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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)