With Julian Assange's arrest this morning, I though it would be appropriate to talk about Wikileaks. Since its creation, it has caused an uproar among world governments and important individuals. While representing different ends of the political and alliance spectrum, their common denominator is that they all revile the site and its purpose. Politicians hate it, yet the common people love it. Why? First, we must analyze Assange's motive for releasing hundreds of thousands of unreleased material. While most of the material is relatively unimportant, the remainder is very sensitive and potentially embarrassing. Politics is often conducted behind closed doors, public and private conversation being much different. The point of contention occurs when we realize that most important decisions are made behind closed doors. The public ends up only seeing what we are meant to see. With this highly secretive method of communication, nations have created an international cocktail that remains mostly stable. However, if private conversations were to become public, many fear that it would destabilize an arrangement that does not respond well to disturbance. As such, past communications would poison present arrangements and spoil the change of any future ones. Is this desirable? Certainly not, and I believe that Assange agrees. Personally, I believe that Assange desires for the world to have as few secrets between us as possible. Globalization at its peak. A world community created by the forceful eradication of technical boundaries.
However, present politicians are reacting the most violently to Assange's vision. They fear that a leaked document will embarrass them. Indeed, the fear is justified. Among private citizens, this fear does not exist. Following decades of distrust of government, the hope of finding government accountable to a higher degree than before is enticing, as well as learning the information they have long "concealed for our protection." Perhaps certain documents are troubling, but it is noble for citizens to take such an interest in politics.
It is also moral. Secrecy does indeed jeopardize long-term resolution, as no foundation can be built on air. On the reverse, some worry that the leaked information could include documents that would inform our enemies of strategic and crippling locations, which they could bomb in an attack. This too is a justified concern. Judging Assange's belief in a technologically frank world, I doubt he is able to differentiate between which documents should be withheld. This remains, in my opinion, the largest negative aspect of wikileaks. However, I am comforted in knowing that our intelligence agencies are advanced and trained to an extend of ensuring our safety. I doubt that this fear will materialize.
There are many noble aspects of Wikileaks, but several damaging ones. The difference is significant in that the advantages are theoretical, but the disadvantages are factual. Perhaps Wikileaks will gain greater endorsement in the future, but for the moment, it remains a topic too controversial for its own good.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Globalization
Globalization is a wonderful thing, striving to create a global community made of common entities, rather than a world of independent communities in different stages of hostility towards one another. Globalization has redefined international standards of living through the political, economic, and social changes that it brings. I mention this specific achievement because I consider it to be our greatest goal as beings. First, globalization allows for nations to trade amongst each other, creating competition and specialization. Economists agree that this is beneficial for all, but as do stats. With globalization, 200 million people have left absolute poverty (less than $1 a day) since 1980. Also, abandoning isolationism has elevated previously third-world nations to near first-world status (primarily Asia), whereas nations that have resisted globalization (primarily Africa) have continued their economic (and ensuing social and political) hardships. This leads me to my second point, the political changes that globalization brings. First, the creation of a global community ensures that we all know more about our neighbours. And tolerance always follows understanding. With an already decreasing number of wars, we also find that the wars existing are experiencing greater press scrutiny. Once we see an injustice, the great gift of morality propels us to influence politicians to act. As such, change is bringing peace. Indeed, an assurance of long-lasting peace is a great achievement for raising international living standards. Lastly, ti also has many social benefits. With this great press scrutiny, many nations have been forced to ameliorate the injustices occurring their respective countries. This, with the added gift that economic prosperity brings to raising standards of living has resulted in child labour decreasing from 32% in certain developing countries to 19%. Additionally, standards of living for woman have greatly improved. Nations that have resisted such changes to women's rights, such as Saudi Arabia, have suffered economically as a result. With this point said, it can be seen that globalization has concrete and far-reaching accomplishments that prove its necessity for a modern world.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Variations on a theme: Government
First of all, we must correct a common error. Communism and Socialism are not interchangeable. In fact, socialism is liberal, while communism is conservative. Socialists believe that power must be made by as many people as possible for the benefit of the working class, while communists want as few people as possible to make these decisions, preferably only one, to make such decisions in the interest of the people. This alone defines the two as political opposites.
Further explored, you'll see that while communism was derived from socialist economic policy, it quickly distanced itself from mere economic reform to include political reform, something to which socialists do not subscribe. Also, communism is progressively moving to the right and has far surpassed neo-conservatism. Communist theory was first known as Marxism, then changed to Maxist Leninism, and then Stalinism. By the time Stalin controlled the Soviet Union, his brand of communism was indeed nothing more than a totalitarian exploitation of his people made by one individual. This is conservatism at its worse; it is not socialism.
As such, one cannot use examples of Communist nations to discredit leftist economic policies. Quite frankly, these nations have been corrupted and rendered ineffectively harmful to its people due to its extreme right-wing ideology. How can one implement economic policies that gives power to as many people as possible when one has a political system that prevents the people from having power? Logically, it's impossible. As such, if one desires to adopt socialist policies to an economy, it must be done in a democracy.
In a democracy, there exists the potential for the working class to take an interest in the government and voice an opinion. Capitalism also exists. The most effective brand of socialism (and the only one I believe that will work) is a hybrid between socialism and capitalism. Socialism does not reject capitalism, unlike communism, although there is debate as to the extend that capitalism should play in an economy. I believe that if one creates restrictions for corporations that limits the extent of their influence, it will prevent the manipulation of the working class and ensure that their voice remains heard.
Now further prove this point, we will look at a few examples of the benefits that will result. First, if corporations have restricted influence, this leaves a void to be filled in terms of political influence. This void will be filled by those who are frustrated with the government and demand that their voice is heard. They are now impossible to ignore. With the frustrations that are voiced, there will inevitably be a demand for government help from those suffering in our society. A social safety net is its result. Universal health care was a past victory, as was free public education, unemployment insurance, and a declaration of our rights and freedoms. If groups had not voiced their frustrations in the past, these changes certainly would not presently exist. And if these groups had been allowed to be manipulated and overshadowed by a small and elite group of the powerful members of our society, as conservatives would prefer, they would never have been heard.
These are the changes made in the past. There are changes to be made for the future. For example, I believe the state should pay for the majority of undergraduate education an university for all those that wish to apply. This is common to socialist cultures, yet has yet to be implemented here. Instead of individual families setting aside a yearly amount of money for 17 years to pay for these future costs, they will instead pay an increase in taxes. If they are exactly the middle class, then this amount will be exactly what they pay now. If they are below, then it will be less. If they are above, it will be more. Tax rates would vary per the family's income and be used to pay for the majority of each student's education. With this government help, any student who wishes to go to university, and has the academic qualifications, may do so. A student will never be rejected for financial reasons. Now, the argument is often made that families are better suited for organizing this amount of money. This a perfectly valid argument, yet they fail to entertain the possibility that their income may suddenly collapse and find themselves unable to pay for these costs. They may be fired and unable to quickly find a replacement, or be incapacitated. Such a possibility is already tragic, why add the added torment of no longer being able to pay for your children's education? No, I say let the state worry about this. Let the state and your fellow tax payers support you in your time of need. We are an evolving society and I believe we have reached a level of social responsibility where our fellow citizens are not left helpless if injured- are not left neglected if voiceless.
Further explored, you'll see that while communism was derived from socialist economic policy, it quickly distanced itself from mere economic reform to include political reform, something to which socialists do not subscribe. Also, communism is progressively moving to the right and has far surpassed neo-conservatism. Communist theory was first known as Marxism, then changed to Maxist Leninism, and then Stalinism. By the time Stalin controlled the Soviet Union, his brand of communism was indeed nothing more than a totalitarian exploitation of his people made by one individual. This is conservatism at its worse; it is not socialism.
As such, one cannot use examples of Communist nations to discredit leftist economic policies. Quite frankly, these nations have been corrupted and rendered ineffectively harmful to its people due to its extreme right-wing ideology. How can one implement economic policies that gives power to as many people as possible when one has a political system that prevents the people from having power? Logically, it's impossible. As such, if one desires to adopt socialist policies to an economy, it must be done in a democracy.
In a democracy, there exists the potential for the working class to take an interest in the government and voice an opinion. Capitalism also exists. The most effective brand of socialism (and the only one I believe that will work) is a hybrid between socialism and capitalism. Socialism does not reject capitalism, unlike communism, although there is debate as to the extend that capitalism should play in an economy. I believe that if one creates restrictions for corporations that limits the extent of their influence, it will prevent the manipulation of the working class and ensure that their voice remains heard.
Now further prove this point, we will look at a few examples of the benefits that will result. First, if corporations have restricted influence, this leaves a void to be filled in terms of political influence. This void will be filled by those who are frustrated with the government and demand that their voice is heard. They are now impossible to ignore. With the frustrations that are voiced, there will inevitably be a demand for government help from those suffering in our society. A social safety net is its result. Universal health care was a past victory, as was free public education, unemployment insurance, and a declaration of our rights and freedoms. If groups had not voiced their frustrations in the past, these changes certainly would not presently exist. And if these groups had been allowed to be manipulated and overshadowed by a small and elite group of the powerful members of our society, as conservatives would prefer, they would never have been heard.
These are the changes made in the past. There are changes to be made for the future. For example, I believe the state should pay for the majority of undergraduate education an university for all those that wish to apply. This is common to socialist cultures, yet has yet to be implemented here. Instead of individual families setting aside a yearly amount of money for 17 years to pay for these future costs, they will instead pay an increase in taxes. If they are exactly the middle class, then this amount will be exactly what they pay now. If they are below, then it will be less. If they are above, it will be more. Tax rates would vary per the family's income and be used to pay for the majority of each student's education. With this government help, any student who wishes to go to university, and has the academic qualifications, may do so. A student will never be rejected for financial reasons. Now, the argument is often made that families are better suited for organizing this amount of money. This a perfectly valid argument, yet they fail to entertain the possibility that their income may suddenly collapse and find themselves unable to pay for these costs. They may be fired and unable to quickly find a replacement, or be incapacitated. Such a possibility is already tragic, why add the added torment of no longer being able to pay for your children's education? No, I say let the state worry about this. Let the state and your fellow tax payers support you in your time of need. We are an evolving society and I believe we have reached a level of social responsibility where our fellow citizens are not left helpless if injured- are not left neglected if voiceless.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Korea
In the past few days, we've heard of the escalating situation in Korea. Shells were fired in a civilian area, with four confirmed deaths and the injury of 18 others. Our knowledge of North Korea's irrational leader, Kim Jong-Il, we consider the worst possible outcome to be within the realm of possibility. But is it?
I certainly don't think so; nothing more will come of this conflict. Few would consider Kim Jong-Il reasonable, but I don't believe he's as crazy as everyone portrays him to be. By this I refer specifically to the fear of nuclear war that surfaces every instance his name is mentioned. His army is aging, as is he. Furthermore, he holds dear the theory of self-reliance promoted by father, all the while accepting large quantities of food, weapons, and funds from China. Additionally, the Nuclear Bomb test conducted by North Korea in 2006 was far too small to be considered successful, a fact largely ignored. Many analysts simply believe that the bomb malfunctioned, or that it wasn't even a nuclear weapon. Several media outlets even reported Kim Jong-Il as apologizing for the blast and promising there would be no more. I conclude that he is simply unstable, but afraid to the extent of inaction.
This even explains the attack this week. The KCNA, North Korea's state-run communications service blamed the South for "harming inter-Korean relations," and "challenging the desire of all Koreans." That, plus a slew of ham-fisted insults suggest that while showing a brave demeanour, they have no desire for war. They are afraid. In fact, the United States is sending a few ships to participate in the South Korea War-games as a deterrent against further attacks. If the Americans anticipated a violent North Korean response, would it send its ships to their border, where they can easily be destroyed if so desired by the North Koreans. If they are indeed destroyed, American Law dictates this is an act of aggression and the nation will declare war. They are aware that North Korea will not attack. They will appear unshaken and fearless, but be shaking on the inside.
The only factor that could cause a North Korean response is China. Without China, North Korea will fall within the month. They are a puppet state that provide the world a cause for alarm, distracting them from the abuses conducted in China. However, China will not allow a North Korean response. The common argument is that one side of the spectrum of the decision concerns China's economic benefit, the other is the benefit of the communist ideology. Indeed, trying to debate which is more important isn't easy. The reality however is that there is only one option. It will benefit the economy and the ideology to continue this peace- peace brings profit for China. As it grows stronger economically, the Communist ideology will grow stronger as well, due to the example China will provide as proof of its validity.
There is only one choice to make, and it's win-win. This choice excludes war. There will be peace in the region, although uncomfortable peace that borders tension. There will not be war however. Not tomorrow, not next week, month, year or decade.
I certainly don't think so; nothing more will come of this conflict. Few would consider Kim Jong-Il reasonable, but I don't believe he's as crazy as everyone portrays him to be. By this I refer specifically to the fear of nuclear war that surfaces every instance his name is mentioned. His army is aging, as is he. Furthermore, he holds dear the theory of self-reliance promoted by father, all the while accepting large quantities of food, weapons, and funds from China. Additionally, the Nuclear Bomb test conducted by North Korea in 2006 was far too small to be considered successful, a fact largely ignored. Many analysts simply believe that the bomb malfunctioned, or that it wasn't even a nuclear weapon. Several media outlets even reported Kim Jong-Il as apologizing for the blast and promising there would be no more. I conclude that he is simply unstable, but afraid to the extent of inaction.
This even explains the attack this week. The KCNA, North Korea's state-run communications service blamed the South for "harming inter-Korean relations," and "challenging the desire of all Koreans." That, plus a slew of ham-fisted insults suggest that while showing a brave demeanour, they have no desire for war. They are afraid. In fact, the United States is sending a few ships to participate in the South Korea War-games as a deterrent against further attacks. If the Americans anticipated a violent North Korean response, would it send its ships to their border, where they can easily be destroyed if so desired by the North Koreans. If they are indeed destroyed, American Law dictates this is an act of aggression and the nation will declare war. They are aware that North Korea will not attack. They will appear unshaken and fearless, but be shaking on the inside.
The only factor that could cause a North Korean response is China. Without China, North Korea will fall within the month. They are a puppet state that provide the world a cause for alarm, distracting them from the abuses conducted in China. However, China will not allow a North Korean response. The common argument is that one side of the spectrum of the decision concerns China's economic benefit, the other is the benefit of the communist ideology. Indeed, trying to debate which is more important isn't easy. The reality however is that there is only one option. It will benefit the economy and the ideology to continue this peace- peace brings profit for China. As it grows stronger economically, the Communist ideology will grow stronger as well, due to the example China will provide as proof of its validity.
There is only one choice to make, and it's win-win. This choice excludes war. There will be peace in the region, although uncomfortable peace that borders tension. There will not be war however. Not tomorrow, not next week, month, year or decade.
Friday, October 22, 2010
AIC Simulation
The AIC (Arab-Israeli Conflict) Simulation is an activity in which my class and I will participate over the period of the next few weeks. The simulation, organized by the University of Michigan, is designed to replicate the diplomatic process that is being used to solve this crisis in reality. The purpose, in addition to the gained diplomatic skills, will be to increase or understanding of the crisis and the impact it has on both the Jewish and Arabic communities. Society tends to oversimplify the issue as a fight between politicians, but their angst is feeble in comparison to the millions whose lives have been saturated in perpetual fear and sorrow.
My role in the simulation is representing the nation of Russia. I will be playing its Prime Minister and former President, Vladimir Putin. Russia is a strong supporter of a two-state solution, but feels the need to support the Palestinians if we are to wish for a stable outcome, due to the United States' overbearing and regent-like attitude towards Israel. With both parties equally represented, Russia is confident that a peaceful solution is not only possible, but imminent.
My role in the simulation is representing the nation of Russia. I will be playing its Prime Minister and former President, Vladimir Putin. Russia is a strong supporter of a two-state solution, but feels the need to support the Palestinians if we are to wish for a stable outcome, due to the United States' overbearing and regent-like attitude towards Israel. With both parties equally represented, Russia is confident that a peaceful solution is not only possible, but imminent.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
How to Fix the World
In the abstract, we may have our opinions on the changes we would make to the world if given the chance. There is an incredible number of problems in the world, a number so large it remains unsurpassed but by the number of solutions.
While we may wish for world peace, wish for an end to poverty, and wish for an increase of riches in our lives, the most discouraging aspect of this discussion is our willingness to consider these problems beyond the realm of our influence, be it by a lack of support, money, or feasibility. To reverse this tragedy of thought, we need a significant change. Not an addition, nor a revision, but an overhaul. For this I identified the two most common frustrations of our modern civilization, and they are politicians and bankers.
Politicians rarely make action of their illustrious promises, while bankers manipulate and deceive the common people for their financial gain. Looking at the worst of them, it is an embarrassment to call them the beacons of our society, instead personifying the corruption of our values. And no matter the influence of the respectable politicians, it is the most corrupt and unintelligent of them that populate the airwaves and conversation. We cannot entrust them to solve the problems of the world, nor do they have the time, as they are attempting to fix the problems their predecessors have left. As for bankers, they believe in the theories of economics without understanding the limitations of reality. As Frederick Nietzche said, they are "theoretical men," failing to comprehend the suffering that results of their greed and selfishness. And so the problem remains, how do we ensure that we will be led by the best minds among us? Plato suggested that we make philosophers our rulers, as they are the ones who are closest to understanding the complexities of the world. It isn't a terrible idea, we are exchanging the freedom of choosing our leaders for that of stability. Thomas Hobbes proposed a similar thesis, albeit a stricter one, and one may argue that it also has merit. In a modern setting, certain adjustments need to be made, but the idea remains concrete. I would suggest that each philosopher be elected by a council of academics and allowed to reign for a term lasting between 5-10 years, to maintain a freshness of ideas. These leaders would be beholden to no one, instead focusing on ideas and their realization. They would not worry about public perception or being "television friendly," nor would they be influenced by lobbyists or special interest groups. They would be independent and free to govern for the good of the populace. It is here that our goals, before so abstract, suddenly are thrust to the forefront of reality. Funds could be allocated yearly to eradicate poverty in Africa and Asia, and philosophers could themselves travel to these nations and promote intellectual revolutions of their own, sparked simply by the unleashing of ideas. This is the key. Unleashing ideas. There is no shortage of ideas, nor should we anticipate one. It is advocating the necessity of thinking that rids the mind of the superficial and allows us to see what was intended for us to see. We must never lose sight of this again.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
The Most Important Issue
When deciding which problem most urgently needs attention in our global community, education should be the priority upon which we act first. The education of young children and adults, with a concentration of effort placed in impoverished nations, will provide immediate relief to the region and individual communities, creating the desired domino effect that will transform their lives. Education leads to the eradication of poverty, followed by the improvement of women's rights and religious tolerance, which henceforth will cease the corruption of governments and armies. With this, the promise that genocide and terrorism will exist only as memories and remnants of our inactive past is declared. Such a plan is idealistic, but within it we find a frame of realism. It isn't much, but it's enough. It's enough for the initiation of a movement. One that begins in this generation and continues perpetually.
Many might insinuate that global warming is the most pressing issue, with its eventual terror culminating in the destruction of our resources, followed by our own. Starvation will cause the first wave of death. Our lives will be infested with poverty and disease, while the apocalypse of natural devastation ravages the remains of our civilization. This is what our future resembles, no? Quite frightening I suppose. It could make good campfire material, a spin on the traditional ghost story. I don't imagine the third world being as frightened though, seeing as this is their present, not their future. We tremble at the poverty and death of our descendants five-hundred years from now while ignoring those of our global brothers and sisters around the world living through this desolate hell this very day. Our efforts must be concrete; they must adamantly represent an initiative of morality. Our own suffer, our own die. The must be saved from the throes of poverty, terrorism, genocide, gender and religious persecution, and misrepresentation. This will be possible if we utilize education to the best of its capacities. This will end the fight, this will prepare us for the next battle ahead. Global warming will be tackled and it will be beaten, but not today.
Many might insinuate that global warming is the most pressing issue, with its eventual terror culminating in the destruction of our resources, followed by our own. Starvation will cause the first wave of death. Our lives will be infested with poverty and disease, while the apocalypse of natural devastation ravages the remains of our civilization. This is what our future resembles, no? Quite frightening I suppose. It could make good campfire material, a spin on the traditional ghost story. I don't imagine the third world being as frightened though, seeing as this is their present, not their future. We tremble at the poverty and death of our descendants five-hundred years from now while ignoring those of our global brothers and sisters around the world living through this desolate hell this very day. Our efforts must be concrete; they must adamantly represent an initiative of morality. Our own suffer, our own die. The must be saved from the throes of poverty, terrorism, genocide, gender and religious persecution, and misrepresentation. This will be possible if we utilize education to the best of its capacities. This will end the fight, this will prepare us for the next battle ahead. Global warming will be tackled and it will be beaten, but not today.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)