Warning: Both videos are graphic. One is longer, the other is a 30 second clip.
This is a doctor in contact with Al Jazeera.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Democratization
As everyone probably knows by now, people's movements have deposed the former governments in Tunisia and Egypt, all by the power of the people, as it were. It seems that a domino effect has been set into motion, as there are now movements in Algeria, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, and Iran (again). In these movements, however, the presiding government has not been reluctant to display its force.
In Bahrain, for example, 20,000 peaceful protesters were beaten by police indiscriminately on the order of the government. Women and children, doctors, and innocent people in general were chased down and beaten by government forces.
In Iran, peaceful marches were dispersed immediately by the Revolutionary Guard in an apparent act of hypocrisy by the Ayatollah who praised the Egyptian people for their work in Egypt (just for clarification: the Ayatollah claimed that the movement was largely Shiite, which Iran predominantly is).
So, is a people's democratic movement possible in these countries where there is no reluctance to use force on their people? It seems that the movements in these countries may take to two extremes (if they continue): 1. The people become indefatigable and relentless in their pursuit of revolution, but the government continues to beat them mercilessly; eventually, either the people end their movement or the police decide to cease their atrocities and side with the people; 2. The police forces become increasingly more violent, leading to a violent rebuke by the people in an effort to secure a revolution by guerrilla warfare. The success of this depends largely on the dedication of the people.
What is occurring now is truly an astonishing show of embracing the concept of a government without a monarch. That being said, I do concede that there have been benevolent dictators, but the overwhelming majority have been thieves, scoundrels, selfish, greedy, etc. For example, the Mubarak family took advantage of the Egyptian economy to make millions of dollars off of the private sector (Gamal Mubarak, mostly).
I think that this movement has more strength than the Iranian Green Movement did after the contested elections. I think that the youth in these countries can actually achieve their goals. They're motivated, they're connected, and they have concrete plans. Here's hoping that the youth can change the world.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. You should check this out. It's quite intense.
In Bahrain, for example, 20,000 peaceful protesters were beaten by police indiscriminately on the order of the government. Women and children, doctors, and innocent people in general were chased down and beaten by government forces.
In Iran, peaceful marches were dispersed immediately by the Revolutionary Guard in an apparent act of hypocrisy by the Ayatollah who praised the Egyptian people for their work in Egypt (just for clarification: the Ayatollah claimed that the movement was largely Shiite, which Iran predominantly is).
So, is a people's democratic movement possible in these countries where there is no reluctance to use force on their people? It seems that the movements in these countries may take to two extremes (if they continue): 1. The people become indefatigable and relentless in their pursuit of revolution, but the government continues to beat them mercilessly; eventually, either the people end their movement or the police decide to cease their atrocities and side with the people; 2. The police forces become increasingly more violent, leading to a violent rebuke by the people in an effort to secure a revolution by guerrilla warfare. The success of this depends largely on the dedication of the people.
What is occurring now is truly an astonishing show of embracing the concept of a government without a monarch. That being said, I do concede that there have been benevolent dictators, but the overwhelming majority have been thieves, scoundrels, selfish, greedy, etc. For example, the Mubarak family took advantage of the Egyptian economy to make millions of dollars off of the private sector (Gamal Mubarak, mostly).
I think that this movement has more strength than the Iranian Green Movement did after the contested elections. I think that the youth in these countries can actually achieve their goals. They're motivated, they're connected, and they have concrete plans. Here's hoping that the youth can change the world.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. You should check this out. It's quite intense.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Mmm...Capitalism
President Obama recently spoke in front of the Chamber of Commerce, a notably conservative institution, to many large business leaders, urging them to begin spending their saved money in order to create jobs and stimulate the economy. Many business moguls have a view of the Obama administration as anti-business due to the new health care law and many regulations that businesses say "quell capitalism." President Obama, in his speech, promised to reform the tax code and remove many superfluous regulations.
While I do agree that corporations should be using their money to create jobs, such as those in research and development, manufacturing, etc., I somehow doubt that they will change their business practices drastically. One must always remember that a business does not have a nation's best interest as its own; the best interest of a business is always to have increasing revenue. Why do many manufacturing and low-expertise jobs go overseas? There is less regulation on business and corporations can traditionally pay the workers less, thus ensuring a higher profit margin. To think that a corporation will change its practices without first groveling at its knees and acceding to every demand is naive.
Strategically, the president made a good political move by speaking at a venue that has called his health care law "anti-capitalistic." By going to the Chamber of Commerce, he showed that he is willing to work with businesses to better improve relations between business and government. This may, however, be taken by business as a sign of weakness on the part of Obama, lending to a theory that business has the US in a vice grip.
So, how far does Obama go when attempting to compromise with business? Does he remove environmental regulations? Does he lower the tax rate for businesses? Does he offer incentives to business to create jobs in the US? We shall see, though nothing is certain now with a divided government, and the president knows that.
The word "compromise" can be construed 1 of 2 ways: a willingness to reach an undisputed conclusion by giving up and accepting certain options, or as an abandonment, an extrication of what composed a certain object. The definition that Obama chooses in the coming year and a half may just be left up to history.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. Visit here for free financial tips!*
*Note: May or may not be financial tips.
While I do agree that corporations should be using their money to create jobs, such as those in research and development, manufacturing, etc., I somehow doubt that they will change their business practices drastically. One must always remember that a business does not have a nation's best interest as its own; the best interest of a business is always to have increasing revenue. Why do many manufacturing and low-expertise jobs go overseas? There is less regulation on business and corporations can traditionally pay the workers less, thus ensuring a higher profit margin. To think that a corporation will change its practices without first groveling at its knees and acceding to every demand is naive.
Strategically, the president made a good political move by speaking at a venue that has called his health care law "anti-capitalistic." By going to the Chamber of Commerce, he showed that he is willing to work with businesses to better improve relations between business and government. This may, however, be taken by business as a sign of weakness on the part of Obama, lending to a theory that business has the US in a vice grip.
So, how far does Obama go when attempting to compromise with business? Does he remove environmental regulations? Does he lower the tax rate for businesses? Does he offer incentives to business to create jobs in the US? We shall see, though nothing is certain now with a divided government, and the president knows that.
The word "compromise" can be construed 1 of 2 ways: a willingness to reach an undisputed conclusion by giving up and accepting certain options, or as an abandonment, an extrication of what composed a certain object. The definition that Obama chooses in the coming year and a half may just be left up to history.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. Visit here for free financial tips!*
*Note: May or may not be financial tips.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Well, I've Been Afraid of Changes...
Sorry it's been a while, but I've been busy with Model UN stuff and other stuff, on top of some other car stuff and sleeping.
It's been a tumultuous few months in the Middle East and Northern Africa. First, it started in Tunisia when a man upset over the lack of economic stability set himself on fire. That set off several other self-immolations, and led to Tunisian President Ben Ali fleeing the country with the Prime Minister taking over as interim president. Now, in Egypt, massive protests are taking place to oust President Hosni Mubarak, Egyptian president for over 30 years, from power. Mubarak has stated that he will step down in September, but that is not soon enough for the massive protesters.
Will this trend continue? Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, and Iran, amongst other countries, are beginning to see what looks like talks of the same type of revolution that occurred in Egypt and Tunisia. Both populations are largely composed of people under 30, which means that they are more likely to organize via social networking sites and through other new age communications mediums. The same is true for other strictly Muslim countries, where much of the population was born after the current rulers took power. Could this be the beginning of a trend of democratization of the Middle East?
Possibly. What could also happen is a turn towards stricter following of Islam, such as with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (though they are non-violent and have expressed that they will not field a political candidate for president). It all depends on who takes power during the current vacuum.
And now, to catch up on school work.
That's all for now,
DF
P.S. Visit here for free stuff!
It's been a tumultuous few months in the Middle East and Northern Africa. First, it started in Tunisia when a man upset over the lack of economic stability set himself on fire. That set off several other self-immolations, and led to Tunisian President Ben Ali fleeing the country with the Prime Minister taking over as interim president. Now, in Egypt, massive protests are taking place to oust President Hosni Mubarak, Egyptian president for over 30 years, from power. Mubarak has stated that he will step down in September, but that is not soon enough for the massive protesters.
Will this trend continue? Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, and Iran, amongst other countries, are beginning to see what looks like talks of the same type of revolution that occurred in Egypt and Tunisia. Both populations are largely composed of people under 30, which means that they are more likely to organize via social networking sites and through other new age communications mediums. The same is true for other strictly Muslim countries, where much of the population was born after the current rulers took power. Could this be the beginning of a trend of democratization of the Middle East?
Possibly. What could also happen is a turn towards stricter following of Islam, such as with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (though they are non-violent and have expressed that they will not field a political candidate for president). It all depends on who takes power during the current vacuum.
And now, to catch up on school work.
That's all for now,
DF
P.S. Visit here for free stuff!
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
College Wars: Return of the Me
Well, my second semester of my junior year has started. As usual, I feel unsettled. That may be me just adjusting back to college life, or it could be me adjusting back to college food; either way, it's not comfortable.
I plan on doing several things this semester:
1. Actually reading my assignments.
2. Sleeping more.
3. Being social.
4. Giving a damn.
5. Not doing any of the above.
Either way, I win.
That's all for now,
DF
P.S. Visit here because I told you so. Say I sent you; you get 20% off.
I plan on doing several things this semester:
1. Actually reading my assignments.
2. Sleeping more.
3. Being social.
4. Giving a damn.
5. Not doing any of the above.
Either way, I win.
That's all for now,
DF
P.S. Visit here because I told you so. Say I sent you; you get 20% off.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Remonstration of a Tragedy
As almost everyone in the United States and beyond likely knows, Congressional Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot by Jared Loughner during a public event in Tuscon, Arizona. Much has been made of this incident, as liberal and conservative pundits have placed blame on each other for the occurrence. Conservative pundits have portrayed Loughner as a liberal tool, and Liberal pundits have painted him as a man influenced by rhetoric spouted by those such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. I won't blame either side for the tragedy.
I will blame both sides, however, for politicizing an event that should not be politicized. I will blame them both for acting in such a way to incite the tempers of both reasonable and unreasonable people alike.
Some may say that America has entered an age of unreasonable and irresponsible politics, where the effort to gain and control power, whether it is government power or media power, has become more important than ensuring quality of life or stable relations with other countries. I do agree with that to some extent, though much of what we see and hear as major opinions usually only constitutes a small, extreme minority. It is the failure of our news system that allows for these extreme positions to garner any kind of attention, as news is (and has become) a profit-driven enterprise, where ratings are what matters rather than quality. If a pundit's rhetoric is acerbic and sure to insult others, run it- viewership will increase. If a story, such as if a Florida pastor (whose congregation was constituted of a minuscule amount of people) threatens to burn a Qu'ran to protest Islam even though his church represents the extreme fringe of all civilized debate, run it- not only that, over-analyze it.
American politics, to some or many, has seemingly become a competition in superior morals, whereby one side continually tries to display the faults of the other. I don't disagree.
I usually have to stop myself from writing things such as this, as it makes me question why the hell I'm majoring in political science. It's a strange feeling, hating something so passionately that will, more likely than not, be an inevitable career choice.
So, I suppose my main message here is that focus of the tragedy should be on the man himself rather than any larger influence, unless it is found to be the case. I decided to watch some of Loughner's videos on Youtube, and honestly, they were incoherent and made very little sense. His grammar is terrible and his reasoning is logically flawed, so more likely than not, the man is to blame.
Members of both parties are culpable for so much else, but on this issue, let's all agree that no one is to blame but Loughner.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
I will blame both sides, however, for politicizing an event that should not be politicized. I will blame them both for acting in such a way to incite the tempers of both reasonable and unreasonable people alike.
Some may say that America has entered an age of unreasonable and irresponsible politics, where the effort to gain and control power, whether it is government power or media power, has become more important than ensuring quality of life or stable relations with other countries. I do agree with that to some extent, though much of what we see and hear as major opinions usually only constitutes a small, extreme minority. It is the failure of our news system that allows for these extreme positions to garner any kind of attention, as news is (and has become) a profit-driven enterprise, where ratings are what matters rather than quality. If a pundit's rhetoric is acerbic and sure to insult others, run it- viewership will increase. If a story, such as if a Florida pastor (whose congregation was constituted of a minuscule amount of people) threatens to burn a Qu'ran to protest Islam even though his church represents the extreme fringe of all civilized debate, run it- not only that, over-analyze it.
American politics, to some or many, has seemingly become a competition in superior morals, whereby one side continually tries to display the faults of the other. I don't disagree.
I usually have to stop myself from writing things such as this, as it makes me question why the hell I'm majoring in political science. It's a strange feeling, hating something so passionately that will, more likely than not, be an inevitable career choice.
So, I suppose my main message here is that focus of the tragedy should be on the man himself rather than any larger influence, unless it is found to be the case. I decided to watch some of Loughner's videos on Youtube, and honestly, they were incoherent and made very little sense. His grammar is terrible and his reasoning is logically flawed, so more likely than not, the man is to blame.
Members of both parties are culpable for so much else, but on this issue, let's all agree that no one is to blame but Loughner.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
A Question of Culpability
Recently, the parents of deceased Rutgers student Tyler Clementi announced that they have preserved the right to sue Rutgers over their negligence to act on his behalf in the events leading to his tragic suicide. Mr. Clementi jumped off of the George Washington Bridge in late September after his roommate Dharun Ravi and classmate Molly Wei broadcast his sexual encounter with another man over the internet. While many would believe that the family is simply trying to take advantage of the sympathetic feelings towards the parents, it would be wise to mull over the finer details of the case and see whether or not the university was truly at fault.
Firstly, Mr. Clementi did speak to an Resident Assistant about his roommate’s voyeurism. He also requested a room change. Unfortunately, two days later (I believe), he committed suicide.
Secondly, Mr. Clementi spoke to two “higher ups” (as he put it) about his roommate’s indecency. Who they are is not known (or at least not well known), though their actions could have drastic implications.
If Rutgers official staff did not act within the window between Mr. Clementi’s first report and his suicide, then the parents have the right to claim gross negligence on the part of the university for, 1: Not upholding their privacy guidelines, and 2: Not acting in an expedited fashion to rectify the problem.
The first incident should have been the stopping point, as there was enough evidence against Mr. Ravi to act on Mr. Clementi’s allegations of invasion of privacy. Mr. Ravi posted on his Twitter feed “Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into Molly’s room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay.” Two days later, Mr. Ravi posted again: “Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30 and 12. Yes it’s happening again.” Quotes from www.dailymail.co.uk
The ultimate verdict, however, rests with the Resident Assistant and the “higher ups” in question, because if they failed to act in any way, Rutgers will be held accountable for their lack of action. If the evidence surrounding them shows that no tangible action was taken, either in the form of a formal action (through Rutgers bureaucracy) or direct (the RA speaking directly to Mr. Ravi and admonishing him), then the family has every right to sue Rutgers. And, if that is the case, I support the Clementi family wholeheartedly.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Firstly, Mr. Clementi did speak to an Resident Assistant about his roommate’s voyeurism. He also requested a room change. Unfortunately, two days later (I believe), he committed suicide.
Secondly, Mr. Clementi spoke to two “higher ups” (as he put it) about his roommate’s indecency. Who they are is not known (or at least not well known), though their actions could have drastic implications.
If Rutgers official staff did not act within the window between Mr. Clementi’s first report and his suicide, then the parents have the right to claim gross negligence on the part of the university for, 1: Not upholding their privacy guidelines, and 2: Not acting in an expedited fashion to rectify the problem.
The first incident should have been the stopping point, as there was enough evidence against Mr. Ravi to act on Mr. Clementi’s allegations of invasion of privacy. Mr. Ravi posted on his Twitter feed “Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into Molly’s room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay.” Two days later, Mr. Ravi posted again: “Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30 and 12. Yes it’s happening again.” Quotes from www.dailymail.co.uk
The ultimate verdict, however, rests with the Resident Assistant and the “higher ups” in question, because if they failed to act in any way, Rutgers will be held accountable for their lack of action. If the evidence surrounding them shows that no tangible action was taken, either in the form of a formal action (through Rutgers bureaucracy) or direct (the RA speaking directly to Mr. Ravi and admonishing him), then the family has every right to sue Rutgers. And, if that is the case, I support the Clementi family wholeheartedly.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)