Group items tagged

This article is a few weeks old, but the writer brings up interesting points about Islam, the NY mosque debate, and the United States' international relations. His mention of Hiroshima's Peace Park in comparison to the US' plans for Ground Zero is intriguing. Heather's article about the syphilis experiment in Guatemala is just one recent example of why the US is perceived as domineering. I never thought to question our plans for the former site of the World Trade Center, but I completely agree with the writer - why are we building a gaudy shiny tower instead of something more inviting that could facilitate discussions between countries? He states that "It would be nice if our ground zero could become an international home of reconciliation. Instead of continuing the hatred, defuse it."

I agree with Alison. All to often we get caught up in our own opinions which sometimes means that we contend every other opinion is wrong. For example, I think that the mosque should be built near ground zero. I think this because to generalize against a whole religion because of a small part of one of the largest religions in the world seems dumb; however, after thinking about this I do realize that the other side to this argument is valid. Why a mosque? Can't we accomplish something similar in terms of fostering peace by building something else? As heather said, this still could be moving forward in the wrong direction. I do not know. But I am trying to be open about the other side to this very multidimensional issue. It is wrong of us to think it is an ethical issue with two side of right and wrong, there is in fact a lot of grey areas.

Hey all, I'd just like to remind everyone that the "mosque" is not being built at ground zero (in fact it's in a Burlington Coat Factory blocks away: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-sledge/just-how-far-is-the-groun_b_660585.html. I think the ethical debate surrounding the issue is just further testament to the fact that many Americans unconsciously subscribe to media hype, regardless of their positions on issues. While I agree with what has been said about the ethics of a hypothetical mosque at ground zero, we should realize that this ethical dilemma is a fallacy and exists only as a headline. Also, I think the we/the press/everyone should be more careful who we label as "crazy irrational terrorists". We should realize that those guys didn't get on the planes on 9/11 because they were born without enough of X hormone, they were there because of a long history of western intervention etc. in their home countries. We shouldn't be so quick to dismiss terrorism as an irrational act by sick people, it only allows us to forget the underlying complicity that we have with the issue.

This is a fascinating article that explains how the way that conspiracy theories spread was revolutionized when 9/11 happened just as the internet was really taking off. It talks mostly about the USA, but it's very relevant to the issues of censorship, both government and private, throughout the world.

This is a really good article! It does a great job of tracing the commonalities of conspiracy theories and showing how the tools crafted by 9/11 truthers shape conspiracies today

Yes, good find, Sam. The failure of facts in the pandemic is another powerful example of how the Internet seems to have helped those who know how to ask good questions to improve their knowledge and also facilitated the spread of a false reality among those who do not know how to ask good questions or check/corroborate their sources.

House of Representatives presents a bill that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia. If this bill was passed (likely that Obama will veto the bill), it would really sever diplomatic ties between the US and Saudi Arabia (who is a key US ally in the Middle East). The motivation behind this bill is that 15 out of the 19 hijackers in the 9/11 attacks were form Saudi Arabia.

I found this article very interesting not because it necessarily went along with or opposed my beliefs, but rather because it made me wonder how true their information really was. This piece describes the injustice in the lack of privacy of the American. Since the 9/11 attacks, FISA (foreign intelligence surveillance act) has put measures in place intended to "protect" us citizens. The article states that in this new era of "hope" that Obama advocates, it is surprising and unnecessary that our freedoms continue to be suppressed. This I agree with. Although I understand the idea from which this act stemmed, I do not think it is effective in either gathering information or protecting attacks. However, the article continues to describe the secretive nature of this group and how they advertise that we should all be transparent because if we are good we have nothing to hide. Though this may be true, this FISA interjection does indeed serve as a loophole to our constitutional right to privacy. The way the article presented this issue makes me interested in pursueing more information on the topic so that I can be better informed and understand to a great extend what is going on. I'm sorry if this sounds really dumb. I'm half falling asleep

How the Bobos Broke America: Atlantic 9/21 article here: https://www.npr.org/2021/08/08/1025845766/david-brooks-new-book-takes-a-look-at-how-the-cultural-elite-broke-america

Are there net benefits?

This reminds of the phenomenon that "hard" political tactics, involving armed force, tend to be seen more positively by the public, yet they are often less productive than the "soft" tactics, such as diplomatic interactions.

Yes, Laura. I agree. "Soft" tactics can be expensive too, but in the long run more effective?

This incredibly written piece tells tells the struggle of a family searching for meaning after a member's death on 9/11. However, this is not a story about 9/11. It's a story about grief.

I love these types of story articles that focus on a single person during a life changing event.

People were shocked at the speed with which the Taliban retook control of Afghanistan. This speed was in large part due to the Afghan army immediately surrending to the Taliban. Why did they lack the will to fight? This article claims that huge American investment into the alliance of warlords meant that the moment the US stopped paying them, they had no care to continue to fight as they were not receiving the money they were accustomed to.

Sounds about right. Then again, Afghanistan still is essentially a tribal society; rule of law is fragile.

The Mexican government accused 31 Mexican scientists of money laundering, sparking discussion about the treatment of academics and many doubts over the validity of the accusations.

An article about a global summit on biodiversity. It would be interesting to see if countries that disagree politically can set aside their differences to work together on a global problem.

Similarly to what Harrison said, it's interesting to see countries that can't seem to agree on much politically starting to come together here. Good!

It's scary to think that we may need to protect 1/4 of the world's land. I hope that we can make that happen. But at the same time, there are daunting problems facing that possible goal, one of the largest being over population. I clicked on this link in the article (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/10/17/biodiversity.un.summit.briefing/index.html), and found this excerpt that I thought was great: "The demand for food, energy and clean water is projected to increase sharply, over the next 40 years. The world population is expected to grow from 6.8 to 9 billion people, and disposable incomes will also increase. Agriculture and urbanisation often compete with nature over the same land areas. Under unchanged policy, biodiversity will continue to suffer. If we keep meeting this growing demand, the amount of land used for human activity will expand enormously; not only in the supply of food but also in relation to biofuels. This would mean a further decrease in the space available for natural ecosystems. Biodiversity also reduces as a result of ecosystem overexploitation, disturbance and fragmentation, climate change, soil contamination, and water and air pollution. However, biodiversity is useful and of great importance to humanity, among other things because it stimulates soil fertility, manages water regulation and takes care of essential carbon uptake. In addition, many people feel that preservation of species richness and maintaining valuable nature areas are also our moral obligation." In light of that, I feel even more strongly that people should think hard about how many kids they have and their effect on overpopulation. Maybe each woman should have no more than one child (unless she happens to have twins, triplets, etc.), and strongly consider adopting at least one child. But then population decline means trying to support a proportionally larger elderly generation.... O.o

This article is about the growing strength of China. China is run by the Politburo, a 9 member committee. In 2010 there will be a new era of leaders on the Politburo because seven of the members will reach retirement age. No one knows yet if this transition will be smooth or who will take over as the next Premier. Another interesting thing to note is that there are many divisions within the communist party.

It would be interesting to see if China's leadership transition will cause changes in its political system and culture. It could be an opportunity for better relations with the West, if the new leaders are more open-minded to change. China's current government is concerning, as the highest-ranking foreign relations minister is ranked only 50th in power in the Chinese government.

Between May and September, over 1000 Chinese students have been denied US Visas to study in the US (at a far larger rate than other countries). Chinese international students also play an important role in US economy, being 1/3 of total international students, making up $14.9 billion.

This article talks about high fuel prices across the globe. Interestingly, Venezuela has some of the lowest prices (possibly because they have the most reserves). I'd be interested to see how this has impacted their economy over time.