I’ve never known if it’s a flaw or virtue of mine… but I always get very sentimental about silly things. When I was younger I used to get attached to random things, often inanimate objects like not wanting to throw away a tissue. I realize that’s weird and I’m not that bad anymore, but I did find myself getting sentimental about writing my last blog. I particularly like writing the reflections because they are my chance to write about anything I want – such a liberating feeling! Instead of writing in my own personal journal that no one will ever read, I got a chance to publish my thoughts weekly. I would just like to say that I have enjoyed blogging more than I thought I would especially since I am a very reflective person – it’s been a nice little outlet for me ☺
Along the lines of being able to write anything I want, I want to share some thoughts from my week with all my readers… As many of you might know, my sister was here to visit. Naturally, I brought her to do some toursity things. We ended up checking out the brand new visitor center at the Capitol building since it had opened two days earlier and got rave reviews in The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002569.html. We read this article the morning before we went and we were so excited to see the “ornate” center that was described to us. When we first walked to the entrance, we were stopped by a kooky man whose job was to welcome us to the center… he was beyond strange. Then we had to go through security, naturally, but we were not expecting to see such a disproportionate ratio of security to visitor – there were about 30 officers at the entrance and then my sister and I who they were checking. Needless to say it was pretty intimidating. The whole center had an odd feel to it too… a lot of empty space that seemed like it should have been filled and probably will be filled in the future. There was also an unnecessary amount of bathrooms, just to point out. The displays were interesting so I would suggest going, but don’t expect to be blown off your feet by this $621 million center.
We also stopped by the Library of Congress, which my sister and I were absolutely blown away by. The building was essentially just a very very large piece of artwork. I would definitely suggest going there – just from my one visit through this historical landmark, I feel like a more intelligent person! And an added note – we can all get in to the actual library section for free as students! All you need is to show your ID and you have some of the best resources at your fingertips.
The National Cathedral also made it onto our tourist destinations and I have wanted to go there ever since school started. In short, it was breathtaking; an absolutely gigantic sized building with a beautiful interior. I never would have known it was so new – only 5 years since it was completed I think! It got me and my sister thinking about religion, though, and why it is so important for religions to have extravagant buildings. With all the money the church spent on this building, they could have done much more meaningful things like save people’s lives. However, it’s important for groups of people to have symbols of some sort that represent their unity and ambitions – our government needs expensive new visitor centers just like the Christian church needs elaborate cathedrals. At the same time, I didn’t walk away from the National Cathedral thinking about becoming more religious… Instead, I was thinking about the amazing the architecture and artwork of the building. So I don’t know if the building really served its purpose as a symbol of Christianity, or just a very large and expensive piece of art. I’m interested to hear what you all think of these excessive buildings… are they worth the money? Does a breathtaking cathedral really add more to the religious experience? What does it say about people that we put such value on the material objects of religion? Shouldn’t we be able to reach the same religious experience without all the extravagance?
Now, to talk about Snow Crash a bit since the rest of my blog has been mostly irrelevant to our World Politics class. I found myself enjoying the book for the most part. I definitely think it was the most interesting book we’ve read for class even though it did have some significant flaws. I already pointed out my feelings about the sexual content of Snow Crash in my comments to Rachel and Tori’s reflection blogs so I won’t repeat myself besides to say it was completely unnecessary and bothersome and distracted me from the point of the book. I thought that Stephenson’s style was effective, other than that, because he really kept the reader intrigued if not confused at times. But with confusion comes curiosity for a reader to clarify the confusion, so I kept on reading! I was surprised by the prevalence of obscenities that didn’t really fit into the narration… they were somewhat awkward at times. As other people have said, the ending was a tad bit too predictable for me, but the message came across clearly. I hope this isn’t our future just like I hope the McDonald’s Corporations of the world don’t get to have a huge say in World Bank conferences in the future.
Speaking of McDonald’s, I might as well reflect on the simulation! I thought that the format of the simulation, although accurate and realistic, inhibited a good flow of debate. Even though the rules were laid out clearly in the assignment, for those of us who never did Model U.N. or debate in high school, it was still very confusing and intimidating. God forbid we mess up the rules! I also didn’t feel like there was the same level of enthusiasm for each group’s position as last simulation but perhaps this is because we all went into it thinking that there would need to be negotiation.
Now that the semester has come to a close, I’d just like to say in my final reflection that I enjoyed our class! I think we all learned a lot, whether it was from reading, from exploring D.C., or from each other. Hopefully our lively debates can continue without being prompted by the topics in class. Not to get sentimental or anything, but I’ll miss seeing everyone together at 11:20 on Tuesdays and Fridays!
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Final blog
Well, it's been a few months but the material I learned in this course was very resourceful. With these theories on constructivism, realism and liberalism imprinted into my mind, I have been able to conjure a clear understanding of how the individual nations operate.
While the Western nations of the world look through the eyes of constructivism due to their ability to focus upon the identification of events and how they affect foreign policy, there are some who see foreign policy in a different view. Ever since the fall of communism, Russia has focused on adopting democracy owing to their failure in the Cold War but we can't forget that Russia is deeply immersed in the styles of Machiavelli. If they lose any more power they would collapse even further, which is why for the past few months they adopt a more realist (concerned with security of territory and military strength) foreign policy. This has been the case in the two Chechnya wars, the South Ossetia war, and the standoff with the west on the proposed development of a missile defense system in Poland. The reason for their constant referral to military strength is due to past events where upon military failure, Russian citizens revolt. After the disastrous war with Japan, Russia nearly plunged into Civil war before enacting the October manifesto guaranteeing the creation of the representative body, the Duma. the events following WWI was another example that is Russia's radicalization. This is why Russia must appear war-like in the media for, if they don't, they are seen as soft by their own civilians.
In China, the liberalization of their trade with the Western nations combined with their military capabilities show themselves as a liberal and realist nation. When Taiwan showed interest of achieving independence from its large neighbor, China responded with the deployment of ballistic missiles along its shores. This was due to China's interest in maintaining control over the democratic Chinese civilians in Taiwan who resented their communist neighbor so as to appear peaceful to the West. They even offered pandas to Taiwan in exchange for eliminating their independence movement but they turned it down (much to the people's dismay as they loved those pandas). That's another example of China's liberal foreign policy, instead of fully liberalizing its communist regime into a democracy to appease its neighbors, China entices them with the cuteness of a male and female panda. So instead of appealing to their political sense, China focuses its foreign policy by use of its cutest and most popular endangered animal for enticement while showing off its military strength to its neighbors.
Finally, let's discuss foreign policy between France and Germany after the Great war. Due to their ancestral conflicts over the Alsace-Lorraine province, France wanted Germany to be unable to mount another full scale invasion by limiting its military and economy. Here, France focused on a realist sense to contain its neighbor by payment of reparations. While Germany also followed this policy as well, they tried different methods to appease its neighbor. Since millions of French soldiers were returning with shell-shock and amputated limbs, Germany offered France a new method of reparations by offering them their newest creation, aspirin. Since morphine, the standard painkiller, was addictive and painful after its effects wore off, France was enticed that the Germans were offering a non-addictive and longer lasting drug to ease their pain. Here, Germany appeases France by soothing their bodily pain from this deadly war.
These are not the only nations that posses unusual tactics in foreign policy but if we continue discussing every other nation, this blog may go on forever. When we view fooriegn policy, I tend to see it as a method to appease their neighbors through political liberalization, military fear, and pleasing their animistic instincts.
While the Western nations of the world look through the eyes of constructivism due to their ability to focus upon the identification of events and how they affect foreign policy, there are some who see foreign policy in a different view. Ever since the fall of communism, Russia has focused on adopting democracy owing to their failure in the Cold War but we can't forget that Russia is deeply immersed in the styles of Machiavelli. If they lose any more power they would collapse even further, which is why for the past few months they adopt a more realist (concerned with security of territory and military strength) foreign policy. This has been the case in the two Chechnya wars, the South Ossetia war, and the standoff with the west on the proposed development of a missile defense system in Poland. The reason for their constant referral to military strength is due to past events where upon military failure, Russian citizens revolt. After the disastrous war with Japan, Russia nearly plunged into Civil war before enacting the October manifesto guaranteeing the creation of the representative body, the Duma. the events following WWI was another example that is Russia's radicalization. This is why Russia must appear war-like in the media for, if they don't, they are seen as soft by their own civilians.
In China, the liberalization of their trade with the Western nations combined with their military capabilities show themselves as a liberal and realist nation. When Taiwan showed interest of achieving independence from its large neighbor, China responded with the deployment of ballistic missiles along its shores. This was due to China's interest in maintaining control over the democratic Chinese civilians in Taiwan who resented their communist neighbor so as to appear peaceful to the West. They even offered pandas to Taiwan in exchange for eliminating their independence movement but they turned it down (much to the people's dismay as they loved those pandas). That's another example of China's liberal foreign policy, instead of fully liberalizing its communist regime into a democracy to appease its neighbors, China entices them with the cuteness of a male and female panda. So instead of appealing to their political sense, China focuses its foreign policy by use of its cutest and most popular endangered animal for enticement while showing off its military strength to its neighbors.
Finally, let's discuss foreign policy between France and Germany after the Great war. Due to their ancestral conflicts over the Alsace-Lorraine province, France wanted Germany to be unable to mount another full scale invasion by limiting its military and economy. Here, France focused on a realist sense to contain its neighbor by payment of reparations. While Germany also followed this policy as well, they tried different methods to appease its neighbor. Since millions of French soldiers were returning with shell-shock and amputated limbs, Germany offered France a new method of reparations by offering them their newest creation, aspirin. Since morphine, the standard painkiller, was addictive and painful after its effects wore off, France was enticed that the Germans were offering a non-addictive and longer lasting drug to ease their pain. Here, Germany appeases France by soothing their bodily pain from this deadly war.
These are not the only nations that posses unusual tactics in foreign policy but if we continue discussing every other nation, this blog may go on forever. When we view fooriegn policy, I tend to see it as a method to appease their neighbors through political liberalization, military fear, and pleasing their animistic instincts.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Final Reflection
I'm going to split my final reflection between talking about Barack Obama’s cabinet picks and the simulation. So, first the cabinet picks. President elect Obama has chosen many positions in his cabinet. So far he is establishing one of the smartest and best qualified cabinets in history. A few good examples of the brains and experience Obama is surrounding himself with is putting retired Marine General Jim Jones as National Security Advisor, Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and Robert Gates in as defense secretary. Now a little information about each person and why I believe that they are qualified for their respective positions. Jim Jones was supreme allied commander of NATO in Europe. In this position he would have been exposed to and have had to deal with many security issues. So since he already has experience in the security area he is a good choice during this heightened time of national security. Hillary Clinton is a great pick for secretary of state. She herself has good international experience as well as having the advantage of being involved during her husband’s administration. During this time of the US slump in world opinion, we need our chief foreign official to be experienced. Finally, Robert Gates who has been secretary of defense for half of the Bush administration. It is a great decision to have him stay on as secretary. He has been one of the main people managing the Iraq war and is very experienced in the conflict. As the US is deeply entrenched in Iraq, like it or not we’re there, this would be no time to bring a new person who doesn’t have the background knowledge into the job of managing the war.
In the simulation I was part of the group that represented Venezuela. I and the other members of this group knew that it would be very hard to impossible to get anybody to vote in agreement on any issues with us. It turned out that as the debated came around that we were right, no one agreed. Our main argument for our disagreement was that we felt the issues presented were encroaching on our sovereignty. So in the end Venezuela was thrown out of the conference because of our inability to agree or even compromise. I thought that this was a really good simulation. It thought me how to represent and debate issues from the standpoint of a country that I don’t agree with.
In the simulation I was part of the group that represented Venezuela. I and the other members of this group knew that it would be very hard to impossible to get anybody to vote in agreement on any issues with us. It turned out that as the debated came around that we were right, no one agreed. Our main argument for our disagreement was that we felt the issues presented were encroaching on our sovereignty. So in the end Venezuela was thrown out of the conference because of our inability to agree or even compromise. I thought that this was a really good simulation. It thought me how to represent and debate issues from the standpoint of a country that I don’t agree with.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Justice and such...
After watching way too many Law & Order’s over the years, I have little faith in our justice system. Not that I could think of a better way for our system to work, but I just find it so disappointing that the system has so many flaws. The wrong people get punished meanwhile the right people may walk free. There is just no good way to obtain justice.
During our mock trial in class on Friday, I think that there lacked passion for the argument at hand maybe with exception of a few people. The question was a little too obvious for all of us that it was difficult to argue about it… Cortes was definitely in violation of human rights. Besides this factor, class on Friday sparked some thoughts about the effectiveness of justice so I think the point came across in the end.
We had this back and forth trial with strict guidelines (not necessarily followed in class as I’m sure they would be in court) and it almost seemed comical. How could this process possibly bring about justice? Is this how we define justice – a convoluted process all to persuade a jury? If this system is justice then how do people get wrongfully punished? How do others get away with crime through legal loopholes? It just doesn’t seem fair… or just.
I wonder what Nicolaus Copernicus would think about justice? I bet our justice system would be very strange to this scholar back in the 15th and 16th centuries. Back then, though, there probably were fewer discussions of justice than of science. If you all remember correctly from your high school astronomy class, Copernicus was the dude who realized that the earth was not in fact at the center of the universe, but instead the sun was. Why do I bring up Copernicus though? Well, I don’t know if any of you heard about this, but Polish researchers found the remains of this well-known fellow. The search has been going on for years. Through reconstruction and extensive DNA testing scientists were able to confirm that the remains actually belonged to the mastermind, Copernicus. Yes, that’s right, they matched HAIR found in one of Copernicus’ books to the hair found at the gravesite in a Polish cathedral! Unbelievable, this man died in 1543, I was shocked to read the article and I thought you all might appreciate it… here it is:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081120/ap_on_re_eu/eu_poland_copernicus
As for the Native American museum, I think there was an overall consensus of disappointment in the museum, at least that’s the impression that I got. For me, the biggest problem was the flow of the exhibits. There was an overwhelming amount of artifacts but they lacked sufficient explanation. It was frustrating to see an entire wall of mysterious figures that had no descriptions. My favorite part of the museum was the special exhibit with the abstract Native American artist’s work on display. He had some pretty awesome paintings – some intense, others flat-out beautiful. I was really trying to “read” the museum like PTJ suggested but I had a hard time finding examples of a colonialist view or any biases in general. I thought it did an accurate job portraying the life of a Native American, at least from what I know. It was cool how the many tribes were able to construct their own displays too and I think this helped to avoid any sort of colonialist view. Overall, I liked the museum of the Native American but I wasn’t thrilled like I was when Rachel and I visited the National Portrait Gallery afterward on Wednesday. I would suggest going just to see the modern woman’s exhibit, and of course the U.S. Presidents portraits were pretty cool too.
During our mock trial in class on Friday, I think that there lacked passion for the argument at hand maybe with exception of a few people. The question was a little too obvious for all of us that it was difficult to argue about it… Cortes was definitely in violation of human rights. Besides this factor, class on Friday sparked some thoughts about the effectiveness of justice so I think the point came across in the end.
We had this back and forth trial with strict guidelines (not necessarily followed in class as I’m sure they would be in court) and it almost seemed comical. How could this process possibly bring about justice? Is this how we define justice – a convoluted process all to persuade a jury? If this system is justice then how do people get wrongfully punished? How do others get away with crime through legal loopholes? It just doesn’t seem fair… or just.
I wonder what Nicolaus Copernicus would think about justice? I bet our justice system would be very strange to this scholar back in the 15th and 16th centuries. Back then, though, there probably were fewer discussions of justice than of science. If you all remember correctly from your high school astronomy class, Copernicus was the dude who realized that the earth was not in fact at the center of the universe, but instead the sun was. Why do I bring up Copernicus though? Well, I don’t know if any of you heard about this, but Polish researchers found the remains of this well-known fellow. The search has been going on for years. Through reconstruction and extensive DNA testing scientists were able to confirm that the remains actually belonged to the mastermind, Copernicus. Yes, that’s right, they matched HAIR found in one of Copernicus’ books to the hair found at the gravesite in a Polish cathedral! Unbelievable, this man died in 1543, I was shocked to read the article and I thought you all might appreciate it… here it is:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081120/ap_on_re_eu/eu_poland_copernicus
As for the Native American museum, I think there was an overall consensus of disappointment in the museum, at least that’s the impression that I got. For me, the biggest problem was the flow of the exhibits. There was an overwhelming amount of artifacts but they lacked sufficient explanation. It was frustrating to see an entire wall of mysterious figures that had no descriptions. My favorite part of the museum was the special exhibit with the abstract Native American artist’s work on display. He had some pretty awesome paintings – some intense, others flat-out beautiful. I was really trying to “read” the museum like PTJ suggested but I had a hard time finding examples of a colonialist view or any biases in general. I thought it did an accurate job portraying the life of a Native American, at least from what I know. It was cool how the many tribes were able to construct their own displays too and I think this helped to avoid any sort of colonialist view. Overall, I liked the museum of the Native American but I wasn’t thrilled like I was when Rachel and I visited the National Portrait Gallery afterward on Wednesday. I would suggest going just to see the modern woman’s exhibit, and of course the U.S. Presidents portraits were pretty cool too.
Reflection of this past week
In the musical, Chicago, Roxy who shot a man who lied to her about his vocation is put on trial. Her lawyer who is very skilled in law and oratory, tells her before the trial begins that in order to win she must give them the "old Razzle Dazzle". In other words, convince the judge and jury of your innocence by putting on a show of character for them (i.e. acting as though you were the victim). I've seen this play numerous times and I have to say, its no different than how those prosecuted are able to win court cases.
Lobbyists for cigarette and Fast food corporations are put on trial every year because a certain customer was victimized by their products. Each time the corporations won, not because they the corporates are rich but because their lawyers are experienced in this type of work since they face it every day. In the film, Thank you for Smoking, you are introduced to a man who uses his oratory and wit to overwhelm his opponents and this is what every type of lawyer from corporation lobbyists to Civil Rights lawyers like Johnnie Cochran use to save their clients from penalties. Now with regards to our simulation.
My group put together a mock trial to decide if we are to convict Cortes who led the Conquistadors to destroy the Aztec civilization of Crimes against humanity. We had to make this trial one that applied to trials back in Cortes' time and that's when the confusion set in. War crimes is a relatively new concept that originated as another brand of punishment for Nazi Germany and intensified after the Bosnian civil war claimed thousands of innocent civilians. To apply it to a time when Christianity was to justify every misdemeanor, murder or raping of innocent civilians was frankly impossible. This is because after WWII, religion no longer applied to those convicted of war crimes particularly in Bosnia whose Serbian militias murdered thousands of Bosnian Muslims in a time when Islamophobia (the sociological distrust of Muslims) was beginning to emerge. There was also no political international body that worked on these cases during the 1400s. It's amazing how relatively new this concept is when you think about it.
Lobbyists for cigarette and Fast food corporations are put on trial every year because a certain customer was victimized by their products. Each time the corporations won, not because they the corporates are rich but because their lawyers are experienced in this type of work since they face it every day. In the film, Thank you for Smoking, you are introduced to a man who uses his oratory and wit to overwhelm his opponents and this is what every type of lawyer from corporation lobbyists to Civil Rights lawyers like Johnnie Cochran use to save their clients from penalties. Now with regards to our simulation.
My group put together a mock trial to decide if we are to convict Cortes who led the Conquistadors to destroy the Aztec civilization of Crimes against humanity. We had to make this trial one that applied to trials back in Cortes' time and that's when the confusion set in. War crimes is a relatively new concept that originated as another brand of punishment for Nazi Germany and intensified after the Bosnian civil war claimed thousands of innocent civilians. To apply it to a time when Christianity was to justify every misdemeanor, murder or raping of innocent civilians was frankly impossible. This is because after WWII, religion no longer applied to those convicted of war crimes particularly in Bosnia whose Serbian militias murdered thousands of Bosnian Muslims in a time when Islamophobia (the sociological distrust of Muslims) was beginning to emerge. There was also no political international body that worked on these cases during the 1400s. It's amazing how relatively new this concept is when you think about it.
Columbus vs. Present
Is our way of knowing greater than that of Columbus' era? Yes but this is due to our advancement in technology and globalized society. With the launching of numerous satellites and our worldwide connection of computers, we have managed to establish perfect communication with all parts of the globe. The impact of technology has also served to recharter the perspectives of Columbus himself including his fundamental beliefs.
Since the internet has allowed the uploading of numerous documents online, we've been permitted the ability to access all of Columbus' journal entries. In one of Columbus' entries, he mentions how he believed in serpents and supernatural creatures. Today, we've become skeptical of these claims because our technology has revealed no evidence of their existence. Take the story of the Kraken; Norwegian explorers wrote of this gigantic octopus-like creature that attacked ships that interrupted its sleep. Their accounts were ignored but after years of scientific marine exploration, their accounts were verified as true for there was such a creature only it wasn't an octopus but a giant squid who attacks ships because it misinterprets them for its natural enemy the sperm whale. How did we end this mythology? None other than finding physical evidence (ex. remains of giant squid that washed up on shore) and the use of technology to find the creature's location (in this case the use of sonar, which sperm whales use to locate the squid, was able to locate the mysterious squid that lived in the depths of the sea). Satellites and sonar act in the same manner as echolocation is used by bats; as a species that is limited to land, we cannot explore the barriers of the oceans and Space and so we rely on updated technology to validate our scientific claims and knowledge.
Since the internet has allowed the uploading of numerous documents online, we've been permitted the ability to access all of Columbus' journal entries. In one of Columbus' entries, he mentions how he believed in serpents and supernatural creatures. Today, we've become skeptical of these claims because our technology has revealed no evidence of their existence. Take the story of the Kraken; Norwegian explorers wrote of this gigantic octopus-like creature that attacked ships that interrupted its sleep. Their accounts were ignored but after years of scientific marine exploration, their accounts were verified as true for there was such a creature only it wasn't an octopus but a giant squid who attacks ships because it misinterprets them for its natural enemy the sperm whale. How did we end this mythology? None other than finding physical evidence (ex. remains of giant squid that washed up on shore) and the use of technology to find the creature's location (in this case the use of sonar, which sperm whales use to locate the squid, was able to locate the mysterious squid that lived in the depths of the sea). Satellites and sonar act in the same manner as echolocation is used by bats; as a species that is limited to land, we cannot explore the barriers of the oceans and Space and so we rely on updated technology to validate our scientific claims and knowledge.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Better? Yes!
Better better better… hmm how to define this word? I first think of the Beatle’s hit “Hey Jude” when I contemplate what “better” means. They seem to be grappling with what the word means along with Todorov when they repeat it six times at the climax of the song. Poor old Jude needs to “make it better” with a girl; he needs to improve the situation. So in this context, I’d say improvement is implied in the word better.
However, when you go to a playground you would most likely hear this word used in a different way at one point or another. Little Lucy says to Silly Sally, “I’m better than you” and it’s magic! The word “better” suddenly takes on an implication of superiority!
I would prefer to think of the former definition of the word “better” in answering this blog question, even though I realize that the latter is also just as significant (but a little harder to argue). I wholeheartedly and undoubtedly believe that our knowledge has improved, or bettered, since Columbus’ time. I realize that I am a bit biased since I am living in these current times and think that we are pretty darn advanced in our knowledge. However, I would argue that it’s a natural and inevitable thing for the human race to better itself. Just as Columbus’ knowledge was better than that of the cavemen, our knowledge in the 21st century is better than Columbus’ knowledge 500 years ago simply because of time… Time advances our race, we evolve and adapt and it is only expected for us to improve our knowledge. Simply put, we know more now than Columbus or his comrades could have because of time and technological factors.
The argument is the same when you consider the word better to imply condescension. We can’t possibly say that we are smarter than or superior to Columbus because it’s not the human brain that has improved, but the human population. When we say that our knowledge is better, it is not because Columbus as an individual lacked a talented, intelligent mind but as I said before, it is because time and technology have advanced the entire race.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that we, as individuals, do not have a better way of knowing because our minds are just as human as Columbus’. However, humans in general have developed since Columbus discovered America in the 15th century and so I would say that the human race has a better, more improved way of knowing right now in the 21st century. Similarly, I assume (and hope) that in 500 years the human race will have improved knowledge as well. It’s not at all a bad thing – it’s natural progression!
However, when you go to a playground you would most likely hear this word used in a different way at one point or another. Little Lucy says to Silly Sally, “I’m better than you” and it’s magic! The word “better” suddenly takes on an implication of superiority!
I would prefer to think of the former definition of the word “better” in answering this blog question, even though I realize that the latter is also just as significant (but a little harder to argue). I wholeheartedly and undoubtedly believe that our knowledge has improved, or bettered, since Columbus’ time. I realize that I am a bit biased since I am living in these current times and think that we are pretty darn advanced in our knowledge. However, I would argue that it’s a natural and inevitable thing for the human race to better itself. Just as Columbus’ knowledge was better than that of the cavemen, our knowledge in the 21st century is better than Columbus’ knowledge 500 years ago simply because of time… Time advances our race, we evolve and adapt and it is only expected for us to improve our knowledge. Simply put, we know more now than Columbus or his comrades could have because of time and technological factors.
The argument is the same when you consider the word better to imply condescension. We can’t possibly say that we are smarter than or superior to Columbus because it’s not the human brain that has improved, but the human population. When we say that our knowledge is better, it is not because Columbus as an individual lacked a talented, intelligent mind but as I said before, it is because time and technology have advanced the entire race.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that we, as individuals, do not have a better way of knowing because our minds are just as human as Columbus’. However, humans in general have developed since Columbus discovered America in the 15th century and so I would say that the human race has a better, more improved way of knowing right now in the 21st century. Similarly, I assume (and hope) that in 500 years the human race will have improved knowledge as well. It’s not at all a bad thing – it’s natural progression!
Is Columbus’ way of knowing better than our way of knowing?
First off I want to define the meaning “way of knowing.” Columbus’ way of knowing, his way of obtaining knowledge, was mostly guess work and bravery. In his day an explorer would take what was known about the world – which wasn’t much – and then with great courage set out to test the limits of that knowledge. Our way of knowing is mostly through science and advanced technology. So is Columbus’ way of knowing “better” than our way. I would have to answer “no.” Columbus had some knowledge and little accuracy. He was operating from guesses. He had star charts and assumptions to steer by as he explored, but he wasn’t very accurate. Obviously today we have much more accurate information available to us than Columbus’ did, and we have more knowledge on which to base decisions .Today we have hypotheses to test from and to test those hypotheses we have much better equipment that will lead to more accurate results, thus eliminating the need to operate from guesses. Let’s use the example of exploring the oceans. What Columbus did was based on guess work and anecdotal evidence and primitive tools. He was at the mercy of the winds and his limited knowledge, and didn’t know what he would encounter once he set out. Today, our knowledge and our way of obtaining knowledge are far superior. When we explore the ocean we have sophisticated equipment with which to do our exploring and send probes and cameras ahead of human beings so that we know what we will encounter. There was so little of the world that was known to Columbus and there is so little of the world that is unknown to us. We are a little like Columbus as we explore space, but even there our way of knowing is better and more accurate. We are able to send unmanned probes ahead of men to see what we will encounter. We know how to navigate with very sophisticated equipment and so forth. So, I believe our way of knowing is “better” than Columbus’. However, in some ways Columbus was more of a true explorer, because he didn't know what lay ahead of him, but he did it anyway. Today our exploring - in medicine, oceanography, space, genetics - is more accurate than anything in Columbus’ day, but it is a much safer and less adventurous type of exploration.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
My Problems With Prioritizing
As I began to say in this week’s blog response, I was somewhat sickened by the Lomborg reading. It discouraged me to think that we are so limited to our help because, being an optimist, I normally like to think that we have the capability to satisfy everyone’s concerns. I guess that when I start thinking about that I know it’s a little crazy… there are soooooo many problems out there, how could we even begin to solve them all? In that sense, I can now find Lomborg’s ideas reassuring. He has come up with a method to solve these problems in a logical manner: prioritization.
Even though I realize that prioritizing the world’s problems can be positive now (some thanks to Rachel’s post, which I would recommend reading because it is very cheerful and uplifting), I still am uncomfortable with putting off issues that may seem less important. It’s nice to know that there was a lot of thought put into the prioritizing of Copenhagen Consensus project and there was a clear method behind their logic. However, how can we ever really say that one problem is more important than another? Who are we to make that decision? Maybe those questions are irrelevant because prioritizing has to be done, but still my point is that we should be very careful to put one problem over the other.
Something that I also really really did not like about the article is the value that we put on people’s lives. It’s awful to think that one person’s life is more valued than another person’s life even though I may have subconsciously known this already. Not only does it bother me that different people were given according values due to their citizenship, but it bothered me that human life had to be valued in the first place. Why must we always put a dollar sign to things? Was this factor absolutely necessary in prioritizing?
This article was kind of a realistic slap in the face for me… so even though I’m bothered by these various things, I realize that they are sensible. As I titled my last post, if only the world was fair….
Even though I realize that prioritizing the world’s problems can be positive now (some thanks to Rachel’s post, which I would recommend reading because it is very cheerful and uplifting), I still am uncomfortable with putting off issues that may seem less important. It’s nice to know that there was a lot of thought put into the prioritizing of Copenhagen Consensus project and there was a clear method behind their logic. However, how can we ever really say that one problem is more important than another? Who are we to make that decision? Maybe those questions are irrelevant because prioritizing has to be done, but still my point is that we should be very careful to put one problem over the other.
Something that I also really really did not like about the article is the value that we put on people’s lives. It’s awful to think that one person’s life is more valued than another person’s life even though I may have subconsciously known this already. Not only does it bother me that different people were given according values due to their citizenship, but it bothered me that human life had to be valued in the first place. Why must we always put a dollar sign to things? Was this factor absolutely necessary in prioritizing?
This article was kind of a realistic slap in the face for me… so even though I’m bothered by these various things, I realize that they are sensible. As I titled my last post, if only the world was fair….
Secretary of State Position/ Class Presentation:
I want to use one of my last reflections to write about Barack Obama’s possible choice for Secretary of State candidate. Right now, according to news reports, the people on the short list are Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson. Obama had a discussion with Clinton on Thursday and Richardson on Friday, both in Chicago. While it’s not known what Clinton’s official reaction was, Clinton aides think that if she wants the post it’s basically a done deal for her. Richardson aides said that it’s certainly “not a done deal” for Clinton to get the post. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/14/transition.wrap/index.html) Both Clinton and Richardson are well respected around the world and both know a lot about foreign policy. Richardson is so will respected because he’s been on many diplomatic missions, most of which were successful in accomplishing their respective goals. Hillary is well respected because of her active role as a first lady during the presidency of her husband, Bill. Also, while in the senate, she’s been on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Between watching first hand foreign policy during Bill’s presidency and serving on the Armed Service Committee she has good experience in the field. That being said, I would be happier with the pick of Bill Richardson, because he, in the end, has more foreign policy experience than Clinton.
The second thing I’d like to comment on is the group that presented in class on Friday. I thought that it was a very informative and interactive class. During the game there were a list of priorities put on the board including sanitation, communicable disease, malnutrition, corruption, and it was each group’s job to figure out how our countries’ priorities changed during different disasters based on a short list of statistics given about the specific country. The game was good at teaching the group that a country must prioritize its resources when presented with problems.
The second thing I’d like to comment on is the group that presented in class on Friday. I thought that it was a very informative and interactive class. During the game there were a list of priorities put on the board including sanitation, communicable disease, malnutrition, corruption, and it was each group’s job to figure out how our countries’ priorities changed during different disasters based on a short list of statistics given about the specific country. The game was good at teaching the group that a country must prioritize its resources when presented with problems.
The complexity of poverty
There are many nations living in impoverished conditions mostly located in the continent of Africa and Southeast Asia. Their people live in extreme poverty yet even with the wealth attributed to their exportation of resources (like the Congo's vast quantity of gold, diamonds and timber and Nigeria's coastal oilfields), there have been no solutions to this problem. In reality, poverty is influenced by about three sources government action, outside forces and economic structure.
On the issue of government action, politicians within these impoverished countries lack the appropriate political experience. This is prevalent in African nations whose leaders come to power via military coup d'etats or from historical fame. An example of the latter would be when Robert Mugabe who has been in political power in Zimbabwe since 1987. Despite accounts of lost ballot votes, mistrust on security and accusations of racism including attacks on white foreigners (taste of their own medicine, eh?), he was supported by a grand majority of the people because of his part in his nation's apartheid and the social programs that raised the infant mortality rate. This allowed him to remain popular and guaranteed him a position in the dual government created in 2008 (all this due to domestic violence by his supporters). Overall, these freed countries chose their leaders based upon their contribution to the post colonialist period and in small cases out of military fear.
On external forces, these countries fall pray to natural disasters and wars. I hate to pick on Africa again so I'll be brief. After the civil war in Zaire, it was divided into the Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (probably so its name would appeal to Western nations but that didn't work for East Germany's German Democratic Republic during the Cold War). As the nation tried to rebuild itself and resume trade, Hutu and Tutsi paramilitary forces from the neighboring Burundi and Rwanda spilled into the Congo and plunged the country into what became known as the African world war. Despite the ceasefire, the conflict continues to this day. Putting Africa aside, let's discuss Bangladesh. This nation is situated like the Netherlands for they both lie below sea level. Unfortunately, Bangladesh doesn't have advanced flood walls like its counterpart so its easy prey to violent storms like the infamous 1970 Bhola cyclone, which killed more than 500,000 people and led to estimated damages up to $86.4 million (1970 USD). Due to its geographical location, Bangladesh is hit with violent cyclones and mass floods every year. With this much damage, it's no wonder they're impoverished.
Finally on the subject of economic structure, this is prevalent in most post- colonial nations. First, a lesson on European history. After WWI, the Baltic states in particular Sweden, Finland and Norway executed large systems of state welfare programs, which would lower their unemployment rates and would protect them from the dramatic effects from the Great Depression. Why isn't that the standard system in all countries? For one thing, western nations view the idea of state welfare as socialist (the US still displays anti-socialist views on their own economy particularly during the relief programs launched during the 2008 recession). Second, the European occupiers of former colonies did not establish large scale industries which would industrialize those nations since the colonies were only meant to supply raw resources, which were to be shipped to the factories in Europe. Following the ideas of European industrialization, these countries tried to catch up in this present globalized economy by encouraging rapid urbanization in hopes that this would benefit big businesses. This failed as it increased unemployment and because of the number of foreign companies that already established themselves in the countries. The exception would be India, which was freed early from imperial rule after WWII and despite poor living conditions and religious strife between the country's Hindu, Muslim and Sikh communities, their quantity of resources which were exported to other Western counties helped propel it as a rival superpower to China (Hell, they both have space programs and desire to land on the moon so they act like the US and Russia did in the Cold War). Even though Nigeria follows the same economic policy on the oil trade, political corruption, high crime and ethnic strife hampers their economic development. In general, poverty is a very complex issue for there are three sources that contribute to it's rise, one of them being virtually unsolvable (external forces).
On the issue of government action, politicians within these impoverished countries lack the appropriate political experience. This is prevalent in African nations whose leaders come to power via military coup d'etats or from historical fame. An example of the latter would be when Robert Mugabe who has been in political power in Zimbabwe since 1987. Despite accounts of lost ballot votes, mistrust on security and accusations of racism including attacks on white foreigners (taste of their own medicine, eh?), he was supported by a grand majority of the people because of his part in his nation's apartheid and the social programs that raised the infant mortality rate. This allowed him to remain popular and guaranteed him a position in the dual government created in 2008 (all this due to domestic violence by his supporters). Overall, these freed countries chose their leaders based upon their contribution to the post colonialist period and in small cases out of military fear.
On external forces, these countries fall pray to natural disasters and wars. I hate to pick on Africa again so I'll be brief. After the civil war in Zaire, it was divided into the Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (probably so its name would appeal to Western nations but that didn't work for East Germany's German Democratic Republic during the Cold War). As the nation tried to rebuild itself and resume trade, Hutu and Tutsi paramilitary forces from the neighboring Burundi and Rwanda spilled into the Congo and plunged the country into what became known as the African world war. Despite the ceasefire, the conflict continues to this day. Putting Africa aside, let's discuss Bangladesh. This nation is situated like the Netherlands for they both lie below sea level. Unfortunately, Bangladesh doesn't have advanced flood walls like its counterpart so its easy prey to violent storms like the infamous 1970 Bhola cyclone, which killed more than 500,000 people and led to estimated damages up to $86.4 million (1970 USD). Due to its geographical location, Bangladesh is hit with violent cyclones and mass floods every year. With this much damage, it's no wonder they're impoverished.
Finally on the subject of economic structure, this is prevalent in most post- colonial nations. First, a lesson on European history. After WWI, the Baltic states in particular Sweden, Finland and Norway executed large systems of state welfare programs, which would lower their unemployment rates and would protect them from the dramatic effects from the Great Depression. Why isn't that the standard system in all countries? For one thing, western nations view the idea of state welfare as socialist (the US still displays anti-socialist views on their own economy particularly during the relief programs launched during the 2008 recession). Second, the European occupiers of former colonies did not establish large scale industries which would industrialize those nations since the colonies were only meant to supply raw resources, which were to be shipped to the factories in Europe. Following the ideas of European industrialization, these countries tried to catch up in this present globalized economy by encouraging rapid urbanization in hopes that this would benefit big businesses. This failed as it increased unemployment and because of the number of foreign companies that already established themselves in the countries. The exception would be India, which was freed early from imperial rule after WWII and despite poor living conditions and religious strife between the country's Hindu, Muslim and Sikh communities, their quantity of resources which were exported to other Western counties helped propel it as a rival superpower to China (Hell, they both have space programs and desire to land on the moon so they act like the US and Russia did in the Cold War). Even though Nigeria follows the same economic policy on the oil trade, political corruption, high crime and ethnic strife hampers their economic development. In general, poverty is a very complex issue for there are three sources that contribute to it's rise, one of them being virtually unsolvable (external forces).
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
If only the world was fair...
The question I jotted down from class: Is it better to address basic needs or broader structural issues?
My conflicted response: I will start off with saying that I am and have always been a very forward-thinking person. I find it more valuable to look at the long-term effect in complex issues like global climate change but also in simpler, everyday issues like taking care of my personal health. Thinking about the future is vital to our world, but also to every individual. So at first, my reaction to this question was that we should focus on the broader structural issues that will be most effectual in the long-term. Work on fixing the government so that they can fix their people's issues. But on further contemplation, I find the compassionate side of my disagreeing with my initial response; where's my empathy? With what I recently read about poverty in Bjorn Lomborg’s interview and what I heard about last week at Bread for the City, there is no possible way that I can be comfortable with leaving basic needs unattended. How would I feel if I were an impoverished citizen (let’s say in Africa, since that is our UC’s favorite continent these days) who was proposed the same question? Hmm let’s see, would I rather be fed and treated for diseases today in order to survive? Or would I rather wait for my government to get their act together structurally and die in this long, drawn out process? I would want to see myself survive through the night, and also see my family and current generation of citizens served their basic needs. I guess that I can relate this back to the long-term as well which makes me very happy – if a population survives and prospers today, then it will only continue to grow stronger in the future and benefit a society or state as well. So what I’m saying is start off with the basic survival needs because you have to remember that the people we are talking about are people too – they are just like us and they deserve the best we can give them… not in the future, but right now.
Having said all of this, I think basic needs and structural issues don’t need to be mutually exclusive besides for the purposes of this blog question. In reality, both can be addressed so I guess that means both or neither are “better”… And that’s the best I can do to answer this deceptively simple yet very loaded question!
I don’t know about anyone else, but after reading in Lomborg’s interview that it only costs $63 to save the life of an African for one year, I feel like a pretty inadequate global citizen. I have more than that in my pocket right now. If only the world was a fair place…
My conflicted response: I will start off with saying that I am and have always been a very forward-thinking person. I find it more valuable to look at the long-term effect in complex issues like global climate change but also in simpler, everyday issues like taking care of my personal health. Thinking about the future is vital to our world, but also to every individual. So at first, my reaction to this question was that we should focus on the broader structural issues that will be most effectual in the long-term. Work on fixing the government so that they can fix their people's issues. But on further contemplation, I find the compassionate side of my disagreeing with my initial response; where's my empathy? With what I recently read about poverty in Bjorn Lomborg’s interview and what I heard about last week at Bread for the City, there is no possible way that I can be comfortable with leaving basic needs unattended. How would I feel if I were an impoverished citizen (let’s say in Africa, since that is our UC’s favorite continent these days) who was proposed the same question? Hmm let’s see, would I rather be fed and treated for diseases today in order to survive? Or would I rather wait for my government to get their act together structurally and die in this long, drawn out process? I would want to see myself survive through the night, and also see my family and current generation of citizens served their basic needs. I guess that I can relate this back to the long-term as well which makes me very happy – if a population survives and prospers today, then it will only continue to grow stronger in the future and benefit a society or state as well. So what I’m saying is start off with the basic survival needs because you have to remember that the people we are talking about are people too – they are just like us and they deserve the best we can give them… not in the future, but right now.
Having said all of this, I think basic needs and structural issues don’t need to be mutually exclusive besides for the purposes of this blog question. In reality, both can be addressed so I guess that means both or neither are “better”… And that’s the best I can do to answer this deceptively simple yet very loaded question!
I don’t know about anyone else, but after reading in Lomborg’s interview that it only costs $63 to save the life of an African for one year, I feel like a pretty inadequate global citizen. I have more than that in my pocket right now. If only the world was a fair place…
Blog Question #11
There are many indigent countries in the world that have gotten to the state they are in for many different reasons. Because there is not one single issue that brings a country into impoverishment, I believe that it takes a combination of factors to bring a country out of impoverishment. There are two major actions/requirements that a country needs to follow to get out of poverty. The first major requirement is to have a good leader. If the leader of a country is corrupt, that’s a very harmful situation because he/she doesn’t care about the people of that country. Then usually neither basic needs nor the larger issues are being addressed in that country. Usually all or a huge percentage of the country’s money will be “pocketed” instead of going to programs that would help the people. To pull a country out of poverty the country needs a leader who cares about the people. A leader like this will do two things: first, use government money in various means to directly help the people with basic needs, and, second, the leader will work with the government to create better infrastructure in the country.
The second major action to be taken by impoverished countries is to fix specific issues about the country. This includes anything that might be stunting development or the market, such as something quite obvious like improving infrastructure or slightly more complicated like figuring out ways to increase tourism. A boost to infrastructure includes improvements or maintenance to roads or rail lines that would link internal parts of the country or go close to a border so that trade could be facilitated quite easily. Professor Jackson said something that I believe is very telling. He told us in class that it’s very difficult to find flights between African capitols that don’t go through Europe. This probably has an impact on the tourism industry in Africa. I think that if countries could get direct flights to one another’s capitals without going through another continent, which takes time and money, tourism might be increased. And this would bring revenue to any country. This is just one example of how addressing broader issues in poor countries may be as important as addressing issues of basic needs.
So, in conclusion, no one factor brings a country into poverty so no one factor can bring it out of poverty. So a country’s basic needs must be met but the way to do that is to create jobs and stability by addressing broader structural issues. It takes leadership to find solutions for providing basic needs and it takes addressing broader issues to fund those solutions. I think that if countries start to follow the ideas stated here, that well, it won’t be an immediate fix, but there will be relief to the impoverishment over time.
The second major action to be taken by impoverished countries is to fix specific issues about the country. This includes anything that might be stunting development or the market, such as something quite obvious like improving infrastructure or slightly more complicated like figuring out ways to increase tourism. A boost to infrastructure includes improvements or maintenance to roads or rail lines that would link internal parts of the country or go close to a border so that trade could be facilitated quite easily. Professor Jackson said something that I believe is very telling. He told us in class that it’s very difficult to find flights between African capitols that don’t go through Europe. This probably has an impact on the tourism industry in Africa. I think that if countries could get direct flights to one another’s capitals without going through another continent, which takes time and money, tourism might be increased. And this would bring revenue to any country. This is just one example of how addressing broader issues in poor countries may be as important as addressing issues of basic needs.
So, in conclusion, no one factor brings a country into poverty so no one factor can bring it out of poverty. So a country’s basic needs must be met but the way to do that is to create jobs and stability by addressing broader structural issues. It takes leadership to find solutions for providing basic needs and it takes addressing broader issues to fund those solutions. I think that if countries start to follow the ideas stated here, that well, it won’t be an immediate fix, but there will be relief to the impoverishment over time.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Inspiration
Well this has been an eventful week with lots to reflect upon. First of all (and most importantly), we have a new president! I can proudly say that I saw Obama exactly 21 hours before he became President-elect along with 100,000 other Americans (and Rachel) at Obama’s last campaign rally in Manassas, Virginia. It was a spontaneous and irrational decision to go all the way to Manassas because I was putting off an enormous amount of homework and wasn’t even sure how I would get a ride back to AU after the rally. But how could I possibly justify missing this once-in-a-lifetime experience?! I couldn’t! The same reasoning came across my mind on election night when we were debating whether or not to storm the White House with thousands of other crazy Washingtonians. In fifty years I won’t remember that I was exhausted from staying up all night finishing my homework and from getting up early to go to a soup kitchen… I will remember that I had the most amazing two nights of my life. I was moved to tears on Monday night when I heard Obama speak, about 20 feet away from me, about the power of one person’s voice. And on the following night, tears were brought to my eyes again the moment that I realized our country had elected an African American as our President, and consequently as the most powerful man in the world. We have come full circle from slavery and even though racism still exists in our country, this is a huge step to overcoming racial divides. Not only am I hopeful for the future regarding our government, but I am also hopeful for the social equality that our country is clearly striving for. It is truly inspiring and I will surely share the events of the past week with the future generations of our country. I have never been this proud.
On a slightly different note, but still an inspiring one, I really enjoyed our visit to Bread for the City. The people who work there are extremely driven to help others and I admire them so much; these people live with compassion. It goes to show all of us that there is so much that we can do to help others. Besides the fact that I respected the employees of Bread for the City, I’m eager to learn more about the intricacies of poverty this week because it seems like there is a lot going on under the surface. Just from this visit I got the impression that there are social, government, and economical issues that seem to play a huge role in poverty. Hopefully my group can effectively address these issues and more on Friday in class!
Speaking of class, I thought this week’s group did an interesting simulation. Of course we liked it because of the candy, but it really got me thinking about prosperity and wealth. What would I give for a Kit-Kat versus a caramel? What methods did I employ to go about getting candy? I thought the most effective way for everyone to get what they wanted was to get in groups according to what candy you wanted and everyone just give their different colored chips to the groups who wanted each type of candy. More people would get more candy that way. Whether we failed at organizing this system or certain people only had their own interests in mind, that idea just didn’t work. To me, sharing and pooling our resources for the best interest of everybody seemed like a great idea but as we saw in this simulation and as we see in the real world, communistic ideas never run as smoothly as intended. In theory, communist ideology of sharing prosperity is great but it doesn’t play out like that in reality. However, I was content with sharing my Twizzler candy wealth with Andrew and Perry. And I was fully satisfied with my own candy intake by the end of class even though I did not win a full-size candy bar. While I don't deny that I have my own self-interest, I know that I am driven to share. It's in my nature to strive for equality and fairness; that is what inspires me above anything else. I guess that makes me a pinko!
On a slightly different note, but still an inspiring one, I really enjoyed our visit to Bread for the City. The people who work there are extremely driven to help others and I admire them so much; these people live with compassion. It goes to show all of us that there is so much that we can do to help others. Besides the fact that I respected the employees of Bread for the City, I’m eager to learn more about the intricacies of poverty this week because it seems like there is a lot going on under the surface. Just from this visit I got the impression that there are social, government, and economical issues that seem to play a huge role in poverty. Hopefully my group can effectively address these issues and more on Friday in class!
Speaking of class, I thought this week’s group did an interesting simulation. Of course we liked it because of the candy, but it really got me thinking about prosperity and wealth. What would I give for a Kit-Kat versus a caramel? What methods did I employ to go about getting candy? I thought the most effective way for everyone to get what they wanted was to get in groups according to what candy you wanted and everyone just give their different colored chips to the groups who wanted each type of candy. More people would get more candy that way. Whether we failed at organizing this system or certain people only had their own interests in mind, that idea just didn’t work. To me, sharing and pooling our resources for the best interest of everybody seemed like a great idea but as we saw in this simulation and as we see in the real world, communistic ideas never run as smoothly as intended. In theory, communist ideology of sharing prosperity is great but it doesn’t play out like that in reality. However, I was content with sharing my Twizzler candy wealth with Andrew and Perry. And I was fully satisfied with my own candy intake by the end of class even though I did not win a full-size candy bar. While I don't deny that I have my own self-interest, I know that I am driven to share. It's in my nature to strive for equality and fairness; that is what inspires me above anything else. I guess that makes me a pinko!
Reflection on Election 2008
Being in DC for election 2008 was a very fun experience. For one thing this was the first election in which I could vote. And the fact that it was such an historic election made it doubly exciting. And the fact that I was in our nation’s capitol where all of this power on which were voting sits, created even one more layer of enjoyment. On election night, I went to an election party at Meridian International Center on Meridian Hill here in DC where my sister works. I stayed there long enough to hear the results of the election and to watch McCain's speech where he conceded. Then afterwards, my sister and I walked from where she works up to Adams Morgan, which is really close. There, people were yelling out of their apartment windows, honking their horns, and setting off firecrackers. The police had the road blocked off so people could revel in the street. The excitement was contagious.
I consider my-self a moderate, but I'm quite excited about the results of the election - of Barack Obama as our next president - and I hope that he brings change and can boost America’s image in the world. I was a little disappointed when I read a New York Times article on November 6th that said, after two years of campaigning on a certain platform, the aides of president elect Obama are toning down expectations. They said that instead of the usual 100 days times frame for getting items completed, there would be a 1000 day time frame. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06expect.html?_r=1&ei=5070&emc=eta1&oref=slogin). I know this is unrealistic due to the mess this country is in but I was hoping Obama would have a quick fix for this countries problems but like any real issue change will take time. But I'm also excited to see Obama considering reaching across partisan lines for some of his cabinet positions. In a race closer to my home, we had a big Senate race in Maine this year. It was between the incumbent republican Senator Susan Collins and, up until recently our democratic member of the house, Tom Allen. Despite the democratic gains in the House and Senate, this race wasn't close and didn’t go to the democrat. Collins beat Allen by a large margin. One of the reasons I think this happened is that Collins is a very moderate republican. I was very interested to hear that both of Maine's senators, Collins and Snowe are possible considerations for cabinet positions in the new administration.(http://www.wcsh6.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=95561&catid=2) I'm excited and hopeful that the new administration can bring positive change that this country so badly needs right now.
I consider my-self a moderate, but I'm quite excited about the results of the election - of Barack Obama as our next president - and I hope that he brings change and can boost America’s image in the world. I was a little disappointed when I read a New York Times article on November 6th that said, after two years of campaigning on a certain platform, the aides of president elect Obama are toning down expectations. They said that instead of the usual 100 days times frame for getting items completed, there would be a 1000 day time frame. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06expect.html?_r=1&ei=5070&emc=eta1&oref=slogin). I know this is unrealistic due to the mess this country is in but I was hoping Obama would have a quick fix for this countries problems but like any real issue change will take time. But I'm also excited to see Obama considering reaching across partisan lines for some of his cabinet positions. In a race closer to my home, we had a big Senate race in Maine this year. It was between the incumbent republican Senator Susan Collins and, up until recently our democratic member of the house, Tom Allen. Despite the democratic gains in the House and Senate, this race wasn't close and didn’t go to the democrat. Collins beat Allen by a large margin. One of the reasons I think this happened is that Collins is a very moderate republican. I was very interested to hear that both of Maine's senators, Collins and Snowe are possible considerations for cabinet positions in the new administration.(http://www.wcsh6.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=95561&catid=2) I'm excited and hopeful that the new administration can bring positive change that this country so badly needs right now.
The problem with employment
Even though I'm not an expert on finance and economies, I do know one thing: full employment does not always guarantee the wealth of a nation. Before we continue, I have to say that for there to be full employment can be impossible to accomplish for as our population grows and migration accelerates due to our globalized market (i.e. the number of Latin American workers), unemployment will continue to exist. Our economy also goes through a cycle where prosperity and recession reoccur at various moments so we cannot always guarantee employment to signify wealth. But, more importantly, there can’t be full employment and growing wealth at the same time for companies may not be unable to support their workforce. Overall, my view on employment is that it operates as a separate unit of our economy and has no connection to economic growth.
Rather than focus on our present economy, let’s review a period of history where the status of one’s economy was deemed as more significant than the status of the people known specifically as the Industrial Age. This era occurred in three stages, the first initiated by the textile industry in the 18th century, the second by coal and steel from the late 18th to early 19th century, and the third by the railroad industry in the mid 19th century. Before the first, manpower in labor was a constant need due to the demand for textile products so employment was at its highest state. Yet when the cotton gin and other tools for textile production were institutionalized, the need for manpower dropped and many became unemployed while the textile demand was satisfied and profits grew. At this stage employment and wealth are two sides of one scale; as wealth goes up in this period, the need for more workers drops. Then, the second Industrial stage hit and European nations were now at the mercy of the demand for coal to supply their steam powered factories. At this stage employment became essential for unlike textiles, coal could not be replicated and required extraction from dangerous mines. To avoid mine collapses similar to what China faces today, the British miners started using small tunnels to extract the coal but since men were unable to squeeze through these, the employment of women and children for manual labor became prominent. While this reverses my earlier argument over the employment/wealth scale, the third stage of Industrialization is able to reuse this analogy. When railroads were introduced, this allowed resources to be transported faster and required a lot of manpower to build the tracks. The problem is that when the tracks are finished, the railroads are able to accumulate profit while the workers find themselves out of work and must find jobs elsewhere. This has distinct parallels to the Hoover Dam project where the dam was able to acquire profit as it powered many homes in the western US in exchange for the payment of their electric bills yet the workers had to find new jobs after its completion.
While our present economy is different than the past ones, there share one unique pattern; as wealth increases, the employment in terms of manpower shrinks. Unfortunately, there is another problem with this ratio today; if wealth in corporations shrinks rapidly, employment also diminishes because of the inability for the companies to pay their workers. Does this mean that wealthy companies are able to employ more workers? Unfortunately, no for with reference to my point about the cycle our economy goes through, corporations can’t afford to recklessly employ people unless it’s financially capable of supporting that many workers. Also should the economy began to diminish, the companies would be forced to downsize their number of employed workers in order to avoid the aftershock of an economic recession.
Rather than focus on our present economy, let’s review a period of history where the status of one’s economy was deemed as more significant than the status of the people known specifically as the Industrial Age. This era occurred in three stages, the first initiated by the textile industry in the 18th century, the second by coal and steel from the late 18th to early 19th century, and the third by the railroad industry in the mid 19th century. Before the first, manpower in labor was a constant need due to the demand for textile products so employment was at its highest state. Yet when the cotton gin and other tools for textile production were institutionalized, the need for manpower dropped and many became unemployed while the textile demand was satisfied and profits grew. At this stage employment and wealth are two sides of one scale; as wealth goes up in this period, the need for more workers drops. Then, the second Industrial stage hit and European nations were now at the mercy of the demand for coal to supply their steam powered factories. At this stage employment became essential for unlike textiles, coal could not be replicated and required extraction from dangerous mines. To avoid mine collapses similar to what China faces today, the British miners started using small tunnels to extract the coal but since men were unable to squeeze through these, the employment of women and children for manual labor became prominent. While this reverses my earlier argument over the employment/wealth scale, the third stage of Industrialization is able to reuse this analogy. When railroads were introduced, this allowed resources to be transported faster and required a lot of manpower to build the tracks. The problem is that when the tracks are finished, the railroads are able to accumulate profit while the workers find themselves out of work and must find jobs elsewhere. This has distinct parallels to the Hoover Dam project where the dam was able to acquire profit as it powered many homes in the western US in exchange for the payment of their electric bills yet the workers had to find new jobs after its completion.
While our present economy is different than the past ones, there share one unique pattern; as wealth increases, the employment in terms of manpower shrinks. Unfortunately, there is another problem with this ratio today; if wealth in corporations shrinks rapidly, employment also diminishes because of the inability for the companies to pay their workers. Does this mean that wealthy companies are able to employ more workers? Unfortunately, no for with reference to my point about the cycle our economy goes through, corporations can’t afford to recklessly employ people unless it’s financially capable of supporting that many workers. Also should the economy began to diminish, the companies would be forced to downsize their number of employed workers in order to avoid the aftershock of an economic recession.
Reflection over election
As the election of 2008 draws to a close, media analysts judged this to be one of America’s historic elections. Being the social critic that I am, I found their interpretation of a historic election for Barrack Obama’s campaign was not just based on him being the first African American and the first of Hawaiian statehood to become the next US president. Upon my analysis of this campaign, I found specific elements of constructivism starting from Obama’s announcement of his running for president to the aftermath of his presidential victory.
First, I wish to examine Obama’s campaign slogan “Yes, we can” which has become the most common phrase used by Obama’s supporters. Yet, throughout the campaign, we had various interpretations of this slogan. In the initial years of the election we deemed the slogan to mean “Yes, we can recover from the aftermath of September 11th” or “Yes, we can bring an end to the Iraq war” or even “Yes, we can put our prejudices aside and elect the first African American as president”. Fast forwarding to 2008, as the US began to feel the brutality of its economic recession, the most common analysis of the phrase became, “Yes, we can recover from this worldwide recession”. These various meanings of the phrase coincide with the constructivist ideal of identity as we establish the phrase to parallel our views of Obama’s campaign mixed with current effects and how they each affect us.
After his victory, the US was in a state of celebration and joy reminding me of the collapse of the Berlin wall. This is because the second term of George Bush has been an unfortunate setback for the US for our economy began to decline, the Iraq war was becoming increasingly unfavorable even to the War hawks in our country, and the concerns of global warming grew tense following the theatrical impact of Hurricane Katrina and the destruction of cities along the Gulf including New Orleans. With these events, there were a growing number of people who voted based upon retrospective views, which count as another aspect of constructivism.
The world also responded positively to the election, which has never been felt before particularly during FDR’s victory in 1932. I mention FDR for while the effects of our current economic crisis does not fall within the nightmarish effects of the Great Depression, its effects all over the world had similarities to it. Looking back through the history of globalization, the United States has been identified by individual nations as the supporting column of the global market because our corporations continue expanding to nations abroad and invest in foreign capital faster than any other country. Unlike the jubilation witnessed in 2008, FDR’s victory was not well recognized internationally due to the European nations who were more concerned with restarting their economy than listening to the US election. Due to the severity of the Great depression, nations were focusing upon their own status quo so as to improve their economies quickly. Putting the Great Depression aside let’s refocus on the world impact of Obama’s reelection. In Kenya, where Obama’s father was born, more people listened into the election results than any other foreign country. This was because the people in Kenya saw Obama as a prodigy for his victory as president would mean that one of their own people would be in control of the most powerful nation on Earth. Here we see the Kenyans using constructivism to emphasize their support for Obama by basing his identity upon his ancestry rather than how the US media focuses on his race. Does this mean that Obama has both the support of the US and the world in his presidency? Yes but it won’t last forever for every US president must fall at the mercy of the “First hundred days” where during this period of time Obama will have full cooperation of the US government and after that, Obama will have to go on the offensive to get his ideas passed
First, I wish to examine Obama’s campaign slogan “Yes, we can” which has become the most common phrase used by Obama’s supporters. Yet, throughout the campaign, we had various interpretations of this slogan. In the initial years of the election we deemed the slogan to mean “Yes, we can recover from the aftermath of September 11th” or “Yes, we can bring an end to the Iraq war” or even “Yes, we can put our prejudices aside and elect the first African American as president”. Fast forwarding to 2008, as the US began to feel the brutality of its economic recession, the most common analysis of the phrase became, “Yes, we can recover from this worldwide recession”. These various meanings of the phrase coincide with the constructivist ideal of identity as we establish the phrase to parallel our views of Obama’s campaign mixed with current effects and how they each affect us.
After his victory, the US was in a state of celebration and joy reminding me of the collapse of the Berlin wall. This is because the second term of George Bush has been an unfortunate setback for the US for our economy began to decline, the Iraq war was becoming increasingly unfavorable even to the War hawks in our country, and the concerns of global warming grew tense following the theatrical impact of Hurricane Katrina and the destruction of cities along the Gulf including New Orleans. With these events, there were a growing number of people who voted based upon retrospective views, which count as another aspect of constructivism.
The world also responded positively to the election, which has never been felt before particularly during FDR’s victory in 1932. I mention FDR for while the effects of our current economic crisis does not fall within the nightmarish effects of the Great Depression, its effects all over the world had similarities to it. Looking back through the history of globalization, the United States has been identified by individual nations as the supporting column of the global market because our corporations continue expanding to nations abroad and invest in foreign capital faster than any other country. Unlike the jubilation witnessed in 2008, FDR’s victory was not well recognized internationally due to the European nations who were more concerned with restarting their economy than listening to the US election. Due to the severity of the Great depression, nations were focusing upon their own status quo so as to improve their economies quickly. Putting the Great Depression aside let’s refocus on the world impact of Obama’s reelection. In Kenya, where Obama’s father was born, more people listened into the election results than any other foreign country. This was because the people in Kenya saw Obama as a prodigy for his victory as president would mean that one of their own people would be in control of the most powerful nation on Earth. Here we see the Kenyans using constructivism to emphasize their support for Obama by basing his identity upon his ancestry rather than how the US media focuses on his race. Does this mean that Obama has both the support of the US and the world in his presidency? Yes but it won’t last forever for every US president must fall at the mercy of the “First hundred days” where during this period of time Obama will have full cooperation of the US government and after that, Obama will have to go on the offensive to get his ideas passed
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Wealth and Employment
I agree that employment is a significant component of wealth both for states and individuals, but this is certainly not the only factor. High or full employment in a state will ensure economic stability because it will keep money moving. Similarly, a person with a job is more likely ensured to be economically stable because he or she has a reliable and consistent flow of cash. However, making a generalization that there is a direct connection between employment and wealth is risky because there are so many exceptions to this rule.
First of all, plenty of people have minimum wage jobs that don’t pay enough to support a family. Even though an individual may have a job, he or she might still need government aid in order to put food on the plate and keep a roof over the head of the family. Being employed does not necessarily equate with being wealthy. Contrarily, there may be an individual who, for some reason or another, does not need to work to be wealthy. Perhaps he inherited money or made enough money earlier in his life and no longer needs any source of income. Just because this person in unemployed does not mean he is not wealthy.
On the state level similar arguments can be made. A majority of people in a state can be employed while the state remains poor because wages are too low or other factors like other prices of goods are inflated. If people aren’t making enough money to consume, the economy is in just as much trouble because the money will be moving around less. I am no expert on economics whatsoever, but it’s clear there are factors that will keep a highly employed state from being wealthy so I don’t think Ruggie can say with any sort of certainty that a wealthy state is one with full employment.
Just as we discussed in class on Tuesday, what does it mean to be wealthy? Does it mean that members of a wealthy state are just able to scrape by or that the members are living a life of abundance? I think full employment will ensure that members of a state survive, but I would not say that this would make them wealthy because that word implies abundance to me. Wealth is a loaded word and an unattainable goal. We can always strive toward wealth, but it’s not possible for this concept to be fully achieved. Employment is one of the means to this end.
First of all, plenty of people have minimum wage jobs that don’t pay enough to support a family. Even though an individual may have a job, he or she might still need government aid in order to put food on the plate and keep a roof over the head of the family. Being employed does not necessarily equate with being wealthy. Contrarily, there may be an individual who, for some reason or another, does not need to work to be wealthy. Perhaps he inherited money or made enough money earlier in his life and no longer needs any source of income. Just because this person in unemployed does not mean he is not wealthy.
On the state level similar arguments can be made. A majority of people in a state can be employed while the state remains poor because wages are too low or other factors like other prices of goods are inflated. If people aren’t making enough money to consume, the economy is in just as much trouble because the money will be moving around less. I am no expert on economics whatsoever, but it’s clear there are factors that will keep a highly employed state from being wealthy so I don’t think Ruggie can say with any sort of certainty that a wealthy state is one with full employment.
Just as we discussed in class on Tuesday, what does it mean to be wealthy? Does it mean that members of a wealthy state are just able to scrape by or that the members are living a life of abundance? I think full employment will ensure that members of a state survive, but I would not say that this would make them wealthy because that word implies abundance to me. Wealth is a loaded word and an unattainable goal. We can always strive toward wealth, but it’s not possible for this concept to be fully achieved. Employment is one of the means to this end.
What measures a county's wealth?
The definition of wealth means different things to different people, but when referring to a country as a whole it is most commonly linked to financial capital. An interesting question came up at the end of class regarding this definition of wealth and its measure; can a country’s wealth be measured by whether or not there is full employment in that particular country? If full employment is defined as everybody in that country being employed, then the answer is no. Using employment or its opposite, unemployment, as a yardstick is not an effective way to measure a country’s wealth for two reasons. The first reason is that no country can, in practical terms, have a zero unemployment rate. The second reason is that a country with a low rate of unemployment but higher wages is wealthier than a country with full employment but low wages. The reason the country with the higher wages does better is explained below. But all of that being said, I believe that a good way to measure a country’s wealth is by the level of employment. Strong employment among the populous of a country is quite beneficial to a country’s economy. The more people employed means the more people making money. People will inevitably spend at least some of the money that they make, which puts that money back in the economy. This in turn will increase a demand for new goods, which will be made if the market demands them. By making these new goods, the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will increase, thus making a country wealthier. The lower the unemployment rate in a country the better, because more people have money to inject into the economy. So the answer to the initial question is that a country’s wealth is linked at least in part to its level of employment but not necessarily to full employment which is unattainable. It might better be linked to the wages paid to workers.
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Cemetery of all Cemeteries
Nothing silences me like going to a cemetery. There is something so eerie about walking above dead bodies and, to be honest, ever since I was little it has creeped me out. But at the same time, there is something about cemeteries that makes me so respectful of human life. It is a place to contemplate and appreciate… and on this cloudy, autumn, Sunday afternoon, it was a place to examine, analyze, and study for our World Politics class.
First of all, since we were talking a lot about power I started thinking about the most powerful aspect of the Arlington National Cemetery. What strikes me most, and I’m sure many others, is seeing the vast sea of uniform gravestones. It seems like these small, simple, white gravestones go as far as the eye can see. That sheer image gives a visitor the feeling of respect and admiration. You realize that each grave holds a unique individual that is just like you or your neighbor, but at the same time the reason that this cemetery is so powerful is because of the unity of these soldiers. Together, these men and women fought for our country, so together they rest. At first I had qualms about the uniformity of the gravestones because it does have the tendency to strip every soldier of his or her individuality. However, after contemplation today at the cemetery I resolved that it is a beautiful thing when people can come together and identify themselves beyond their own physical composition and identify with other people or a cause. As a soldier you are not only yourself, but you are a part of something bigger and this passion that the soldiers (dead or alive) share radiated throughout the cemetery even on this chilly Sunday afternoon.
Along that same line, the uniformity served to show that everyone was equal. To the onlooker, you see no signs of individuality like race, ethnicity, age, or ranking in either the military or our social class structure. No one was better or worse than another. That is why it bothered me in a way when we reached a point in the cemetery where the gravestones became varied. I almost had this thought of “do they think they are better than everyone else?” and I was annoyed that it ruined the unity that I felt in the rest of the cemetery. Now I realize that is wrong of me to think because everyone should be allowed to choose their own gravestones, but I still think these different gravestones ruined that solidarity that I noticed everywhere else.
Did anyone else notice the gun that the soldier guarding the tomb of the unknown was holding? Rachel and I already discussed this, but it kind of looked like a bayonet. It didn’t look like one of those scary guns we saw on the website last week, but instead it looked more…. Elegant? Classy? It was a pretty piece of metal, or at least as pretty as a gun can be. But all this talk that we have had about guns just prompted me to consider why this guard even needs a gun? Is he honestly trying to defend himself? I bet there must be some real crazies that come to the Arlington Cemetery… but I don’t know if he needs a gun. Perhaps the gun is held by the guards to give them purpose and make them feel like they are actually protecting something. Because honestly, there is no point of that gun nor is there really a point of the guards to protect an already dead unknown soldier. It seems silly when you boil it down to that, but don’t think I am mocking the tradition. I just find it interesting that our country values symbols like this one so heavily. The symbol of the guard and the symbol of the gun represent our country as strong, powerful, and confident. And as millions of people witness the changing of the guard every year, these concepts are reinforced into the minds of American and world citizens.
First of all, since we were talking a lot about power I started thinking about the most powerful aspect of the Arlington National Cemetery. What strikes me most, and I’m sure many others, is seeing the vast sea of uniform gravestones. It seems like these small, simple, white gravestones go as far as the eye can see. That sheer image gives a visitor the feeling of respect and admiration. You realize that each grave holds a unique individual that is just like you or your neighbor, but at the same time the reason that this cemetery is so powerful is because of the unity of these soldiers. Together, these men and women fought for our country, so together they rest. At first I had qualms about the uniformity of the gravestones because it does have the tendency to strip every soldier of his or her individuality. However, after contemplation today at the cemetery I resolved that it is a beautiful thing when people can come together and identify themselves beyond their own physical composition and identify with other people or a cause. As a soldier you are not only yourself, but you are a part of something bigger and this passion that the soldiers (dead or alive) share radiated throughout the cemetery even on this chilly Sunday afternoon.
Along that same line, the uniformity served to show that everyone was equal. To the onlooker, you see no signs of individuality like race, ethnicity, age, or ranking in either the military or our social class structure. No one was better or worse than another. That is why it bothered me in a way when we reached a point in the cemetery where the gravestones became varied. I almost had this thought of “do they think they are better than everyone else?” and I was annoyed that it ruined the unity that I felt in the rest of the cemetery. Now I realize that is wrong of me to think because everyone should be allowed to choose their own gravestones, but I still think these different gravestones ruined that solidarity that I noticed everywhere else.
Did anyone else notice the gun that the soldier guarding the tomb of the unknown was holding? Rachel and I already discussed this, but it kind of looked like a bayonet. It didn’t look like one of those scary guns we saw on the website last week, but instead it looked more…. Elegant? Classy? It was a pretty piece of metal, or at least as pretty as a gun can be. But all this talk that we have had about guns just prompted me to consider why this guard even needs a gun? Is he honestly trying to defend himself? I bet there must be some real crazies that come to the Arlington Cemetery… but I don’t know if he needs a gun. Perhaps the gun is held by the guards to give them purpose and make them feel like they are actually protecting something. Because honestly, there is no point of that gun nor is there really a point of the guards to protect an already dead unknown soldier. It seems silly when you boil it down to that, but don’t think I am mocking the tradition. I just find it interesting that our country values symbols like this one so heavily. The symbol of the guard and the symbol of the gun represent our country as strong, powerful, and confident. And as millions of people witness the changing of the guard every year, these concepts are reinforced into the minds of American and world citizens.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Airport Security
This week i want to use my reflection to answer a question. It might seem like a silly question, but it has to do with whether or not US airport security is overbearing. The short and simple answer is yes. I believe that most of the restrictions that are in place are not actually effective. For one, the liquid restriction is ridiculous because chemists have proven that damage can be done with liquids and creams that are under 3 oz. Also the restriction of having to remove your shoes and any jacket or sweatshirt is not that effective either. It seems that if there was anything significant enough in your shoes or jacket that it would do damage to a plane, then the metal detector would pick it up. Then you, the passenger, could be pulled for secondary screening. I think that a lot of the measures that are in place now are to give passengers on US airlines a sense of security. The average passenger probably thinks that he is secure because of all these extensive security measures. I'm not advocating for no security, just not as overbearing as it is right now. Other countries have seemed to find the balance between having security in airports but not having it be overbearing.
Two countries that I want to use as examples of where the right balance has been struck are Germany and Japan. After the 1972 Munich disaster, Germany created an elite anti terror squad, GSG9. When going through a German airport you notice that the members of GSG9 are armed to the teeth. There is still security in Germany but all the passenger has to do is walk through the metal detector and get his or her bag x-rayed. The GSG9 has seemed to serve as a pretty good deterant to any airline hijacking, with the last one being in
1999 when no one was injured(
http://www.emergency-management.net/airterror_hijack.htm). The other country is Japan. This summer I flew from Tokyo to Newark, NJ; obviously quite a long haul flight. When I was at the airport in Japan, of course they had security, but it wasn't heavy-handed. Unlike in the US, passengers there walk through a metal detector and get their bags scanned. Then and only then, if something out of the ordinary pops up is the passenger pulled for secondary screening. The last Japanese plane that was hijacked was in 1999. At that time a pilot was killed but no other passengers were injured and the crew members pulled a post 9/11 move by fighting and subduing the
hijacker.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Nippon_Airways_Flight_61)
In no way in this reflection am I trying to advocate giving up airport security altogether, but other countries have effective ways of dealing with the threat without overburdening the passengers and with getting them through the security in a timely fashion.
Two countries that I want to use as examples of where the right balance has been struck are Germany and Japan. After the 1972 Munich disaster, Germany created an elite anti terror squad, GSG9. When going through a German airport you notice that the members of GSG9 are armed to the teeth. There is still security in Germany but all the passenger has to do is walk through the metal detector and get his or her bag x-rayed. The GSG9 has seemed to serve as a pretty good deterant to any airline hijacking, with the last one being in
1999 when no one was injured(
http://www.emergency-management.net/airterror_hijack.htm). The other country is Japan. This summer I flew from Tokyo to Newark, NJ; obviously quite a long haul flight. When I was at the airport in Japan, of course they had security, but it wasn't heavy-handed. Unlike in the US, passengers there walk through a metal detector and get their bags scanned. Then and only then, if something out of the ordinary pops up is the passenger pulled for secondary screening. The last Japanese plane that was hijacked was in 1999. At that time a pilot was killed but no other passengers were injured and the crew members pulled a post 9/11 move by fighting and subduing the
hijacker.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Nippon_Airways_Flight_61)
In no way in this reflection am I trying to advocate giving up airport security altogether, but other countries have effective ways of dealing with the threat without overburdening the passengers and with getting them through the security in a timely fashion.
reflection on security and the media
With the excitement of Halloween, everyone in class kept clinging to child-like activities like trick or treating and eating candy but my mind was focused on something else. With the public's constant need for security and prevention tactics to prevent terrorist activities, some students suggest that the media should play a role in educating us to protect ourselves from outside forces. This is a terrible idea for the media is not the type of educational source to teach us about stopping terrorists because they promote racial stereotypes of people we are at war with.
For example, in 1917, the US newspaper companies used propaganda that personified the German soldier as a barbaric creature. They also used the word "Hun" as a derogatory word for the Germans even though it was Kaiser Wilhelm who first used the term to motivate the ferocity of the German army. In 1940, Our generation of children were subjugated to WWII cartoons which characterized the Japanese as sub-humans while the Germans acted like clowns using broken German language and phrases. The Japanese stereotypes were unfair for because of this and the Pearl Harbor attacks, Americans treated the Japanese the same way the Western world treats Muslims today. Unlike the small number of German Americans who joined the Third Reich during its rise, a unanimous number of Japanese Americans pledged loyalty to the US because they hated their militaristic country, the opportunities the US could offer them, and their resistance to state nationalism. Despite this, they were still incarcerated in internment camps. Today the media still personifies the Japanese as cruel because of their spotlight on Japan's continued hunt for whales, which angered many animal rights groups and numerous protests by the Australian government. My grandmother still hates the Japanese even though I keep trying to show her that the Japanese Americans never posed a security threat just because of their identity.
During the Cold War, the media ran constant propaganda detailing safety procedures should the United States be under threat of a nuclear war. We also carried a a great stereotype of the Russians as cold, distrustful, and manipulative (even though this is used today). Even after the breakup of the Soviet Union, we are still being hit by anti-Russian sentiment in our newspapers like when the New York Times showed the Russians as the aggressors during the 2008 South Ossetia war. Then, the media showed the activities of the KGB, the Russian equivalent to our CIA, and how it poisoned one of its retired agents with radiative material after he accused the Russian government of precipitating the events leading to the Second Chechnya war (Our CIA uses water boarding and even wild animals to interrogate terrorist inmates so radiation poisoning is not the worst technique used by government secret agencies). Now with the war on terror going on, the public opinion regarding the Islamic community turned hostile ever since the 9/11 attacks. This rise in racial stereotyping paralleled the aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attacks, both of which were attacks on US soil (even though Hawaii was a territory and not a state). In movies like 300 or Munich, we've taken the image of the Muslim individual and reduced him/her into an anti-Semitic, selfish, sexist and violent person and this is the Media's own doing. So should the media be our source of education? Maybe if you advocate sending our entire Muslim community into internment camps until the War on Terror ends, which it may not.
For example, in 1917, the US newspaper companies used propaganda that personified the German soldier as a barbaric creature. They also used the word "Hun" as a derogatory word for the Germans even though it was Kaiser Wilhelm who first used the term to motivate the ferocity of the German army. In 1940, Our generation of children were subjugated to WWII cartoons which characterized the Japanese as sub-humans while the Germans acted like clowns using broken German language and phrases. The Japanese stereotypes were unfair for because of this and the Pearl Harbor attacks, Americans treated the Japanese the same way the Western world treats Muslims today. Unlike the small number of German Americans who joined the Third Reich during its rise, a unanimous number of Japanese Americans pledged loyalty to the US because they hated their militaristic country, the opportunities the US could offer them, and their resistance to state nationalism. Despite this, they were still incarcerated in internment camps. Today the media still personifies the Japanese as cruel because of their spotlight on Japan's continued hunt for whales, which angered many animal rights groups and numerous protests by the Australian government. My grandmother still hates the Japanese even though I keep trying to show her that the Japanese Americans never posed a security threat just because of their identity.
During the Cold War, the media ran constant propaganda detailing safety procedures should the United States be under threat of a nuclear war. We also carried a a great stereotype of the Russians as cold, distrustful, and manipulative (even though this is used today). Even after the breakup of the Soviet Union, we are still being hit by anti-Russian sentiment in our newspapers like when the New York Times showed the Russians as the aggressors during the 2008 South Ossetia war. Then, the media showed the activities of the KGB, the Russian equivalent to our CIA, and how it poisoned one of its retired agents with radiative material after he accused the Russian government of precipitating the events leading to the Second Chechnya war (Our CIA uses water boarding and even wild animals to interrogate terrorist inmates so radiation poisoning is not the worst technique used by government secret agencies). Now with the war on terror going on, the public opinion regarding the Islamic community turned hostile ever since the 9/11 attacks. This rise in racial stereotyping paralleled the aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attacks, both of which were attacks on US soil (even though Hawaii was a territory and not a state). In movies like 300 or Munich, we've taken the image of the Muslim individual and reduced him/her into an anti-Semitic, selfish, sexist and violent person and this is the Media's own doing. So should the media be our source of education? Maybe if you advocate sending our entire Muslim community into internment camps until the War on Terror ends, which it may not.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Security: impossible to accomplish
We've all seen the horrifying images of September 11th, and wondered if we are ever going to be safe again. The problem is that we can't be safe because we never expect an attack like this but now that we can imagine any form of attack, can we be safe? The answer is a definite NO.
We can never be completely safe for acts of terrorism and attacks are no longer precipitated by nations but by the ideological groups that conduct their operations within them. We aren't playing the domino theory anymore where if one country falls under a certain belief that we should move to contain it or risk losing others. These ideological groups like Al-Qaeda, the Tamil Tigers, Hezbollah, etc. act more like parasites (not in a derogatory way) but that they are free to conduct operations in any given country and even if one country catches them, a separate branch of that group takes over. The Cold war is another example for we imagined a possible invasion by the Soviet Union and even came close to a nuclear war with them during the Cuban missile Crisis. Another example would be the Maginot Line in France. After the first world war, France knew that Germany would inevitably rearm and rather than risk another bloody Western Front, they built a series of fortifications along the German-French border. They did not imagine the possibility of the Germans launching full scale assaults through Belgium and the Ardennes forests until it was too late.
Finally, we can't be safe because security has a certain scale of when too much has been added. I speak of course of George Orwell's famous 1984 scenario where security and governmental control is strong but liberty is extinct. That's why public opinion polls in New York City opposed the installment of security cameras throughout Central Park as the people would feel uncomfortable with security forces watching them all the time. There lies the tragedy, security is actually judged by the various opinions of the public not by some traffic light-like chart that indicates when the US is safe and when it is not. They want to feel secure yet not too secure. Sounds too much like the Goldilocks story. So when will Americans feel that security is "just right"?
We can never be completely safe for acts of terrorism and attacks are no longer precipitated by nations but by the ideological groups that conduct their operations within them. We aren't playing the domino theory anymore where if one country falls under a certain belief that we should move to contain it or risk losing others. These ideological groups like Al-Qaeda, the Tamil Tigers, Hezbollah, etc. act more like parasites (not in a derogatory way) but that they are free to conduct operations in any given country and even if one country catches them, a separate branch of that group takes over. The Cold war is another example for we imagined a possible invasion by the Soviet Union and even came close to a nuclear war with them during the Cuban missile Crisis. Another example would be the Maginot Line in France. After the first world war, France knew that Germany would inevitably rearm and rather than risk another bloody Western Front, they built a series of fortifications along the German-French border. They did not imagine the possibility of the Germans launching full scale assaults through Belgium and the Ardennes forests until it was too late.
Finally, we can't be safe because security has a certain scale of when too much has been added. I speak of course of George Orwell's famous 1984 scenario where security and governmental control is strong but liberty is extinct. That's why public opinion polls in New York City opposed the installment of security cameras throughout Central Park as the people would feel uncomfortable with security forces watching them all the time. There lies the tragedy, security is actually judged by the various opinions of the public not by some traffic light-like chart that indicates when the US is safe and when it is not. They want to feel secure yet not too secure. Sounds too much like the Goldilocks story. So when will Americans feel that security is "just right"?
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Security: to be or not to be?
Question: Because of the ambiguity of the term "security," can any country ever be fully secure?
Answer: No. We all saw in class today what a struggle it was for us to explain security. Since we can’t even define the meaning of the word due to its ambiguity, there is no way a country could possibly reach this unattainable goal or know if it was fully secure.
Security is only a mindset. For example, even though you may feel safer riding in a car than flying in an airplane, we all know driving has been statistically proven to be more dangerous than flying. This shows that the perception of security is often inaccurate. Even if we think that we are fully secure in a car because it is a common, reliable mode of transportation, there is always a huge threat of an accident that will keep us from being fully secure.
Let’s say that there was some incredible way to make a country fully secure (hypothetically speaking, of course, since there is no way as of now). Would you want to live in this fully secure world? Would you mind giving up your own freedoms for the overall security of the nation? That is what would happen if the government implemented its highest security programs. It would probably look something like you see in A Beautiful Mind with Russell Crowe… chips implanted under the skin of your forearm that can track everything you do. Or maybe the government would have to invest in some “precogs” that predict crime like seen in the film Minority Report. At any rate, prioritizing security above personal liberty is dangerous and I’m sure most people would resist this even if it means fuller security for the country. Is full security really worth the watching eye of big brother?
Answer: No. We all saw in class today what a struggle it was for us to explain security. Since we can’t even define the meaning of the word due to its ambiguity, there is no way a country could possibly reach this unattainable goal or know if it was fully secure.
Security is only a mindset. For example, even though you may feel safer riding in a car than flying in an airplane, we all know driving has been statistically proven to be more dangerous than flying. This shows that the perception of security is often inaccurate. Even if we think that we are fully secure in a car because it is a common, reliable mode of transportation, there is always a huge threat of an accident that will keep us from being fully secure.
Let’s say that there was some incredible way to make a country fully secure (hypothetically speaking, of course, since there is no way as of now). Would you want to live in this fully secure world? Would you mind giving up your own freedoms for the overall security of the nation? That is what would happen if the government implemented its highest security programs. It would probably look something like you see in A Beautiful Mind with Russell Crowe… chips implanted under the skin of your forearm that can track everything you do. Or maybe the government would have to invest in some “precogs” that predict crime like seen in the film Minority Report. At any rate, prioritizing security above personal liberty is dangerous and I’m sure most people would resist this even if it means fuller security for the country. Is full security really worth the watching eye of big brother?
Is a country ever really secure?
The term security can have very broad implications and meanings. The term can be applied to almost anything imaginable but these days it is most commonly applied to the word national, meaning the security of the US. To me it seems that a security threat against the US or any other nation has to be decided on an individual case basis. What constitutes a threat to one nation may not be perceived as a threat by another nation. But it seems that no country can ever be fully secure for two reasons. As Athkor suggests, a primary reason for failure at national security has to do with the fact that a country cannot build up defense against a threat that it hasn’t imagined yet. Even if the country has imagined the threat it can’t necessarily secure its self from that threat. These are both insurmountable obstacles to a country’s security. These security threats can’t be made to disappear by making bigger missiles or more amassing more troops. They are events that COULD happen but can’t be planned for. Therefore, a chink in the nation’s security armor exists beyond the nation’s control.
A good example of this stems from September 11. Before that date the US thought that it was secure on its own soil. To my knowledge, no one in this country had ever imagined the possibility of terrorists taking over commercial airplanes and running them into buildings. This was such a new, radical idea that the terrorists had, using the planes as their weapons. The only time that this had been done before was with kamikaze pilots. But they used their own planes, not commercial airlines full of people. Since the US had never thought of this, there was no way that we could secure against it. It’s only after the attack that we’ve taken a reactive response by increasing our airline security. Now we wait because we believe the terrorists are bound to find a new, unique tactic to strike the United States. But since we can’t imagine what it might be, we can’t really protect against it. So, no, we as a country are never really completely secure, because we always have groups like terrorists wanting to strike with new means that this country isn’t ready to defend against.
An example of a threat that we can’t secure against even though we’ve imagined it is that of Iran possessing nuclear weapons. America has certainly imagined that possibility and is trying to defend itself against the possibility of Iran getting the weapons. But short of bombing Iran and killing many innocent people and escalating the situation, the US cannot directly stop Iran. Right now the US is in the process of engaging the Iranians diplomatically and offering them incentives if they discontinue the nuclear weapons program. So a country can never really be secure because there is always some threat that hasn’t been imagined yet or because there are some situations that can turn into threats that are beyond a nations control.
A good example of this stems from September 11. Before that date the US thought that it was secure on its own soil. To my knowledge, no one in this country had ever imagined the possibility of terrorists taking over commercial airplanes and running them into buildings. This was such a new, radical idea that the terrorists had, using the planes as their weapons. The only time that this had been done before was with kamikaze pilots. But they used their own planes, not commercial airlines full of people. Since the US had never thought of this, there was no way that we could secure against it. It’s only after the attack that we’ve taken a reactive response by increasing our airline security. Now we wait because we believe the terrorists are bound to find a new, unique tactic to strike the United States. But since we can’t imagine what it might be, we can’t really protect against it. So, no, we as a country are never really completely secure, because we always have groups like terrorists wanting to strike with new means that this country isn’t ready to defend against.
An example of a threat that we can’t secure against even though we’ve imagined it is that of Iran possessing nuclear weapons. America has certainly imagined that possibility and is trying to defend itself against the possibility of Iran getting the weapons. But short of bombing Iran and killing many innocent people and escalating the situation, the US cannot directly stop Iran. Right now the US is in the process of engaging the Iranians diplomatically and offering them incentives if they discontinue the nuclear weapons program. So a country can never really be secure because there is always some threat that hasn’t been imagined yet or because there are some situations that can turn into threats that are beyond a nations control.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
My new favorite pigeon: Cher Ami
My thoughts on gun control are pretty firm, even though I understand both arguments. Yes, it’s true that guns can serve to protect you from other people with bigger guns. BUT the only way we can minimize death by guns is to make it harder to get these guns. The problem will only fester and worsen if action isn’t taken to control the gun market. Simple fact: fewer guns means fewer deaths. Action must be taken to make gun control more stringent.
I feel like everyone is going to reflect on guns, but I will try to take a different route. First of all, I’d like to take this opportunity to tell everyone to go see Changeling, by Clint Eastwood and starring Angelina Jolie. It was a superb movie, the kind that grasps your attention the entire time. In particular I thought of you, Rachel, because this movie was based in the 1920’s when women’s rights were atrocious. I was so disgusted by the way Jolie’s character was treated and I think you would be similarly affected. Even though it was disturbing, it’s the kind of movie that really makes you think. (And I know you probably don’t think very highly of Angelina as an actor because I don’t tend to think highly of her either, but she did a great job.) How does this relate to security? Well, the premise of the movie is about a young boy who is kidnapped. Without giving anything away, I just want to point out that there is nothing in this world (not even guns) that could have prevented this tragedy or many others like it. Instead, through easy access to guns, these tragedies will become more common as we can see with the increase of gun-related deaths in the past century. If there is a way we can learn to prevent gun violence, that would be wonderful. But until some serious funding is produced for prevention methods, guns should be off the street and hard to get.
Ahh and how could I forget about the spy museum?! Well I thought it was pretty darn cool. I wish that I could have spent more time there, but unfortunately I had to speed through to get someplace else on time. From what I did see, I was very intrigued. The fact that stuck with me was that D.C. has the most spies per capita any place in the world! First of all, how do they know this? And second of all, wow, that’s pretty scary (but in a cool way).
An interesting exhibit that I wasn’t expecting to come across was the one about carrier birds! I couldn’t believe how vital these birds were in communication of World War I and many previous wars. At first I thought the exhibit was a hoax and it couldn’t possibly be true. But I learned that some crazy statistic (I believe 95%) of all the messages sent from pigeons to humans were received. Who would have thought? And there was this one pigeon, named Cher Ami (Dear Friend) that even received an award of honor for being shot down in the line of fire but he still completed his mission and delivered the message to the officer! I was in complete awe. If you feel like smiling, check out the brief, heartwarming article on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher_Ami
The other thing I found interesting at the museum were the spy tactics of the ancient English royalty especially in the Queen Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots era. Admittedly, I am obsessed with this era of English royalty, but in general I thought Queen Elizabeth’s extensive spy service was fascinating. It was headed by Francis Walsingham, who ultimately caught Mary Queen of Scots (Elizabeth’s competitive cousin) in her scheme to take Elizabeth’s place and brought her down to her death. Without Walsingham, Elizabeth would undoubtedly have been murdered or dethroned by conspirators who thought a woman was too weak to rule England. Because of her network of spies, Elizabeth went down in English history as one of its greatest rulers of all time. Simply because Queen Elizabeth was in such a vulnerable position, this vast network of spying techniques were implemented by Walsingham and obviously were effective!
So those are just a few things I thought I would share with you all. One final note… did you guys notice how the spy museum portrayed spying to be an older “profession” that is somewhat history? I was disappointed that there wasn’t a lot of information about current day spying (at least not that I saw) and that most of the attention was on Cold War era spies. However, I am guessing that it would be much riskier to have information about modern day spies and also very difficult to obtain information about them... so I guess it’s ok.
I feel like everyone is going to reflect on guns, but I will try to take a different route. First of all, I’d like to take this opportunity to tell everyone to go see Changeling, by Clint Eastwood and starring Angelina Jolie. It was a superb movie, the kind that grasps your attention the entire time. In particular I thought of you, Rachel, because this movie was based in the 1920’s when women’s rights were atrocious. I was so disgusted by the way Jolie’s character was treated and I think you would be similarly affected. Even though it was disturbing, it’s the kind of movie that really makes you think. (And I know you probably don’t think very highly of Angelina as an actor because I don’t tend to think highly of her either, but she did a great job.) How does this relate to security? Well, the premise of the movie is about a young boy who is kidnapped. Without giving anything away, I just want to point out that there is nothing in this world (not even guns) that could have prevented this tragedy or many others like it. Instead, through easy access to guns, these tragedies will become more common as we can see with the increase of gun-related deaths in the past century. If there is a way we can learn to prevent gun violence, that would be wonderful. But until some serious funding is produced for prevention methods, guns should be off the street and hard to get.
Ahh and how could I forget about the spy museum?! Well I thought it was pretty darn cool. I wish that I could have spent more time there, but unfortunately I had to speed through to get someplace else on time. From what I did see, I was very intrigued. The fact that stuck with me was that D.C. has the most spies per capita any place in the world! First of all, how do they know this? And second of all, wow, that’s pretty scary (but in a cool way).
An interesting exhibit that I wasn’t expecting to come across was the one about carrier birds! I couldn’t believe how vital these birds were in communication of World War I and many previous wars. At first I thought the exhibit was a hoax and it couldn’t possibly be true. But I learned that some crazy statistic (I believe 95%) of all the messages sent from pigeons to humans were received. Who would have thought? And there was this one pigeon, named Cher Ami (Dear Friend) that even received an award of honor for being shot down in the line of fire but he still completed his mission and delivered the message to the officer! I was in complete awe. If you feel like smiling, check out the brief, heartwarming article on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher_Ami
The other thing I found interesting at the museum were the spy tactics of the ancient English royalty especially in the Queen Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots era. Admittedly, I am obsessed with this era of English royalty, but in general I thought Queen Elizabeth’s extensive spy service was fascinating. It was headed by Francis Walsingham, who ultimately caught Mary Queen of Scots (Elizabeth’s competitive cousin) in her scheme to take Elizabeth’s place and brought her down to her death. Without Walsingham, Elizabeth would undoubtedly have been murdered or dethroned by conspirators who thought a woman was too weak to rule England. Because of her network of spies, Elizabeth went down in English history as one of its greatest rulers of all time. Simply because Queen Elizabeth was in such a vulnerable position, this vast network of spying techniques were implemented by Walsingham and obviously were effective!
So those are just a few things I thought I would share with you all. One final note… did you guys notice how the spy museum portrayed spying to be an older “profession” that is somewhat history? I was disappointed that there wasn’t a lot of information about current day spying (at least not that I saw) and that most of the attention was on Cold War era spies. However, I am guessing that it would be much riskier to have information about modern day spies and also very difficult to obtain information about them... so I guess it’s ok.
East Coast Firearms
I wanted to use my reflection this week to comment on a website that we looked at on Friday's class. We looked at a website called East Coast Firearms. This website sells high powered assault rifles to ordinary citizens. I find this very frightening for many reasons. It appears than any ordinary person can log on and if they have the money buy one of these weapons. When reading about the buying process there doesn't appear to be any background check or anything to that extent. People seem to be able to fill out the order form and then click on whether they want to pay by credit card or money order. Second, relating to the first item, is that these weapons should only be available to the police or military. There is absolutely no reason that a person would need to buy one of these weapons to defend themselves or for hunting. I'm not trying to go against the 2nd amendment but get a pistol or shotgun to defend yourself, not a semi-automatic weapon. A pistol will do just fine for defense. Also for hunting purposes, a normal hunting rifle will do just fine. No need to pump multiple bullets per minute into a deer, one will do the trick. As I said earlier I'm not trying to get around the second amendment, I support gun ownership but I do support gun control. Even though gun control won't stop guns from being on the market or criminals using them, it will hopefully reduce the threat of criminals using them to perpetrate as many crimes as they do today. I believe that there needs to be more gun control in general and the thought of these types of weapons being sold to ordinary people is completely unacceptable.
Gun control: a curse instead of a blessing
During this past week, our World Politics class engaged in discussing security and its relevance in International relations. When Professor Jackson showed us a website which sold varieties of guns ranging from pistols to automatic machine guns, our discussion turned into a segment on gun control.
On this particular subject the students carried diverse opinions due to its controversial nature. I personally do not favor gun control as it will not stop gun-related violence from occurring. One reason being that criminals can still get weapons from from the black market (it does exist) and sneak weapons across the state borders for profit. This is similar to the War on Drugs where after the ban on illegal drugs, certain drugs like cocaine saw its profit value jump from piratically nothing to over triple its original cost. This also occurred during the prohibition where criminal mobs sold illegal alcohol for grand profits. This exact scenario would happen to us if we ban guns.
Another issue I had in the debate is how certain people in my group argue for gun control based upon the place they grew up like Chicago. I'm from Cincinnati, Ohio where racial tensions are still high and this city was the birthplace of notorious killer Charles Manson so do not think that those arguing for gun rights grew up in peaceful neighborhoods. Another student who will remain nameless said that "if a criminal enters a store with an automatic weapon he is unlikely to kill someone". WRONG!!! That 100% wrong because someone who goes around with an AK-47 in his bag is more likely to kill someone because he has spare ammunition to kill anyone who tries to stop him.
What these gun control fail to consider is that people in violent communities need these guns for protection. For example, in towns where Latino or African American gangs are going around attacking each other, civilians need to be well armed for the police are unlikely to show up in time to stop the violent crime from occurring. Gun control does not stop criminals, it makes civilians open for attack.
On this particular subject the students carried diverse opinions due to its controversial nature. I personally do not favor gun control as it will not stop gun-related violence from occurring. One reason being that criminals can still get weapons from from the black market (it does exist) and sneak weapons across the state borders for profit. This is similar to the War on Drugs where after the ban on illegal drugs, certain drugs like cocaine saw its profit value jump from piratically nothing to over triple its original cost. This also occurred during the prohibition where criminal mobs sold illegal alcohol for grand profits. This exact scenario would happen to us if we ban guns.
Another issue I had in the debate is how certain people in my group argue for gun control based upon the place they grew up like Chicago. I'm from Cincinnati, Ohio where racial tensions are still high and this city was the birthplace of notorious killer Charles Manson so do not think that those arguing for gun rights grew up in peaceful neighborhoods. Another student who will remain nameless said that "if a criminal enters a store with an automatic weapon he is unlikely to kill someone". WRONG!!! That 100% wrong because someone who goes around with an AK-47 in his bag is more likely to kill someone because he has spare ammunition to kill anyone who tries to stop him.
What these gun control fail to consider is that people in violent communities need these guns for protection. For example, in towns where Latino or African American gangs are going around attacking each other, civilians need to be well armed for the police are unlikely to show up in time to stop the violent crime from occurring. Gun control does not stop criminals, it makes civilians open for attack.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
economy and security
Despite its global impact, the 2008 recession cannot be categorized as a security issue. When the economy analyzed through a realist perspective does not tie into territorial security or military necessity. Before 1929, economic panics like the Panic of 1907, made the shareholders regard the economy as the bloodline of the United States but it was not considered a necessity when it came to security. In 1907, the Stock market dropped 50% in all its stocks and caused tremendous fear amongst the people but no security issues arose from this period. The only issue regarding the ailing economy was supplying social welfare and prosperity to the public. There was no mention of security during this period as it was regarded as secondary in importance when it came to the economy. Fast forward to the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks where the stock market fell dramatically but this was due to the mass evacuation of frightened New York civilians and the suspension of air travel. In this case, the financial effects were treated as a form of aftershock since the nation was more concerned with protecting the general public from attack. The only exception to the connection with the economy and security occurred during WWII. Here, the United States struck with fear by the Pearl Harbor attacks, rallied its civilians to defend itself against the Axis powers. This declaration of war convinced thousands of unemployed workers to resume work within military compounds and purchase war bonds. Even though this revived the United States economy, this only came about as an after effect of military patriotism. Overall, the economy does not align with the security of the nations because there is very little connection between the two.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Financial Crisis Reflect Part II and Presidential Debates
Well even through it’s only been a week since I wrote my last reflection, a lot has change regarding the world financial situation. Now it’s not just a problem for the United States but for the entire world. Many countries government are working with their national banks to bail them out. In the United States the Dow Jones Average is still fluctuating. On principle I don’t like that all these countries are balling their national banks out, but I do believe that it certainly has to be done. The world cannot let the financial markets collapse because there would be monumental consequences. Also the rest of the world shouldn’t be so quick to criticize the United States. Back when it was the United States being affected and the rest of the world wasn’t feeling the effects, other countries were critical of how we in the United States was handling our money. Honestly I think those other countries are “talking out of both sides of their mouth,” There still critical of the US regarding money but their going through similar situations in their own countries. More and more families are being affected by this crisis and once again the government needs to figure out a way that regular people aren’t paying for the mistakes of Wall Street and big financial institutions.
Also another event that I believe warrants reflection is the presidential debates. Last Wednesday, October 15 was the last presidential debate. I personally didn’t watch any of the debates because I fell that all the candidates do during the debate is bicker. I can form my own opinions without watching that. I do believe that we need change at the highest levels of government and I’m excited to see who wins the election.
Also another event that I believe warrants reflection is the presidential debates. Last Wednesday, October 15 was the last presidential debate. I personally didn’t watch any of the debates because I fell that all the candidates do during the debate is bicker. I can form my own opinions without watching that. I do believe that we need change at the highest levels of government and I’m excited to see who wins the election.
On Killing and Feminism
Even though I had already seen Lord of War in the theater, I was just as disturbed the second time that I saw it here last week. I don’t even know where to begin. First of all, I really hate it when I can’t distinguish between the protagonist and the antagonist in movies. As a viewer, it’s endlessly frustrating to feel torn between loving and hating a character. Since we knew Nicholas Cage’s character, Yuri, the most in the movie and followed him on his journeys, I felt like I should be cheering for him but at the same time he was a “bad guy” for trading weapons so maliciously. The viewers also felt like they should hate Ethan Hawke’s character, Jack Valentine, because he was trying to bring down Yuri but he was actually the “good guy” trying to do the right thing by stopping Yuri. I realize that this is often the best kind of movie – the ones that tear you up emotionally and morally. I realize there is a strategy behind the way this kind of movie is produced because it has such an impact on the viewer. However, I just get so uncomfortable watching movies like Lord of War that I can’t fully enjoy them. (Having said that, I think the movie was very well done.)
The idea of weapon trade as portrayed in the movie makes me absolutely sick. Yuri often uses the excuse that if he weren’t trading these killing machines then somebody else would be. I hate that we just accept this statement as true because of human nature. We all know that killing is inevitable, but there are ways to minimize it and limiting access to weapons would be an enormous improvement. Our country’s massive production and distribution of weapons is something to be ashamed of, but at the same time it is what brings us our power. Without our power, we wouldn’t have the liberties that we enjoy. So I am endlessly conflicted. There is no way that I could possibly say that I believe we should stop producing and distributing weapons because I know that could never happen… but if I could choose then I would do away with the whole thing. Without weapons in the hands of so many troubled, greedy humans, it would be much harder to kill and it would be much easier to live.
The worst part for me, and probably many of you, was seeing young boys with guns in their hands. It actually brought me close to tears because it’s just so unfair. We send our American sons to therapy and put them on medications for the slightest of reasons like anger management or aggression. Imagine how much more mental damage these young African boys must be coping with. It’s not just a shame for right now, but it’s a danger for the future. What is going to happen when these boys become men and by then are practically robotic killing machines? I’m not only distraught out of sympathy for these boys, but also scared for the future of the world population.
I’d like to say one last thing, not related to the movie. In class we were talking about marginalized groups and how they fit into the political scheme of things. Many American men and women disregard the need for these movements, like feminism, because in our country these problems are becoming less apparent. I have met many people who challenge me in my feminist beliefs arguing that feminism isn’t relevant anymore. We think that we are progressing past sexism, which, to a certain extent, is true; we are a very progressive country. But, there is SOOO much need for progression in the rest of the world that feminists and other groups can’t possibly give up yet. As long as there are still headlines in the New York Times about the extreme rape problems in Congo (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/world/africa/18congo.html?_r=1&ref=africa&oref=slogin) where hundreds of thousands of women are brutally raped in one country within the time span of a few years, there is work for feminists to do. If you can’t seem to grasp why feminism is still so important to our country AND the rest of the world then you need to read more articles like this. Personally, they are all the inspiration I need to keep fighting.
The idea of weapon trade as portrayed in the movie makes me absolutely sick. Yuri often uses the excuse that if he weren’t trading these killing machines then somebody else would be. I hate that we just accept this statement as true because of human nature. We all know that killing is inevitable, but there are ways to minimize it and limiting access to weapons would be an enormous improvement. Our country’s massive production and distribution of weapons is something to be ashamed of, but at the same time it is what brings us our power. Without our power, we wouldn’t have the liberties that we enjoy. So I am endlessly conflicted. There is no way that I could possibly say that I believe we should stop producing and distributing weapons because I know that could never happen… but if I could choose then I would do away with the whole thing. Without weapons in the hands of so many troubled, greedy humans, it would be much harder to kill and it would be much easier to live.
The worst part for me, and probably many of you, was seeing young boys with guns in their hands. It actually brought me close to tears because it’s just so unfair. We send our American sons to therapy and put them on medications for the slightest of reasons like anger management or aggression. Imagine how much more mental damage these young African boys must be coping with. It’s not just a shame for right now, but it’s a danger for the future. What is going to happen when these boys become men and by then are practically robotic killing machines? I’m not only distraught out of sympathy for these boys, but also scared for the future of the world population.
I’d like to say one last thing, not related to the movie. In class we were talking about marginalized groups and how they fit into the political scheme of things. Many American men and women disregard the need for these movements, like feminism, because in our country these problems are becoming less apparent. I have met many people who challenge me in my feminist beliefs arguing that feminism isn’t relevant anymore. We think that we are progressing past sexism, which, to a certain extent, is true; we are a very progressive country. But, there is SOOO much need for progression in the rest of the world that feminists and other groups can’t possibly give up yet. As long as there are still headlines in the New York Times about the extreme rape problems in Congo (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/world/africa/18congo.html?_r=1&ref=africa&oref=slogin) where hundreds of thousands of women are brutally raped in one country within the time span of a few years, there is work for feminists to do. If you can’t seem to grasp why feminism is still so important to our country AND the rest of the world then you need to read more articles like this. Personally, they are all the inspiration I need to keep fighting.
Reflection on Lord of war
On Wednesday, our world politics class watched the film Lord of War a film with Nicholas Cage playing a historic arms dealer who sold many illegal arms to African and Middle Eastern countries. In the final portion of the film, the dealer was captured but released by the federal government because the US was force to lie on the covert supplying of arms to pro-American forces in Africa. This form of military supplying is a new act of international support by the US who would originally supply open arms trade with their neighbors. After the successful covert operations during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which involved the US military sending aid and weapons to the mujaheddin through the Pakistani government, the US grew to belief that supplying pro-American forces through the black market and arms dealers would conceal the US from foreign accusations of active military intervention in war-torn countries. This would also keep the US from being held accountable for supllying pro democratic groups that carry out acts of mass murder.
Another part of the film I found interesting was that the corruption and militarism in African nations greatly exceeded that of any other country (even Lebanon). This is not due to political rivalry or the influence of the black market but due to ethnic pride. Even without the arms trade in Africa, ethnic tensions would still occur and would create the same amount of destruction and slaughter (the militias in Rwanda relied more on machetes to incite terror than they relied on guns). Since the African continent is made up of different ethnic groups and nationalities, the post imperailst period created tensions over the proper represetation of these various groups. The lack of compromise and historical conflicts between certain African tribes, created a wave of what I call ethnic supremacy. This term is meant to convey how the combination of social darwinism, tribalism and ancestral conflicts caused African ethnic groups to engage in wars with each other. Northhern Africa was spared from this movement due to the political and social influence Islamic law. Unfortunately, the region of Sudan whose tribal groups accused the Islamic groups of invading their lands, refused to coexist with the arab populations and indoing so engaged in a series of conflicts which seem to have no end. If Africa wishes to progress without resulting in more bloodshed, they would have to educate their civilians to obey governmental law and to ignore their tribal roots. Since Africa did not understand the meaning of self-rule until they were granted independence, they were unaffected by any sense of nationalism, which serves to keep the population from engaging in ethnic strife.
Another part of the film I found interesting was that the corruption and militarism in African nations greatly exceeded that of any other country (even Lebanon). This is not due to political rivalry or the influence of the black market but due to ethnic pride. Even without the arms trade in Africa, ethnic tensions would still occur and would create the same amount of destruction and slaughter (the militias in Rwanda relied more on machetes to incite terror than they relied on guns). Since the African continent is made up of different ethnic groups and nationalities, the post imperailst period created tensions over the proper represetation of these various groups. The lack of compromise and historical conflicts between certain African tribes, created a wave of what I call ethnic supremacy. This term is meant to convey how the combination of social darwinism, tribalism and ancestral conflicts caused African ethnic groups to engage in wars with each other. Northhern Africa was spared from this movement due to the political and social influence Islamic law. Unfortunately, the region of Sudan whose tribal groups accused the Islamic groups of invading their lands, refused to coexist with the arab populations and indoing so engaged in a series of conflicts which seem to have no end. If Africa wishes to progress without resulting in more bloodshed, they would have to educate their civilians to obey governmental law and to ignore their tribal roots. Since Africa did not understand the meaning of self-rule until they were granted independence, they were unaffected by any sense of nationalism, which serves to keep the population from engaging in ethnic strife.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Untitled
I thought of a brilliant idea for my reflection last night just before I went to sleep. I told myself that I would DEFINITELY remember what I was planning on writing because it was just such a good idea! All morning I have been racking my brain trying to recall my idea, but it just escaped into my dreamland and I don’t think I will ever remember. I hate that. Oh well, next time I will just have to write it down before I drift off into la-la land.
Oh, I just thought of something else to share with you though! When we were doing our research for the Sierra Club for this week’s minor simulation, we had the brilliant idea to actually go to the Sierra Club’s headquarters located here in D.C. I called probably six numbers and emailed three different people to try to set up an interview type situation. Every time I was referred back to someone else who specialized more specifically in what we were asking about and eventually the last “someone else” just never responded to my phone calls or email. It was quite disappointing since we had most of our video planned around our footage of actual employees of the Sierra Club. And also interesting that they really didn’t seem interested in helping us whatsoever. Perhaps they are very busy people and don’t have time for college students making films. Or perhaps they didn’t like the question that we were asking them because the answer they had was a bit wishy-washy. Any other ideas why they wouldn’t help us out? Well at any rate, it was very disappointing. The reason I thought of it was because the name of this one woman that I spoke with at the Sierra club was Lala which, if you remember, was my first name in the movie (I was Lala Sky). We were pretty angry with Lala for not helping us out, so we attempted to comically use her name in our video. And yeah, when I said “la-la land” up there I remembered to tell you all about Lala Shamirzaian, a trade specialist at the Sierra Club.
Anyone else read about the conspiracy with Parah Salin (haha this was my friend’s facebook status today, definitely lol’d)? Apparently our “Washington outsider” is actually pretty familiar with the dirty politics here in Washington that she so often reprimands. Here’s the latest from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/us/politics/11trooper.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
One last thing… I realized today that it’s pretty cool our whole floor is working on the same projects/papers. I think I take for granted the whole learning community thing too much. We’re lucky to be able to talk to so many people and bounce ideas off each other so effortlessly with just a walk to the lounge or a stroll down the hallway. I wish it could be like this for every class and every paper I write!
Oh, I just thought of something else to share with you though! When we were doing our research for the Sierra Club for this week’s minor simulation, we had the brilliant idea to actually go to the Sierra Club’s headquarters located here in D.C. I called probably six numbers and emailed three different people to try to set up an interview type situation. Every time I was referred back to someone else who specialized more specifically in what we were asking about and eventually the last “someone else” just never responded to my phone calls or email. It was quite disappointing since we had most of our video planned around our footage of actual employees of the Sierra Club. And also interesting that they really didn’t seem interested in helping us whatsoever. Perhaps they are very busy people and don’t have time for college students making films. Or perhaps they didn’t like the question that we were asking them because the answer they had was a bit wishy-washy. Any other ideas why they wouldn’t help us out? Well at any rate, it was very disappointing. The reason I thought of it was because the name of this one woman that I spoke with at the Sierra club was Lala which, if you remember, was my first name in the movie (I was Lala Sky). We were pretty angry with Lala for not helping us out, so we attempted to comically use her name in our video. And yeah, when I said “la-la land” up there I remembered to tell you all about Lala Shamirzaian, a trade specialist at the Sierra Club.
Anyone else read about the conspiracy with Parah Salin (haha this was my friend’s facebook status today, definitely lol’d)? Apparently our “Washington outsider” is actually pretty familiar with the dirty politics here in Washington that she so often reprimands. Here’s the latest from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/us/politics/11trooper.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
One last thing… I realized today that it’s pretty cool our whole floor is working on the same projects/papers. I think I take for granted the whole learning community thing too much. We’re lucky to be able to talk to so many people and bounce ideas off each other so effortlessly with just a walk to the lounge or a stroll down the hallway. I wish it could be like this for every class and every paper I write!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)