Group items tagged

"The Story of Catherine's iPod"

The disconnect here is so weird. It begins with people digging in the mountainside with sticks, and ends with a tiny, sleek, lightweight computer that makes images flick past at the swipe of your finger and makes music. It's like magic, except instead of the instead of using "toe of newt and eye of frog" the world is making these products by allowing people to be greatly mistreated. Beyond educating people, as Arshia and Alison said, it seems we must either: find other materials to make electronics out of (although that doesn't strike me as very likely?) or pressure companies (who have the money and the leverage) to enforce better regulation. To follow up on Catherine's video, I put three t's into google and got an article about an investigation into the mining in the Congo (maybe Catherine has already seen this): http://africarising2010.blogspot.com/2009/11/tracing-3-ts-from-congo.html. It says: "Even though they found that it is relatively easy to determine the source of minerals based on different coloration and texture based on the source mine, there is insufficient regulation to make this work....Export companies are required to register with the government, but their method of determining the source of minerals they buy is to merely ask the seller whether their goods are from conflict mines. There is no system of confirming what the seller says."

This presentation kept shocking me. I was surprised to hear that basic parts of the iPod (the Three Ts) originate in the Congo rather than China. I was then shocked (and horrified) by the rape statistics. I had heard the statistics before, but not in relation to the acquisition of the Three Ts and production of products that we use. The story about the woman whose brother was ordered to rape her and then stabbed to death when he refused was particularly awful. I was also In summary, I was appalled at all the crimes that took place in the Congo- before the Three Ts even got to the factories in China that Catherine talked about. When Catherine started talking about the factories in China, I was again shocked at the working conditions- 100 workers sleeping to a room and clothes locked in a bucket with no visitors allowed (to protect the secrecy of Apple's product plans) while workers worked 15 hour days. The suicide reports from the FoxCon (spelling) factories were also shocking, as was the revelation that workers make just half of what they did in the 1800s. It was sad that the factory earns only $4 per iPod sold- while Apple earns $80. This presentation was very thought provoking- I had never assumed that Apple would be one of the "bad" companies with very questionable labor and humanitarian practices (a la Wal-Mart). Thanks for bringing it up, Catherine. I'm now thinking about it in a whole new light.

I think its interesting that piracy is increasing throughout the world. Personally, I feel that its good that other countries are working to counter this threat.

I found it interesting that American-made American flags are lower quality than those made in China. It struck me as very similar to the situation faced by the speaker who came to talk to us about her bag business: how she had to outsource because she couldn't find a quality producer in the U.S. Something that bothered me is that many of the flags are synthetic; if the government is going to hand our hundreds of free flags that might just get thrown away, it seems as though it would be better to at least make them out of renewable materials like wood and cotton. However, I suppose that may be more expensive... Also, I visited the Jinteng factory website because I was curious if they specialized in a certain type of flag or not. It turns out that they make all different types of flags depending on the order, just as the jeans we saw in China Blue varied order by order. I suspect that although some workers feel frustrated making other countries' flags, their catalog indicates that they make flags for many countries, not just one, so any anger would perhaps be less likely to be directed toward a specific country due to constantly producing their flag.

I thought that it is sad (and ironic) that, as Matthew said, our symbols of freedom and patriotism are being paid for with people's rights (in China). I had never considered how 9/11 would have caused a drastic increase in demand for American flags, and though it shouldn't have, it surprised me that the low price of American flags from retailers such as Wal-Mart does not cover the production costs of the flags. Like Larkin, I found the juxtaposition of the symbols of the flag and where it is actually made notable. I also had the same question as Alison about whether any flags are actually made in the United States. I thought that Matthew did a nice job pointing out the odd juxtaposition and talking about the production cycle of the flag.

"Well, we live, today, in a country, the United States, that is more politically polarized than it's been in either of our lifetimes, ever. And that just seems to be getting worse by the day." What Hayhoe and others are pointing to is another way of communicating about climate change.

Through this article I have gained a deeper insight in how public expenditures and public goods promote wealth equality in a society. "Public services are an important antipoverty tool."

Cool theory in regards to "the tipping point". Interesting, and solid criticism of large social expenditures. Wonder how socialists view this, as opposed to free-market economists.

"Public services are an important antipoverty tool. Their benefit doesn't show up in income data, but they appear to play a key role in reducing material hardship." INteresting to see the statistics and how social expenditures help reduce poverty and the wealth gap.

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 article not only touches upon the dangerous and negative effects of the Ebola outbreak, but calls into questions an ethical controversy regarding preferential treatment when it comes to medical care. As the need for a cure escalates, the time allotted for the testing and developing of an anti-Ebola drug diminishes. Thus, medicine that has not been thoroughly tested has been distributed to two white Americans infected with the virus. This begs the question: Why these two? Does it have to do with their race or anti-African biases? And once the drug is fully developed, who will receive the treatment first? Who will be prioritized? Additionally, this contentious matter has added to the already distrustful African view of Western pharmaceuticals and relief efforts.

I found it interesting that not only did the article touch on the ethical questions of who to give the first available drugs to, from a standpoint of where it would be most effective rather than just where it would be most convenient. The part of the article where acceptance of the drug came into question was another touchy matter. The attempt to administer the drug as a solution to the Ebola break out is difficult because of the nature of the illness and the apprehension towards Western Medicine. Even though the medicine is available there's no telling if this quick fix will actually contain and solve the crisis just as Arthur Kaplan says at the end of the article.

The article brings to light interesting conflicts between African countries and the western industries of medicine. I feel like it would be effective to offer medical education to the local inhabitants in the infected african countries. That way their knowledge can help them avoid getting the disease. Furthermore, they would have more knowledge to help them decide whether or not they would like to take the drug that is possibly a functioning vaccination, rather than just not giving the sick African patients the option. The complexity of this problem is interesting because it deals with issues of ethics and trust.

The question I would have liked to look into is how the process my computer went through differs from the process a computer from apple or dell goes through

As Harrison said, I'm surprised that circuit boards and such are made by hand. I always assumed they were produced by machines. Maybe it's on a size scale where human work is better quality? For really tiny things, machines are of course much more accurate, and for big things it's more efficient to use machines. But on this scale, it's feasible for people to do it, and humans can perhaps do it better than machines can(?), since we can adjust things properly and take things case-by-case. Or maybe it's just cheaper.

Unfortunately it stops working for me after the first 40 seconds as well (I think that this is the end of the first slide). Like Greg, though, I am interested in the specifics of recycling computer parts and how exactly this takes place.

I chose this article about the Israel-Palestine conflict because it talks about how this conflict is not an isolated battle between Israel and Palestine. The Op-Ed columnist David Brooks writes that because of all the conflict in the Middle East each country, group, or "political contour" that is striving for power influences the actions of either the Palestinian or Israeli parties. For example, Brooks mentions how Egypt blocked 95% of the tunnels that connected Egypt to Gaza, which costed Hamas $460 million a year. Hamas could not attack Egypt, so they attacked Israel instead. The public dissatisfaction caused Egypt to end the blockade. Thus, the external parties in the Middle East have a large effect on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and Brooks says that the conflict should therefore be analyzed from a different perspective: "It, like every conflict in the region, has to be seen as a piece of the larger 30 Years' War" (Brooks). This article shows us that we need to think a little more broadly when analyzing certain conflicts.

I think it's interesting that these outside countries are involving themselves by using all the deaths of the Israelis and Palestinians as leverage to get what they want. The violence in Gaza negatively influences all of its surrounding regions. Violence only brings more violence.

This article was a great way to clear the air on many misconceptions that have been floating around that make the Israel-Palestine conflict seem like a very straightforward conflict. This makes it clear that many of the warfare between Israel and Palestine isn't related to conflict between these two nations, rather in some cases it is attempts by Palestinian states and Muslim rebels to show dominance to other Middle Eastern countries and sects in order to make political and economic moves. With so much intertwining of conflict with the Egypt and the Islamists at the Arab Spring and the closing of the 95% of the tunnels being closed between Egypt and Gaza. The Brotherhood, ISIS, and other militant groups are vying for power throughout the Middle East and flexing their muscle on anybody and everybody to establish political dominance.

Something worth thinking about.

I wish I had time to fully understand all that Baudrillard writes in this piece. I guess he is arguing that the biggest institution of all--globalized anything--is the cause of terrorism. He writes, "In this way it is indeed a World War, not the third one, but the fourth and only truly World War, as it has as stakes globalization itself. The first two World Wars were classic wars. The first ended European supremacy and the colonial era. The second ended Nazism. The third, which did happen, as a dissuasive Cold War, ended communism. From one war to the other, one went further each time toward a unique world order. Today the latter, virtually accomplished, is confronted by antagonistic forces, diffused in the very heart of the global, in all its actual convulsions. . . . . It is a conflict so unfathomable that, from time to time, one must preserve the idea of war through spectacular productions such as the Gulf (production) and today Afghanistan's. But the fourth World War is elsewhere. It is that which haunts every global order, every hegemonic domination; -if Islam dominated the world, terrorism would fight against it. For it is the world itself which resists domination." I think there's a lot more that he says, so I'll have to return to this one. Maybe you can share your read on this in class, Wendell. Thanks!

Yeah, this article is definitely difficult to understand without an extensive background on his social theory (what he's written about what he calls symbolic exchange, the exclusion of the dead, the procession of the model or simulacra). What he's arguing is definitely that globalization is creating the seeds of its own destruction, but terrorism is but one example of this process. To clarify, when he says "the spirit of terrorism" and "Then let us be immoral ourselves and, if we want to understand something, let us go somewhat beyond Good and Evil. As we have, for once, an event that challenges not only morals, but every interpretation, let us try to have the intelligence of Evil.", he's not trying to advocate for murder or anything but rather is suggesting that the strategy taken by terrorists is something theoretically important. The last things he published were "The Intelligence of Evil" and "The Agony of Power" where he more or less argued that it is impossible to assimilate singular individuals, cultures, and ways of life under a universal (which he refers to as the Good in the article ^) and that attempts at assimilation only make "Evil" more powerful and make it more likely for the Good to collapse in on itself. He thinks this process is occurring across all planes of social existence and is inevitable. He wrote about a possible attack on the twin towers decades in advance and the Spirit of Terrorism was sort of like a "I told you this would happen" to the academy. The thing about Baudrillard is that he takes a very pessimistic outlook on the trajectory of modernity/post-modernity and was probably looking forward to the collapse of globalization/capitalism/the world order. While that's obviously a controversial and morally dubious opinion, he's still definitely very interesting to read about. Andrew Robinson wrote a bunch of articles describing his social theory/what he means for activism and the world today. While they are pretty dense and probably requir

Disagrees with Samuel P. Huntington's thesis

I think it's interesting how this article on the Israel-Palestine conflict puts the conflict into perspective, especially for young readers. The article explains the cycles of revenge that continue to give the violence in the Middle East ammunition. However, the details of the revenge prove relevance because it is about the purposeless murders of teenagers who have nothing to do with the conflict whatsoever. It is also interesting how the writer mentions the irony of all of the immoral killings occurring in a place that has been called "The Holy Land". The article begins with a quote from the Israeli prime minister explaining that Israel is a state of laws. The writer boldly disagrees with this, stating, "This is not what happens in a state of laws". He also accuses Israel's "democracy" as being undemocratically oppressive. Essentially, he is critiquing the leaders on both sides of the conflict and assigning them responsibility for the senseless acts of the killing of innocent youth in the name of revenge.

This article is both intriguing and thought provoking, however, I do agree that it was written in an anti-Israeli tone. This may be do to the fact that the author failed to touch upon the militancy and violence in Palestine. However, it did shed an interesting light on the "state of laws" and how both nations have seemingly become numb to the constant violence.

Sometimes it seems like people forget what they are fighting for

This article discussed the plans for reopening college football within the United States amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. I was drawn to the article because I was interested in learning about the guidelines and restrictions the United States was using to reopening recreational activities, such as college football. Through reading the article, I thought it was interesting that there was no coherent reopening plan, like with the NBA, but rather that different states and universities had very differing plans regarding what guidelines and restrictions will be in-place for reopening this activity. I would be interested in taking a deeper look into how other countries have attempted to reopen recreational activities and how their methods were different from those taken here.

Following up to the other comments on this post, I am curious how these universities expect to pull off this bubble, since there have been many outbreaks in colleges due to parties and general disregard for safety. I think this will only make an outbreak within college teams more likely and it is extremely worrying that there is not a unified plan to address these issues.

I agree with what Luke and Aaron have said. I think that attempting to create a "bubble" won't work for such large teams and at the college level. It's irresponsible of the officials to attempt to move forward with the season and risk the lives of the students. In my opinion, they should just scrap the entire season because they have no unified plans.

I chose this article because I felt that it gave a better view of the conflict happening in Iraq. The article shows how divided the Iraqi factions are, as well as shining a light on what the goals and motivations of the groups are. I feel that it is important for us as a class to look into what drives ISIS and I think this article is a good starting point.

Similar to what Dr. Bradley said, I wonder if the militias that were funded by Iran are simply mercenaries or are actually loyal to the country. Is it possible that this is Iran's attempt to grab land for a weak Iraq?

I was shocked and at the same time not so surprised to find out about the many separate factions and flags flying throughout Iran and Iraq in this multifaceted crisis. The quests for power that these militant groups are involved in has called many "volunteers" to the forefront of the militant groups political and religious ambitions. I'm curious to know about the situations in the areas of the many "volunteers". Are they in areas that have already been compromised, thus they don't mind going to sacrifice their life on a daily basis fighting, or they are so devoted to their religion that they really won't stand to see their sacred Shiite shrine bombed by Sunni factions? As Dr. Bradley questioned, where are all these weapons coming from? How many militant groups are as "sensible" as the Peace Brigade?

I hope my annotations saved

Great use of Diigo annotation tool, Anay!

Maybe more of an ethics topic, but I'd say it affects U.S.-Guatemala relations, too...

I am very proud of Clinton for issuing an appology for the actions of the US government. I am glad that there was a public statement made in order to admit to our crimes as a nation. I find it hard to believe that the US would do these horrible things, and it serves as a reminder that the US was not always a free and accepting nation. We have a deep history of racism. I don't think that appologies are enough to repent for the horrors we caused, but I think they are a step in the right direction. Articles like this are a great way to prompt discussion aobut our racist past as well as remember what has happened in order to make sure these crimes will never be repeated.

I have to admit that when I first heard about this, I thought that it was some sort of twisted joke. I found it particularly appalling that these studies were conducted on prison inmates and mental patients, people who were completely at the mercy of the government system and had little or no other independence (and therefore no way to get out of this). The fact that the United States could do something so completely hypocritical, especially while leading the Nuremberg trials (as Harrison pointed out) is shocking. I am glad that Secretary of State Clinton and the US government seem to be ready to apologize for this heinous program without attempting to justify or conditionalize it and that they openly apologized to the Guatemalan government. I hope that they will continue to be as transparent during the Guatemalan investigation.

BEIJING - White House officials have lauded President Xi Jinping's anticipated promise of a national market for China in greenhouse gas quotas as a breakthrough in environmental cooperation and reform. But to work well, Mr. Xi's plan, expected to be announced in Washington on Friday, will demand big changes from a government accustomed to heavy-handed intervention and skewed statistics.

I really like the cap and trade idea because it ensures that the every firm is paying the maximum amount each is willing to spend to pollute the air. Firms that don't value being able to pollute as much can sell their permits and use the money to become more environmentally friendly. The cap and trade method encourages technological change that reduces the harm from each unit of a firm's product. As the article says, "The intended result is a competitive market that induces companies to devise ways to reduce emissions." The cap and trade method will hopefully relieve China of some of its pollution.

The national environmental quota set by the cap and trade announced by President Xi shows that there is some possibility of environmental cooperation from China, one of the world's most heavy polluters. The article voices the well founded skepticism of critics, who doubt that this new system will work well when it hasn't exactly taken off among the nations of the European Union; however, China's state is very different from its western counterparts. Comparatively, it can exact more control over its countries' businesses and factories, so this system just may be successful.