Despite the international effort to discourage North Korea, the isolated nation launched a long-range missile a few hours ago. It seems as though North Korea is completely unconcerned by the threats of further censure and sanctions to be imposed by the world. Washington DC thinks that this is a sign of the North Korean development of intercontinental ballistic missiles, that may eventually lead to nuclear warhead.
This is a huge problem with many potential threats to the international community. North Korea historically has shown through its foreign policy that it does not regard much of the international opinion. It does not have any well-established diplomatic relations that it would destroy by going ahead with further nuclear programs. Its position in the international community is isolated and unwanted enough that conducting any nuclear actions won’t harm its image.
What will this mean for the international community? It’ll take a joint effort to even approach North Korea about this issue, but I think that trying to stop North Korea completely is out of the question. The world will just have to watch carefully where this event goes, and take prudent and cautionary steps to deal with it as it unfolds.
As we approach the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic, there have been many talks about the great ship and its stories. One thing many people will know is that the movie Titanic, starring Kate Winslet and Leo DiCaprio, is back in theatres in IMAX and 3D versions. This has obviously appealed to the mass population, as everyone is revisiting the Titanic romance story – on Facebook, Twitter, and news media. I was quite stunned, while browsing through the Internet about the Titanic, that many people on Twitter are tweeting: was Titanic real? I guess it is common for people to know the movie Titanic, but not everybody knows that the tragedy that happened in the Atlantic Ocean on April 15, 1912, is as real as it can get – minus the love story.
It got me pondering how much the mainstream culture impacts our minds and easily brainwashes us. We can easily recognize the golden arches of McDonald’s, or the logo of a Gucci purse, but not all of us knows stuff outside of the pop culture. Is it tragic? Yes. We are consumed by so much media that we wrap ourselves around with useless, trivial information while pushing out the substantive knowledge we want to value.
Think of another example: Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. When that book came out, it instantly hit the New York Times bestsellers list and remained there for many weeks. I do admit that the book has a very interesting and captivating storyline, but it is dangerous in that it can make the readers almost believe it as real. Many people, after the book was published, questioned the Bible stories and discussed the possibility of Jesus’ living descendants. These topics, I’m sure, have been talked about for years, but they were certainly spurred into the average joe’s mind as soon as the book hit the stores.
The lesson we should take from it is that we need to shield ourselves from ‘false’ or misinterpreted information that we are constantly bombarded with. There is entertainment, and there’s fact – and we need to learn to draw a clear boundary.
Here is an article from Fox News that exemplifies the logical fallacy of ad hominem. This article questions Obama’s ability to deal with national security issues and establish good relations with foreign states. I believe that the author is practicing ad hominem, meaning that the article is attacking the person rather than the argument or topic at hand. The author does try to address Obama’s policies and his achievements in office to assess the administration’s impact on American progress. However, he mentions far too much of Obama’s persona to avoid a logical fallacy. Calling Obama a “mild-mannered suit” and his policies “Stakhanovite” effort is simply a way of mud-slinging in politics – only because Obama happens to be a Democrat and this author is clearly a conservative American.
Here is an article about Easter that exemplifies rhetorical fallacy. It is short, but definitely not to the point. What is the point of this article? Is it praising the celebration of Easter? Is it condemning the celebration? Is it trying to imply that religious celebration is bad or misunderstood? It is very hard to tell. Also, the article contains some incorrect facts, like referring to Jesus being nailed onto a tree. Lastly, the author is making a large generalization by saying that “most people” don’t understand the point of Easter, while leaving the reader hanging about what exactly the point is.
I picked Naryan’s post on “Defining Democracy” as a memorable article from this term. Naryan provides a comprehensive outline of his definition of democracy while informing the readers about the background of it. He refers to how the concept of democracy came about, and to relevant historical sources such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the Gettysburg Address. Not only is he basing his argument of what democracy should be on his personal opinions, but also he draws in contextual information. I also like the way he opens and closes the article: the hook at the beginning is enough to tell the reader what the post will be about, and to get the reader pondering. His last remarks on what democracy means to each individual leaves the reader to continue in the thought process of defining democracy. I think this is a key aspect of any writing: to make the reader stay engaged in the topic even after the article as finished. Overall, I like the smooth transition of the post and think Naryan did a good job achieving the goals of this mini-assignment: to define democracy in our own terms and support our view.
I picked this article below from my archives as my best of the term. I liked this particular article because I researched the topic thoroughly before writing about it, and incorporated some of my historical knowledge into the article. My blogger voice is reflected throughout the piece and I clearly show my stance on the issue – while addressing the other side. It was based on an interesting topic based on the depth of the comments I received.
Space Issues
Obama recently agreed with the European Union proclamation calling for cooperative work in space. The latest code of conduct from the European Union aims at preventing the outer space from becoming an area of conflict. Obama’s decision to follow this code means that the US must avoid militarization of space.
In the TIME article, it is shown that two prominent political figures – John Bolton and John Yoo – are heavily opposed to Obama’s decision. They basically said that this is an act of concession, which will give other countries, like China, to pose a threat to the US in space. I just had to stop reading the article for a minute and think, are these men thinking right?
We may be witnessing a rapid growth of power in China but we are no longer living in the Cold War era. While I understand that it can have a lot to do with prestige and subsequent power that may follow (or vice versa), I don’t think that fighting for territory and satellites in space is a modernized way of doing politics.
Back in the postbellum years, the USSR and the USA were battling for World political influence. It was a time of paranoia and uncertainty – what with the threats of nuclear weapons from the USSR and its explicit desire to conquer territories.
Is that the case now? Not quite so. China may have leaped into economic productivity, but it still would not dare to follow any footsteps of the USSR. There is a difference between then and now: then, realpolitik was at one of its peaks; now, in 2012, we don’t necessarily have the tension and anxiety that political actors experienced. The world has come to an agreement on many things, and this code of conduct may be another one. Bolton and Yoo, this is the 21st century, not 1957.
The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in South Africa has asked the National Prosecuting Agency to revisit the 2009 decision to suspend criminal charges against President Jacob Zuma. There has been a two-sided debate on this issue: the African National Congress (ANC) is rather unhappy with the SCA because this event exemplifies how easily democracy can be undermined. On the other hand, the Democratic Alliance (DA), who was the first appellant of this case, views this as an example of overcoming political pressure to reach transparency in the system.
There can be two opposing ways to look at this. I can see how this can easily be seen as promoting democracy in South Africa. Instead of passively accepting court decisions, the DA has stood up and voiced its concerns on how legitimate the court decision was. The SCA’s acceptance to further investigate the case shows how the court is willing to withstand political pressure and revisit a case at request.
However, I can also view this as a reflection of the typical faulty character of democracy. Democratic systems we have today tend to be filled with bureaucracy and red tape, and the plurality of ideas and voices tend to slow the democratic process down. With the return to this court case, the South African courts will have to spend hours to assess the decision that had previously been made – this could just be an annoying deviation from allowing the courts to continue on with their agenda and decision-making. How much of the South African population supports this DA request? Is there even a consensus? The DA may seem like the ‘good guy’ compared to the ANC, but we have to find out how the DA works and if the people support it.
Nonetheless, I think that the DA is trying its best to have the interests of the South African people at its heart. It is emphasizing that nobody is above the law – even high-powered politicians, such as Zuma. The DA is reminding us that democracy gives us the means to question and address anything that might seem unjust, and, by doing this, it is strengthening the democratic ideals and values in South Africa.
The story about a New York mom forcing her 7-year-old daughter out of obesity has been causing quite the stir in the media. She shamelessly described the routines she made her daughter undergo, after finding out from the doctor that her daughter, Bea, was obese, in the 99th percentile. Having been a self-conscious woman about her weight herself, mother Dara-Lynn Weiss started a bootcamp-like training for Bea. She was carefully counting every calorie that Bea consumed in a day, sometimes denied her supper if she had eaten too much at school, and didn’t allow her to participate in Pizza Fridays at school. Months later, Bea was thin – and Weiss rewarded her with a shopping spree and feather hair extensions.
The immediate response from an average reader might be that of disgust and disappointment. How could a mom go so far as to starve and punish her daughter for having some extra flesh? Then, to reward her with materialistic goods, is Weiss conscious of her questionable parenting?
I think that there are both praises and criticisms that need to be given to Weiss. We need to commend her for taking action in her child’s obesity. It’s sad how some parents let their kids eat junk food and drink sugary soda limitlessly – when there are clearly signs that childhood obesity is a serious health concern and is on the rise. Proper parenting, I’d imagine, involves teaching kids to eat healthy and properly – in moderate amounts. Indulging in sweets is good occasionally, but if the child is dangerously approaching the line of obesity, parents need to step in and take action. I’m sure there are parents who really make an effort to provide their children with healthy eating habits, but nobody would have the guts to publicly impose a diet plan on them, like Weiss did. Weiss was brave and unconventional for doing this: she is boldly addressing the issue of childhood obesity in a way that it is absolutely not acceptable. In a way, she may have saved Bea’s health, which may have brought unwanted consequences had her obesity continued on.
On the other hand, we need to question the morality of this rigorous dieting. What kind of mental effects would this have on the child? Children are vulnerable minds, and anything difficult or forceful can easily affect their behavior and attitude. The stress and anxiety that may come with such a strict diet plan definitely cannot be healthy for a child’s mind. When we try to train children or mold them certain ways, we have to keep in mind that they are, after all, children – they are young and therefore should be free from unnecessary amounts of stress. If all mothers started to do what Weiss did, we just might end up with a nation full of slim, depressed children. Mental health is just as important as physical health and one needs to remember to balance them.
The Internet and democracy are interrelated in many more ways than we realize. As we witness unprecedented technological advancement in our time, we must ask ourselves: how exactly does this breakthrough affect democracy? Some people think that technology has a positive impact on achieving democratic ideals, but I beg to differ. I think that technology actually does more harm than good.
In a quick glance, the Internet may seem like a great tool to engage anybody from anywhere in the world. It’s marked by the era of cosmopolitanism, where people are communicating and acting at a global level. It may seem as though Internet is helping democracy by encouraging and allowing citizenship participation in international affairs and other matters. However, the wide use of Internet has not necessarily linked every part of the world, as people often tend to presume. The gap between the wealthy and developing nations is only steadily increasing, and the Internet still remains a privilege accessible to a small portion of the world population.
There are many social networking sites and forums on the Internet that allows people to have a direct connection to whatever they are pursuing in the digital world. This changes what people expect from democratic participation. With the speed and availability of content and sharing information, people generally want to put their two cents directly to anything of their interest. Because of their familiarity with the Internet world, they will expect institutions to act the same way as the Internet – fast, efficient, approachable, and made solely by their direct participation. However, it is unrealistic – and possibly dangerous – to have such an expectation because democracy in the real world does not work that way. Being used to the convenience that the Internet brings to our lifestyle, people are less likely to actively do something to build a more direct participation as citizens – instead, the Internet helps us become lazy and only expect as we stare at our computer screens.
Secondly, the Internet has tons of platforms for people to make coalitions and promote interest groups. This can seem encouraging because it reinforces the plurality of political entities and ideas that exist in the world. However – just like any bureaucratic procedures and policymaking – a high number of political actors does not always yield high efficiency. Like the analogy that a ship will sink with too many captains, the presence of too many political groups and forums can actually diverge from the goal of practicing effective politics. Information can get lost, people spend more time arguing against others than promoting their agenda, and not every group is represented equally. The Internet world is similar to the real one in that, sometimes, unfortunately, those with money and power have the loudest voices. Even if anybody can easily get involved and make their voices heard on the Internet, it’s hard to fight through the red tape and censorship and have tangible, widespread presence in this vast digital realm.
Lastly, the Internet isolates people. In contrast to what people generally believe about the Internet – that it connects everybody because there is information everywhere – it, in fact, does the exact opposite. While it is true that there are all kinds of information on the Internet accessible to people, we don’t consider everything. The digital media allows us to easily pick and choose what we see, when we want to see it. This only encourages people to focus only on what they would like to see, or what they are comfortable with. How often would somebody use the Internet to access information that doesn’t serve their interests? Not very often. This can eventually lead to isolation and separation between different people. People need to come together and find commonalities in a democracy – this is the exact opposite of the steps we need to take for establishing democratic ideals.
On a less theoretical note, the Internet serves to help people harm others. For example, terrorists use the Internet to create their own virtual sub-culture and to recruit people. Also, the Internet is another means of attacking the government and threatening the security of the state through hacking and viruses – a method that terrorists have been using. Because of the vastness of the digital world, it is close to impossible to detect every single unlawful action.
I recognize the usefulness of the Internet, but it hinders the kind of cooperation and participation needed to achieve democratic ideals. The digital world can make people have unrealistic expectations of democracy, create too many subgroups that result in loss of focus, and isolate people based on their interests. Can we deny the benefits that the Internet brought us? Of course not. However, the way that we treat the Internet currently serves as a major hindrance to democracy.
After months of struggle for the international community to call an end to violence in Syria, the Assad regime finally conceded. The Syrian government accepted the United Nations-Arab League plan for establishing peace, which has the goals of:
• “an inclusive Syrian-led political process” to address grass-roots grievances.
• a commitment to halt fighting and forge a U.N.-supervised halt of violence by the government and opposition groups.
• timely humanitarian aid.
• speeding up the release of “arbitrarily detained” people, including those engaged in “peaceful political activities.”
• ensuring “freedom of movement” for journalists.
• respecting peaceful demonstrations and “freedom of association.”
(source: TIME)
With China recently supporting the UN-Arab League plan, it became more feasible for the coalition to take action in Syria. This is great news for the global community, because many nations have condemned the Assad regime. I’m glad to see that both Russia and China agree with the rest of the countries that violence in Syria needs to be stopped. Although their interests remain differently than the majority of the world, they recognize that Syria is a huge problem that needs to be solved. Is the Syrian government serious about changing? We should hope so. However, with the pressure from many other countries, Syria will eventually have to show some sign of change. If not, this growing support of multiple countries for the coalition’s plan will bring serious consequences to Syria – maybe even without a necessary military intervention.
As a writer, I like to return to my past writings and see what can be changed. I believe that any written work, as formal as a political science research paper and as casual as a personal blog post, can always use some editing and rewriting. I was glad to find that the mini assignment for this week is polishing a past blog post of our blogs. I sifted through my first few blog posts in “Democracy in the News” because posts in that category generally were derived from other news articles. I knew that I had used less “I”s and personal opinions in the beginning, attempting to ‘report’ stories. Now that I know that the purpose of our blog in this class is to discuss politics from our very own perspectives, there are a few articles I’d like to edit. I chose the one on Arab League and Syria in particular, because I was honestly repulsed by the dryness of the tone and the lack of voice in the writing. I tried to add a more personal tone to the article in general, and began the article with a ‘hook’. This hook serves to capture the reader’s attention and give them a preview on what the rest of the post will be about. I also changed the structure of some sentences, realizing that I tend to write very looooong sentences with lots of conjunctions. See the original post here.
— edited version.
I’m becoming more concerned as I read more about what the world is doing for Syria. The Arab League nations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman gave Syria a deadline of this Thursday to change up its illiberal, undemocratic government. The Arab League nations have a mission in Syria to stop violence against civilians, release political prisoners, seize weapons from the cities, and establish more open travelling for foreigners. They also hope to convince the current Syrian president Bashar al-Assad to transfer his political power to his vice president and form a national unity government. They have made a clear request on forming a new constitutional council and holding parliamentary and presidential elections. I can sense a slight glimpse of hope that the Arab League is being proactive in this matter – because someone had to step up and do something. If the U.N. is failing to do it, it had to be the Arab League.
The League sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon proposing a national unity government. To me, it looks like the Arab League is serious and diplomatic about transitioning Syria into a more liberal democratic country. The Arab nations do not want military intervention, but want to gather international support through the United Nations Security Council. Will this be possible? We know the speed and efficiency at which the United Nations Security Council works – with major veto powers that can stop coalitions and countries from taking action. My guess is that China and Russia may not fully cooperate in the Security Council on this issue of helping the Arab League.
Nonetheless, as it always is with spreading democratic principles, the issue of national sovereignty arises. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said that the Arab League is violating the national sovereignty of Syria by intruding on its domestic matters. We have to ask ourselves, how much is too much then? When there are serious harms inflicted upon the people and foreign relations, I think it is necessary for the international community to step in. Arab League is definitely not trying to decrease Syrian sovereignty, but sees that solving the unhealthy political conditions in Syria is more important than completely letting Syria to be. Ask the international world what is their top priority: sovereignty, or saving the lives of innocent civilians.
Hopefully, the United Nations and the rest of the world will join the Arab League in efforts to deal with the situation in Syria – sooner than later.
