My classmate Mrs. Posluszny argues that there is a foul line concerning dissent in this country. I've read My Forbidden Face, and it is a heart wrenching depiction of life under autorcatic regime. But I believe judging one country against another is illogical.
The ability to voice dissent and dissaproval is exactly what Latifa yearned for, so the argument that there should be a foul line concerning it in this country seems hypocritcal. The majority of those who dissent in this country are not trying to rip the country to shreds or discredit democracy on the whole, but rather just have their voices and opinions heard. The idea behind our elective republican government is that every person will have their opinions heard and considered.
Dissent in this country is not an attack on the heoric principles that make it so glorious compared to Taliban Afghanistan. We march to the capital if we are unsatisfied. Publish a strongly worded editorial denouncing legislation. Call up our congressmen. Americans are not causing riots in the street, murdering legislators, or starting civil wars. No foul line has been crossed.
Granted, being a little more thankful never hurt anyone. Latifa faced extreme hardship under Taliban Afghanistan, and I acknowledge that I am very thankful America's political system is not similar to the Taliban's. But one of the main differentiating factors between the too is that while all dissent is shut up under the Taliban, here in America we are free to speak up when something's going wrong.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Saturday, May 9, 2009
We're in a Flu Frenzy. But We Know it.
Swine flu-pardon me, N1H1 Flu- has a caused a hysteria.
Perhaps we are on the downwind of the panic, but acrimonious fear did grip this country-in fact the world- and led to overpowering precaution. Schools closed in Texas because of one probable cause. Airports accros the globe have introduced infared cameras that silently search out fevers among a crowded terminal, a chillingly similar technology to the eye tracker in the twisted movie, Minority Report. All U.I.L. events (from the state wide Regional Track Meet to Round Rock High School's band banquet) were postponed for two weeks. Hundreds- if not thousands- of healthy pigs were slaughtered in Egypt for fear of the pathogen. In Mexico, the epicenter of the disease, the national guard has been involved in quarantine and protection. One cannot deny the global effect of the flu. And I'm not talking number of deaths, but rather amount of fear induced precaution.
Before the outbreak of the N1H1 flu, this country has had it's share of hysteria this century. Two prime examples are The red scare of the 20's and McCarthyism in the 60's. Although both panics were based in very reasonable causes, the absence of sound judgement that so often accompanies panic overblew the whole situation. Now, the eras are looked back on with almost a comical attitude. Senator Joseph McCarthy's deep voice and hawk-like eyes used to instill fear in Americans of the cold war period. But now, his circumventing interrogations and that one peice of greasy black hair that is always out of place appear like stage comedy. Arthur Miller, author of The Crucible, finds reason for this change of attitude claiming that, "Fear doesn't travel well; just as it can warp judgment, its absence can diminish memory's truth. What terrifies one generation is likely to bring only a puzzled smile to the next" .
But what I find interesting is the number of people who right now, in the midst of the panic, are able to look at the incredible responses with comedy and disdain. I find that people are quick to criticize the extreme precautions of schools and airports and even the renowned World Health Organization. They call the N1H1 flu an act of the media and government. An unreasonable fear.
They do have a point. Until this week, the only death in the United States due to N1H1 was a toddler in Texas visitng from Mexico. When hundreds lost their lives from heart disease during the 2 weeks of N1H1 panic in which only one child died from the flu, it is hard to justify the mounting hysteria.
Some of the precaution is over the top, but in general- I'm a fan of "safe is better than sorry". Children are more susceptible to the virus than the older generation, therefore closing a whole school district -though a bit scary, could have saved thousands.
What is interesting is that Americans are acknowledging the hysteria, for better or for worse. During the cold war, most Americans considered the HUAC, deportation, and alienation of communists reasonable and patriotic. Or if they oppossed the practices, they definitely did not speak up about it. As the government, the media, and even the qualified World Health Organization repeat and repeat the dangers of the flu, many- though not all- Americans are skeptical. And they voice it. So either we have finally lost all trust in these organizations, or have just finally found the guts to look at the facts ourselves and come to our own conclusions. I choose the latter.
Perhaps we are on the downwind of the panic, but acrimonious fear did grip this country-in fact the world- and led to overpowering precaution. Schools closed in Texas because of one probable cause. Airports accros the globe have introduced infared cameras that silently search out fevers among a crowded terminal, a chillingly similar technology to the eye tracker in the twisted movie, Minority Report. All U.I.L. events (from the state wide Regional Track Meet to Round Rock High School's band banquet) were postponed for two weeks. Hundreds- if not thousands- of healthy pigs were slaughtered in Egypt for fear of the pathogen. In Mexico, the epicenter of the disease, the national guard has been involved in quarantine and protection. One cannot deny the global effect of the flu. And I'm not talking number of deaths, but rather amount of fear induced precaution.
Before the outbreak of the N1H1 flu, this country has had it's share of hysteria this century. Two prime examples are The red scare of the 20's and McCarthyism in the 60's. Although both panics were based in very reasonable causes, the absence of sound judgement that so often accompanies panic overblew the whole situation. Now, the eras are looked back on with almost a comical attitude. Senator Joseph McCarthy's deep voice and hawk-like eyes used to instill fear in Americans of the cold war period. But now, his circumventing interrogations and that one peice of greasy black hair that is always out of place appear like stage comedy. Arthur Miller, author of The Crucible, finds reason for this change of attitude claiming that, "Fear doesn't travel well; just as it can warp judgment, its absence can diminish memory's truth. What terrifies one generation is likely to bring only a puzzled smile to the next" .
But what I find interesting is the number of people who right now, in the midst of the panic, are able to look at the incredible responses with comedy and disdain. I find that people are quick to criticize the extreme precautions of schools and airports and even the renowned World Health Organization. They call the N1H1 flu an act of the media and government. An unreasonable fear.
They do have a point. Until this week, the only death in the United States due to N1H1 was a toddler in Texas visitng from Mexico. When hundreds lost their lives from heart disease during the 2 weeks of N1H1 panic in which only one child died from the flu, it is hard to justify the mounting hysteria.
Some of the precaution is over the top, but in general- I'm a fan of "safe is better than sorry". Children are more susceptible to the virus than the older generation, therefore closing a whole school district -though a bit scary, could have saved thousands.
What is interesting is that Americans are acknowledging the hysteria, for better or for worse. During the cold war, most Americans considered the HUAC, deportation, and alienation of communists reasonable and patriotic. Or if they oppossed the practices, they definitely did not speak up about it. As the government, the media, and even the qualified World Health Organization repeat and repeat the dangers of the flu, many- though not all- Americans are skeptical. And they voice it. So either we have finally lost all trust in these organizations, or have just finally found the guts to look at the facts ourselves and come to our own conclusions. I choose the latter.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Comment on: "Civil Rights Movement for Illegal Immigrants??"
My classmate makes a very profound argument against the rights of illegal immigrants using the burgular metaphor, and I agree that illegal immigrants do put a burden on our government. Many of the 12 million citizens to be will qualify for foodstamps and other government assistance. So with taxes benefitting these people, it is easy to throw out the age old robin-hood excuse that "the rich are paying for the poor".
But one cannot oversimplify the situation. Cheap labor can be good for our economy. These hardworking, struggling immigrants are more like construction workers, fruit pickers, maids, and gardeners who break into a house and work for scrap than inconsiderate burglars wanting a piece of the property.
But one cannot oversimplify the situation. Cheap labor can be good for our economy. These hardworking, struggling immigrants are more like construction workers, fruit pickers, maids, and gardeners who break into a house and work for scrap than inconsiderate burglars wanting a piece of the property.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Terrorists at Sea, But Long Range Solution Only on Land
With Captain Richard Phillips held hostage by Somali Pirates, the world asks again for a solution to piracy. An online post on the New York Times opinion page regarding the issue reads, “ I am 80 years old and think I have lived too long. Pirates in 2009? ”. The woman who posted this (she calls herself Jane) as well as many others are flabbergasted that such an age old crime like piracy exists in the same world as satellite missiles, the U.N., and the United State's maritime military power. But unlike mobs of lynch hungry vigilante cowboys in Wyoming, piracy is not a time washed crime. And though the pirates are terrorists, a solid solution to the problem lies in reform on land, not guns at sea.
The pirate problem is not new. Since the formation of this country, "freedom of the seas" has been a rallying cry of presidents, congressmen, and civilians embarrassed and fed up with terrorism on the ocean. The War of 1812 was fought primarily to stop the British Navy's impressment policies. Torpedoed civilian ships led Americans to support entering The Spanish American War, World War I and World War II. Historically, Americans have highly valued the neutrality of seas.
The Somali men who took Phillips hostage are terrorists. They are using terror, crime, and human life as bargaining tools to make a few million bucks. When caught, these men need to be either tried and prosecuted in American courts (for their crimes are against Americans), or even better in International Court. Not only will justice be served, but perhaps due process of law and imprisonment of the criminals will discourage some of their counterparts from further attacking American ships.
But putting a few pirates in prison or shooting some bullets in the water will not solve this escalating problem. There has not been a functioning government in Somalia since 1991. American does not need to, and should not, pull a Panama-esque revolution in the African country to put a more pro-America/freedom of seas regime in power. Somalian structural, political, and economic reform can come from within it's borders or with some U.N. aid. Although a severely complicated and difficult task, reform must come to the Somalian government before the pirates can be effectively controlled. This is a long range, possibly Utopian, measure. But reform on the seas cannot last without reform on the land.
The pirate problem is not new. Since the formation of this country, "freedom of the seas" has been a rallying cry of presidents, congressmen, and civilians embarrassed and fed up with terrorism on the ocean. The War of 1812 was fought primarily to stop the British Navy's impressment policies. Torpedoed civilian ships led Americans to support entering The Spanish American War, World War I and World War II. Historically, Americans have highly valued the neutrality of seas.
The Somali men who took Phillips hostage are terrorists. They are using terror, crime, and human life as bargaining tools to make a few million bucks. When caught, these men need to be either tried and prosecuted in American courts (for their crimes are against Americans), or even better in International Court. Not only will justice be served, but perhaps due process of law and imprisonment of the criminals will discourage some of their counterparts from further attacking American ships.
But putting a few pirates in prison or shooting some bullets in the water will not solve this escalating problem. There has not been a functioning government in Somalia since 1991. American does not need to, and should not, pull a Panama-esque revolution in the African country to put a more pro-America/freedom of seas regime in power. Somalian structural, political, and economic reform can come from within it's borders or with some U.N. aid. Although a severely complicated and difficult task, reform must come to the Somalian government before the pirates can be effectively controlled. This is a long range, possibly Utopian, measure. But reform on the seas cannot last without reform on the land.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Hinderaker Calls Obama's Lie
John Hinderaker’s post titled, “Barack Speaks”, on the blog Power Line claims that Obama lied during his address to the nation. Obama said in his address Tuesday night that we cannot have a budget that “continues the very same policies that have led us to a narrow prosperity and massive debt.” Hinderaker calls this statement a, “bald-faced lie”. To support his claim, Hinderaker presents a table, which is not cited but uses data from CBO, which shows the budget deficit since 2000 and through Obama’s longest possible term (2019). The table is a visual representative of the immense amount of spending Obama has planned. The projected debt during his term is higher than any of the years prior.
Hinderaker is a lawyer with an impressive resume. Graduated from Harvard Law, he has 15 years experience in the field and was named Minnesota’s Super Lawyer of the Year for 2005. He is a member of the Claremont Institute and has had articles published in esteemed newspapers across the country. Given these impressive achievements, he was quite qualified and informed enough to present a credit worthy argument on Obama’s speech.
The blog is aimed to a broad audience, basically any American interested in politics. It discredits Obama, so definitely is right leaning. Some of the language is even quite harsh, so Hinderaker is not afraid of making accusations, yet has logic and primary sources to back his arguments.
Hinderaker expertly uses a table and excerpts from Obama’s speech to make his argument sound. The logic makes sense, and the table is a powerful visual reference to his claim. One must be wary though concerning the excerpts from Obama’s speech. Who knows what the President said before and after these quotes; perhaps he qualified himself or made the point more clear. Before taking this post at its word, one should read the transcript or listen to a recording of Obama’s entire speech to check for further explanations on the subject.
Hinderaker is a lawyer with an impressive resume. Graduated from Harvard Law, he has 15 years experience in the field and was named Minnesota’s Super Lawyer of the Year for 2005. He is a member of the Claremont Institute and has had articles published in esteemed newspapers across the country. Given these impressive achievements, he was quite qualified and informed enough to present a credit worthy argument on Obama’s speech.
The blog is aimed to a broad audience, basically any American interested in politics. It discredits Obama, so definitely is right leaning. Some of the language is even quite harsh, so Hinderaker is not afraid of making accusations, yet has logic and primary sources to back his arguments.
Hinderaker expertly uses a table and excerpts from Obama’s speech to make his argument sound. The logic makes sense, and the table is a powerful visual reference to his claim. One must be wary though concerning the excerpts from Obama’s speech. Who knows what the President said before and after these quotes; perhaps he qualified himself or made the point more clear. Before taking this post at its word, one should read the transcript or listen to a recording of Obama’s entire speech to check for further explanations on the subject.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Critique of Considering Cutting Costs
Navarette claims that the Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal should be commended for not wanting to accept his state’s $98 million share of the $787 billion national stimulus bill. Jindal understands that accepting the money will require a change in state laws dealing with unemployment and a subsequent larger cost to the state in the long run. Navarette is critical of Californian Governor Schwarzenegger who would be jump on the opportunity to receive Louisiana’s share as well as his one state’s portion of the national bail out.
Going into detail about California’s debt problem, Navarette draws evidence for his argument from the fact that although things are bad in the Golden Gate State, they could be worse. Yes there is a $42 billion debt, but at the same time tourists and businesses continue to pour dollars into the state.
His audience is Californians for the most part, yet he also draws national interest by relating the issue in California to the national budget crisis.
Navarette’s purpose and argument in this editorial are not clear, and he seems to jump from talking about despising taxes to endorsing them. He applauds Governor Jindal for refusing the national stimulus package, but gives no clear evidence or logic explaining why this is a laudable move. As for the California fiscal matter, Navarette makes it clear that he is unhappy about the $12 billion in new taxes, yet criticizes the Republicans who are stubborn to tax increase. His argument is ambiguous and the lack of conclusive evidence and logic keep his commentary from being effective.
From Navarrette: Consider costs in the long run
Going into detail about California’s debt problem, Navarette draws evidence for his argument from the fact that although things are bad in the Golden Gate State, they could be worse. Yes there is a $42 billion debt, but at the same time tourists and businesses continue to pour dollars into the state.
His audience is Californians for the most part, yet he also draws national interest by relating the issue in California to the national budget crisis.
Navarette’s purpose and argument in this editorial are not clear, and he seems to jump from talking about despising taxes to endorsing them. He applauds Governor Jindal for refusing the national stimulus package, but gives no clear evidence or logic explaining why this is a laudable move. As for the California fiscal matter, Navarette makes it clear that he is unhappy about the $12 billion in new taxes, yet criticizes the Republicans who are stubborn to tax increase. His argument is ambiguous and the lack of conclusive evidence and logic keep his commentary from being effective.
From Navarrette: Consider costs in the long run
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Cut the CIA Some Slack
The recent scandal involving the CIA chief in Algiers being accused of rape has shed poor light on the already shady Central Intelligence Agency, but are blows to the agency’s name such as this recent one actually blown out of proportion? Baer’s article at http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1876470,00.html addresses the severity of the issue, especially in light of the upcoming appointment of Panetta to the top position of CIA Director, but also the trivialness of it. Yes, rape is a serious crime and culprits need to be punished, but does one perverted CIA appointee really symbolize an entire agency of corruption? Baer argues that the bad reputation the CIA receives is not entirely deserved. He also draws evidence from the lesser scandal over leaks from Harold Nicholson, an ex-double agent who allegedly enlisted his son to carry on his treasonous work. This incident is stale compared to the rape issue, but definitely does not help the agency’s reputation. Baer asks America to take a step back from the media driven scandal of it all and analyze responses to these problems. The simplicity of firing the Algiers chief and moving Nichols to the maximum security prison really diminishes the perceived severity of the scandals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)