The Perspective of Situation

In class, we are doing a simulation on the current Iranian nuclear issue. Each group will be assigned a country. The countries are China, Russia, Israel, The United States, or Iran themselves. What we are trying to do is act upon the best interests of the country as well as the popular beliefs of its people. Any action that we make will have a consequence. This is why we have to choose our moves wisely.

The simulation that we are doing is being played out in reality as we speak. I went online to look at the opinions of the countries on the situation. I found Israel's stance to be particularly interesting. Shimon Peres said that, "Iran is not threatened by anybody. Why do they need it? (nuclear weapons)". Also, he seemed to be fed up with all the fighting, and said that his country has had enough of all the violence, " To those having a clenched fist, I have just one word to say: Enough. Enough war. Enough destruction. Enough hatred." These statements seemed to be genuine, but then I got to thinking. In one of Peres' speaches, two protestors expressed their opinions on the fighting going on in the Gaza strip. Also, doesn't it seem hypocritical for Israel to say that Iran isn't being threatened and doesn't need nuclear weapons when Israel is in fact a nuclear power? Also, if Peres says that he has had enough fighting, maybe they should be the ones to start. I am not trying to harp on Israel, I am just examining the opinions of a country from an internal and external viewpoint. I also do belive that Iran may be acting on the best interests of their people, but their goal of "wiping Israel off the map" is completely over the top. To get a better understanding of the situation, It helped me a lot to look at the goals of the country, and then look at those goals from the point of view of other countries. Every action, statement, and goal will get the attention of the other countries envolved in the Iranian situation. Taking a look at the intentions of other countries will help make more informed decisions.

The New Homeless

I was looking over CNN for current events and I came across a video. This video made me think back to our unit on privilege and poverty. In the video, we see a single mother and her two kids who live in Washington D.C. She worked for the government and was fired in 2007. Ever since, it has been nearly impossible for her to keep her job. Currently, her kids go to public school and they all live in a shelter. The image of homeless families has increased dramatically because of the economic recession. It was reported that there has been a 15 percent increase of homeless families in the D.C. area alone. This particular families shelter will be shutting down soon and they are worried about what to do next.

This video made me think to the artifact about what it means to be poor. I can only imagine how much more embarrassing and challenging it must be for this family to both be poor and homeless. It is stories like this that make a person wonder why we are giving these corporate giants such huge breaks and dumping more and more money into Iraq when we could cut off a sliver of that money and help the people who were basically betrayed by their hard work. This also made me think to the term we discussed in class. America is often referred to as the world police in its attempts to protect against violence and preserve liberty for all. Maybe we should focus a bit more on our own problems because finding a job is becoming more difficult by the day.

Collateral Damage

In class, we started talking about the strategies used in world war II. Bombing, and in many cases of civilians, was one of the most prominent and deadly strategies used by both the axis and allies. We had to ask ourselves the question though; Is the bombing of civilians ever an acceptable action during war? Everyone has their own opinion, but I noticed an interesting parallel.

On April 24th, one of the most deadly acts of suicide bombing occurred in Iraq. A total of 60 people died. The bombers were two women who walked into a crowd on Friday, the Muslim holy day, with grenades and other explosives. This type of civilian bombing may be a little different, but I think the same questions can be asked. Is the best way to express a feeling to a group of power attacking civilians? The civilians are targeted because they are relatively easy to do so. Extremists such as these women do this because they may believe that they can use fear to get the results that they want. I then thought, Is this true of every type of bombing, military or otherwise? When a military attacks civilians with bombs, the immediate effect of that is fear. With a population of fearful people, the general consensus might be to give into the other countries demands. So then is military bombing of civilians also considered terrorism?

Another question I thought of was about defense. It is impossible to check every person when they go into high population areas, and what could two women possibly do right? We have seen this as a trend; women and children have often taken their own lives in this fashion. However, the majority of women and children are not suicide bombers. So how do we defend ourselves? What draws the line between total governmental control over public behavior and safety? The bombing of civilians may or may not be an appropriate action, but it is for sure that it is becoming harder to combat.

So What Have We Accomplished?

Every day we are reminded about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. When Obama was elected, he said that we will be out of Iraq in the near future. The administration has made plans regarding the withdrawal of American troops. However, another 83 billion dollars has been requested to supply our troops with new equipment and other aid through September. Also, Obama has sent another 17,000 troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, along with another 4000 to train Afghani troops. We are spending more money in this war and sending in more troops. I am not saying that this is wrong, but have we really accomplished anything, and was it worth it?

In class we talked about some of the main reasons for going to war. Some of these reasons are to defend the existence of democracy, and to protect every man's human rights. It is clear that America was provoked and shocked by the events of September 11th, but is there any reason to continue for another two years? We have set up a government led by local officials, and have trained troops to combat the taliban, but have the American interests been realised. What more are we looking for in our continued presence for another two years?

The Youtube Opportunity

Our class recently did a video conference with a historical museum in Cleveland. We all found it to be new and interesting, and most of us had never participated in one yet. I saw a video on CNN that made me think of our conference. There was a sort of competition where 3000 people from around the world submitted youtube video's displaying their skills in playing classical music. Professionals chose the top 200 musicians, and then youtube viewers voted on the 96 people that would join the orchestra to play at Carnegie Hall. On top of this, Google, the owner of youtube, will pay for the travel costs of all the musicians.

The finalists were beside themselves. The common belief was that they would never have made it to Carnegie, "the pinnacle of achivement for classical musicians", without the use of youtube to publicize their skills because they are not at the professional level. Programs like this will both broaden the talent in the classical music world, and provide much more opportunity for musicians. This shows that technology really can make a huge difference in the success of many people. Investing in communications such as video conferencing could really do a lot of good for our country, especially in the shape we are in right now.

Even the CEO's are feeling it

Over the past year, we have heard many story's of people getting their salaries slashed, losing hours, or even losing their jobs. The unemployment rate in America is about 8 percent, as compared to the ideal 3 percent. People from all areas are furious about the current situation. Big corporations that received aid from the bailout plan, such as AIG, have been subject to ridicule for some time because of the controversial nature of their bonus system, and how they used the money from the bailout. I was looking over CNN, and I saw an article that showed me something that I thought many people would like.

The average earnings of chief executives of American corporations fell about 5 percent from last year. This is the first year in five that the average annual income of these executives has fallen. These statistics may help to settle some of the anger that looms everywhere in this current situation. I find it noble that CEO's, while their companies may be having trouble, are cutting into their own earnings. Perhaps they have realized that a few million dollars less each year would not harm anyone. It is also a good thing to see that the execs are not running their companies into the ground so that they can still receive an enormous payment. Maybe this decrease will produce positive effects later on...

If You Buy It, Then...

After spending some time in class about the subtle details of advertisements that many of us do not notice, I went to youtube and found some interesting new adds. I came across a commercial for vitamin water that was actually banned. In the commercial, it shows two Bears playing football, and then Brian Urlacher comes up and tackles one of the bears. Then it pans to him drinking some vitamin water. Finally, a man says "power of nature" and then on the screen it says "It works, for Brian Urlacher".

The logic in this commercial is somewhat odd. Usually in sports drinks commercials, you see some explanation for why the drink is good and how it helps you perform at your peak. This, however, seems to get lazy. The only justification for the quality of their product is that it works for Urlacher, so it must be good. Although I find the commercial to be funny, when I take a deeper look I am not very drawn to drink vitamin water. Have advertisement agencies been getting lazy?

$176 in One Month

As part of an experiment, a CNN reporter tested himself and his budgeting skills. He was going to last one month surviving only on government provided money. He could spend only $176 during this entire month, and he learned what it was like to be in a position without privilege. He said that the hardest part about living on well-fare is making sure that you leave yourself enough food for the next meal. He was very meticulous about his spending, and had to re-train himself in the kitchen.

This man of privilege was able to experience the lifestyle a less fortunate person. It was very shocking and humbling to see how much of a struggle it is for families to live like this. Many people wrote on the reporters blog saying how $176 was a fortune relatively speaking. It was also a bit unsettling to see the nutritional challenges that less fortunate people have to go through. Getting enough protein proved to be difficult during the month. It is very humbling to see this man living off what a New Trier student might spend on lunch in a given day. This scenario gave me a bit of a reality check on the poverty situation.

Meat Inspection

In class, we started reading excerpts from Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. I also read this book for my junior theme, and it taught me to not allow myself to be reassured too easily. In the book, Jurgis observes the world of meat packing in great detail. One of the most surprising things for him is the informality of the inspection of the meat. He observed how the inspectors would stop examining the meat for minutes at a time while animals were still passing through. The Inspectors were supposed to be there to make sure that unsanitary meat did not pass through, but sanitary is the last thing that I would call the whole system. Jurgis told how rats, feces, sewage, and even nails would make there way into the product. After reading this book, I realized that many titles of safety could just be for the purpose of reassurance.

On that note, I was watching a youtube video about meat inspection. You see a white man in a lab coat speaking very generally about how the modern day inspections work. He never really goes into great detail about how inspectors do what they do. I am not saying that modern day meat qualities are bad, or even close to that of the early 1900's. The Jungle merely taught me to think on my own rather than eating up what some man is saying. I would like to see what really goes on in these modern day inspections.

Is This Really That Important?

We've all heard about the Michael Phelps ordeal in the last two weeks; the press have been talking about it non stop. I was looking over CNN and I saw a headline on the case. Apparently, there is not enough evidence to charge Phelps, and also he only admitted to being sorry for his "inappropriate behavior". I realize that an Olympic athlete should not be smoking marijuana, much less get photographed while doing it, but is this really that much important?
Go to any high school or college campus and you will see worse actions than what Phelps did. I feel that it really should not be on the level of national news. Why hasn't the Los Angeles train station shooting been in the media for some time? That instance is arguably one of the worst examples of police brutality. All that I've seen were the initial reports that came shortly after the event. Maybe the media should focus on issues that are of a more serious nature than an athlete getting high.

Hummer, if you can then maybe you will?

I was looking on youtube for car commercials, and I came across one that was very ironic. For about a minute, you see two young men driving around on beautiful mountainous, snowy landscapes. You get an idea of the capabilities of the car, and the things it can do are actually very impressive, but then I stopped to think. The reason that such marvelous landscapes are deteriorating around the world is because of cars like hummers that produce so much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Then the slogan is just priceless, "if you can, maybe you will"; I find this entertaining because of its lack of logic. If everyone drove hummers, we would not be able to go drive in the snow would we? Hummer did a great job here of appealing to the public with the positives of their vehicle. The commercial makes sure that the public knows how much the hummer can do that others cannot, but a pretty poor job of stating the downsides. For example, a hummer h2 receives fuel estimates of 10 mpg in 9 mpg in the city. Hummers have clearly been romanticized into the ultimate fun-mobile, but they actually are very harmful to the planet, and are extremely expensive.

Where Do We Start?

Our first African-American president, Barack Obama, is finally in office. Having been elected during a fierce economic crisis, he hopes and plans to get to work quickly on fixing the nations economic problems. He urges the enactment of an 825 billion dollar stimulus package, one of its goals to create 4 million new jobs. This all sounds like good news, but there are many skeptical people who are not quite convinced. Resulting of a national pole, only 13 percent of people believe that the economy will recover in the next year, 27 percent believe it will take up to 2 years, and 59 percent believe it will take more than 2 years. Also, there are some worries in Washington. Kent Conrad (Democrat), the senate budget committee chairman, feels that this package is heavily needed, but questions certain numbers regarding financial sectors and housing. He said "if we don't get those two right, we're not going to see the kind of lift out of this downturn that we need".
This situation seems to dram my attention to FDR. Elected during the Great Depression, he too had to make change quickly. Much of his changes were the products of experimentation. What aided him to make change were his auxiliary powers that prevented time wasting opposition in the government. By the looks of public opinion, and even the opinions in Washington, it seems that president Obama might experience some drag in his efforts to lift America out of crisis. Should he be granted auxiliary powers?