions could be more of a rude awakening for them in midlife than they were for earlier generations." 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/surprisinghikeinsuicideratesfoundamongbabyboomers 

Week 3 Blog: Zimbardo and Milgram Experiments

“[I]t is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act."—Stanley Milgram

Today I’ll be discussing the Zimbardo and Milgram Experiments. 

The Zimbardo experiment is the Guard/Prisoner scenario, which demonstrated people’s reactions to assignment of roles—that of prisoner, and guard.  Phillip Zimbardo was exploring the “Psychology of Imprisonment.”  The final group of participants was randomly assigned to their roles, and their behaviours observed and recorded.  Originally scheduled for 2 weeks, it was cancelled after 6 days due to the extreme emotional and physical distress suffered by the inmates.  It is notable that all participants suffered to some degree, personality changes associated with long-term prisoners or guards.  Phillip Zimbardo has said that he, as the principal investigator, lost his own objectivity while running the experiment:  a grad student was the only observer who spoke up against it.

The Milgram experiment is the Learner/Teacher scenario, where the Teacher administers electric shocks in increasing doses to the Learner for wrong answers.  As the voltage increases, so do the cries of pain the Teacher hears.  The Teacher must decide to continue or stop the experiment, although the “Administrator” of the test commands the Teacher to continue.  Stanley Milgram was exploring the motivation of German guards at concentration camps in WWII. How could people allow such horrible things to happen? Unlike Zimbardo, who studied both roles of Prisoner and Guard, Milgram focused only on the person administering punishment—the Teacher.  The Learner was an actor employed by the study, and appears to be a controlled variable for all Teacher participants. Milgram completed his study, as no actual punishment was administered.

1.  How are the experiments similar?

Both explore obedience to authority, and both uncover very interesting facts about perceived and actual obedience.  For example, how one obeys authority, and administers authority.  They both explore challenges to authority, and what allows people to submit to authority, even when they disagree, or are morally offended, with the circumstances.  Both studies deceived the participants, and employed a number of coercion techniques to force participants to complete the experiment.  The Zimbardo and Milgram Experiments were trying to recreate real-life situations, where ordinary people are acted upon by authority figures, and carry out extraordinary actions.

2. What are the ramifications of the experiments?

The Zimbardo experiment illuminates how easily humans fall into expected ‘roles’, and how they can be manipulated into doing things that they would not do.  Stanley Milgram says this is due to “context”—we allow dentists to drill our teeth in the dental office, but we wouldn’t allow anyone to do it in any other circumstance.

Both studies examined and manipulated the group dynamics of participants; Zimbado’s experiment saw prisoners and guards separate into supportive groups; Milgram’s experiment reports that if another Teacher refused to continue the shocks, then other Teachers were more likely to also stop the experiment.

3.  What are the ethics of the experiments?

Ethics are a code of moral behavior, in personal, business, or scientific situations.  The Zimbado and Milgram experiments’ ethics, by today’s standards, are considered “unethical.”  This is because the two studies employed deception, and coercion on the participants.  The studies also inflicted severe emotional and physical distress to the participants; some carried the effects for a long time. 

After several scandals involving deceitful studies, ethical standards were put into place to regulate human research.  Today, studies involving human research must offer ethics training and certification to all researchers and employees involved, to ensure trials are ethical, and obtain “informed consent” from all participants to ensure they are fully aware of their rights.

4.  Any other thoughts and opinions about the experiments. 

I think it’s important to remember the intentions of Zimbardo and Milgram.  They were not looking to cause distress, but to answer questions about human behavior in stressful situations.  I think Zimbardo’s response to his results was particularly interesting; he made no attempt to hide his research or the results—which included failure to complete the study—and candidly shared his own personal transformation during the experiment. 

Phillip Zimbardo shares his points of view on his website dedicated to the experiment at: www.prisonexp.org

Stanley Milgram’s biographer, Dr. Thomas Blass, has dedicated a website to Milgram, at: www.stanleymilgram.com

5.  What ways are experiments successful? 

Zimbardo’s and Milgram’s experiments are successful because they discovered measurable data regarding the human response to authority in stressful situations.  Experiments attempt to recreate real life situations under controlled conditions, where variables can be manipulated and measured.  Experiments are successful when they have clearly defined theories and goals guiding the research, and obtain measurable data.  I think that experiments are successful, as long as the data is statistically relevant to the questions asked, or opens up new avenues of inquiry. 

6.  Can you think of an experiment you would want to conduct?

I worked in the medical field for several years, specifically in surgery.  I had the opportunity to observe the behaviour of surgeons, nurses, administrative staff, patients, and family members.  I observed the whole range of human behavior; including bullying, aggression, deception, coercion, passivity, and emotional distress.  My interests lie in analyzing the behavior of surgeons towards subordinates, especially nurses and patients.  I would like to measure the management behaviour of surgeons and their subordinates, especially looking at any bullying or coercion.  I wonder how this would compare to the corporate world, where one is not confronted so directly with the results of success or failure.

Our culture holds medical doctors and surgeons in high esteem; we assume their training and experience gives them authority over us.  I know some surgeons who do not exploit this perception, and I know some who do.  One particular surgeon was noted for his unethical treatment of patients, and bullying nurses who questioned his actions; he was reported to the hospital’s ethics committee several times before any action was taken or investigation opened.

For surgeons, I would measure age, gender, education level, size of practice-patients and employees, number of associates, types of hospital privileges, complaints made against the surgeon, age, gender, and education level of patients and employees. 

So, what do YOU think?

Week 1 Blog: Nickel and Dimed

“Respond to the questions at the end of the “Nickel and Dimed” article and discuss what you have discovered at the Dept. of Labor web site answering how the data relates to Barbara Ehrenreich’s book “Nickel and Dimed”.

1.        Have you ever held a low-wage job?  If so, would you say you worked hard?  What was your pay?  Were there any benefits?

I worked part-time as a restaurant hostess in high school.  I worked hard; this was my first job, and I was excited to be working—I felt so grown-up!  I dealt with customers and servers, handled food when required, and learned quite a bit about customer service, and interpersonal communications.  I earned 4.75 an hour.  The ‘benefits’ included a small percentage of the shared tips, and a discount on food.  However, each pay period a ‘small deduction’ was taken from each paycheck to help defray the cost of the food discount. 

2.       Ehrenreich claims that most well-off people in the United States are dependent on low-wage workers.  What do you think she means by this? 

I think she means that we try to save money by paying others low wages, and spending it on ourselves.  We depend on cheap labor to keep costs low, especially in the food, retail, and leisure industries.  All businesses try to keep costs as low as possible to maximize profits.  A business’ greatest cost can be the payroll, and so many will try balance paying lower wages while retaining skilled workers.  Some companies calculate the total cost of benefits packages (such as the company contribution to medical premiums) into the salary actually paid to the employee.  Many consumer products are now made overseas, where labor is significantly cheaper; therefore, goods cost less, and consumers are happy.

3.       Do you think most people with jobs at Wendy’s or Wal-Mart have a real chance to enroll in college and to work toward a different career?  Why or why not?

Yes, I think that most anyone has a real chance to enroll in college and work towards a different career.  I know that Wendy’s and Wal-Mart train good employees as managers and leaders; those skills can be transferred to a variety of job markets.  There are many options available to pay for college, especially Federal Work Study Programs:  your employer gets federal grant money to employ students, who gain experience working in any number of fields, and students get money for living expenses.   There are a lot of programs designed to make college accessible to just about everyone, including those with disabilities, and those for whom English is a Second Language.  Finding ways to enroll and pay for college depends on the creativity and effort of an individual.  I worked hard to enroll in college, and I continue working hard to ensure I complete my degree!  I know how hard it is to consider college when it feels like you can only earn enough to pay your bills.  I think taking college classes helps raise your self-esteem, no matter how many you take, or how far along you are. 

According to the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, most people earning minimum wage or less are under the age of 25, or over 65.  More women than men earn minimum wage, and lesser education generally equates to lower wages.  The service industry, mainly food and drinks servers, has the most minimum wage earners.  This relates to Ehrenreich’s article by describing the people who earn the least amount of money.  They are intelligent, funny, smart, and skilled; but lack education, training, or access to resources such as healthcare.  According to the statistics, people under 25 are paid the least.   They are the most unskilled—they are finishing their high school or college education, and they do not have the same skills or work experience as older workers.  However, they are energetic, intelligent, and may have schedules that are more flexible.  People over 65 are probably retirees, and looking to supplement their retirement income.   Women historically earn less than men do, and there are more women employed in the service industries than men.  I think the data and Ehrenreich’s article shows that what people earn is disconnected to how hard people work; especially for minimum wage. 

 So, what do YOU think?

Anna C. 

Assigned readings:

Ehrenreich, Barbara.  2001. “Nickel and Dimed:  On (Not) Getting By in America.”  Sociology, 13^th edition. Ed. John J. Macionis.  New Jersey: Prentice Hall , 2010. Page 10.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey,  Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers:  2006.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. March2, 2007.  http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/print.pl/cps/minwage2006.htm.