I bet most Americans born in the 80s knows all about the DARE programs, designed to "keep kids off of drugs." Isn't the handy slogan now something like "protecting kids from drugs and violence" or whatnot? So where does the V for Violence fit in the acronym? Can we put something about sitting too close to the tv in there too?
Well, I'm advocating drug resistance as well. Drugs are harmful not only to us, but to our society. Check this out.
AP: Senate blocks bid to allow drug imports
By Andrew Bridges
"In a triumph for the pharmaceutical industry, the Senate on Monday killed a drive to allow consumers to buy prescription drugs from abroad at a significant savings over domestic prices. On a 49-40 vote, the Senate required the administration to certify the safety and effectiveness of imported drugs before they can be imported, a requirement that officials have said they cannot meet."
Wha- how- huh? Are you telling me that in this bastion of freedom, this beacon of light to the world, the great champion of capitalist bourgeois glory in the face of red communism, we are -- dare I say it -- allowing the monopoly of the drug industry by continuing the prohibition of foreign pharmaceuticals? Have we no pride? For what have our forefathers sacrificed, if not for freedom -- free speech, free practice of religion, free enterprise? Are we going to be continually subjected to mere colony-ship by the great motherland of pharmacopeia, with its vast armies of lobbyists and checkbooks? Are the bullets of pocket-lineage going to destroy capitalism? Where are the glory days of TR and trust-busting?
So maybe trust-busting isn't quite on target, but I doubt anybody who hasn't been bought out by the industry would disagree with the pathos behind the idea. But what a downer (nothing drug-related!) to run into that sidenote; I was just beginning to get into rhythm with my patriotic soapbox. It's easy to see how Republicans and Democrats can fall into this rut of bombast and rhetoric; it's wicked fun! Beats actually accomplishing anything!
But accomplish I must. The Senate required the measure based on safety reasons, the heart of which I cannot condemn, especially after reading an article this morning (see my other blog from today) on counterfeiting medical ingredients with poison.
But let me explain something that's bugging me. Because I have faith in logic, except when it doesn't serve me, and something just doesn't add up here.
In light of China's counterfeiting (replacing glycerin with poisonous diethylene glycol) the FDA "warned drug makers and suppliers in the United States 'to be especially vigilant' in watching for diethylene glycol" (NYT: "From China to Panama"). And when, in 1995, a US company purchased counterfeit "glycerin," the FDA had no idea about the transaction (fortunately the company caught it). So not all the imported materials going into medicines are tested by the FDA, as this demonstrates.
Yet this new legislation requires that the safety of any imported drugs be verified before importation. Lofty and admirable goal, indeed, but why the double standard? Am I missing something? Can we not apply this safety measure to imports of medical ingredients as well?
Surprise! another sidenote -- I really want to see Ned Flanders work for a drug company on the Simpsons: "triglucose-iddilly-diddilly benzoantilly-fantilly-puddely-siddily-doo! Let us pray, neighbor! diddilly"
My original conclusion, before being interrupted by my usual tangent on anything mockable, is that drugs are harmful to our society. Forget the fact that we're pumping unpronounceable chemicals into our body. Forget the fact that our little purple pills are unorganic. Forget the fact that our elders are deciding between a meal and an ever-increasingly-costly pill! Forget the fact the fact that our healthcare and insurance costs are skyrocketing. That's all fluff -- the crux of the issue is its effect on the well-being of American society, the preservation of American culture. Now tell me, truthfully, when's the last time you watched TV without seeing one of those ridiculous commercials? We're Americans, and if we have to interrupt our brains' degeneration with a commercial break, it had better be KFC and flavorless domestic beer! I rest my case.
I would like to encourage anybody who may read this to please pass this to as many friends and family and loved ones as possible. It's important to get out the message. My greatest hope is that this will become such a threat to the pharmaceutical puppet-masters that they'll pay me a large sum of money and bribe me out, too. And they can make Congress pass a law that will make the money untaxable.
08 May 2007
Can we please stop trading with China already?
It's not that I'm anti-China. When considering the facts that it perpetually abuses women, shows no tolerance for anything it cannot control, displays no concern for the environment, or human and animal rights, I don't think being anti-China is really being anti-China; it's merely disagreeing with a totalitarian regime that opposes everything good.
In fact, China, Korea and Japan, with their cultural and ethnic similarities, derived from the same ancestorship. That means that half of me is, a few generations back, linked to China. And take into account that we're all world citizens, that means that I'm fully related to people in China, maybe a few more generations back. Unfortunately, I'm also related to Hitler, Stalin and Fred Phelps, but I believe the world family has disowned them. They're the "under the bridge" kids. Not to be confused with the new pedophile houses in Florida...I think?
But seriously, Chinese women are the same as Korean, German, and American women. They're just not as fortunate as we; they were born into angst and hardship, while we, relatively, were born in sunshine meadows.
What annoys me is the Chinese state. Just as the Japanese state, but not the people, annoy me, the Chinese state drives me freaking bonkers. I read this article this morning in the Times and was actually late to work because I couldn't put it down. It is seven pages, and I had to keep double checking to make sure I really was reading what I read.
NYT: From China to Panama, a trail of poisoned medicine
By Walt Bogdanich and Jake Hooker
Basic synopsis: Chinese counterfeiters are substituting diethylene glycol for glycerin. You don't have to get past Chem 111 to know that diethylene glycol, "an industrial solvent and prime ingredient in some antifreeze," is poisonous. So these guys, in order to save a couple of bucks, exchange di-gly in place of glycerin, which is the sweet syrupy stuff that goes into cough medicine but still doesn't remove the nasty beerface taste.
Of the eight mass poisonings over the past 20 years, Panama is the latest victim. 365 are reported dead from this trickery, with 100 confirmed. Survival rate of the poisoning is 50%. This may be good odds for the last question on a test, but not in a life-death situation. I prefer something closer to 99.9%. Or 100 is even better.
So counterfeiters are bad, and should be drawn and quartered when they intentionally cause sickness or death. But what's equally as dispicable is the State's response.
When the poisoning hit in China, authorities arrested the counterfeiter and his sentence, possibly death, is being decided. Compare this to the State's reaction regarding the Panama tragedy. Our FDA tested the substance and found no glycerin, just di-gly and two other substances (the manufactureres advertised it as 95% glycerin). Instead of swooping in for the kill, the Chinese DEA equivalent said it had no jurisdiction, as the company -- State-owned, by the way!! -- is not certified to manufacture medicine; it had referred the case to the General Administration of Quality Supervision. Apparently this was news to the GAQS; it had never heard of the investigation. hmmm...
Aside from my little asides, that's the article in a nutshell. So my question is, in light of our recent wheat gluten incident, coupled with the State's inability to set any rigorous safety standards for its food and medical exports, and its refusal to prosecute counterfeiting murderers, can we please stop trading with China already? At least until we can guarantee our consumers' safety. Money talks. And we need to speak the language.
In fact, China, Korea and Japan, with their cultural and ethnic similarities, derived from the same ancestorship. That means that half of me is, a few generations back, linked to China. And take into account that we're all world citizens, that means that I'm fully related to people in China, maybe a few more generations back. Unfortunately, I'm also related to Hitler, Stalin and Fred Phelps, but I believe the world family has disowned them. They're the "under the bridge" kids. Not to be confused with the new pedophile houses in Florida...I think?
But seriously, Chinese women are the same as Korean, German, and American women. They're just not as fortunate as we; they were born into angst and hardship, while we, relatively, were born in sunshine meadows.
What annoys me is the Chinese state. Just as the Japanese state, but not the people, annoy me, the Chinese state drives me freaking bonkers. I read this article this morning in the Times and was actually late to work because I couldn't put it down. It is seven pages, and I had to keep double checking to make sure I really was reading what I read.
NYT: From China to Panama, a trail of poisoned medicine
By Walt Bogdanich and Jake Hooker
Basic synopsis: Chinese counterfeiters are substituting diethylene glycol for glycerin. You don't have to get past Chem 111 to know that diethylene glycol, "an industrial solvent and prime ingredient in some antifreeze," is poisonous. So these guys, in order to save a couple of bucks, exchange di-gly in place of glycerin, which is the sweet syrupy stuff that goes into cough medicine but still doesn't remove the nasty beerface taste.
Of the eight mass poisonings over the past 20 years, Panama is the latest victim. 365 are reported dead from this trickery, with 100 confirmed. Survival rate of the poisoning is 50%. This may be good odds for the last question on a test, but not in a life-death situation. I prefer something closer to 99.9%. Or 100 is even better.
So counterfeiters are bad, and should be drawn and quartered when they intentionally cause sickness or death. But what's equally as dispicable is the State's response.
When the poisoning hit in China, authorities arrested the counterfeiter and his sentence, possibly death, is being decided. Compare this to the State's reaction regarding the Panama tragedy. Our FDA tested the substance and found no glycerin, just di-gly and two other substances (the manufactureres advertised it as 95% glycerin). Instead of swooping in for the kill, the Chinese DEA equivalent said it had no jurisdiction, as the company -- State-owned, by the way!! -- is not certified to manufacture medicine; it had referred the case to the General Administration of Quality Supervision. Apparently this was news to the GAQS; it had never heard of the investigation. hmmm...
Aside from my little asides, that's the article in a nutshell. So my question is, in light of our recent wheat gluten incident, coupled with the State's inability to set any rigorous safety standards for its food and medical exports, and its refusal to prosecute counterfeiting murderers, can we please stop trading with China already? At least until we can guarantee our consumers' safety. Money talks. And we need to speak the language.
27 April 2007
So Russia ain't givin' up the ice
Wow. Talk about frostiness at the NATO/Russia Council meeting. I think Russia wants to return to the Cold War, when things were so much easier. Forget war on terror, global economics, child soldiers, genocide and all that trash; wasn't it nicer when you could just base your whole foreign policy on hating the US?
So we're working with Europe on installing a missile defense system. As nations around the globe are acquiring nuclear technology -- didn't both Russia and the US just participate in six-party talks to address the DPRK's nuclear technology? -- the US has recognized the value of a missile defense system. I still like Reagan's "Star Wars."
Here's Russia's response, according to the AP, via Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: " We cannot be unconcerned by the fact that NATO military infrastructure is creeping up to our borders...They are still looking for an enemy..."
OK, lemme get this straight: they're worried about NATO military infrastructure creeping up to their borders, yet they're maintaning a Cold-War style buffer zone, refusing to remove their troops from Georgia and Moldova? How does that fly? I believe that psychologists term that "projection": projecting one's own faults onto another. Now my question is, does Russia not realize that it's placed not just its military infrastructure, but its military, beyond other sovereign nations' borders, or does it just prefer to exercise what we call (say it slowly with me, Dr. Evil style) "the double standard"?
Now Russia's basing this response, according to the AP, on the "belief that the installation of American interceptors in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic would post a threat to its nuclear arsenal."
A threat to its nuclear arsenal.
If Russia's concerned about its nuclear arsenal, should it not focus more on the Russian mafia within its own borders than a radar station in the Czech Republic?
Ahem. Logic 1, rhetoric 0.
So Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice takes the ball to the basket: "Let's be real about this and realistic about this...The idea that somehow 10 interceptors and a few radars in Eastern Europe are going to threaten the Soviet strategic deterrent is purely ludicrous and everybody knows it."
Smackdown! Condi owns Sergei. "Purely ludicrous"--my respect for this woman has just tripled.
I can definitely see the logic in the statement. So Russia's basing its strategic deterrent on its nuclear arsenal. Fine. But the USSR no longer exists, the Cold War is over, and the US and Russia have been on civil, if not friendly, terms for the past decade and then some. How is our missile defense system going to threaten Russia's strategic defense, since it really should not be worrying about an American offensive in the first place? It was a strategic defense against the US twenty years ago, not today. We have no reason to aim an offensive at Russia because it is a frail giant on the decline.
Yet I do disagree with one point of Secretary Rice's statement. No, Condi, not everybody knows it. Vladimir and Sergei are reliving the Cold War, and if they don't cease their childish and disruptive bravado, I'm going to start calling them Soviets.
So we're working with Europe on installing a missile defense system. As nations around the globe are acquiring nuclear technology -- didn't both Russia and the US just participate in six-party talks to address the DPRK's nuclear technology? -- the US has recognized the value of a missile defense system. I still like Reagan's "Star Wars."
Here's Russia's response, according to the AP, via Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: " We cannot be unconcerned by the fact that NATO military infrastructure is creeping up to our borders...They are still looking for an enemy..."
OK, lemme get this straight: they're worried about NATO military infrastructure creeping up to their borders, yet they're maintaning a Cold-War style buffer zone, refusing to remove their troops from Georgia and Moldova? How does that fly? I believe that psychologists term that "projection": projecting one's own faults onto another. Now my question is, does Russia not realize that it's placed not just its military infrastructure, but its military, beyond other sovereign nations' borders, or does it just prefer to exercise what we call (say it slowly with me, Dr. Evil style) "the double standard"?
Now Russia's basing this response, according to the AP, on the "belief that the installation of American interceptors in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic would post a threat to its nuclear arsenal."
A threat to its nuclear arsenal.
If Russia's concerned about its nuclear arsenal, should it not focus more on the Russian mafia within its own borders than a radar station in the Czech Republic?
Ahem. Logic 1, rhetoric 0.
So Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice takes the ball to the basket: "Let's be real about this and realistic about this...The idea that somehow 10 interceptors and a few radars in Eastern Europe are going to threaten the Soviet strategic deterrent is purely ludicrous and everybody knows it."
Smackdown! Condi owns Sergei. "Purely ludicrous"--my respect for this woman has just tripled.
I can definitely see the logic in the statement. So Russia's basing its strategic deterrent on its nuclear arsenal. Fine. But the USSR no longer exists, the Cold War is over, and the US and Russia have been on civil, if not friendly, terms for the past decade and then some. How is our missile defense system going to threaten Russia's strategic defense, since it really should not be worrying about an American offensive in the first place? It was a strategic defense against the US twenty years ago, not today. We have no reason to aim an offensive at Russia because it is a frail giant on the decline.
Yet I do disagree with one point of Secretary Rice's statement. No, Condi, not everybody knows it. Vladimir and Sergei are reliving the Cold War, and if they don't cease their childish and disruptive bravado, I'm going to start calling them Soviets.
25 April 2007
Socialism? Communism? Viable?
My little digression yesterday brought up some interesting questions on the viability of socialist or communist survival, which I hope to address today. It's also forcing me to ponder whether democracy can survive regardless of culture.
I grew up learning that democracy is the best form of government, as it offers liberty and egalitarianism. Of course, this mindset is the product of a public school system in a western society which has successfully practised democracy over the past two hundred years. Yet recent events in the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa have led me to question whether it is the best governance for all cultures. Does freedom transcend cultural boundaries? President Bush thinks so. My heart wants to say yes. But my mind is raising questions. I'm going to have to think about this and get back to it.
But onto Socialism. As I mentioned, I was raised to revere democracy. Our forefathers fought and sacrificed to create and preserve it, and as citizens our duty is to protect and promote it. I witnessed the end of the Cold War as Germans razed the Berlin Wall, Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe and Central Asia demanded independence and the USSR crumbled. I emphasized that I was born in South Korea, not Communist North Korea. I knew that democracy is good, and communism is evil.
The first time I read The Communist Manifesto it sounded like a great opportunity to truly grasp equality. The oppressed of the world was to rebel against the bourgeoisie and create one single state, where, regardless of race or gender, the individual was equal to all others. They shared land, labor and the fruits of labor. This was to be the utopia of utopias.
But analysis brought different conclusions. I thought about the Communist experiments that have taken place. It's worked sometimes in utopian camps. Yet states have failed utterly. The USSR imploded, the PRC is turning capitalist (but NOT free!), and people are literally starving to death in the DPRK. Cuba...well, people seem to be pretty happy, until you see the refugees in Miami. The fact of the matter is, all these Communist experiments have gone terrible awry, because they have all resulted in power-centralized dictatorships. Reminds me of two books I read: 1984 and Animal Farm, both by George Orwell. Animal Farm allegorizes of Stalin's regime, and 1984 strikes me as oddly coincidental to Pyongyang's "Big Brother" network of spies. So much for decentralized power of the people, eh? Proletariat governance has fallen by the wayside.
Yesterday I proposed the evolution of socialism. In order to understand this concept, let's first look at democracy. It's had a long-standing tradition in the west. Greeks and Romans practised it to various degrees in the classical period, and we can trace its key modern beginning to Britain with the 1215 C.E. signing of the Magna Carta, which, though it did not extend power to the populace, did decentralize power from solely the monarchy to include the elite. Britain itself evolved in terms of liberty and personal freedoms, and there was a strong basis for democratic governance by the time we were hosting the Boston Tea Party. Contrast this, however, to France. Though France also had the Classical democratic influences, it was a monarchy based on serfdom until the late 18th century. The First Republic was a short-lived, ruthlessly bloody mob rule that quickly reverted back to a monarchy (or empire?) when Napoleon assumed power. Britain had evolved into a democracy over centuries, while France attempted to convert into one overnight; apparently a society that has accultured and gradually adapted democratic values is more successful in establishing and maintaining a democracy.
Perhaps society has to evolve into socialism as well. I still haven't forgotten an argument a college classmate made in a political theory class. PJ argued that Marx actually killed Communism; he wrote the Manifesto and nations experimented with it before society was ready for it; its failures have convinced the world, at least for the past 20 years, to embrace democracy. Had Marx and Engels never collaborated on the work, society would have evolved towards communism and it would have been successful. As Venezuela under Chavez and other South American countries lean towards it, and as France may soon try it, it appears that the world may have evolved more towards socialism, and that this time, it may work.
Yet I cannot help but reach the same conclusion I reached four years ago. Each of our previous experiments with Communism have resulted in failure. Some may argue that this is only because of power-hungry egomaniacs. But that's just my point. Marx's writings sound good. The only problem is that Marx overlooked one teensy little detail that makes all the difference in the world: human nature. We are selfish beings. I'm not denying it about myself; I'M SELFISH! We are the greedy, power-hungry egomaniacs that disreputed Communism. And even though we as individuals or a society may evolve towards socialism--if we learn to truly love each other as we love ourselves and become truly concerned for others' welfare--we can never be safe from tyranny because Socialism is a perfect vehicle for tyranny. It's difficult to attain power in a democracy because there is always competition; however, when one removes competition and equalizes everything, one step above everybody else can transform a comrade into a dictator in an instant. We cannot evolve into socialism because everybody would have to evolve; it's all or nothing; one greedy person and a bit o'luck is all it takes to condemn a socialist state to be a dictatorship.
I'm going to get back on democracy, its evolution, and where culture plays into all of it. Peace & love to all. Until next time,
Moni
I grew up learning that democracy is the best form of government, as it offers liberty and egalitarianism. Of course, this mindset is the product of a public school system in a western society which has successfully practised democracy over the past two hundred years. Yet recent events in the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa have led me to question whether it is the best governance for all cultures. Does freedom transcend cultural boundaries? President Bush thinks so. My heart wants to say yes. But my mind is raising questions. I'm going to have to think about this and get back to it.
But onto Socialism. As I mentioned, I was raised to revere democracy. Our forefathers fought and sacrificed to create and preserve it, and as citizens our duty is to protect and promote it. I witnessed the end of the Cold War as Germans razed the Berlin Wall, Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe and Central Asia demanded independence and the USSR crumbled. I emphasized that I was born in South Korea, not Communist North Korea. I knew that democracy is good, and communism is evil.
The first time I read The Communist Manifesto it sounded like a great opportunity to truly grasp equality. The oppressed of the world was to rebel against the bourgeoisie and create one single state, where, regardless of race or gender, the individual was equal to all others. They shared land, labor and the fruits of labor. This was to be the utopia of utopias.
But analysis brought different conclusions. I thought about the Communist experiments that have taken place. It's worked sometimes in utopian camps. Yet states have failed utterly. The USSR imploded, the PRC is turning capitalist (but NOT free!), and people are literally starving to death in the DPRK. Cuba...well, people seem to be pretty happy, until you see the refugees in Miami. The fact of the matter is, all these Communist experiments have gone terrible awry, because they have all resulted in power-centralized dictatorships. Reminds me of two books I read: 1984 and Animal Farm, both by George Orwell. Animal Farm allegorizes of Stalin's regime, and 1984 strikes me as oddly coincidental to Pyongyang's "Big Brother" network of spies. So much for decentralized power of the people, eh? Proletariat governance has fallen by the wayside.
Yesterday I proposed the evolution of socialism. In order to understand this concept, let's first look at democracy. It's had a long-standing tradition in the west. Greeks and Romans practised it to various degrees in the classical period, and we can trace its key modern beginning to Britain with the 1215 C.E. signing of the Magna Carta, which, though it did not extend power to the populace, did decentralize power from solely the monarchy to include the elite. Britain itself evolved in terms of liberty and personal freedoms, and there was a strong basis for democratic governance by the time we were hosting the Boston Tea Party. Contrast this, however, to France. Though France also had the Classical democratic influences, it was a monarchy based on serfdom until the late 18th century. The First Republic was a short-lived, ruthlessly bloody mob rule that quickly reverted back to a monarchy (or empire?) when Napoleon assumed power. Britain had evolved into a democracy over centuries, while France attempted to convert into one overnight; apparently a society that has accultured and gradually adapted democratic values is more successful in establishing and maintaining a democracy.
Perhaps society has to evolve into socialism as well. I still haven't forgotten an argument a college classmate made in a political theory class. PJ argued that Marx actually killed Communism; he wrote the Manifesto and nations experimented with it before society was ready for it; its failures have convinced the world, at least for the past 20 years, to embrace democracy. Had Marx and Engels never collaborated on the work, society would have evolved towards communism and it would have been successful. As Venezuela under Chavez and other South American countries lean towards it, and as France may soon try it, it appears that the world may have evolved more towards socialism, and that this time, it may work.
Yet I cannot help but reach the same conclusion I reached four years ago. Each of our previous experiments with Communism have resulted in failure. Some may argue that this is only because of power-hungry egomaniacs. But that's just my point. Marx's writings sound good. The only problem is that Marx overlooked one teensy little detail that makes all the difference in the world: human nature. We are selfish beings. I'm not denying it about myself; I'M SELFISH! We are the greedy, power-hungry egomaniacs that disreputed Communism. And even though we as individuals or a society may evolve towards socialism--if we learn to truly love each other as we love ourselves and become truly concerned for others' welfare--we can never be safe from tyranny because Socialism is a perfect vehicle for tyranny. It's difficult to attain power in a democracy because there is always competition; however, when one removes competition and equalizes everything, one step above everybody else can transform a comrade into a dictator in an instant. We cannot evolve into socialism because everybody would have to evolve; it's all or nothing; one greedy person and a bit o'luck is all it takes to condemn a socialist state to be a dictatorship.
I'm going to get back on democracy, its evolution, and where culture plays into all of it. Peace & love to all. Until next time,
Moni
24 April 2007
I'm graduating...and the French voted
Yesterday I attended our annual Political Science picnic. It was a nice day and the location, Chisholm Creek Park, was beautiful, as always. I swear, every year that I've been there, the day has always been cloudy, but it's never rained. Jon and I NEED to go biking there--it has a few offroad paths that would be perfect for biking. With helmets, of course.
Back on track. This year-end picnic honors Pi Sig initiates, scholarship recipients, and graduates. I enjoyed the opportunity to visit with professors, most of whom I haven't seen since our senior seminar in the fall. I also caught up with old classmates. It was a very pleasant event.
Today I had a meeting scheduled with Dr. Shaw to survey my experience with the PoliSci department. The meeting was cancelled, but I never checked my email and therefore trudged the three flights of stairs (I haven't gone up those stairs since last fall!) in vain, but for the 10 calories I burned. Walking out of the office, I glanced down the hall and it suddenly hit me: I'm going to miss this place! For the past two years, I've been planning my escape: my escape from an undergrad program, an escape from Wichita, an escape from my safety zone. Though I've been taking the steps towards graduation, I never really considered the fact that, in just weeks, I wouldn't be...HERE! This school has been my third home (after work, my first home; and home, my second home) for the past six years and I was getting ready to leave my professors--the people who had given me so much and worked so hard to help me maximize my undergrad experience. It's taken me a few minutes to analyze my thoughts and write it down, but in reality it was just a 1/2 second of sentimentality. So don't get too worked up. Because I didn't.
Onto business. I just finished a NY Times article on the French first vote, which leaves Conservative Nicolas Sarkozy and Socialist Ségolène Royal in the run-off. For those who haven't taken Comparative Politics with Ciboski, the French system is developed so two plurality winners advance to the second vote, which gives one the majority of the vote. Since we essentially have a two-party system in the U.S., these clever little voting rules were never necessary.
It struck me as a bit funny. Not the fact that a Socialist could receive the second highest plurality. Europe is more left-leaning than we are (economically and socially). I'm actually interested in seeing how much an impact a Socialist would have in France...would it whole-heartedly embrace Socialism, or would it merely implement a few more programs designed to equalize its populace? And where do Turks and other Muslim immigrants fit into this equality? I'm a bit curious to see if Socialism...or even Communism...may survive. Just as a culture has to "evolve into democracy" (contrast Britain with its 8-century acculturation period and, say, Afghanistan), does a culture have to evolve into Socialism? or Communism? Has France evolved into Socialism enough?
These are questions I ask upon analysis of the article, but that's not what struck me as funny. Actually, it's not really funny, not even a tad amusing, but more ironic than anything else. How do you figure that Ségolène Royal, which sounds like a purely traditionally French name (complete with accents) is a Socialist while Nicolas Sarkozy, who in my mind could have just as easily composed Swan Lake or written Crime & Punishment (he's actually of Hungarian descent), is a Conservative? And trust me, I'm not making any political implications about this--because both "Comrades" and "Presidents" have been dictators--but I think I'm going to call Nicolas "Czar Sar" just because it has a nice ring. But truthfully, it appears that some French voters might call him that, not jokingly.
One more thing--voter turnout was 85 percent! Geez. My only explanation, other than the French having a higher sense of citizen duty than we, is that they didn't want Jean-Marie le Pen pulling off another 2002. Crazy madness.
Back on track. This year-end picnic honors Pi Sig initiates, scholarship recipients, and graduates. I enjoyed the opportunity to visit with professors, most of whom I haven't seen since our senior seminar in the fall. I also caught up with old classmates. It was a very pleasant event.
Today I had a meeting scheduled with Dr. Shaw to survey my experience with the PoliSci department. The meeting was cancelled, but I never checked my email and therefore trudged the three flights of stairs (I haven't gone up those stairs since last fall!) in vain, but for the 10 calories I burned. Walking out of the office, I glanced down the hall and it suddenly hit me: I'm going to miss this place! For the past two years, I've been planning my escape: my escape from an undergrad program, an escape from Wichita, an escape from my safety zone. Though I've been taking the steps towards graduation, I never really considered the fact that, in just weeks, I wouldn't be...HERE! This school has been my third home (after work, my first home; and home, my second home) for the past six years and I was getting ready to leave my professors--the people who had given me so much and worked so hard to help me maximize my undergrad experience. It's taken me a few minutes to analyze my thoughts and write it down, but in reality it was just a 1/2 second of sentimentality. So don't get too worked up. Because I didn't.
Onto business. I just finished a NY Times article on the French first vote, which leaves Conservative Nicolas Sarkozy and Socialist Ségolène Royal in the run-off. For those who haven't taken Comparative Politics with Ciboski, the French system is developed so two plurality winners advance to the second vote, which gives one the majority of the vote. Since we essentially have a two-party system in the U.S., these clever little voting rules were never necessary.
It struck me as a bit funny. Not the fact that a Socialist could receive the second highest plurality. Europe is more left-leaning than we are (economically and socially). I'm actually interested in seeing how much an impact a Socialist would have in France...would it whole-heartedly embrace Socialism, or would it merely implement a few more programs designed to equalize its populace? And where do Turks and other Muslim immigrants fit into this equality? I'm a bit curious to see if Socialism...or even Communism...may survive. Just as a culture has to "evolve into democracy" (contrast Britain with its 8-century acculturation period and, say, Afghanistan), does a culture have to evolve into Socialism? or Communism? Has France evolved into Socialism enough?
These are questions I ask upon analysis of the article, but that's not what struck me as funny. Actually, it's not really funny, not even a tad amusing, but more ironic than anything else. How do you figure that Ségolène Royal, which sounds like a purely traditionally French name (complete with accents) is a Socialist while Nicolas Sarkozy, who in my mind could have just as easily composed Swan Lake or written Crime & Punishment (he's actually of Hungarian descent), is a Conservative? And trust me, I'm not making any political implications about this--because both "Comrades" and "Presidents" have been dictators--but I think I'm going to call Nicolas "Czar Sar" just because it has a nice ring. But truthfully, it appears that some French voters might call him that, not jokingly.
One more thing--voter turnout was 85 percent! Geez. My only explanation, other than the French having a higher sense of citizen duty than we, is that they didn't want Jean-Marie le Pen pulling off another 2002. Crazy madness.
19 April 2007
01 April 2007
New York?
I normally wouldn't admit this, but when I opened my mail this afternoon I cried.
These tears were the culmination of a stressful week at work, a Saturday morning class (10 am on a Saturday is still really early!) an already emotionally-inclined personality, and a letter that is on my bed at which I'm constantly stealing little glances.
On Tuesday David Martinidez, Dean of Admissions at Cardozo Law, called me to inform me that I had been accepted into the school and had received financial aid. I hadn't really realized the significance of this, as my applications had been rather half-hearted, and I was more excited about taking a year off and traveling than jumping right into school. Yet when I opened the mail today I scanned the acceptance letter and then turned to the award letter, fell down on the floor and actually cried. $25,000 for my 1L, which would cover a bit over 70% of tuition, and renewable with sufficient grades, etc. etc.
This unexpected bit of news also severely complicates my life. Does anything ever get simpler? I think not. I was planning on taking a year off and travelling, allowing me to take a break while working on my law school applications. Yet this is an opportunity to spend significantly less on school than I had originally planned, and I have to make my decision by mid-April. What to do, what to do? Prayers would be much appreciated. Pc out.
These tears were the culmination of a stressful week at work, a Saturday morning class (10 am on a Saturday is still really early!) an already emotionally-inclined personality, and a letter that is on my bed at which I'm constantly stealing little glances.
On Tuesday David Martinidez, Dean of Admissions at Cardozo Law, called me to inform me that I had been accepted into the school and had received financial aid. I hadn't really realized the significance of this, as my applications had been rather half-hearted, and I was more excited about taking a year off and traveling than jumping right into school. Yet when I opened the mail today I scanned the acceptance letter and then turned to the award letter, fell down on the floor and actually cried. $25,000 for my 1L, which would cover a bit over 70% of tuition, and renewable with sufficient grades, etc. etc.
This unexpected bit of news also severely complicates my life. Does anything ever get simpler? I think not. I was planning on taking a year off and travelling, allowing me to take a break while working on my law school applications. Yet this is an opportunity to spend significantly less on school than I had originally planned, and I have to make my decision by mid-April. What to do, what to do? Prayers would be much appreciated. Pc out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
