Category: Elective Post

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.

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.

http://ideas.time.com/2012/03/12/peace-in-space-why-obama-is-right/?xid=newsletter-weekly

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. Mama’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.

As part of the UBC host committee team for the World Model United Nations 2012 conference, I have had the pleasure and delight of meeting bright young people and learning about ‘coming together and going beyond.’ Last night was the Opening Ceremony, which took place at the Orpheum Theatre in downtown Vancouver. I was sitting with my fellow host team members near the front, near VIP guests, like the United Nations Director of Outreach, Maher Nasser, and the Harvard Secretariat.  When I turned around and looked at the massive theatre being filled with 2,000 university delegates from around the world, I just sat there in awe. It was intriguing to see different outfits and flags in the crowd, and to hear languages that I had not even heard before.

We were lucky to have two special guest speakers at the ceremony: Dr. Nasser, Jeremy Kinsman – former Canadian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom and Ambassador. Each of them had unique and inspirational things to say to the global audience, but there was one message in common that I took home. They told us that there are many political, economic, and social issues that affect human beings the same. Without global cooperation and contribution, these issues will remain unresolved. While it can seem challenging to try to tackle such big issues, like climate change and human rights abuse, there is a way to make it less daunting. Mr Kinsman used a very neat analogy to give us some words of encouragement, saying that, instead of considering ourselves as small waves that hit the shoreline and bounce back to nothingness, we should see ourselves as simply being part of the entire ocean. That way, each time we hit a cliff or the coast, we won’t feel like we digress or disappear but like we remain part of something bigger. Their words reminded me of the importance of staying informed about the world and participating in my own ways to contribute to change. Our motto for World MUN 2012 tells us to “come together, go beyond,” echoing the actions of the lively political discussions of POLI333 blogs and of the WorldMUN delegates from 200 countries around the world.

I have to admit, I clicked ‘play’ on the Kony 2012 video when it showed up for the twenty-first time on my Facebook newsfeed. I clicked it hoping to gain some insight about Uganda and child soldiers and become inspired to learn more about it. It did not, however, take me more than sixty seconds of watching it to realize that Kony 2012 was just yet another pointless, brainwashing Internet trend. Within a day, there were 42 friends on my Facebook who had shared this viral video on Invisible Children fighting against Joseph Kony. Invisible Children’s Kony 2012 campaign basically aims to make Kony famous by raising support for his arrest and bringing international justice to the children affected in Uganda.

What really disappointed me is that people were easily persuaded or moved by a simple Internet video, tagging their own comments on the video like, “if you watch one thing this year, it has to be this.” While it is great that they found something that really intrigued their mind – the video, not the situation in Uganda – it’s disturbing that these people actually do not genuinely care at all. People generally post on Facebook Internet memes from 9gag.com or put status updates about their latest shopping sprees. These same people were all of a sudden enthusiastic about “making Kony famous” and sharing Invisible Children’s campaign video. It really proves that Invisible Children set their target right – nothing spreads like wildfire more on Facebook than anywhere else. In addition, Invisible Children made this video disturbing enough for people to share the video after one view: they most likely did not Google the issue in Uganda and researched who Joseph Kony and the LRA really are.

I’m not trying to be cynical, but, based on many trends on Facebook I have witnessed over the years, these people will forget about Kony and Uganda as soon as this video stops being a trend. They have become exactly what the media wants us to be: easily swayed by the very information that they are given, pretending to care, participating in a new term called “slacktivism.” It is highly unlikely that these people will actually leave their computer desk and walk into their community to work on fighting against LRA and raising awareness. People just follow what the majority follows because it’s convenient and intriguing.

Although I am not an expert on Uganda, I have read that Invisible Children has not been declared non-profit. Most of the donations sent to Invisible Children are spent on the organization itself: the money gets lost in translation, and there is only a small faction of the money raised that will actually reach Uganda. There are a few other options, like Doctors without Borders, that actually do more credible work without strategically manipulating the information given to the general population. I’m quite disappointed and scared that we still fall so easily into the traps set by some organizations – we are the very puppets of political manipulators.

The Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada’s National Conversation on Asia team and the UBC Political Science Students Association will host an undergraduate student conference,Campus Conversations on Asia: The Values Question, at SFU’s Segal School located in downtown Vancouver. Please feel free to distribute this invitation to interested undergraduate students.

Where: 500 Granville Street, Vancouver, BC

When: March 3, 2012

Time: From 9:30 am to 3:30pm (reception to follow)

The day will feature Professor Paul Evans as the keynote speaker, as well as a panel of young Asia scholars and practitioners, a Korean drum performance, break-out sessions and a reception to finish off the day.

We welcome students from any post-secondary institution in the lower mainland. Students do not need a background in Asia to attend. Admission is free, and breakfast and lunch will be provided, but participants must fill out a registration form to confirm their attendance.

Keynote speaker‚s bio:

Paul Evans is the Director of the Institute of Asian Research (UBC) and one of Canada‚s leading thinkers on the future of Canada-Asia relations. He has been appointed at York University, the University of Toronto, Harvard University the Liu Institute for Global Issues, and the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. He has also been a visiting fellow at the Australian National University, National Chengchi University (Taiwan), Chulalongkorn University (Thailand), and the National Institute for Research Advancement in Tokyo (Japan). For a full bio, click here.

Panelists‚ bios:

Robert Hanlon is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Institute of Asian Research (UBC) and a Lecturer at SFU, focusing on bribery, corruption and human rights in Asia. Check out his blog here.

Joanna Wong is writer, filmmaker and communications strategist on Chin’‚s emerging environmental movement. Joanna is also an Action Canada Fellow and a Principal at FlowCS, an award-winning film and creative studio dedicated to sustainability in China. Check out her videos and blog on the Human Element in China.

Aim Sinpeng is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science (UBC) and a Visiting Research Fellow at Thammasat University. Aim focuses on democratization and civil society in Southeast Asia, the party system in Thailand and south Thai politics. Check out her blog here.

There is a website that I frequent because it puts up a lot of interesting information in fun graphs, infographics and pictures. Information is Beautiful posts a wide range of topics from China’s censorship to illegal drugs. The following image is from their “Left vs Right (World)” post, outlining the basic gist of the left-wing and right-wing political ideologies.

There is only so much that you can include in a diagram trying to distinguish the political left from right. This is a generic point to start understanding the main differences between the two sides but we need to keep in mind that there are many degrees of variation on political views (even within the same one). This diagram makes the right-wing way of thinking to be completely cold, calculated and rational, while the left-wing ideas promote more positive views on humanity. While it is true that the right-wing tends to support war, morals and discipline, it should be understood that left-wing can have corruption, discipline and rules.

And what about the people that do not fall strictly into one wing or another? When I was younger and just beginning to learn about political terms and ideas, I was massively confused. What the media taught me was that (I watched a lot of US politics on CNN) you are either left or right. There I stood, utterly confused at how I could possibly believe in personal AND economic freedom supported by a minimal government role in each aspect. For example, on this graph, I agree with the leftist thought of being progressive and supporting personal freedom. However, I also believe in the right wing ideals of non-interference in society, low taxes, and economic freedom.Yet, I do not believe in organized religion and I fully support gay and abortion rights.

What this diagram shows is that many of us are still stuck in a dichotomous way of thinking, when there are eons of possibilities for a political perspective. Left and right are the most basic division in politics but that should not encourage or pressure people to conform to simply one side or another.

Back in November, 2008, California introduced a referendum known as Proposition 8 that banned same-sex unions. Two years later, it was overturned by a court ruling. And now, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says that the initial Proposition is unconstitutional.

Proposition 8 originally stated that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognised in California”. Then, two same-sex couples challenged the statement because it violated their right to equal protection. The 2010 overturning of the ban claimed that Proposition 8 was a violation of civil rights.

My first reaction to the latest news on this issue? About time. It surprises and angers me how people can be so ignorant to ban a civil union between two people that love each other. Why should the government, or any other people, have the right to decide whether or not a couple can be recognized as a union? The opponents of gay marriage argue that same-sex marriage can be dangerous to society by producing gay children, or that it is unnatural and unholy. They pass judgment on gay people and the gay community based on their prejudices on what should be the norm in our culture. Yes, heterosexuality is still a dominating social norm but we need to change that and accept those that are constantly denied freedoms and marginalized. Gay people don’t necessarily produce gay children, just as a heterosexual couple can produce a homosexual child. There is absolutely no reason to think that allowing same-sex marriage will harm society. If anything, lifting the ban will encourage openness and development of diversity among us. And, really, why should straight people care whether someone they choose not to support or accept wants to marry someone they love? Discrimination of gay people and banning gay marriage is just as digressive and destructive as racism, religious intolerance, sexism, and anything you can think of.

I hope that more states move in the direction of legalizing gay marriage.

Fidel Castro unveiled a two-volume memoir of his life, titled “Fidel Castro Ruz: Guerilla of Time”. The books include everything Castro could remember from his infancy to the eve of the Cuban Revolution victory in December, 1958. Yesterday, he presented his 1000-page work for six hours to the press.

Castro said he is “willing to do everything possible to share everything I remember well”. He is being encouraged to continue writing and overcome the difficulties of remembering the past.

This memoir certainly will be an interesting read; the leader of the Cuban Revolution and the former Cuban president of 50 years must have a lot of insightful stories to share. I cannot even fathom what it would be like to be part of such a historic event and be a prominent figure in world politics. There is no doubt that Castro has seen and experienced a myriad things – both good and bad – that will affect the reader in one way or another.

There are lots of politicians who simply write memoirs to get their name out and facilitate their political agenda. Would Castro be one of them? I don’t think so, seeing as he is 85 years old and handed over his presidency to his brother in 2008. He knows he is aging and he must show the life he lived and the disastrous world from his perspective.

This is a quick 5-minute video that explains the difference between Great Britain, United Kingdom, and England, along with the Commonwealth and British Territories – mixed with some history!

I’m sure that we, as political science students, have mixed the terms Great Britain and United Kingdom in many of their essays (I hope I’m not the only one) and now I finally understand which term to use in which context! Watching this video reminded me of how great the British Empire used to be. There are still eons of mini-islands and cities that are considered British Territories or Dependencies…in addition to the Commonwealth around the world.

How many people in the English-speaking world do you think actually already knew this difference?

Enjoy.