This article comes from "The Washington Post"
Discovery announced recently that they are partnering with Chinese media venture Qiu Suo. Discovery will be working with the company to create a Chinese cable network.
Once again, this appears to be an inconsequential post. I chose it because I think it highlights the gradual drift toward free-market Capitalism we are seeing in China. China is increasingly ascending in its role with regards to international economics. China has the labor pool and the resources; if it were to utilize fully its free market potential, I think China could easily pass the U.S. in economic domination. I think the world will have to reconcile itself to China's presence very quickly.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Mexican Migrant Smuggling
Since I like to live dangerously, I went to "Fox News" for this article (it actually ended up originally being from the "Associated Press").
Recently, three Mexican men were found folded into a wooden box hidden underneath an RV driven by U.S. citizen. They were caught after Border Patrol Dogs sniffed them out at the California-Mexico border.
I confess what I really want is for someone to smash the cartels and for us to be able to open up the U.S.-Mexico border. I realize that the cartels aren't going down without a fight, but I'm nearly beyond all hope that there is a peaceful solution to dealing with the drug lords (other than all U.S. drug users giving up drugs and totally eliminating all of the State's demand for the cartel's goods - but what are the chances of that?) I'm not quite ready to call for a total violent overhaul of Mexico, but are there any other solutions?
So what's the lesser evil? Do we keep pulling potentially innocent men and women from wooden boxes underneath cars rather than dealing with the cartels? Is there another pragmatic option? Do we close the border completely? Open it up completely? Wage a costly quasi-war with Mexico's cartels? I'm not sure what the best course of action is, and I don't really know of anyone who does.
The default course of action seems to be stagnating any change in immigration policy and just waiting things out, so for the next little while I guess we will continue to pull men out of wooden boxes.
Recently, three Mexican men were found folded into a wooden box hidden underneath an RV driven by U.S. citizen. They were caught after Border Patrol Dogs sniffed them out at the California-Mexico border.
I confess what I really want is for someone to smash the cartels and for us to be able to open up the U.S.-Mexico border. I realize that the cartels aren't going down without a fight, but I'm nearly beyond all hope that there is a peaceful solution to dealing with the drug lords (other than all U.S. drug users giving up drugs and totally eliminating all of the State's demand for the cartel's goods - but what are the chances of that?) I'm not quite ready to call for a total violent overhaul of Mexico, but are there any other solutions?
So what's the lesser evil? Do we keep pulling potentially innocent men and women from wooden boxes underneath cars rather than dealing with the cartels? Is there another pragmatic option? Do we close the border completely? Open it up completely? Wage a costly quasi-war with Mexico's cartels? I'm not sure what the best course of action is, and I don't really know of anyone who does.
The default course of action seems to be stagnating any change in immigration policy and just waiting things out, so for the next little while I guess we will continue to pull men out of wooden boxes.
Wait, Scotland is having a Referendum?
This was an article that appeared in "The Guardian"
The article mostly summarized the Scottish Labour Party's plans to accelerate the process of devolution in Scotland if the Scots vote against independence. I mostly cited this article because, well, it brought to my attention the fact that Scotland is, in fact, having a referendum for independence.
Part of me feels like Scotland is the Texas of the UK. There is a profound sense of nationalism within Scotland for being a Scot, and these kilt-romping folk have never taken kindly to being stepped on. Remember the movement in Texas (albeit fairly small) that gained steam right after Obama got re-elected? The succession one? Well I think a lot of us ignored it because it was Texas. I did, at least. I wonder if there is a similar sentiment toward Scotland in the UK.
My personal feelings aside, I wonder what the economic implications of Scotland's breakaway would be for the UK. Scotland is a fairly significant chunk of the island, even if we are just regarding acreage.
I'll be interested to see the results of the referendum.
The article mostly summarized the Scottish Labour Party's plans to accelerate the process of devolution in Scotland if the Scots vote against independence. I mostly cited this article because, well, it brought to my attention the fact that Scotland is, in fact, having a referendum for independence.
Part of me feels like Scotland is the Texas of the UK. There is a profound sense of nationalism within Scotland for being a Scot, and these kilt-romping folk have never taken kindly to being stepped on. Remember the movement in Texas (albeit fairly small) that gained steam right after Obama got re-elected? The succession one? Well I think a lot of us ignored it because it was Texas. I did, at least. I wonder if there is a similar sentiment toward Scotland in the UK.
My personal feelings aside, I wonder what the economic implications of Scotland's breakaway would be for the UK. Scotland is a fairly significant chunk of the island, even if we are just regarding acreage.
I'll be interested to see the results of the referendum.
Iran's Fake Aircraft Carrier
This was an article in "The New York Times"
Iran is building what appears to be a replication of an Nimitz-class American aircraft carrier. The reasons as to why are up to debate, but "The Times" speculated that it is probably a barge built to imitate a carrier rather than actually act as a functioning warship. The article explained that Iran often tows barges out to sea for missile testing. The barges will be destroyed by an Iranian missile and the test will be filmed and broadcast as propaganda. The fact that this particular barge looks like an American ship most likely reflects the fact that this Iranian propaganda piece isn't just meant for Iranians. The article pointed out that American officials believe that Iran is most likely incapable of building a working aircraft carrier.
I think it's insidious that Iran is building a target with America's naval face on it, but hey, it's just a target. Iran's ambiguous nuclear capabilities (nuclear propulsion is basically a necessity for supercarriers) or the lack thereof seems to be reflected in Iran's creation of large floating piece of steel. Pragmatically, propaganda and show-of-force are taken care of when there is actually force to show. Mandatory conscription or even just mass voluntary conscription in a military can't compensate for a massively technologically superior military. B-2 bombers and surgical strikes can make short work of any sticks-and-stones force, no matter how massive. If Iran's military was comparable to the U.S's, it would most evidently show in the existence of it. That doesn't mean, however, that Iran is going to talk big and then NOT blow up this nice, expensive effigy. I guess we will see what comes of it.
Iran is building what appears to be a replication of an Nimitz-class American aircraft carrier. The reasons as to why are up to debate, but "The Times" speculated that it is probably a barge built to imitate a carrier rather than actually act as a functioning warship. The article explained that Iran often tows barges out to sea for missile testing. The barges will be destroyed by an Iranian missile and the test will be filmed and broadcast as propaganda. The fact that this particular barge looks like an American ship most likely reflects the fact that this Iranian propaganda piece isn't just meant for Iranians. The article pointed out that American officials believe that Iran is most likely incapable of building a working aircraft carrier.
I think it's insidious that Iran is building a target with America's naval face on it, but hey, it's just a target. Iran's ambiguous nuclear capabilities (nuclear propulsion is basically a necessity for supercarriers) or the lack thereof seems to be reflected in Iran's creation of large floating piece of steel. Pragmatically, propaganda and show-of-force are taken care of when there is actually force to show. Mandatory conscription or even just mass voluntary conscription in a military can't compensate for a massively technologically superior military. B-2 bombers and surgical strikes can make short work of any sticks-and-stones force, no matter how massive. If Iran's military was comparable to the U.S's, it would most evidently show in the existence of it. That doesn't mean, however, that Iran is going to talk big and then NOT blow up this nice, expensive effigy. I guess we will see what comes of it.
Brutal Massacre in Nigeria
This was an article that appeared in "Reuters," but the hyperlink will take you to the "New York Times" which is where I originally found the article.
The article itself wasn't my favorite due to it's sloppiness, but that doesn't change the significance of what it recounted.
On the 17th, around 100 people were, as Reuters puts it, "shot, hacked, and burned to death." The article gives several eyewitness accounts including a man who watched three people die by machete and one man who claims his brother's entire family was burned alive when their house was set ablaze by attackers. The article then explains that attacks like this are not at all uncommon anymore in Nigeria and estimates that nearly 3000 people have perished in similar raids. The article claims that the violence is a result from ethnic/religious conflicts (which should come as no surprise) and "decades-old land disputes."
One of the things we see in both Africa and the Middle East is the ethnic conflicts that have arisen from colonialism and imperialism. In Africa there was the introduction of Christianity and unequal favor among tribes. In the Middle East there was the egregious division of territory following World War II. Both have resulted in horrific and perpetual violence. There is a theory out there that says the only way the violence will stop is to let it continue and work itself out. Boundaries will realign pragmatically and all will be well. This seems like a reasonable theory as far as the Middle East is concerned, because a lot of the violence there is a direct result from tribal, religious, and ethnic (essentially idealistic) conflicts.
However, from the description that this article recounts, it sounded to me that a lot of the violence in Nigeria comes from marauding land-grabs, pilfering, and looting. Some of the religious boundaries might realign, but the barbaric nature of village-looting and resource grabbing seems like less of an issue of ideals and more of just an anarchic tendency. It will be interesting to see what happens.
The article itself wasn't my favorite due to it's sloppiness, but that doesn't change the significance of what it recounted.
On the 17th, around 100 people were, as Reuters puts it, "shot, hacked, and burned to death." The article gives several eyewitness accounts including a man who watched three people die by machete and one man who claims his brother's entire family was burned alive when their house was set ablaze by attackers. The article then explains that attacks like this are not at all uncommon anymore in Nigeria and estimates that nearly 3000 people have perished in similar raids. The article claims that the violence is a result from ethnic/religious conflicts (which should come as no surprise) and "decades-old land disputes."
One of the things we see in both Africa and the Middle East is the ethnic conflicts that have arisen from colonialism and imperialism. In Africa there was the introduction of Christianity and unequal favor among tribes. In the Middle East there was the egregious division of territory following World War II. Both have resulted in horrific and perpetual violence. There is a theory out there that says the only way the violence will stop is to let it continue and work itself out. Boundaries will realign pragmatically and all will be well. This seems like a reasonable theory as far as the Middle East is concerned, because a lot of the violence there is a direct result from tribal, religious, and ethnic (essentially idealistic) conflicts.
However, from the description that this article recounts, it sounded to me that a lot of the violence in Nigeria comes from marauding land-grabs, pilfering, and looting. Some of the religious boundaries might realign, but the barbaric nature of village-looting and resource grabbing seems like less of an issue of ideals and more of just an anarchic tendency. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Crimea now Russian
This article appeared in "Reuters"
Putin recently signed a treaty that officially annexed Crimea into the Russian Federation. Well the "official" nature of it fluctuates depending on who you ask. Kiev isn't so ready to let it go.
I don't mean to turn this particular point of analysis into a cliche, but this move smacks of early WWII Hitler and post-WWII Stalin. In 1938, before Hitler invaded the Czechoslovakia in its entirety, the Fuhrer only annexed the native German speaking perimeter of the country, the Sudetenland. Using the people's desire for autonomy as his justification, Hitler demanded that Czechoslovakia cede the Sudetenland to Germany and that the territory be immediately occupied by German troops. The swift occupation of the territory prevented the Czechoslovakian troops from being able to adjust to the new German positions, and the rest of Czechoslovakia was invaded in March, 1939.
So far, Putin has done an excellent job of mimicking this strategy. Crimea has a majority of ethnic Russians, and Putin has used this fact to justify referendum that annexed Crimea into Russia. Crimea is frothing over with Russian soldiers, soldiers actively running drills and visibly exercising Russian military might. Putin claims that he has no desire in pursing the remainder of Ukraine, but Hitler made similar statements when he pursued the Sudetenland.
As far as my comparison to Stalin, anyone familiar with the creation of the Iron Curtain and the occupations thereof should see similarities.
The issue of sovereignty has come up, and in different circumstances would be a fairly legitimate concern. The context of this issue, however, seems much more complicated than an issue of regional autonomy.
Comments are appreciated.
Putin recently signed a treaty that officially annexed Crimea into the Russian Federation. Well the "official" nature of it fluctuates depending on who you ask. Kiev isn't so ready to let it go.
I don't mean to turn this particular point of analysis into a cliche, but this move smacks of early WWII Hitler and post-WWII Stalin. In 1938, before Hitler invaded the Czechoslovakia in its entirety, the Fuhrer only annexed the native German speaking perimeter of the country, the Sudetenland. Using the people's desire for autonomy as his justification, Hitler demanded that Czechoslovakia cede the Sudetenland to Germany and that the territory be immediately occupied by German troops. The swift occupation of the territory prevented the Czechoslovakian troops from being able to adjust to the new German positions, and the rest of Czechoslovakia was invaded in March, 1939.
So far, Putin has done an excellent job of mimicking this strategy. Crimea has a majority of ethnic Russians, and Putin has used this fact to justify referendum that annexed Crimea into Russia. Crimea is frothing over with Russian soldiers, soldiers actively running drills and visibly exercising Russian military might. Putin claims that he has no desire in pursing the remainder of Ukraine, but Hitler made similar statements when he pursued the Sudetenland.
As far as my comparison to Stalin, anyone familiar with the creation of the Iron Curtain and the occupations thereof should see similarities.
The issue of sovereignty has come up, and in different circumstances would be a fairly legitimate concern. The context of this issue, however, seems much more complicated than an issue of regional autonomy.
Comments are appreciated.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
An Inflated Venezuela
This article comes from "The Washington Post"
Three more are dead in the tumult of Venezuela: a university student, a National Guard captain, and a guy painting the front of his house.
First of all, however horrific, violence is nothing new to Venezuela. It has the highest per capita murder rate in the world, with approximately 70 people killed each day (I'm sure that number has increased with the riots). It also has egregious inflation rates. According to both the article above and NPR, Venezuela underwent approximately 56 percent inflation last year.
It may not be prudent to point fingers, but I don't think it's any stretch of the imagination to assign a majority of Venezuela's massive inflation to Maduro's seizure of large portions of Venezuela's private sector. According to NPR, Maduro's primary opposition, Lopez, is "a hard line radical," but I also don't think it is reasonable to give Lopez all of the credit for inflaming the Venezuelan people. 56 percent inflation bites.
The upheaval we are observing now appear to me to be, in a large way, natural. Like we talked about in class, when a leader fosters a cult-like following, the successor will never be able to live up to the people's expectations. It's not Maduro's fault he came second. It is his fault that he seized entire industries and stabilized their prices, but somebody had to mess up eventually.
I don't advocate laissez-faire economics, to be sure. I'm also not sure how I feel about socialism. My point is not to be partisan in my analysis of Venezuela. I actually don't think the actions of any of the many parties involved are wholly correct or wholly incorrect. I mostly just feel like, ultimately, the Venezuelan people are getting stiffed, and it is going to take a while to dig out of this mess.
Three more are dead in the tumult of Venezuela: a university student, a National Guard captain, and a guy painting the front of his house.
First of all, however horrific, violence is nothing new to Venezuela. It has the highest per capita murder rate in the world, with approximately 70 people killed each day (I'm sure that number has increased with the riots). It also has egregious inflation rates. According to both the article above and NPR, Venezuela underwent approximately 56 percent inflation last year.
It may not be prudent to point fingers, but I don't think it's any stretch of the imagination to assign a majority of Venezuela's massive inflation to Maduro's seizure of large portions of Venezuela's private sector. According to NPR, Maduro's primary opposition, Lopez, is "a hard line radical," but I also don't think it is reasonable to give Lopez all of the credit for inflaming the Venezuelan people. 56 percent inflation bites.
The upheaval we are observing now appear to me to be, in a large way, natural. Like we talked about in class, when a leader fosters a cult-like following, the successor will never be able to live up to the people's expectations. It's not Maduro's fault he came second. It is his fault that he seized entire industries and stabilized their prices, but somebody had to mess up eventually.
I don't advocate laissez-faire economics, to be sure. I'm also not sure how I feel about socialism. My point is not to be partisan in my analysis of Venezuela. I actually don't think the actions of any of the many parties involved are wholly correct or wholly incorrect. I mostly just feel like, ultimately, the Venezuelan people are getting stiffed, and it is going to take a while to dig out of this mess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)