30 Rather Important Turtles

       Thomas Friedman, a noted newsman and authority on various foreign affairs, writes a short piece concerning outsourcing low-prestige/low-wage jobs to countries like India and Pakistan in his essay 30 Little Turtles. Friedman advocates outsourcing these jobs to such countries to further the independence and self-confidence of the 18-30 yr bracket in the populations there.

       Friedman is correct in emphasising the need to outsource these jobs to these less densely urbanized countries. While these jobs are considered low-prestige and low-wage in the US and Canada, they are not considered so in Pakistan, India, et al. By outsourcing these jobs, there are more opportunities for higher wage jobs to be had in the US and Canada, and more lower wage jobs to be had by citizens of India and other such countries. In outsourcing these jobs, countries like the US and Canada also increase good geopolitical relations between these countries.

       All in all, with some minor negative aspects that will readily dissipate within the next 5-10 years, the outsourcing of lower wage jobs to less privileged countries is a fantastic practice and should be continued.

Works Cited

Friedman, Thomas. "30 Little Turtles." Katherine Anne Ackley, G. Kim Blank, Stephen Eaton Hume. Perspectives on Contemporary Issues. Toronto: Thomson Nelson, 2008. 176-178.

When the Truth needs to be Told

          The life of Alan Turing could have easily been pulled from any number of Hollywood films. He was the famous code-breaker of the Enigma code in WWII, the inventor of the computer and a scandalous homosexual. In the beginning of the essay/autobiography, Jim Holt introduces these fascinating aspects of Turing’s life. However, after only a few short paragraphs, it turns into a comparatively dry autobiography chronicling Turing’s life from childhood until his passing. However intensely interesting aspects of Turing’s life was, Holt insists on focusing on the more drab aspects of Turing’s life, giving less attention to what many people would consider the more exciting aspects. 

          Why would Holt portray Turing in this way? Holt says “we’re prepared for a life story that, though steeped in logic and mathematics, is part parable of sexual politics, part fairy tale” (339). Holt may have wanted to bring Turing back to the realm of the logical and factual. By not concentrating on the aspects of Turing’s life that are based solely in fact, Holt brings Turing back from the Hollywood style retelling of Turing’s life. Whether Holt told Turing’s life story in this way is out of respect for Turing and his considerable achievements, or a distaste for the way his life has been exaggerated and fictionalized, is impossible to tell. However, Holt does a remarkable job of pulling Turing away from the myth and mystery that has surrounded his life following his death.

Works Cited

Holt, Jim. "Code-Breaker." Katherine Anne Ackley, G. Kim Blank, Stephen Eaton Hume. Perspectives on Contemperary Issues. Toronto: Thomson Nelson, 2006. 337-346.

Combatting Rape as a Weapon

Jennifer Turpin is an outspoken advocate for the cause of women who are the forgotten victims of war. She is the co-editor for The Women in War Reader (1999) as well as the Dean for the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of San Francisco.  Turpin writes a paper entitled Women confronting War which deals with the issue of just how heavily women are affected in wartimes. Women are the forgotten victims of war, Turpin says, though they are affected the most by war. Turpin argues this in her statements of women make up the largest group of causalities in war because they are a huge part of the civilian population in wars, women as refugees are also hugely affected in that they usually are forced out of their homeland, are the sole providers for their families, and they usually have little or no way to sustain this role. Turpin also says that women are largely victimized through rape, forced prostitution and domestic violence. 

These statements lead me to ask, what is being done to combat rape as a weapon in war? As Turpin’s sources are slightly dated (the most recent being from 1998), I searched for more recent information. Surprisingly, I did not find a wealth of information on the topic, as I expected to, rather I found a few news articles here and there. However, these articles do bring a glimmer of light to the dismal situation. The UN is doing work to try and establish harsh penalties for rape everywhere in the world, because it is considered a crime against humanity. The Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/) has made the call for the Obama administration and the global community to act quickly and forcefully in order to combat the issue of rape as a weapon. (Clark) There is a group, based in the US who are trying to educate in order to stop the raping of women during war. Women for women International started a program in 2006 that teaches and educates men about women who have been raped, and teach them the consequences that go along with this act.

Women for Women have realized that it is not effective if they only view men as the perpetrators of this heinous crime, instead they have begun to see them as allies in the face of adversity. They use men’s influence in their localities, because if they only teach and help women, nothing good would come of it in the long run. An instance where educating men has worked is in the case of a Congo man named Bahati. “‘I was so angry. Up until now, I can't forget. I can't express how bad I feel,’ says Mr. Bahati, an unemployed former small-business owner.” (Clark) Women for Women helped Mr. Bahati to understand that his wife was not destroyed by rape, and 4 years after he kicked her out of their home, he welcomed her back. This program is the first in many steps of combating rape as a weapon. Women for Women CEO Stepehn Glaude says: “that the focus on men is the next stage in the evolution of the fight against rape – after treating rape victims and helping women reduce the risk of rape. ‘We are the next leg of the movement.’”

Works Cited

al., Jihane Ben Kheder et. The New School Graduate Program in International Affairs. 27 March 2009. 21 October 2010 <http://www.gpia.info/node/2319>.

Clark, Matthew. "Congo: Confronting rape as a weapon of war." 4 August 2009. Christian Science Monitor. 21 October 2010 <http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2009/0804/p17s01-woaf.html>.

Mark Sommers, Katherine Birch. "Combat the terror of rape in Congo." 27 January 2009. Christian Science Monitor. 21 October 2010 <http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0127/p09s02-coop.html>.

Turpin, Jennifer. "Women Confronting War." Ackley, Katherine Anne. Perspectives on Contemporary Issues. Toronto: Thomson Nelson, 2008. 324-329.

The Entity that is the Media

          Gary Kleck, an accomplished author and professor in the studies of criminology and criminal justice, writes an essay entitled “There are no Lessons to be Learned from Littleton”. In his essay, Kleck argues that school shootings are not a ‘trend’ as the media portrays them to be, rather they are irregular and unusual - quite the opposite.

          Kleck’s argument is supported by his findings in statistics that in general, violence has actually declined and been declining since the 1970’s (Kleck, p. 211). Kleck also states that most ‘normal’ homicides are confined to between 1 and 3 or 4 victims, anything more is considered the threshold for abnormal crimes. As school shootings typically have well over this accepted amount, they are considered unusual. The media, according to Kleck, has blown up these irregular incidents to be something more than they are. In doing this, the media has prompted citizens and those affected by these few tragedies to take irrational action, which in the end does not do any good to prevent further tragedies of this nature.

          By backing up his arguments with facts, Kleck provides an educated insight into an otherwise convoluted mess of stories and outright lies surrounding school shootings. The most interesting point Kleck makes, I find, is when he points out “a casual consumer of the flood of news coverage of these shootings could easily draw the conclusion that violence in schools is a growing problem...” (Kleck, p. 211). I think the most important phrase here is casual consumer, that is, someone who watches the news on TV and takes it for what it is with no further research. ‘Casual consumers’ of news is a label that may be applied to a huge number of Canadians because really, who has the time to research into an interesting topic they saw on the news? Almost all Canadians who say they do not have this luxury of time. The only people who have the time (or make the time) are people like Gary Kleck, whose job it is to make sense of the crazy stories on the news. Would people be less hasty in slapping band-aid solutions on problems like school shootings if they took the time to educate themselves on the material? I think they would. Unfortunately, many people (including those who think up these ‘solutions’) do not have the time to do this research. So, should this responsibility fall to the media to start educating the masses on news stories, rather than blowing them wildly out of proportion?

Works Cited:

Kleck, Gary. "There Are no Lessons to be Learned From Littleton." Ackley, Katherine Anne. Perspectives on Contemporary Issues. Toronto: Thomson Nelson, 2008. 210-216.

Who's Really to Blame?

      For all the violence, crime and exploitation of women and children on the news, on television, in popular novels and television shows, is the media really to blame for the alleged rise in violence in children and adolescents? As Sissela Bok reveals in her essay Aggression: the Impact of Media Violence, there is no definitive link between violence in media and aggression in children. “How can anyone definitively pinpoint the link between media violence and acts of real life violence? If not, how can we know is exposure to media violence constitutes a risk in the first place?” (Bok, p. 88) The only real issue I can divine from this essay is the fact that media and ‘Hollywood’ glamorizes violence and aggression through popular culture. The question I raise then is who is to blame for the exposure of children to this violent media?

      Bok states in her essay that figures from crime say that violent crimes reached a peak in 1990 and started a downturn in 1992, while violence in the media has only escalated since then. This in itself is, if not proof, then at least a suggestion that violence is definitely not the sole reason behind aggression and violence in adolescents. Bok includes a quotation from psychiatrist Brandon S. Centerwall:

Of course, there are many factors other than television that influence the amount of violent crime. Every violent act is a result of a variety of forces coming together – poverty, crime, alchohol, and drug abuse, stress – of which childhood TV exposure is just one.

      This again proves that while exposure to violent media may be a small factor in the aggression levels of children, but there are numerous other variables that make it almost impossible to determine the effects of violent media exposures and aggression levels.

      One of the biggest issues concerning violence in media is the glamorization and desensitization to violence and aggression. It is commonly accepted that the more violence children, teens and even adults see in the media, the less they understand it for what it is. “There is a near unanimity by now among investigators that exposure to media violence contributes to lowering barriers to aggression among some viewers. This lowering of barriers may be assisted by the failure to empathy that comes with growing desensitization, and intensified to the extent that viewers develop an appetite for violence – something that may lead to still greater desire for violent programs and in turn even greater desensitization” (Bok, p. 86). This desensitization could be perceived and even mistaken as a want for violence in real life.

      I believe that the reason children may become violent or have violent tendencies after viewing so many hours of violent related media is entirely the fault of that child’s parents. I remember being explicitly told when I was younger not to watch certain tv programs because they were inappropriate for my age. While this seemed unfair and even mean at the time, I did not question the rules and certainly followed them. To this day I do not enjoy programs that feature coarse, uncouth language and humour, and I distinctly do not like overly violent movies. This is a direct result of my parenting and upbringing as a child. I believe that parents who allow their children to watch these types of programs can only blame themselves when (and if) these children start to develop aggressive tendencies. In essence, irresponsible parenting will lead to irresponsible children, and the cycle will continue until something happens to break said cycle.

      In conclusion, as Bok says in her essay, there is no definite connection between violence in the media and violence in youth. If the media is not the cause of this violence, then who is? Who should be the one to take the blame? I say parents and guardians are solely responsible for what their children are exposed to via the media entity, how about you?

Responsibilty or Choice?

Pandemic: My Country on it's Knees Lewis Stephens

     After reading Stephen Lewis’ Pandemic I was shocked at how a country so vibrant and full of life, song and dance could so quickly degenerate into one ravished by AIDS, famine and poverty. While Lewis employs a number of personal stories and descriptions of the appalling state Africa has fallen into, the overall message is still one of hope “because it’s the images of hope, however fragile, however intermittent, that keep the countries going”, and I can think of nowhere where this applies more than in Africa. Even after all these years, Nelson Mandela is still regarded as a beacon of hope for Africa, and this speaks volumes about how the country relies on incidences such as these to keep going, and not be crushed under the weight of the immense challenges they face.

     Even though Africa still has some hope, shouldn’t wealthy countries, such as Canada and the United States, be doing more to help? There are many NGO’s and Government Organizations, as well as U.N. presence in Africa, but it is simply not enough. As the Swaziland Minister of Labour said, “Forget about this policy stuff, don’t you understand we’re a nation of orphans?” The problem of sibling households is not even the biggest concern in Africa, even though 15% of the population was predicted to be orphans by this year, 2010. No, the biggest problem in Africa is food, or the lack of it. I think this is an atrocity when about 65% of Americans are overweight or obese (Global and Regional Food Consumption Patterns and Trends).

     Canada, the U.S. and other wealthier countries should help developing countries and under-developed countries because we have the means to. Developed countries use far more of their share of the world’s resources than they need. For example, the U.S. who makes up about 5% of the global population, uses up about a quarter of the world’s resources (Global and Regional Food Consumption Patterns and Trends); while as many as 2.8 billion people survive on less than 2 dollars a day, and more than 1 billion do not have access to safe drinking water. If wealthy countries have the means and the finances to support these countries, or at least help them to get on the right track to industrialization and having a stable economy, why don’t they?

     Helping these less fortunate countries should not be done just because we have the extra money and food and water to do so, but it has huge potential to be beneficial to us as well. If Canada took steps to help Africa become a stable united nation, with a stable economy, little threat of poverty, etcetera, in the future, Africa would make a valuable ally, both militarily and economically. Furthermore, if Africa got back on its feet, and (with help from developed countries) eradicated the HIV/AIDS virus, there would be little risk for anyone in the world to contract the disease in developed countries. Finally, people in these afflicted countries would have an immensely improved quality of life.

     The main reason these developed countries should help less fortunate countries is because it is morally right. Impoverished African girls shouldn’t have to be the head of their households because their parents have died of AIDS or hunger, and their grandparents have died of the same. Especially while wealthy Americans and wealthy Canadians are able to basically throw money away on 1.2, 4.75 million dollar houses. It’s not right, it’s not fair, and frankly, I can’t believe it’s been happening for so long.

     Basically, the three biggest reasons wealthy countries should be helping these poorer countries are because we have the means, it would benefit countless people in the long run, and because it’s morally right. So, do you think it’s the responsibility of wealthy countries to help poor countries, or should it be up to the country to decide?

Works Cited:

"The State of Consumption Today | Worldwatch Institute." Worldwatch Institute | Vision for a Sustainable World. Web. 23 Sept. 2010. .

"WHO | 3. Global and Regional Food Consumption Patterns and Trends." WHO. Web. 23 Sept. 2010. .
Website

Balancing Act

A Letter to America (Margaret Atwood) 

Confused and saddened is Margaret Atwood’s attitude towards our southern brother in her essay “A Letter to America”. Atwood remembers an era gone by as she reminisces about the days of her childhood, and later, her years as a young adult with many references to her favourite parts of American culture.  Atwood segues to her political views of America’s involvement in Iraq and her feelings on the US’ disintegrating culture. Overall, Atwood summarizes her uniquely Canadian point of view by saying that she is dissatisfied with the changes America has undergone since her childhood and young adult years.

The purpose of this beautiful piece of writing is to discuss the massive changes America went through from about the 1940’s to the 2000’s. Atwood sees many of these changes as negative. When she presents questions to Americans (such as “when did you become so scared?”) and by comparing the America she knew in her childhood to the America of today, she really paints a picture of how America’s values have drastically declined. With Canada being so closely tied to America, through our historical ties, and geographical proximity and cultural similarities, could it be said that we too have changed for the worse?

An interesting point concerning this article is how Atwood relates the years of her youth so closely to American culture, and with no reference to Canadian culture, that of her homeland. This is especially evident in the line “We're like Romanized Gauls -- look like Romans, dress like Romans, but aren't Romans -- peering over the wall at the real Romans. What are they doing? Why? What are they doing now?” The truth of this statement hits home, even today. Canadians strive to balance on a precarious line between being Canadian and not being American. With American culture so evident in everything we do, it is hard to remain Canadian. However, we strive to be like the Americans. We are constantly looking at them; questioning what they are doing and asking why, still we do not want to be them, only to be like them. With this balancing act a constant in daily life for many Canadians, I would not be surprised if we lost a true definition of what it is to be Canadian, at least culturally.

While Canada and America are almost identical culturally, we have had decidedly different ways of dealing with very similar problems. Atwood makes mention of how Americans are “torching their economy” and running scared, while Canada really hasn’t had such drastic problems. However, if America continues down this road, and like “Marley’s Ghost” figure out too late that mankind should be everyone’s business, who’s to say that Canadians won’t suffer a joint fate with Americans? Atwood says “people around the world will stop admiring the good things about you. They'll decide that your city upon the hill is a slum and your democracy is a sham, and therefore you have no business trying to impose your sullied vision on them. They'll think you've abandoned the rule of law. They'll think you've fouled your own nest.” Canada and Canadians alike are so closely tied to America and her fate. If America goes “down the drain” so to speak, do you think Canada will go with her?