Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Links and such
Please post any links or blogs you know that would be relevant to the site. I think it will let you add them yourselves.
William Appleman Williams
Good job ES, it works,...
Here, a short review of William Appleman William's "Empire as a Way of Life" from JSTOR. Might be helpful.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Non-Binding Resolutions?
The Senate appears to be doing little in the way of exercising responsible policy on Iraq. While the virtual tie between the parties makes headway difficult, it would seem that the increasing unpopularity and disparity of events on the ground would warrant honest debate.
This is not the case. Instead the debate has once again been reduced to grandiose statements about supporting the troops or not wishing to cause defeat on the ground. If only the Senators saying the President needed support could hear themselves. They sound like little cheerleaders not wanting to admit their heroic team is loosing.
However, blame is plenty. The gang of Senatorial Presidential candidates is using the situation and every other event from taxes to the economy as a grandstand for their own campaigns. The group is always willing to issue their own declaratory statements on what they want instead of focusing the issue at hand. That issue is acting as a Senator.
Furthermore, all these Senators on both sides fail to admit their own accomplice to the war itself. The few who did vote against it in 2003 have all the room in the world to speak against it. The others should not be so keen on merely blaming their decisions on bad intelligence. If it was bad intelligence, then it was also emasculated politicians who did not have the wherewithal to execute oversight.
The blame also rests with the populace. Just like the Senators, doing an about face is hard to accept when the majority seemed quite alright back in 2003. I do not wish to argue that people cannot change their minds. Instead, people must change their minds cognizant of their own prior actions in relation to the event itself. By doing so, the debate can become more than just a blame game and instead focus on questioning what can be done to fix a situation that we started.
If non-binding resolutions are the case, than the American system of divided government does not hold much hope.
This is not the case. Instead the debate has once again been reduced to grandiose statements about supporting the troops or not wishing to cause defeat on the ground. If only the Senators saying the President needed support could hear themselves. They sound like little cheerleaders not wanting to admit their heroic team is loosing.
However, blame is plenty. The gang of Senatorial Presidential candidates is using the situation and every other event from taxes to the economy as a grandstand for their own campaigns. The group is always willing to issue their own declaratory statements on what they want instead of focusing the issue at hand. That issue is acting as a Senator.
Furthermore, all these Senators on both sides fail to admit their own accomplice to the war itself. The few who did vote against it in 2003 have all the room in the world to speak against it. The others should not be so keen on merely blaming their decisions on bad intelligence. If it was bad intelligence, then it was also emasculated politicians who did not have the wherewithal to execute oversight.
The blame also rests with the populace. Just like the Senators, doing an about face is hard to accept when the majority seemed quite alright back in 2003. I do not wish to argue that people cannot change their minds. Instead, people must change their minds cognizant of their own prior actions in relation to the event itself. By doing so, the debate can become more than just a blame game and instead focus on questioning what can be done to fix a situation that we started.
If non-binding resolutions are the case, than the American system of divided government does not hold much hope.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
A Question...
Recent events have brought the question into my mind of what to do to prevent atrocities in foreign states. Iraq is the catalyst for this question. First, despite the motivations of the Bush administration, it should be a positive gain that Sadam is no longer in power. Second, liberals bemoan the plight of people living under the grasp of dictators or oppressive governments, but now find it unpleasant that the removal has resulted in the current strife.
How can we complain about oppressive governments if we do not have the will to deal effectively and decisively? Is it nicer to employ sanctions? One needs only look at the result and harm that sanctions did on Iraq.
That results in two possible solutions. First, give up the fake “we care” attitude and treat governments the same. Open trade and normalize relations in an effort to bring the rouge state into the fold while hopefully opening the society to norms that would resort in political change. This would make sense economically because it would open new markets while saving time from fruitless sanctions that do little but bolster the targeted leader.
The other solution would come from the barrel of the gun. If we take Mao Zaedong’s statement that “Every communist [my case: people in general] must grasp the truth, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”’, then it would follow that just and effective use of force would be a force for change in affected regions. It is hard to say no when cold steel is brought down. Economic sanctions leave room to maneuver while a 5.56mm round leave less room for negotiation. This new use of force would need to be different then our current method. It would need to rely on troops on the ground and a clearly defined rebuilding plan. It is nice to claim that justice exists eternally and needs no force, but we only need to look at what our own society finds necessary to maintain a reasonably just society. I am not endorsing the over-use of force by our police, only the reasoned use against deserving individuals.
This brings me to Dafur. The ads claim diplomacy is the answer. What will bring the government to accountability if they view the AU and UN as emasculated forces, incapable of concrete action? Will nice talk make them resign? What about sanctions if China will not enforce them?
I do not know the answer to these questions. It is illogical to cry about the misdoings in the world if there is no will to act. I understand this is problematic. However, if we are unwilling to act then we should accept the consequences of our inaction and absolve from fruitless political posturing or sanctions that only serve to do more harm to the affected citizens while giving us a warm feeling that ‘We are doing something’ (note: sarcasm). Hopefully there will exist a solution someday. I would like to hear your opinions on the subject. Good Night.
How can we complain about oppressive governments if we do not have the will to deal effectively and decisively? Is it nicer to employ sanctions? One needs only look at the result and harm that sanctions did on Iraq.
That results in two possible solutions. First, give up the fake “we care” attitude and treat governments the same. Open trade and normalize relations in an effort to bring the rouge state into the fold while hopefully opening the society to norms that would resort in political change. This would make sense economically because it would open new markets while saving time from fruitless sanctions that do little but bolster the targeted leader.
The other solution would come from the barrel of the gun. If we take Mao Zaedong’s statement that “Every communist [my case: people in general] must grasp the truth, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”’, then it would follow that just and effective use of force would be a force for change in affected regions. It is hard to say no when cold steel is brought down. Economic sanctions leave room to maneuver while a 5.56mm round leave less room for negotiation. This new use of force would need to be different then our current method. It would need to rely on troops on the ground and a clearly defined rebuilding plan. It is nice to claim that justice exists eternally and needs no force, but we only need to look at what our own society finds necessary to maintain a reasonably just society. I am not endorsing the over-use of force by our police, only the reasoned use against deserving individuals.
This brings me to Dafur. The ads claim diplomacy is the answer. What will bring the government to accountability if they view the AU and UN as emasculated forces, incapable of concrete action? Will nice talk make them resign? What about sanctions if China will not enforce them?
I do not know the answer to these questions. It is illogical to cry about the misdoings in the world if there is no will to act. I understand this is problematic. However, if we are unwilling to act then we should accept the consequences of our inaction and absolve from fruitless political posturing or sanctions that only serve to do more harm to the affected citizens while giving us a warm feeling that ‘We are doing something’ (note: sarcasm). Hopefully there will exist a solution someday. I would like to hear your opinions on the subject. Good Night.
Monday, December 04, 2006
The Wealth of Networks
Benkler's conclusion is interesting, though I found it to be quite a difficult read. He concludes that although there is a push to use law to enclose the technological sphere and protect information and innovations from being shared freely, it is not likely that "law can unilaterally turn back a trend that combines powerful technological, social, and economical drivers".
I agree with Evan that Benkler's argument does seem to be a bit idealistic and it seems that he believes in a higher level of freedom that what these networks will bring us. I do think that networks are important for communications and bring about a stronger basis for supporting a free market and providing individuals with information.
I agree with Evan that Benkler's argument does seem to be a bit idealistic and it seems that he believes in a higher level of freedom that what these networks will bring us. I do think that networks are important for communications and bring about a stronger basis for supporting a free market and providing individuals with information.
The Wealth of Networks: Blogging
I liked Benkler's conclusion, but my interest was caught by his elaboration on the common critique of the internet's ability to improve democracy and autonomy at the same time.
Especially interesting is the democracy-part where Benkler points out how mutual pointing and linking are connected ("Here, see for yourself. I think this is interesting"), because this is exactly what we are doing by blogging or what blogging in general is all about: We are contributing to and we are observing the judgments of others to what is interesting and valuable at the same time, in order to create some kind of "interest groups" or to utter criticism when necessary. The platform, a blog, is definitively less hierarchically organized than other parts of the mass-media environment such as tv or newspaper and therfore we can refer to ourselves as non-intellectual lemmings, not following any kind of movements or opions that makes us feel impelled to say certain things.
Especially interesting is the democracy-part where Benkler points out how mutual pointing and linking are connected ("Here, see for yourself. I think this is interesting"), because this is exactly what we are doing by blogging or what blogging in general is all about: We are contributing to and we are observing the judgments of others to what is interesting and valuable at the same time, in order to create some kind of "interest groups" or to utter criticism when necessary. The platform, a blog, is definitively less hierarchically organized than other parts of the mass-media environment such as tv or newspaper and therfore we can refer to ourselves as non-intellectual lemmings, not following any kind of movements or opions that makes us feel impelled to say certain things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)