Soccer and Globalization...

In the article "Soccer and Globalization"
(The Globalist 6/2002), the Globalist evaluates the 2002 World Cup in Japan/South Korea as a worldwide celebration of soccer and its fans .
Worldwide? No! This does not count for the USA, a country that does not pay as much attention to this sport as the rest of the world does.
The article describes this phenomenon, the U.S. sport isolationism as a result of a new kind and development of isolationism, which has already been expressed in its Anti-Kyoto attitude and various other actions that probably tried to direct globalization to a better future...

Globalization and diabetes

Globalization has improved the problems with poverty in many of the developing countries. As stated by this article in the NY Times, we are to a point "where more people are overweight than undernourished". Once globalization has set foot in a less developed country, we impose on them a new way of life.

Bringing industry into the country is healthy because it helps to provide a source of capital and the country may then be involved in world trade. However, when we start to "help" these poorer people by providing them with the "healthy" foods that we are so used to, you can't help but to expect an increase in diseases such as diabetes.

The worst part is that the underdeveloped countries to which globalization is spreading have poor health insurance and health care. So when someone is affected by the disease they have a difficult time treating it.

Another interesting thing I found in this article was a quote from a doctor in India.

“Diabetes unfortunately is the price you pay for progress,” said Dr. A. Ramachandran, the managing director of the M.V. Hospital for Diabetes, in Chennai (formerly Madras).

It is unfortunate that for a country like India to be involved in the globalization process then they have to take with it both good and bad.

911-Retroperspective

Two more retroperspectives:

The first one, "9/11 Five Years Later: Successes and Challenges" is an official paper from the Whitehouse and focuses on the positive American archievements after 9/11: The transformation of the Government, the ability to protect the homeland and the fact that America and its allies are safer, but not safe...

The second one, "Nation marks Lives Lost and Signs of Healing" is from the NY Times and focuses on the actual services that were held on September 11th 2006, the president's reaction and how Americans go back to normal...

The skeptics of global warming

Anyone who views the current issues of global warming with mild concern might find the escalating debates over this topic fascinating. For more than a decade now, we have relied on scientific research to show that greenhouse gases effect the environment by absorbing more of the UV rays from the sun and thus increasing the atmospheric temperature. This scientific research has also been a solid basis for attributing this climate change to human activity.

Skeptics of global warming have recently began a campaign that refutes the idea that global warming is connected to human activity. (Article) Their reasoning rests in doubts that have been served to them on a silver platter. They strangle scientific research by attacking it at its weakest point, the fact that there is a level of uncertainty involved in science.

It is quite intuitive that most of these skeptics are sided with the oil industry. In fact, it was pointed out in an article by Chris Mooney that Mother Jones tallied more than 40 groups that are backed by ExxonMobil who have in some way been connected to the underminings of scientific research. In this article, Mooney shows how these skeptical groups use doubts about science to debate. For example, Michael Crichton spoke at one event in Washington, D.C., where he was considered to be an expert on the topic of global warming because he is an M.D. and wrote a fictional story about global climate changes.

To me it seems this idea should never have been questioned (the idea that global warming is attributed to the increase in greenhouse gases, which is caused mainly by the burning of fossil fuels). A new concern has arisen, which may play a large part in this debate (that is, if our world cares anything for coral reefs and other marine animals). The newest concern deals with the increased acidity (lower pH) of the ocean waters. As levels of atmospheric CO2 increase from the burning of fossil fuels, the amount of CO2 which is absorbed by ocean waters also increases. The acidification of the ocean waters is actually believed to be more harmful than the global warming concern. (Article on opendemocracy.net)

Either way, it is obvious that our environment is that deer in the headlights. Something needs to be done about these critical environmental changes.

Response to Consumer Responsibility & Nike

On the one hand I have to say that I generally agree with Laura's post and the main arguments in Miguel Korzeniewicz's article (and if you are interested in this, I would really like to recommend Michael Moore's documentary, "The Big One", in which Moore deals among others examples with Nike's production policies and incluedes a really shocking interview withNike's Chairman Phil Knight ...), because I think that people should be made aware of how these global players function and how they exploit people in underdeveloped countries as Nike does in Asia...

But on the other hand, I am not quite sure if we are not applying double standards when we talk about Nike's policies. What Nike does is definitely wrong, but are we 100% aware of where our other products are coming from and under which circumstances they were produced? Is it probably easier to critize Nike, because Nike is such a globalized brand? Do we always double-check the origin? Do we always care?

I think I do not, because if I want to buy an Adidas soccer ball for instance, do I always check where this ball was produced before I buy it, even though I know that probably children in underdeveloped countries are producing it? Therefore I think that consumers need to be made more sensitive regarding their consumer buying habits and especially about the product's background. Because each time we are confronted with Nike's policies for instance, we feel really blamable and try to act differently the next time...

Unfortunately an intention that only lasts till we see the new good-looking Air Force Ones in the next new Nike ad!

"The World Since 9/11" - The Economist

I initially felt like writing about the David Henderson article, "The Case Against corporate Social Responsibility". However, this afternoon I came across a reprint of an article from "The Economist", ( a magazine that might not be in favor with ardent anti-global views) in the VA Pilot commentary section. The article dealt with the question of exactly what has happened since 9/11 when a new era of a global war on terror emerged. I do not know exactly how to incorporate 9/11 with any one aspect of globalization. The easy example would be to make the obvious connect to "Jihad-McWorld" article. It would be valid since it stands to reason that the terrorists are easily linked to a strong anti-western and liberal agenda. (Despite my earlier rebellion of constantly asking the question 'one man's terrorist, another's freedom fighter-now somewhat answered in my head that anyone who kills thousands of civilians, no matter what their motivation- war or freedom-is a terrorist or criminal)
What would be more interesting is to see how the advent of the war on terror has affected the daily world in all aspects (law, economic transactions, society, media, etc). To me, each of these things has a global aspect to it. The media for example does not seem an immediate relation, despite it's coverage. In Julie's earlier blog, she noted that states have failed to recognize that globalization extends beyond economic matters. I agree and disagree with her. It is valid to say that no state has yet to understand the matter at hand. Going back to the media, it seems to me that the rapid exchange of info has allowed the combatants on both sides to use it as a means of worldwide propaganda. It would be difficult for terrorists in the Middle East to relay and help further their cause with other sympathizers in Southeast Asia without the inter-connectivity provided by satellite based media coverage and the internet. Vise versa the US seems to try and capture in on the global change of ideas by promoting the ideal of democracy in the new Iraq as reason for the war. Agree or disagree, I think the government is evolving to grasp other aspects of globalization even if it does not know how to use them for good.
The article itself gave an overview of the past five years. Two things stood out at me. First the article argued that while radical Islam did not create terrorism, it has entered a new stage both due to its actions and of the US led response.
Second, the conclusion said, "The world must still strive to destroy Al-Qaida...But it had better do so with cleverer means than those used by Bush so far". The political judgment at the end does not interest me so much as the use of the word "world". (I had to include the last part so the rest of you would not immediately attack me for being some neo-con hawk). Notice the writer did not say the US, coalition of the willing, the UN, NATO, the EU, or any other single organization; it said world. I feel that this is what might be missing in the debate on how to combat terrorism. If the world became truly involved, then perhaps all aspects of globalization could be used to disseminate the causes for terrorism while still providing security.
I know this is a sensitive subject. No one has made it easy to discuss. Keep in mind, no matter how easy it is to lay blame on the evil conspiracy of oil interests or any other easy to blame leviathan, we as citizens are the ones who stand the chance of feeling terrorism's harsh reality when it does occur. I look forward to seeing how the rest of the class relates terrorism to globalization. Good night.