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.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)