Monday, November 20, 2006
What about thoses making the shoes
In his book, "Michael Jordan and the New Global Capitalism, LaFeber focuses on the uproar caused by the killings of young teenagers over their expensive sportswear. While LaFeber is right to denounce the actions of those who resorted to killing over clothing, he only touches on a greater problem that can be easily connected to the problem. That problem was and still is where the shoes were and are being manufactured. If one would simply lift the tongue of their sneakers, and look at the country where the shoe was fabricated. Nine times out of ten the sneaker was made in a sweat shop in a third world country. These sweatshops were a opportunity for the shoe companies to outsource their manufacturing costs thus allowing them to manufacture ten shoes for the same price that they would have to spend making one shoe in the United States. While this is a great business plan and it aids those at the top, those same young kids who were killing for the shoes are not offered an opportunity to work to afford the shoes. The problem is not the price of the shoe or how the shoe was marked, because whether or not th child saw the commercial the allure of owning a pair of Air Jordans would still be there because they would see Jordan, the best basketball player of his time, wearing them. The problem is the fact that the products are manufactured outside the country, possibly taking possible jobs from the parents of the teens killing for the shoes. The problem is still prevalent today. Thousands of American jobs are lost each year due to outsourcing. Yet the blame is put upon the endorcers and advertisers of the product, not those who are taking jobs from people and in turn selling a product that costs a fraction its price to make and still selling the product for the same price. A prime example of how this problem could have been counter acted was devised by other basketball players who created shoes that were a reasonable price, while the shoes were still made with outsourced labor, the price was not raised up so that the shoe maker could profit so heavily.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
McCormick Questions
Chapter 1:
McCormick argues that because the “ins-and-outers” have a wider range of perspectives, they have become dominant in the political sphere because of their unique ability to “see the big picture.” Are such political actors of greater importance than the careerists, or are they more like jacks of all trades and masters of none? (Sorry for the cliché.)
McCormick argues that “since World War II, the number of Americans having nil or minimalist interest in foreign affairs has significantly increased” and that even during the Vietnam-era voters were far less concerned with foreign policy as with domestic issues. Since 9-11 this trend has been changed to some degree (many polls suggested the war was the most important issue on Americans’ minds.) Is this change a reversal of the trend McCormick describes, or is it simply a temporary increase in foreign policy interest that will fade and continue the prior trend?
Chapter 2:
McCormick states the goal of U.S. foreign policy during and after WWI was “global pacification” and the establishment of a “Pax Americana.” Do you believe that this was the goal of American foreign policy, and if so, is that still the case today? How successful has America been in achieving this goal? If it is achievable, is it a goal worth achieving?
McCormick believes that the U.S. was actively working toward hegemony before and during WWII, and that in doing so it used the example set by the British Empire in using “limited means to meet unlimited ends.” Was hegemony always the goal for American foreign policy makers? How and to what extent did American strategy mirror that of the British Empire?
Chapter 3:
McCormick argues that, throughout its history, Russian foreign policy has been torn by contradictory impulses toward isolation and integration with the world. Could the same be said about Americans, or have we always been working toward greater integration with only fleeting thoughts of isolation?
In reference to America’s ability to counter threats from the left, right, and Russia, McCormick says that “Anything was possible if the government and its foreign policy had the public’s blessing of legitimacy. Nothing was possible without it.” Do you think this is an exaggeration of the importance of public approval, or is foreign policy completely impotent if the public sees it as legitimate?
Chapter 4:
McCormick suggests that the Truman Doctrine was essentially a globalization of the Monroe doctrine, America declaring its hegemony, not only in the Americas, but also across the globe. Was this the aim of the Truman doctrine, and if so, how could this be justified among the allies of the US (who were also opposed to the Monroe Doctrine)?
Selling the Marshall Plan domestically required mobilization of its potential supporters as well as disarmament of its potential opponents. Were did the government find support for the plan and what strategies were employed to assure them of the plan’s necessity?
Chapter 5:
How did some countries during the Cold War employ a policy of neutralism, and for what reasons did they do this? What benefits/costs were involved as opposed to a policy of integrationism?
For what reasons did the U.S. choose to intervene in the Suez and Hungarian Crises? Was America’s position of anti-colonialism and self-determination in the Third World consistent with its overall actions and policies, or was it simply a means to an end?
Chapter 6:
What lessons did the United States take from the Cuban Missile Crisis? Was the resulting shift in policy beneficial or not, and why?
McCormick describes Johnson’s shift in foreign policy regarding revolutions in the Western Hemisphere. He moved from Wilson’s distinction between “good revolutions” and “bad revolutions” to a position that “the only good revolution is a dead revolution.” In what ways has this policy changed and/or remained the same? What has been the effect of stick to the devil we know rather than allowing uncertai
McCormick argues that because the “ins-and-outers” have a wider range of perspectives, they have become dominant in the political sphere because of their unique ability to “see the big picture.” Are such political actors of greater importance than the careerists, or are they more like jacks of all trades and masters of none? (Sorry for the cliché.)
McCormick argues that “since World War II, the number of Americans having nil or minimalist interest in foreign affairs has significantly increased” and that even during the Vietnam-era voters were far less concerned with foreign policy as with domestic issues. Since 9-11 this trend has been changed to some degree (many polls suggested the war was the most important issue on Americans’ minds.) Is this change a reversal of the trend McCormick describes, or is it simply a temporary increase in foreign policy interest that will fade and continue the prior trend?
Chapter 2:
McCormick states the goal of U.S. foreign policy during and after WWI was “global pacification” and the establishment of a “Pax Americana.” Do you believe that this was the goal of American foreign policy, and if so, is that still the case today? How successful has America been in achieving this goal? If it is achievable, is it a goal worth achieving?
McCormick believes that the U.S. was actively working toward hegemony before and during WWII, and that in doing so it used the example set by the British Empire in using “limited means to meet unlimited ends.” Was hegemony always the goal for American foreign policy makers? How and to what extent did American strategy mirror that of the British Empire?
Chapter 3:
McCormick argues that, throughout its history, Russian foreign policy has been torn by contradictory impulses toward isolation and integration with the world. Could the same be said about Americans, or have we always been working toward greater integration with only fleeting thoughts of isolation?
In reference to America’s ability to counter threats from the left, right, and Russia, McCormick says that “Anything was possible if the government and its foreign policy had the public’s blessing of legitimacy. Nothing was possible without it.” Do you think this is an exaggeration of the importance of public approval, or is foreign policy completely impotent if the public sees it as legitimate?
Chapter 4:
McCormick suggests that the Truman Doctrine was essentially a globalization of the Monroe doctrine, America declaring its hegemony, not only in the Americas, but also across the globe. Was this the aim of the Truman doctrine, and if so, how could this be justified among the allies of the US (who were also opposed to the Monroe Doctrine)?
Selling the Marshall Plan domestically required mobilization of its potential supporters as well as disarmament of its potential opponents. Were did the government find support for the plan and what strategies were employed to assure them of the plan’s necessity?
Chapter 5:
How did some countries during the Cold War employ a policy of neutralism, and for what reasons did they do this? What benefits/costs were involved as opposed to a policy of integrationism?
For what reasons did the U.S. choose to intervene in the Suez and Hungarian Crises? Was America’s position of anti-colonialism and self-determination in the Third World consistent with its overall actions and policies, or was it simply a means to an end?
Chapter 6:
What lessons did the United States take from the Cuban Missile Crisis? Was the resulting shift in policy beneficial or not, and why?
McCormick describes Johnson’s shift in foreign policy regarding revolutions in the Western Hemisphere. He moved from Wilson’s distinction between “good revolutions” and “bad revolutions” to a position that “the only good revolution is a dead revolution.” In what ways has this policy changed and/or remained the same? What has been the effect of stick to the devil we know rather than allowing uncertai
Vietnam
The news regarding Vietnam recently has been interesting. First, a president embroiled in what could become a modern day Vietnam is visiting the site where many in his administration first cut their teeth in power. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and many of the senior level generals and Pentagon officials were just getting their start when the Vietnam War occurred. They seemed to have forgotten some of the lessons but have learned some things including manipulating the press, lessening the impact of the death tolls, and stifling opposition as un-patriotic.
What really interests me is the House’s refusal to pass a treaty recognizing Vietnam as a free trade partner. First, many argued against the bill because it furthered the process of free trade. This is unpopular with many because of the perception that it cost jobs. It is also interesting that the legacy of the war was problematic as well. Some republicans argued against it because it would further normalize or integrate a prior enemy while some on the left felt it did not do enough to strengthen labor rights. It strikes me as odd that the party that got into Vietnam full strength is now having qualms about the quality of life for civilians while the party that exited Vietnam is worrying over trade with an old enemy. I also happen to think that both sides will prove inconsequential because Vietnam will still be able to join the WTO and continue its integration into the world system. Good Night.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/business/15trade.html?ex=1321246800&en=712dcc3b4aa071fd&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
McCormick Questions
McCormick
Chapter 1
What role did ethnic groups play in creating a hegemonic power?
Who are the ins and outers?
Chapter 2
What diplomatic goals did World War II further?
Why were German reparations reduced so drastically?
Chapter 3
In what ways did the U.S. copy British steps to hegemonic power?
How did the Soviets prove to be what McCormick calls the “greatest obstacle to American hegemony” (53)?
Chapter 4
What is the relationship between the Marshal Plan and NATO?
What were the intentions behind the Truman doctrine?
Chapter 5
How did the Korean War influence the Vietnam conflict?
What are some of the causes of the Vietnam War?
Chapter 6
Describe America’s relationship with the world after the Suez crisis.
How did Charles de Gaulle influence French and U.S. relations?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
