News for nerds, stuff that matters

As I have posted previously, there have been many accusations of democracies endeavouring to assimilate other nations in their own discourse through the introduction of “democratic ideals”. A poignant case at point is that of 19 NGO officials that have been charged with operating illegal funds in Egypt recently.

Many Egyptians from many different backgrounds share the

military-led government’s suspicions of the motives of the American colossus. The New York Times quotes one activist, for example, who said,  “Eighty percent of the people think this is America’s work,” as he surveyed the wreckage left on his street after nearly a week of clashes between protesters and security forces in Cairo. He adds, “America does not like Islam.” And some members of the newly constituted parliament have told the Egyptian reporters that they look forward to the results of the investigation, arguing the US is at fault for violating local laws that barred foreign financing of non-profits. Previously, that newspaper had reported various groups and individuals directly involved in the Arab Spring, including the April 6 Youth Movement, had taken part in training by these American groups, a development that was not viewed with total equanimity by many Egyptians.

http://dailymaverick.co.za/article/2012-02-08-egypt-a-dangerous-habit-spreading-of-democracy

At issue is whether NGOs have overstepped their jurisdiction and welcome in the domestic affairs of Egypt. It seems like there is a political agenda when the humanitarian efforts are led by the United States that dominate the international political arena. It is understandable that outreach efforts are being conducted in Egypt after much political unrest. However, the extent to which the NGOs are interfering with domestic governmental affairs is a little over the top. I agree very much with the standpoint that this “over-reaction” is reasonable from the Egyptian government. “Sullivan says, “I understand the purpose of the NDI and the IRI. But this is a newly freed state and a very brittle and emotional environment. It’s not the best environment for them to work. How would we react if a foreign country came here to teach us how to conduct elections?” National pride and political climate is the major stimulant of this conflict.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/08/egyptian-raids-on-u-s-ngos-conducted-according-to-the-law-judge-says/

A video on the Egyptian situation: Egypt’s Ruling Generals Play Risk

Again I revisit the topic of whether Democracy can be bought. Yet again, the United States have proven that it is indeed do-able.

Recently, President Obama have been busy with constructing a million-dollar presidential campaign, funded by PACs. For those of us who don’t know what PACs are: the full name is political action committee, which is used to advance a particular political objective. These contributions are made in excess of $1000 in hope to alter the outcome of federal elections. To put this in perspective, the level of funding is as follows,

“The new joint effort, fundraisers stress, is expected to be contingent on pulling together a group of super donors who collectively would pony up between $40 million and $100 million. Fundraisers note that it’s important to potential big individual donors that if they write checks in the $5 million range, their contributions would be matched by several others.”

Source: http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/02/08/8111/democratic-operatives-seeking-million-dollar-checks-super-pacs

It is said that this is a very cynical move by President Obama, who, last year, called the PACs a “threat to democracy”. What do you think? Is it necessary in a capitalist society? Or is it just a scam? Personally, I understand the position of President Obama, yet still feel disappointed with his choice of compromising his strong conviction for fighting against corporate-dominated politics. What say you?

Many attempts have been used to indicate the development and progress of nations. One of the more prominent and well-known source is the Human Development Index. It introduced new ways of measuring development by combining factors such like: life expectancy, educational attainment and income into a composite human development index, the HDI.

HDI is composed of 3 parts: Education, Health and Living Standards; all of which are measured by smaller indicators. For example, the education component is measured “by mean of years of schooling for adults aged 25 years and expected years of schooling for children of school entering age”. As with a lot of statistical data, a lot of information may not be recorded accurately, or at all.

Browsing the official website, one can quickly spot problems that remain unsolved or unexplored deliberately. Under the FAQs, one question is, “Why does the HDI not include dimensions of participation, gender and equality?” One would think that those components would be key components to determining the progress of a society. As an answer to the question, HDI offers the following explanation,

The policy of the Human Development Report Office has always been to construct additional complementary composite indices for covering some of the “missing” dimensions in the HDI. Gender disparity, inequality and human deprivation are measured by other indices (see Gender Inequality Index, Multidimensional Poverty Index and Inequality-adjusted HDI).

(Please see website: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi/)

It is therefore an incomprehensive and inconclusive index, if it undermines fundamental components such as universal suffrage, and gender issues.

Hi everyone,

I am happy to announce that…no I am not getting married or having a baby, but I have chosen my paper topic!

I am interested in the East Asia Region.

I look forward to more discussion and input on this topic!

Here’s a few links to topics that I would like to explore:

Media Bias: http://focustaiwan.tw/ShowNews/WebNews_Detail.aspx?Type=aALL&ID=201201160044

Dirty political tricks: http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/presidential-election/2012/01/14/329004/Kuomintang-opposition.htm

More links are coming!!

Think you’re rich? Well, can you buy a country? According to the CIA Fact book and Forbes Magazine,

“Bill Gates, America’s richest man with a net worth of $50 billion, has a personal balance sheet larger than the gross domestic product (GDP) of 140 countries, including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Bolivia and Uruguay”.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/29/forbes-400-gates-dell-walton-charney-rich-list-09-billionaires-vs-world.html

It is a funny thing, isn’t it? Well recently in the news, it is said that Apple’s cash could bail out Greece for the next two year.

“Apple’s 116 per cent profit growth helped push its total cash to $97.6 billion–enough to cover Greece’s debt payments due in the next two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg”.

Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Apple+cash+could+bail+Greece/6055193/story.html#ixzz1kdSEuYSZ

Ultimately, what this is saying is that…money can buy democracies. This may well happen in the very near future. Are they still called democracies if they are operated by a multinational company, with economic interests that may be clearly biased? What do you think?

More articles:

http://www.luxurylaunches.com/celebrities/are_you_rich_enough_to_buy_a_country.php

http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Apple+cash+could+bail+Greece/6055193/story.html

The Greek origins of the word: demos means the common people, and kratos means a rule, a power. However, since we have deviated as a society so much from that governmental structure, what really is Democracy?

There are many definitions of democracy that are in circulation. More importantly, there are many theories about how to derive an accurate Democratic theory. The two main classifications are: minimalist or non-minimalist theory. A minimalist democracy is one that defines very little elements as to what constitutes a democracy. On the other hand, a non-minimalist theory is one that defines more criterion that is necessary for a functional democracy.

In my view, it is necessary for us to adopt a non-minimalist definition of democracy, since the conventions of democracy has evolved to be more complex. For example, the phrase  “civil rights and liberties” is inextricably linked to the implementation of democracy. Acknowledging that there are many definitions of democracy out there, I hereby attempt to draw out a relatively broad theory:

Democracy refers to a society that respects civil rights and liberties of its citizens, has universal suffrage, and honors the rule of law.

There are many arguments as thus:

Check out this very poignant article pointing to the core problem of Democracy:

http://generaloverflow.com/is-democracy-doomed-to-bankruptcy

Another argument is that:

When visiting the website, I found a rather radical objection:

“For example, Suffrage does not define nor does it produce democracy, for electoral voting takes place in totalitarian, fascist, communist, and National Socialist (NAZI), i.e., anti-democratic, states. Having been elected, there is nothing to stop government from imposing control of an upper house, reneging on pledges, nor from adopting any tyrannical measures it chooses.”

I’m not so sure that the United States is anti-democratic, and NAZI. However, the point on obsessing over universal suffrage is well taken. If universal suffrage is not conducted in a fair and just manner, with a honour of the rule of law, then it is meaningless. Hence the safeguards against despotism is in fact the honouring of those criterion that I listed in my definition.

I do acknowledge that democracy is a contested concept worldwide. However, these key elements do define the merits and purpose of the system itself.

It is always a pleasure after class, especially a stressful exam or test to go enjoy a cold beverage, most of all, beer! When you order beer, do you normally order a glass? Pint? Sleeve? (Well, of course, pitcher would be the best size!) Anyhow, have you ever been confused with the size categorization? I certainly attest that I have. I have definitely got some skimpy pours in smaller glasses before. I’m not alone. Beer lovers are protesting! “The Campaign for Real Ale Vancouver is putting pressure on B.C.’s bars and restaurants to con-fess to the real size of their draft beer servings”. It is said that “[b]y law, a pint in Canada is 20 ounces or 591 mL, but in practice few establishments serve a true pint, he said. So-called pints of beer typically range from 16 to 19.5 ounces, according to The Sun’s research.

All this measurement becomes vital in the discussion of alcohol content in relation to drinking and driving. Many have suggested that beers with higher alcohol content should be served in smaller portions. One respondent to the survey said that standardization is a public safety issue. “With the new tough drinking [and] driving laws you need to know whether you are getting 12 ounces or 20 of a seven-per-cent IPA,” he said.

All this is interesting, but how does it relate to democracy? I hereby pose a question, “Is it the state’s overstepping its authority in trying to control the drinking habits of people, the business tactics of bar owners? Or does it abide to the harm principle suggested by Mill? By the way, the harm principle is defined by Wikipedia, “The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals”. (Hooray to non-blackouts!) In a liberal democracy where everyone’s individualism is put on a pedestal, and is being honored, is it ok to control or monitor the drinking habits of individuals?

I argue that the government should standardize the measurements so as to ensure that consumers are being given what they paid for. However, I don’t think that a beer with a higher alcoholic content should be served merely in smaller sizes. The amount should be left for the consumers themselves to decide. However, the fact that this concern reached the news demonstrates that the democratic rights of individuals to expression their concern is a sign of a compliance with democratic principles.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Beer+lovers+call+establishments+fess+their+serving+sizes/6031854/story.html#ixzz1kDimaJUV

I’ve been following the GOP debates loosely, and recently came across this attack on Gingrich. A recent article on Foxnews, (I know, I know, Fox news..), but here’s the title of the article, “Gingrich: Dirty Politics Undermine Democracy”. Here is a link to the article: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/01/20/gingrich-dirty-politics-undermine-democracy

Newt Gingrich condemned these “bogus emails” “alleging he asked his ex-wife Marianne for an abortion. During vital times in the campaign as this, it is an obvious danger to the damage to his campaign. Here’s what he had to say to his defense,

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/01/20/gingrich-dirty-politics-undermine-democracy#ixzz1k4DEvhOZ

Ottawa wants to mandate internet service providers to install more surveillance equipment to monitor their customers online activities. There has been much speculation about the case studies conducted to ensure that the government will generate a strong case for the tighter restrictions on online content.

“Vancouver-based advocacy group OpenMedia.ca published details of an internal Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP) email message to its members who represent more than 90% of the country’s police community. The message, OpenMedia says, asks CACP members to provide examples, even those with “confidential operational information,” of investigations thwarted by Canada’s privacy legislation”.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/technology/Feds+want+more+online+police+surveillance/6019094/story.html#ixzz1jyRv3Qzz

The problem with such legislation is that it strips away the rights of the majority, in order to prevent the “minority” from imposing harm on the public. As the Conservative member said, “Rather than making things easier for child pornographers and organized criminals, we call on all Canadians to support these balanced measures,” she said. However, when do we draw the line? When is it intolerable for the government to overstep their authority in ensuring that we are not “harmed”? When is the infringement on our right to expectation of privacy justified and when is it not? It is a slippery slope that can only be prevented through the engagement of the citizens and the awareness.

Dear friends in POLI333D,

Here are few things I’d like to share with you, hope you find them interesting:

Robbie Katz:

We both want to go to Law school, here’s some interesting news about them:

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2012/jan/19/law-professors-stir-national-debate/

Annie Ju:

Here’s one of my favourite pianist, Maksim Mrvica. So cute, and so good!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGPkSyEY-YU

Ian Wood:

I am writing the LSAT soon too! It sucks doesn’t it? If you haven’t already, I highly recommend the show: Suits. Check it out, in between logic games and all!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1632701/