For my parents’ generation, the greatest worry of graduating college students was obtaining their first “real world” job and staying out of Vietnam. My generation of college graduates faces a world where the Iraq War is always present in the news and in which terrorists may strike against civilians at any time.
Entering this world is quite frightening but the class of 2007 will be able to pull through. As potential leaders of our society, we will have to tread very lightly and carry more carrots than sticks if we will be able to have a positive impact and possibly solve the problems of our 21st century world.
The major difference between the world that our parents entered after college and the one the class of 2007 will enter is the structure of the international system. In the 1970s, international politics was entrenched in the bipolar rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. The competition between the two superpowers and the ideologies associated with each state was manifested in a nuclear arms race and proxy wars in the developing world.
The U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War was focused on the policy of containing the spread of Communism. The Vietnam War is the epitome of using the U.S. military in order to enforce the containment policy. The U.S. Army sent military advisors and troops in order to support the “democratic” Southern government against the Communist Viet Cong who controlled Northern Vietnam.
Throughout the 1960s, the U.S. became more and more entrenched in the fighting in Vietnam. The U.S. military had initial success defending the South from Communist encroachment, but as the number of U.S. casualties started to climb, so did the domestic resistance to American participation. In the end, the U.S. lost the war when the Communists assumed control over all of Vietnam.
Although our parents lived with the threats of Soviet nuclear attacks and the spread of Communism looming over their heads, the bipolar rivalry had a few advantages. The American people knew where the attack on U.S. soil would be coming from and who would be firing the missiles. Also, the fact that nuclear war could complete annihilate the entire human population served as a powerful deterrent for either side to launch their arsenal of weapons.
With the end of the USSR in 1990, the international system suddenly lost the rigid structure that characterized Cold War politics and diplomacy. In the new multipolar world, the rules of engagement have completely changed. The new threats come from non-state actors, such as terrorist groups. These associations are not part of any legitimate governments and are not obliged to follow the code of conduct followed by these legitimate states.
These terrorist organizations do not have any responsibilities to maintain the rule of law and order. In fact, their purpose is to strike fear into the general population. The most frightening aspect about these groups is that they could strike anywhere and at any time.
The attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001 were an example of how terrorists can strike at any moment. The unconventional means of attack displayed by the hijackers makes it nearly impossible for American intelligence agencies to predict when and in what form attacks will occur. Twenty-first century terrorists do not have organized munitions plants where they construct their weapons, as the USSR did during the Cold War. They use whatever they have on hand. The 9/11 hijackers used box cutters to take control of the planes. Suicide bombers use themselves as detonators.
During the Cold War, American families prepared for the potential nuclear fallout by building bomb shelters and stockpiling food. Although these actions may not have saved their lives, people were at least able to prepare for the possible attack.
Today, there is no sense of security walking through a subway or train station. The threat of attack can come from a single person who you can see, not a missile you will never see or hear coming. This makes it nearly impossible for any government, intelligence agency, or ordinary citizen to mount an adequate defense against terrorist groups.
The only thing that terrorist want us to fear now IS fear itself. The only way to avoid this trap is to remember that our parents went through a similar but not identical experience during the Cold War. They survived the cat and mouse game that terrorist groups try to play today. Their experience shows the graduates of 2007 that living in a world of uncertainty surrounded by ominous threats of destruction is possible if one keeps the fear from penetrating and controlling daily life.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Friday, April 27, 2007
The Environment Goes Hollywood!
Concerns about and active participation in environmental issues, specifically global warming, climate change, and animal rights, have moved from the realm of granola eating, Birkenstock wearing, tree hugging hippies to the world of fashion aficionados and Hollywood stars.
After all, would you pay attention to a scientist wearing a white lab coat using long words in a monotone voice or would you be more inclined to listen to Pamela Anderson speak out in support of animal rights?
Global warming and climate change first appeared in the American consciousness thanks in large part to the work of environmental scientists in the 1960s. News reports about the environment told cautionary tales about the impending doom the Earth would face if people kept producing greenhouse gases. Sadly, these early warning messages generally fell on deaf ears because the American people were not willing to listen to these “alarmist” scientists.
The problem about global warming and climate change is that their effects take many decades to be noticed. Because global warming “causes an increase in the average temperature of the lower atmosphere” closest to the Earth, people don’t notice a dramatic change right away. Many of these same people dismissed the concerns of the scientific community as overly cautious and pessimistic.
Fast forward to the late 1990s. Environmental issues, such as climate change and global warming, were a major issue for the international community because their consequences have international implications. In December 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was finalized for signatures. This agreement was the first attempt at international cooperation on reducing the emission of greenhouse gases produced by industrialized and developing nations. To date the Kyoto Protocol has been signed by over 160 countries but the biggest contributor of greenhouse gases, the United States, has not ratified the agreement.
Although the United States government has yet to ratify this important environmental agreement, the debate surrounding the Kyoto Protocol thrust Al Gore, then Vice President, into the national spotlight. With his departure from the White House in 2000, Gore became more active with environmental causes. He embarked on speaking tours of colleges and in 2006, his book, The Inconvenient Truth, found itself on the New York Times Bestseller List. Gore also released a documentary of the same name in 2006 which won 2 Academy Awards, Best Documentary and Best Original Song.
Although Al Gore isn’t a movie star or Hollywood heavyweight, he is lending his political clout and name to environmental causes. Other Hollywood celebrities have been actively involved in environmental issues, such as Ed Begley, Jr. and Tom Hanks. Ed Begley Jr. promotes eco-friendly items such as the hybrid Toyota Prius driven by celebrities such as Dustin Hoffman and Julia Roberts. Tom Hanks advocates for the use of alternative fuels and drove an electric car in the early 1990s.
Another cause which celebrities are involved with is the movement for animal rights. One of the most famous (and infamous) animal rights organizations is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). PETA has used celebrities as spokespeople in their various campaigns, including the ongoing anti-fur campaign. PETA runs ads in which celebrities and supermodels, such as Christy Turlington and Holly Madison, Hugh Hefner’s girlfriend, are photographed nude. The caption underneath them reads, “I Would Rather Go Naked than Wear Fur.” This controversial advertising strategy has done its job: the American public is aware of the alleged inhumane behavior of furriers toward animals.
Pamela Anderson has been a major spokesperson for various PETA campaigns including the campaign against Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC). Allegedly KFC is killing the chickens which they serve in an inhumane way and PETA has called for a boycott of the fast food chain. Anderson has been the major spokesperson for the campaign and has mobilized some support from the American public.
Even though many of those supporters may have been enticed by Pamela Anderson herself rather than their love for chickens, she has used her celebrity status to bring attention to the plight of those poor chickens.
These trends of Hollywood activism suggests that some celebrities have decided to use their famous status to speak out against the ills of society instead fight for a table at Mr. Chow’s or club hopping on the Sunset Strip.
Although increased activism by celebrities for causes such as climate change, global warming, and animal rights have brought more exposure to these causes, I can’t help but wonder if the American public is capable of thinking by itself or does it need movie stars and politicians to lead the way? The answer to this question appears to be a resounding “Yes!”
I don’t think it really matters in the long run how the American public is mobilized. It matter that they ARE mobilized and actively supporting issues of national and international importance.
After all, would you pay attention to a scientist wearing a white lab coat using long words in a monotone voice or would you be more inclined to listen to Pamela Anderson speak out in support of animal rights?
Global warming and climate change first appeared in the American consciousness thanks in large part to the work of environmental scientists in the 1960s. News reports about the environment told cautionary tales about the impending doom the Earth would face if people kept producing greenhouse gases. Sadly, these early warning messages generally fell on deaf ears because the American people were not willing to listen to these “alarmist” scientists.
The problem about global warming and climate change is that their effects take many decades to be noticed. Because global warming “causes an increase in the average temperature of the lower atmosphere” closest to the Earth, people don’t notice a dramatic change right away. Many of these same people dismissed the concerns of the scientific community as overly cautious and pessimistic.
Fast forward to the late 1990s. Environmental issues, such as climate change and global warming, were a major issue for the international community because their consequences have international implications. In December 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was finalized for signatures. This agreement was the first attempt at international cooperation on reducing the emission of greenhouse gases produced by industrialized and developing nations. To date the Kyoto Protocol has been signed by over 160 countries but the biggest contributor of greenhouse gases, the United States, has not ratified the agreement.
Although the United States government has yet to ratify this important environmental agreement, the debate surrounding the Kyoto Protocol thrust Al Gore, then Vice President, into the national spotlight. With his departure from the White House in 2000, Gore became more active with environmental causes. He embarked on speaking tours of colleges and in 2006, his book, The Inconvenient Truth, found itself on the New York Times Bestseller List. Gore also released a documentary of the same name in 2006 which won 2 Academy Awards, Best Documentary and Best Original Song.
Although Al Gore isn’t a movie star or Hollywood heavyweight, he is lending his political clout and name to environmental causes. Other Hollywood celebrities have been actively involved in environmental issues, such as Ed Begley, Jr. and Tom Hanks. Ed Begley Jr. promotes eco-friendly items such as the hybrid Toyota Prius driven by celebrities such as Dustin Hoffman and Julia Roberts. Tom Hanks advocates for the use of alternative fuels and drove an electric car in the early 1990s.
Another cause which celebrities are involved with is the movement for animal rights. One of the most famous (and infamous) animal rights organizations is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). PETA has used celebrities as spokespeople in their various campaigns, including the ongoing anti-fur campaign. PETA runs ads in which celebrities and supermodels, such as Christy Turlington and Holly Madison, Hugh Hefner’s girlfriend, are photographed nude. The caption underneath them reads, “I Would Rather Go Naked than Wear Fur.” This controversial advertising strategy has done its job: the American public is aware of the alleged inhumane behavior of furriers toward animals.
Pamela Anderson has been a major spokesperson for various PETA campaigns including the campaign against Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC). Allegedly KFC is killing the chickens which they serve in an inhumane way and PETA has called for a boycott of the fast food chain. Anderson has been the major spokesperson for the campaign and has mobilized some support from the American public.
Even though many of those supporters may have been enticed by Pamela Anderson herself rather than their love for chickens, she has used her celebrity status to bring attention to the plight of those poor chickens.
These trends of Hollywood activism suggests that some celebrities have decided to use their famous status to speak out against the ills of society instead fight for a table at Mr. Chow’s or club hopping on the Sunset Strip.
Although increased activism by celebrities for causes such as climate change, global warming, and animal rights have brought more exposure to these causes, I can’t help but wonder if the American public is capable of thinking by itself or does it need movie stars and politicians to lead the way? The answer to this question appears to be a resounding “Yes!”
I don’t think it really matters in the long run how the American public is mobilized. It matter that they ARE mobilized and actively supporting issues of national and international importance.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Where were the police?!?!?!
The shocking and tragic shootings that occurred at Virginia Tech should serve as a wake up call to all University Campus Security and Police Officers. I read a disturbing storyon the NY Times website that should shock any person with half a brain.
"Mr. Steger (the University President) defended the decision not to shut down or evacuate the campus after the first shootings, saying officials had believed the first incident was a self-contained event, which the campus police believed was a “domestic” dispute." First of all, if there is a shooting on any campus, it should result in a lock down or evacuation because people use guns to kill other people not help them get better. Where is the concern for students' security?
Secondly, since when did "domestic" disputes ever get played down as if someone got kicked in the shin??? Domestic violence has been, and continues to be, a serious issue in American society and for this University president to treat it so casually should frighten EVERYONE! I mean this was a SHOOTING for Christ's sake not a verbal dispute.
One of the other things that disturbs me is that the administration notified students about the fact that shootings had taken place over email...ummm HELLO Earth to the Va Tech adminstration some people go to class and don't bring their computers. Why were there no police helicopters called in to make announcements that there was a homicidal maniac on campus killing people????
There are many questions that need to be answered in wake of this terrible tragedy and many of them concern the poor decisionmaking on the part of administration officials.
"Mr. Steger (the University President) defended the decision not to shut down or evacuate the campus after the first shootings, saying officials had believed the first incident was a self-contained event, which the campus police believed was a “domestic” dispute." First of all, if there is a shooting on any campus, it should result in a lock down or evacuation because people use guns to kill other people not help them get better. Where is the concern for students' security?
Secondly, since when did "domestic" disputes ever get played down as if someone got kicked in the shin??? Domestic violence has been, and continues to be, a serious issue in American society and for this University president to treat it so casually should frighten EVERYONE! I mean this was a SHOOTING for Christ's sake not a verbal dispute.
One of the other things that disturbs me is that the administration notified students about the fact that shootings had taken place over email...ummm HELLO Earth to the Va Tech adminstration some people go to class and don't bring their computers. Why were there no police helicopters called in to make announcements that there was a homicidal maniac on campus killing people????
There are many questions that need to be answered in wake of this terrible tragedy and many of them concern the poor decisionmaking on the part of administration officials.
Friday, April 13, 2007
See what happens when I am bored
My roommates and I are all mildly obsessed with the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice, one of my all time favorite books. Although this classic is set in 19th century England, there are some common parallels between this society and the one in which we live in the 21st century.
For those who have not read the book, Jane Austen examines the relationships and behaviors of men and women toward each other. One parallel between this society and ours is the importance placed on a woman’s reputation. In the novel, Lydia Bennett, the youngest of her five sisters, runs away with George Wickham to London and lives there with him for an extended period of time. When they are “found out” by Mr. Darcy, they are forced to marry. This episode threatens to ruin the chances of a good marriage for the remaining 4 Bennett daughters.
Although this idea of the actions of a family member ruining the reputation of the rest of his/her family for good is outdated, I feel like 21st century women still have to worry about their misdeeds being food for the rumor mills and slander houses that are still present in modern society. I am referring specifically to the still present double standard for men and women. If a man sleeps with a lot of women or dates a lot of women, he is viewed as a “stud” but if a women does the same thing, she is called a slut and whispered about behind her back. Personally, I think that men who sleep around and date lots of women are quite disgusting and very unsexy. Although I don’t think this is consciously present in the psyche of 21st century society, the unconscious disgust with women who are in charge of their sexual destiny still prevails.
For those who have not read the book, Jane Austen examines the relationships and behaviors of men and women toward each other. One parallel between this society and ours is the importance placed on a woman’s reputation. In the novel, Lydia Bennett, the youngest of her five sisters, runs away with George Wickham to London and lives there with him for an extended period of time. When they are “found out” by Mr. Darcy, they are forced to marry. This episode threatens to ruin the chances of a good marriage for the remaining 4 Bennett daughters.
Although this idea of the actions of a family member ruining the reputation of the rest of his/her family for good is outdated, I feel like 21st century women still have to worry about their misdeeds being food for the rumor mills and slander houses that are still present in modern society. I am referring specifically to the still present double standard for men and women. If a man sleeps with a lot of women or dates a lot of women, he is viewed as a “stud” but if a women does the same thing, she is called a slut and whispered about behind her back. Personally, I think that men who sleep around and date lots of women are quite disgusting and very unsexy. Although I don’t think this is consciously present in the psyche of 21st century society, the unconscious disgust with women who are in charge of their sexual destiny still prevails.
Monday, April 09, 2007
TV and Images of Homosexuality
Normally I blog about current events and politics and try to stay away from entertainment news and events. Recently I have been watching a lot of the new reality shows on the Bravo channel and I am really disturbed by the shows’ portrayal of homosexual men and women.
Instead of trying to break stereotypes about gay men and lesbians, many of the characters on these shows reinforce them. One of the newest shows on Bravo this year is Top Design which is a competition for interior designers. Many of the men who participated in the show were homosexuals were over the top and seemed as though they were acting rather than showing who they really were. And if I remember correctly, it is a stereotype for gay men to be an interior designer. I also couldn’t stand Johnathan Adler, a famous interior designer who was also the head judge on the show. He really played into the overly effeminate gay man stereotype that is so prevalent in our society and it really pissed me off.
Another show on Bravo which has homosexual characters is Workout, which I really enjoy watching. This show chronicles the daily adventures of Jackie Warner, the owner of Sky Sport Gym in Los Angeles. Jackie also happens to be a lesbian. Her trainers are a very diverse group of people including two gay men. These men actually participated in a very heated conversation about what connoted a gay man. One trainer, Doug, gave an interview to a Los Angeles magazine about how he was a better role model/spokesperson for the LGBT community. His reasoning was that he wasn’t acting over the top and flaming like the other trainer.
This discussion made me think very hard about how heterosexuals conceptualize what it means to be a homosexual or what homosexuals act like. Honestly, I believe that people (gay, straight, or bisexual) have their own personalities and there should never be labels placed on people. It is human nature to categorize the world in order to make sense of the crazy occurrences on the planet earth. Unfortunately, some people never make it past the label of homosexual and miss the opportunity to get to know the personality that is under that label.
Instead of trying to break stereotypes about gay men and lesbians, many of the characters on these shows reinforce them. One of the newest shows on Bravo this year is Top Design which is a competition for interior designers. Many of the men who participated in the show were homosexuals were over the top and seemed as though they were acting rather than showing who they really were. And if I remember correctly, it is a stereotype for gay men to be an interior designer. I also couldn’t stand Johnathan Adler, a famous interior designer who was also the head judge on the show. He really played into the overly effeminate gay man stereotype that is so prevalent in our society and it really pissed me off.
Another show on Bravo which has homosexual characters is Workout, which I really enjoy watching. This show chronicles the daily adventures of Jackie Warner, the owner of Sky Sport Gym in Los Angeles. Jackie also happens to be a lesbian. Her trainers are a very diverse group of people including two gay men. These men actually participated in a very heated conversation about what connoted a gay man. One trainer, Doug, gave an interview to a Los Angeles magazine about how he was a better role model/spokesperson for the LGBT community. His reasoning was that he wasn’t acting over the top and flaming like the other trainer.
This discussion made me think very hard about how heterosexuals conceptualize what it means to be a homosexual or what homosexuals act like. Honestly, I believe that people (gay, straight, or bisexual) have their own personalities and there should never be labels placed on people. It is human nature to categorize the world in order to make sense of the crazy occurrences on the planet earth. Unfortunately, some people never make it past the label of homosexual and miss the opportunity to get to know the personality that is under that label.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Confusion
Why does Blogger say that I've made 12 posts and then on my actual blog it says 11???? Crazy people!
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Talk about surreal
On my recent excursions back east visiting graduate schools, my mother and I happened to run into Carol Lam, the former U.S. Attorney from San Diego. She happened to go to a special conference at my mother’s high school and my alma mater, OLP, and my mother met her there. My mother went up to her in the airport and spoke to her for a few minutes while I tried not to pass out in the waiting area (that time change will get you every time). It was quite interesting to discover that I had a connection to someone who was in the news.
I feel really sorry for Carol Lam and the seven other U.S. Attorneys who got fired because their firings happened in December but only now are they becoming national news. The time and indignation delays confused me at first but in light of other national scandals (i.e. Watergate), the facts came to light rather quickly. It turns out that after Ms. Lam brought down Duke Cunningham, a former Representative from Rancho Santa Fe (in San Diego County), she turned her attentions on two of his associates, Foggo and Wilkes. As the CIA executive director, Foggo allegedly gave special consideration to Wilkes image scanning and consulting firm. To me, this appears to be a normal case of cronyism between two old friends. I don’t mean to sound cynical but what is the big deal here? If these allegations are true, then they will be another example of corruption in the government.
Allegedly, Carol Lam was fired because she didn’t prosecute enough border crimes. The article states this to be a falsehood and that she was praised for her work in prosecuting cases relating to border crimes. I am quite excited to see how these Congressional hearings play out because if the article is right, the real reason for Carol Lam’s firing is still a mystery. Hopefully, the hearings will get to the bottom of this bizarre case and some heads will roll…
I feel really sorry for Carol Lam and the seven other U.S. Attorneys who got fired because their firings happened in December but only now are they becoming national news. The time and indignation delays confused me at first but in light of other national scandals (i.e. Watergate), the facts came to light rather quickly. It turns out that after Ms. Lam brought down Duke Cunningham, a former Representative from Rancho Santa Fe (in San Diego County), she turned her attentions on two of his associates, Foggo and Wilkes. As the CIA executive director, Foggo allegedly gave special consideration to Wilkes image scanning and consulting firm. To me, this appears to be a normal case of cronyism between two old friends. I don’t mean to sound cynical but what is the big deal here? If these allegations are true, then they will be another example of corruption in the government.
Allegedly, Carol Lam was fired because she didn’t prosecute enough border crimes. The article states this to be a falsehood and that she was praised for her work in prosecuting cases relating to border crimes. I am quite excited to see how these Congressional hearings play out because if the article is right, the real reason for Carol Lam’s firing is still a mystery. Hopefully, the hearings will get to the bottom of this bizarre case and some heads will roll…
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Comparing 2004 to 2008
Even though 2008 Presidential Elections are still many months from now, the race is far superior on the Democratic side from the party’s efforts 4 years ago in 2004. Then John Kerry’s main attraction to the party was that he wasn’t George W. Bush, hardly a reason for many people to get excited about giving Kerry a chance to lead the country. In many ways, Kerry’s platform did not give the voters much contrast to Bush’s. The Kerry-Edwards ticket only accused the Bush administration of failing to adequately equip American troops in Iraq. That’s was it….one thing which only applied to a small percentage of the American population. No wonder they lost…they didn’t do enough to attract the large portion of the American population who strongly disagreed with many or all of the Bush’s Administration’s domestic and foreign policies.
Fast forward to the upcoming 2008 election. Not only is there diversity in the candidates but they actually stand for something. Senator Barack Obama represents a growing bi- or multi-racial segment of the U.S. and Senator Hillary Clinton represents the 50% of Americans who have XX chromosomes. Both Senators have been strong opponents of the Iraq War and have spoken publicly about their opposition to this War. While these are only two of the many hopefuls for the Democratic nomination, there appears to be more excitement about the Democratic chances in 2008. Hopefully this time the party can pull it together and come out with a victory!
Fast forward to the upcoming 2008 election. Not only is there diversity in the candidates but they actually stand for something. Senator Barack Obama represents a growing bi- or multi-racial segment of the U.S. and Senator Hillary Clinton represents the 50% of Americans who have XX chromosomes. Both Senators have been strong opponents of the Iraq War and have spoken publicly about their opposition to this War. While these are only two of the many hopefuls for the Democratic nomination, there appears to be more excitement about the Democratic chances in 2008. Hopefully this time the party can pull it together and come out with a victory!
The Departed
Last night my friend called me while I was studying and asked if I wanted to watch The Departed with her. At first I really didn't want to go over there because I was attempting to study for my midterms next week but I thought "Hey why not? We are going to be able to do this only for two more months." All I have to say is WOW... that movie is so twisted but doesn't leave a single thread hanging. Honestly this is probably the best movie I have ever seen. If you haven't seen the movie, I urge everyone to see it because it was filmed on location in Boston which lends the movie an extremely authentic feeling...oh plus it has amazing actors: Martin Sheen, Jack Nicholson, Mark Wahlberg, Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Alec Baldwin. So see it!!
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Obesity
Over at The Colonic there was an excellent entry about the upcoming movie “Norbit” starring Eddie Murphy. The entry lambasted the movie for its negative portrayal of an obese woman and her sexuality. While the focus of that entry was more on sexuality, I was much more concerned about the choice of an obese person as the “annoying” and “unattractive” woman. This is not the first movie Eddie Murphy has made where the one of the characters was an obese person… “The Nutty Professor” anyone? After watching him speak about his movies on “Inside the Actors’ Studio” and the fact that he is obsessed with makeup transformations, I can understand why Eddie Murphy feels the need to make the movies but I cannot understand why anyone in the movie industry thinks that “Norbit” will make any money. From what I have seen of the movie trailers, the movie is littered with extremely absurd scenes with people flying off of water slides and other rote “funny” jokes.
Not only is the movie subject not funny, its portrayal of obese people as the butt of jokes and the way in which the woman is spoken about in the movie is not funny either. Obesity is such a serious health problem that it has been classified as a disease. Currently 30.5% of American adults are classified as obese. These people are at risk for major health problems such as heart attacks, strokes, and early death. Obesity has become a major health crisis that affects all regions of the world and all ethnicities. A thin man dressing up as an obese woman seems to be making light of this problem. Also mentioned over at The Colonic are the billboards with the slogan “Have you ever made a really big mistake?” This is incredibly insulting to any obese person because this slogan seems to infer that dating an obese woman is a big mistake.
Since some members of my family and some of my friends have struggled with obesity, this movie and its flippant dismissal of obese people as desirable makes me very angry. I was always taught to judge a person for what they had to offer on the inside (i.e. their personality) rather than their physical appearance. Unfortunately, the media through movies such as “Norbit” want to counter this teaching for some perverse reason unknown to any decent human being. I feel that the discrimination and abuse many obese people face is hindering American society as a whole and is another instance of civil rights abuse in the U.S. Thanks to the work of dedicated doctors, scientists, and activists, there have been major gains in the ways in which obese people are represented in the media but there is still a long way to go.
Not only is the movie subject not funny, its portrayal of obese people as the butt of jokes and the way in which the woman is spoken about in the movie is not funny either. Obesity is such a serious health problem that it has been classified as a disease. Currently 30.5% of American adults are classified as obese. These people are at risk for major health problems such as heart attacks, strokes, and early death. Obesity has become a major health crisis that affects all regions of the world and all ethnicities. A thin man dressing up as an obese woman seems to be making light of this problem. Also mentioned over at The Colonic are the billboards with the slogan “Have you ever made a really big mistake?” This is incredibly insulting to any obese person because this slogan seems to infer that dating an obese woman is a big mistake.
Since some members of my family and some of my friends have struggled with obesity, this movie and its flippant dismissal of obese people as desirable makes me very angry. I was always taught to judge a person for what they had to offer on the inside (i.e. their personality) rather than their physical appearance. Unfortunately, the media through movies such as “Norbit” want to counter this teaching for some perverse reason unknown to any decent human being. I feel that the discrimination and abuse many obese people face is hindering American society as a whole and is another instance of civil rights abuse in the U.S. Thanks to the work of dedicated doctors, scientists, and activists, there have been major gains in the ways in which obese people are represented in the media but there is still a long way to go.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Interesting piece in the LA Times
I came across this article on Sunday when I was skimming through the front page of the LA Times. I took an online class for economics and honestly that was the easiest class I had ever taken. I understand that this is a good option for children like Ben Hathaway who have to help out on the farm when his father goes to Iraq but I am not sure that people actually learn what they are reading and studying. Closed book tests are challenging because they force you to recall the knowledge rather than look it up in a book.
Another reason they give for the increase of online high school students is that children want to escape being teased and pressured to conform to the "in-crowd". I was teased as a child and I understand the pain that is causes but removing children from that situation is not the answer. Children who don't face any difficulties in life don't learn any pleasant or painful life lessons. When they start working they will not know how to face angry customers or deal with a difficult boss. A better solution would be to examine the root of the teasing and harrassment. Teenagers are so insecure and full of hormones that mess up their jugdments and this is where school administrators and teachers need to step in and be adults. They should take charge of the situation and solve the problems of bullying and pressure in creative and effective ways. After all, they are the adults and the students are the children.
Another reason they give for the increase of online high school students is that children want to escape being teased and pressured to conform to the "in-crowd". I was teased as a child and I understand the pain that is causes but removing children from that situation is not the answer. Children who don't face any difficulties in life don't learn any pleasant or painful life lessons. When they start working they will not know how to face angry customers or deal with a difficult boss. A better solution would be to examine the root of the teasing and harrassment. Teenagers are so insecure and full of hormones that mess up their jugdments and this is where school administrators and teachers need to step in and be adults. They should take charge of the situation and solve the problems of bullying and pressure in creative and effective ways. After all, they are the adults and the students are the children.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
With a Little Help from Their Friends: Civilian Involvement in U.S. Foreign Policy
The use of nuclear weapons to annihilate large cities in the United States seems like a fanciful proposition to most current college students. However, for the Baby Boom generation, the nuclear threat was omnipresent in their childhood and adult lives. As children, Baby Boomers had “duck and cover” nuclear fallout drills in their schools often, as if a nuclear attack was imminent. This looming threat of nuclear warfare preoccupied the entirety of American social and political life, most significantly in the foreign policy pursued by the U.S. State Department. With the high priority placed on maintaining the balance of power between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, other international issues, such as human rights abuses and child labor, were given a low priority or not even addressed by U.S. diplomats. When the Soviet Union imploded in 1990, it destroyed the rules of Cold War diplomacy and opened Pandora’s box of international crises. Unfortunately, U.S. foreign policy was not able to adapt quickly enough to solve or prevent these crises. Balance of power politics did not prevent the Rwandan genocide from occurring, find a viable cure for the AIDS pandemic, or effectively eradicate domestic and international terrorism. U.S. foreign policy and diplomats have been slow to adapt to the new multi-polar international system. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and celebrities have attempted to bridge the gap between outdated U.S. foreign policy and the pressing international issues of the day. While NGOs and celebrities are able to draw attention to important issues and increase the American public’s knowledge of international affairs, U.S. diplomats have failed to do so because of their obligatory adherence to official U.S. foreign policy, their inability to have input on policy making and revision, and a lack of resources.
The successful mobilization of the American public consciousness by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can be accounted for by the many fundamental differences between them and U.S. diplomats. The first difference is the method by which each organization recruits and accepts its members. Foreign Service officers are required to complete a multi-step selection process which includes the Foreign Service exam, an interview, and a background screening. Only individuals who successfully complete this battery of requirements are able to become U.S. diplomats. Becoming a member of an NGO is a more informal process. Since an NGO is “any group of people relating to each other regularly in some formal manner and engaging in collective action, provided that the activities are non-commercial, non-violent, and are not on behalf of a government” . There are no tests or interviews needed to become a member of an NGO. The only requirement for membership is that an individual feel passionately about a particular issue, such as the environment, which matches the focus of the NGO, Greenpeace. The accessibility to NGO membership attracts people from all professions, ages, and socio-economic backgrounds. This diverse range of members allows the organization to have greater access to the general American public than the Foreign Service but this informality and lack of screening process has the potential to backfire. Since anyone can become a member of an NGO, undesirable characters with criminal history could become members and ruin the reputation built by the organization.
Another major difference between NGOs and U.S. Foreign Service officers is the association with the U.S. government. Members of the U.S. Foreign Service are responsible for implementing and explaining U.S. foreign policy created by the President and his advisors on the international stage. Typically, diplomats working in embassies abroad do not have a voice in the creation of U.S. foreign policy but must support the official position taken by the State Department on issues such as human rights in China and the War in Iraq. If a diplomat has objections to a certain policy, he or she faces two decisions: keep their opinions to themselves or resign from the Foreign Service. John Brady Kiesling, a former career Foreign Service Officer, chose to resign his post in because of his objection to the Iraq War. In his resignation letter published in the New York Times on February 27, 2003, Kiesling stated that he was resigning “because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration” With no avenue for dissent in the Foreign Service, diplomats cannot help reform policies which are not practical or consistent with the U.S. image in the international community.
Unlike members of the U.S. diplomatic corps, members of NGOs are not employees of the U.S. government and have no obligation to agree with policy decisions made in the White House. Because of their independence from official U.S. foreign policy, NGO members have more success in mobilizing the American public than many diplomats. NGOs are able to publicly disagree with and challenge any aspect of U.S. foreign policy because they are not responsible for explaining or defending these policies to the international community. Like diplomats, NGOs do not have a role in the initial creation and design of U.S. foreign policy but they are able to campaign for changes in the policies they feel are incorrect or misguided. Human Rights Watch (HRW) is a well-known NGO which utilizes the publication of their fact-finding investigations as an opportunity to challenge human rights abuses and change U.S. foreign policy toward offending countries. “Human Rights Watch then publishes those findings in dozens of books and reports every year, generating extensive coverage in local and international media. This publicity helps to embarrass abusive governments in the eyes of their citizens and the world. Human Rights Watch then meets with government officials to urge changes in policy and practice -- at the United Nations, the European Union, in Washington and in capitals around the world” . The publicity generated by HRW reports also provides an incentive for the U.S. government to change their policies toward offending governments. If the U.S. government continues to maintain favorable policies toward states which abuse human rights, there will be a backlash against them in the American media. The potential for bad publicity provides an incentive for the U.S. government to change their foreign policy. Since the HRW publications are made available in print and on the Internet for the general public, U.S. government officials could find themselves without a job if they do not cater to the demands of informed constituents.
Along with their ability to publicly shame the U.S. and foreign governments, NGO members have the ability to become truly proficient in their chosen field. U.S. diplomats are quite limited in their ability to specialize and become experts in their chosen field because they rotate their posts about every two years. Although there are some diplomats who specialize in a particular region such as the Middle East, the majority of career Foreign Service officers are sent wherever there is a need for their services. Diplomats lack to opportunity that NGO members have to specialize and become experts about a certain region or issue. Along with their lack of human expertise, the U.S. State Department is also underfunded which makes it difficult for diplomats to perform their jobs well and for the State Department to recruit the best people. “The 2007 International Affairs Budget for the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and other foreign affairs agencies totals $ 35.1 billion with Foreign Operations receiving $23.7 billion, State Operations getting $9.3 billion, Food Aid and Famine Assistance receiving $1.3 billion, International Broadcasting getting $672 million, and $93 million allocated to other programs . In comparison, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the budget for the Iraq War alone is $290 billion. With such a high priority placed on Defense Department spending, it does not take a genius to figure out why U.S. diplomats are not successful in mobilizing the American public to take notice of international affairs.
Civilian assistance from NGOs has been helpful to mobilize public opinions when U.S. diplomats are not able to perform this task. At the end of the Cold War, another group of civilians, Hollywood celebrities, began to use their star power to draw attention to important international issues such as the AIDS pandemic in Africa, poverty, and genocide. The first genocide of the 21st century in Darfur has drawn more attention and action from Hollywood than it has from the U.S. government. The Bush administration hesitated to label this tragedy what it was, genocide, and did not push for a cessation to hostilities in the region. In the face of the inaction of the U.S. government, celebrities, such as George Clooney and Don Cheadle, began to give interviews to the American and international media to raise the profile of the genocide. In December 2006, the two actors along with two Olympic athletes, Joey Cheek and Tegla Loroupe, met with the leaders and foreign ministers in Egypt and China to press for changes in these countries’ policies toward Sudan. In an interview with NPR’s Michele Kelemen, Clooney revealed that the delegation had made some progress in Egypt. “Egypt's foreign minister met with us and offered to supply a large number of Egyptian doctors and humanitarians to help fill the void left by the aid workers that have been forced to leave” It begs the question why U.S. diplomats were not able to secure the same promises from the Egyptian foreign minister that George Clooney, a civilian, was able to.
Like George Clooney and Don Cheadle, other Hollywood celebrities have gotten involved in humanitarian causes and their actions bring attention to the plight of Third World nations. In 2001, Angelina Jolie became a UN Goodwill Ambassador following her visit to Sierra Leone after that country’s civil war. She visited with many refugees and decided to use her celebrity to draw attention to the plight of refugees around the globe. “As a UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador, Angelina uses her status as a superstar to generate media coverage about the plight of refugees and the conditions under which they live. She has traveled widely to remote refugee camps and receiving centers in countries including Tanzania, Namibia, Cambodia, Pakistan, Thailand, and Ecuador.” Jolie has also adopted two of her three children, Maddox and Zahara, from refugee camps in Cambodia and Namibia, respectively. Recently, Madonna adopted a Malawian child in her tour of the country to increase awareness of the affect of AIDS on the small country of Malawi.
Although these celebrities have used their notoriety to stop genocide in Darfur, raise awareness about the AIDS pandemic in Africa, and put faces to the plight of refugees around the globe, some critics of these actions argue that celebrities perform these good deeds in order to get more publicity for their work. Others argue that there is no guarantee that a celebrity will follow through on their promise to donate money to a cause or stay involved once their careers are over. While these concerns should be taken seriously, one cannot ignore the fact that celebrity involvement in certain causes, such as Darfur, increase in attention the American public gives to it. Because of his famous name, George Clooney and his father, Nick, were able to film and broadcast their own documentary about Darfur on AmericanLife Network. Celebrities have connections and channels within the entertainment business and politics that many other civilian organizations and NGOs do not have. These connections make it easier to create movies and television shows to educate these audiences about important international issues.
Because diplomats do not appear in movies or have independent monetary resources at their disposal, they seem to be losing out in the attempt to educate and mobilize the American population to support international causes. This does not have to be the normal situation if the State Department and U.S. federal government implement a few policy changes. First, there needs to be more monetary resources given to the State Department so it will be able to expand its operations to include educating the American public. An increased budget will also allow the Foreign Service to attract the best candidates to become diplomats who may have better salary offers elsewhere. Secondly, there needs to be a meaningful and productive channel through which diplomats can express their objections to certain foreign policy decisions made by the President and his advisors. If a diplomat disagrees with a policy, he or she should not have to chose between keeping silent or quitting their jobs. The diplomatic corps must have the opportunity to participate in the policy making decision. Finally, the State Department should use celebrities and NGOs who are experts in certain issues and regions as sources of information rather than dismiss their insights as unprofessional. If the State Department cooperates with NGOs and celebrities to educate the American public about international affairs, more people would sit up and pay attention to the events in the larger world.
i. Baylis, John and Steve Smith. The Globalization of World Politics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Pg.370.
ii. CommonDreams.org. "U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation." Newscenter. 31 Jan.
2007.
iii. Human Rights Watch. About HRW. 31 Jan. 2007
iv. U.S. Department of State. "Fact Sheet." International Affairs. 29 Jan. 2007
.
v. Clooney, George. Interview with Michele Kelemen. All Things Considered. NPR News, Washington D.C. 16 Dec. 2006.
vi. United Nations. "What's Going On?" UN Works. 30 Jan. 2007
The successful mobilization of the American public consciousness by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can be accounted for by the many fundamental differences between them and U.S. diplomats. The first difference is the method by which each organization recruits and accepts its members. Foreign Service officers are required to complete a multi-step selection process which includes the Foreign Service exam, an interview, and a background screening. Only individuals who successfully complete this battery of requirements are able to become U.S. diplomats. Becoming a member of an NGO is a more informal process. Since an NGO is “any group of people relating to each other regularly in some formal manner and engaging in collective action, provided that the activities are non-commercial, non-violent, and are not on behalf of a government” . There are no tests or interviews needed to become a member of an NGO. The only requirement for membership is that an individual feel passionately about a particular issue, such as the environment, which matches the focus of the NGO, Greenpeace. The accessibility to NGO membership attracts people from all professions, ages, and socio-economic backgrounds. This diverse range of members allows the organization to have greater access to the general American public than the Foreign Service but this informality and lack of screening process has the potential to backfire. Since anyone can become a member of an NGO, undesirable characters with criminal history could become members and ruin the reputation built by the organization.
Another major difference between NGOs and U.S. Foreign Service officers is the association with the U.S. government. Members of the U.S. Foreign Service are responsible for implementing and explaining U.S. foreign policy created by the President and his advisors on the international stage. Typically, diplomats working in embassies abroad do not have a voice in the creation of U.S. foreign policy but must support the official position taken by the State Department on issues such as human rights in China and the War in Iraq. If a diplomat has objections to a certain policy, he or she faces two decisions: keep their opinions to themselves or resign from the Foreign Service. John Brady Kiesling, a former career Foreign Service Officer, chose to resign his post in because of his objection to the Iraq War. In his resignation letter published in the New York Times on February 27, 2003, Kiesling stated that he was resigning “because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration” With no avenue for dissent in the Foreign Service, diplomats cannot help reform policies which are not practical or consistent with the U.S. image in the international community.
Unlike members of the U.S. diplomatic corps, members of NGOs are not employees of the U.S. government and have no obligation to agree with policy decisions made in the White House. Because of their independence from official U.S. foreign policy, NGO members have more success in mobilizing the American public than many diplomats. NGOs are able to publicly disagree with and challenge any aspect of U.S. foreign policy because they are not responsible for explaining or defending these policies to the international community. Like diplomats, NGOs do not have a role in the initial creation and design of U.S. foreign policy but they are able to campaign for changes in the policies they feel are incorrect or misguided. Human Rights Watch (HRW) is a well-known NGO which utilizes the publication of their fact-finding investigations as an opportunity to challenge human rights abuses and change U.S. foreign policy toward offending countries. “Human Rights Watch then publishes those findings in dozens of books and reports every year, generating extensive coverage in local and international media. This publicity helps to embarrass abusive governments in the eyes of their citizens and the world. Human Rights Watch then meets with government officials to urge changes in policy and practice -- at the United Nations, the European Union, in Washington and in capitals around the world” . The publicity generated by HRW reports also provides an incentive for the U.S. government to change their policies toward offending governments. If the U.S. government continues to maintain favorable policies toward states which abuse human rights, there will be a backlash against them in the American media. The potential for bad publicity provides an incentive for the U.S. government to change their foreign policy. Since the HRW publications are made available in print and on the Internet for the general public, U.S. government officials could find themselves without a job if they do not cater to the demands of informed constituents.
Along with their ability to publicly shame the U.S. and foreign governments, NGO members have the ability to become truly proficient in their chosen field. U.S. diplomats are quite limited in their ability to specialize and become experts in their chosen field because they rotate their posts about every two years. Although there are some diplomats who specialize in a particular region such as the Middle East, the majority of career Foreign Service officers are sent wherever there is a need for their services. Diplomats lack to opportunity that NGO members have to specialize and become experts about a certain region or issue. Along with their lack of human expertise, the U.S. State Department is also underfunded which makes it difficult for diplomats to perform their jobs well and for the State Department to recruit the best people. “The 2007 International Affairs Budget for the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and other foreign affairs agencies totals $ 35.1 billion with Foreign Operations receiving $23.7 billion, State Operations getting $9.3 billion, Food Aid and Famine Assistance receiving $1.3 billion, International Broadcasting getting $672 million, and $93 million allocated to other programs . In comparison, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the budget for the Iraq War alone is $290 billion. With such a high priority placed on Defense Department spending, it does not take a genius to figure out why U.S. diplomats are not successful in mobilizing the American public to take notice of international affairs.
Civilian assistance from NGOs has been helpful to mobilize public opinions when U.S. diplomats are not able to perform this task. At the end of the Cold War, another group of civilians, Hollywood celebrities, began to use their star power to draw attention to important international issues such as the AIDS pandemic in Africa, poverty, and genocide. The first genocide of the 21st century in Darfur has drawn more attention and action from Hollywood than it has from the U.S. government. The Bush administration hesitated to label this tragedy what it was, genocide, and did not push for a cessation to hostilities in the region. In the face of the inaction of the U.S. government, celebrities, such as George Clooney and Don Cheadle, began to give interviews to the American and international media to raise the profile of the genocide. In December 2006, the two actors along with two Olympic athletes, Joey Cheek and Tegla Loroupe, met with the leaders and foreign ministers in Egypt and China to press for changes in these countries’ policies toward Sudan. In an interview with NPR’s Michele Kelemen, Clooney revealed that the delegation had made some progress in Egypt. “Egypt's foreign minister met with us and offered to supply a large number of Egyptian doctors and humanitarians to help fill the void left by the aid workers that have been forced to leave” It begs the question why U.S. diplomats were not able to secure the same promises from the Egyptian foreign minister that George Clooney, a civilian, was able to.
Like George Clooney and Don Cheadle, other Hollywood celebrities have gotten involved in humanitarian causes and their actions bring attention to the plight of Third World nations. In 2001, Angelina Jolie became a UN Goodwill Ambassador following her visit to Sierra Leone after that country’s civil war. She visited with many refugees and decided to use her celebrity to draw attention to the plight of refugees around the globe. “As a UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador, Angelina uses her status as a superstar to generate media coverage about the plight of refugees and the conditions under which they live. She has traveled widely to remote refugee camps and receiving centers in countries including Tanzania, Namibia, Cambodia, Pakistan, Thailand, and Ecuador.” Jolie has also adopted two of her three children, Maddox and Zahara, from refugee camps in Cambodia and Namibia, respectively. Recently, Madonna adopted a Malawian child in her tour of the country to increase awareness of the affect of AIDS on the small country of Malawi.
Although these celebrities have used their notoriety to stop genocide in Darfur, raise awareness about the AIDS pandemic in Africa, and put faces to the plight of refugees around the globe, some critics of these actions argue that celebrities perform these good deeds in order to get more publicity for their work. Others argue that there is no guarantee that a celebrity will follow through on their promise to donate money to a cause or stay involved once their careers are over. While these concerns should be taken seriously, one cannot ignore the fact that celebrity involvement in certain causes, such as Darfur, increase in attention the American public gives to it. Because of his famous name, George Clooney and his father, Nick, were able to film and broadcast their own documentary about Darfur on AmericanLife Network. Celebrities have connections and channels within the entertainment business and politics that many other civilian organizations and NGOs do not have. These connections make it easier to create movies and television shows to educate these audiences about important international issues.
Because diplomats do not appear in movies or have independent monetary resources at their disposal, they seem to be losing out in the attempt to educate and mobilize the American population to support international causes. This does not have to be the normal situation if the State Department and U.S. federal government implement a few policy changes. First, there needs to be more monetary resources given to the State Department so it will be able to expand its operations to include educating the American public. An increased budget will also allow the Foreign Service to attract the best candidates to become diplomats who may have better salary offers elsewhere. Secondly, there needs to be a meaningful and productive channel through which diplomats can express their objections to certain foreign policy decisions made by the President and his advisors. If a diplomat disagrees with a policy, he or she should not have to chose between keeping silent or quitting their jobs. The diplomatic corps must have the opportunity to participate in the policy making decision. Finally, the State Department should use celebrities and NGOs who are experts in certain issues and regions as sources of information rather than dismiss their insights as unprofessional. If the State Department cooperates with NGOs and celebrities to educate the American public about international affairs, more people would sit up and pay attention to the events in the larger world.
i. Baylis, John and Steve Smith. The Globalization of World Politics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Pg.370.
ii. CommonDreams.org. "U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation." Newscenter. 31 Jan.
2007
iii. Human Rights Watch. About HRW. 31 Jan. 2007
iv. U.S. Department of State. "Fact Sheet." International Affairs. 29 Jan. 2007
v. Clooney, George. Interview with Michele Kelemen. All Things Considered. NPR News, Washington D.C. 16 Dec. 2006.
vi. United Nations. "What's Going On?" UN Works. 30 Jan. 2007
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Annoyed in the Library
As I sit piecing together my day (trust me its been a long one considering I didn't want to move out of bed today!), I remembered an exchange between 2 classmates of mine today when we were having a discussion about the veiling of women in Islamic culture. The first one said something about Jewish women veiling (which I am not sure happens in all sects) and why didn't more people know about that. The second one made a remark about how strong the Jewish lobby was in the U.S. and the first replied to him "Don't even get me started about that one." Now I don't know whether the last remark was made because the first classmate has negative or positive feelings toward the Jewish lobby in the U.S. What struck me was the fact that everyone, or at least everyone who understands the potential for an argument when speaking about this topic, was suddenly very uncomfortable. I find it very sad that people cannot have a decent debate about the relations between the Jews and the Muslims in our world. On Monday, another classmate/friend of mine and I were having that exact same conversation. I am just really pissed off with people not being able to look at this debate objectively and having too much of a personal stake in this debate. Seriously people need to grow up and face the fact that other people have different opinions too and that those opinions are valid and could actually be more factual than yours!!
I promise when I post next I will try to avoid run on sentences!
I promise when I post next I will try to avoid run on sentences!
Friday, January 26, 2007
Sad News
While I understand that Hamas and Fatah are struggling for control of the Palestinian Authority, I find it quite sad that they have to fight each other and kill their own civilians even though they both have the same objective: to establish a Palestinian State.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
State of the Union
Every January as a child, I was given one of the best opportunities to understand what direction the U.S. was heading thanks to my mother's insistence that our whole family must watch the State of the Union. As a child, I sat riveted to the screen for an hour listening to the Arkansas drawl of Bill Clinton and the commentaries by the sometimes inane broadcasters and their correspondents that inevitably follow any political event. In my living room in California, I listened to the President speak about his plans for foreign policy, resolving domestic issues, and how he was going to improve the economy in the upcoming year.
As a child, most of what the president talked about passed right over my head but I listened closely to the comments made on the speech by my parents and their friends. I guess you could say that this early exposure to the only time the entire chamber of the House is full sparked a love of politics and its surrounding rhetoric.
Tonight, a very different President from Bill Clinton stood in the House and gave his take on the path he believes America should take in the next year. Honestly, this was one of Bush's better speeches and whoever the speechwriter was deserves a raise. Although I quite enjoyed hearing about his domestic plan in the first 20 minutes, I was extremely offended at one comment he made about Muslims in the Middle East and anyone who has any exposure to Middle East culture or politics should be offended as well. Mr. Bush made a comment about how Islamic fundamentalists have a deep hatred for "civilization" and want to destroy it. I was shocked that anyone, much less the President of the United States could make such a racist and bigoted comment. I don't pretend to know EVERY Islamic fundamentalist personally but I am quite sure that they do not want to send the world back into prehistory through their violent attacks on Western targets. Making such a broad claim about such a diverse group of people will only serve to further alienate many people in the Middle East.
Another problem I had with this comment is the insinuation that the West, especially the United States, has the monopoly on culture or that this "civilization" is better than Islamic "civiilization." Bush's statement also seems to deny that the Middle East has ever had "civilization," mirroring the attitudes of European powers in the 18th and 19th century about the Ottoman Empire not being on the same plane as Western civilization. These European powers traced this "Western" civilization to the Ancient Greeks and Romans and maintained this was a continiuous entity (such BS). The insinutation that Islamic civilization is inferior or never existed smacks of old prejudices and attitudes held by Europeans to assert their supremacy over the Middle East.
These are just my initial comments on the State of the Union.... more to come later!!
As a child, most of what the president talked about passed right over my head but I listened closely to the comments made on the speech by my parents and their friends. I guess you could say that this early exposure to the only time the entire chamber of the House is full sparked a love of politics and its surrounding rhetoric.
Tonight, a very different President from Bill Clinton stood in the House and gave his take on the path he believes America should take in the next year. Honestly, this was one of Bush's better speeches and whoever the speechwriter was deserves a raise. Although I quite enjoyed hearing about his domestic plan in the first 20 minutes, I was extremely offended at one comment he made about Muslims in the Middle East and anyone who has any exposure to Middle East culture or politics should be offended as well. Mr. Bush made a comment about how Islamic fundamentalists have a deep hatred for "civilization" and want to destroy it. I was shocked that anyone, much less the President of the United States could make such a racist and bigoted comment. I don't pretend to know EVERY Islamic fundamentalist personally but I am quite sure that they do not want to send the world back into prehistory through their violent attacks on Western targets. Making such a broad claim about such a diverse group of people will only serve to further alienate many people in the Middle East.
Another problem I had with this comment is the insinuation that the West, especially the United States, has the monopoly on culture or that this "civilization" is better than Islamic "civiilization." Bush's statement also seems to deny that the Middle East has ever had "civilization," mirroring the attitudes of European powers in the 18th and 19th century about the Ottoman Empire not being on the same plane as Western civilization. These European powers traced this "Western" civilization to the Ancient Greeks and Romans and maintained this was a continiuous entity (such BS). The insinutation that Islamic civilization is inferior or never existed smacks of old prejudices and attitudes held by Europeans to assert their supremacy over the Middle East.
These are just my initial comments on the State of the Union.... more to come later!!
Monday, January 22, 2007
first post
Dear Bicycle Thief,
Thanks to your brillant scheme to steal a bicycle between 8 pm and 7 am, I no longer have a bicycle to get around campus or to get groceries. Now every time I want to go to the store and get groceries, I will need to have someone drive me to the store as I have no car on campus. Without my bicycle I will have to leave my apartment thirty minutes before I have to go anywhere and I will probably be late for work every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. On the positive side, I will have to walk everywhere which may cause me to lose the weight I gained since I have been in college and I will probably be on time for everything. Although there are positives to this situation, the fact remains that you took something that was NOT yours and you stole something from me. Any person with common dencency would know that stealing is WRONG and that most major religions have laws against it. Honestly, the bicycle you stole has a rusty chain and the tires are somewhat flat. Of all the bikes that were outside my apartment last night you had to pick the one that is probably going to fall apart in a month!!! Thanks for nothing jerk face!
SG
Thanks to your brillant scheme to steal a bicycle between 8 pm and 7 am, I no longer have a bicycle to get around campus or to get groceries. Now every time I want to go to the store and get groceries, I will need to have someone drive me to the store as I have no car on campus. Without my bicycle I will have to leave my apartment thirty minutes before I have to go anywhere and I will probably be late for work every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. On the positive side, I will have to walk everywhere which may cause me to lose the weight I gained since I have been in college and I will probably be on time for everything. Although there are positives to this situation, the fact remains that you took something that was NOT yours and you stole something from me. Any person with common dencency would know that stealing is WRONG and that most major religions have laws against it. Honestly, the bicycle you stole has a rusty chain and the tires are somewhat flat. Of all the bikes that were outside my apartment last night you had to pick the one that is probably going to fall apart in a month!!! Thanks for nothing jerk face!
SG
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)