New Gaza Flotilla Plans

So, a year ago everyone knows what happened when a flotilla tried to deliver aid to the people of Gaza, Israel blocked the ship from passing. There was of course casualties in the incident (one having dual US-Turkish citizenship.) ---I wrote a blog on the last flotilla incident.

"We urge all those seeking to provide such assistance to the people of Gaza to use these [established] mechanisms, and not to participate in actions like the planned flotilla," They are already anticipating that Israel will block the flotilla from going through to Gaza (once again...no shock there!) I find it really ironic that they can say there are "established and efficient" mechanisms for getting humanitarian aid into Gaza, and the situation there had improved significantly over the last year with a broader range of goods and materials available." They also said something to the effect of Flotilla passengers will face dangerous consequences if they continued to attempt to reach Gaza. So if proper mechanisms are in place then why are the people of Gaza suffering everyday? Why can't the flotilla be considered one of those mechanisms? Why can't the people of Gaza get the aid they desperately need? The economy in Gaza is already severely underdeveloped so by Israel blocking the flotilla they are just causing more harm to the economy in Gaza.

The U.S. is a staunch ally of Israel but I do not understand how they can continue to defend Israel as they violate human rights by not allowing basic necessities into Gaza. I love the US, it is my home and I think Israel is quite an impressive country if you look past all their human rights violations. Think about it--Since the establishment in 1948, Israel has the support of the world's superpower, the United States. In addition, they have created a sustainable economy and have great trading partnerships. They have a strong military and top of the line defense technology as well as top notch intelligence. However, Israel needs to be more understanding of the needs of Gaza. They are punishing an entire race of people because of the actions of one militant group known as Hamas.

Spain's Not SO Good Green Economy

So everyone knows that Spain is facing the potential issue of an IMF bailout due to the growing economic crisis in the country. Spain's unemployment rate as of early May was around 21% and it continues to rise. This is absolutely absurd and the fact that it is spiraling out of control is the even scarier part. The Zapatero Administration admitted to making mistakes and Zapatero will not be running for another term as Prime Minister of Spain.

Part of the problem for Spain’s troubled economy obviously comes from the World Economic Crisis that has been occurring for the past two years. However, Spain used to be one of the strongest economies not only in the EU but the world. So what happened? How is it that Germany, Japan, and even the United States along with China and India, two emerging economies managed to come out of this Economic Crisis with some bumps and bruises but Spain is looking at an IMF bailout? (Yes I know the Spanish Economy cannot be compared to the US or Japan but at one point it was up there with Germany.)

So Spain’s answer to unemployment? Go green!
•As of 2009, Spain has already been a leader in renewable fuels through $30 billion in public support. 1 Million green jobs were supposed to be created from this.
•Spain generates about 24.5 percent of its electricity through renewable sources, compared with about 7 percent in the U.S. (Obama was quoted on numerous occasions for saying Spain was a model country to follow for creation of the Green Economy.)
•Spain has become the world’s third-largest country for installed wind energy capacity.

So what happened? It Sounds like Spain was getting off to a good start. Obviously something went wrong.

I would say that part of the problem is the Green Economy Initiative that was launched to help make Spain a leader in green technology and green jobs. That program went wrong somewhere along the way. In an internal assessment done by the Zapatero’s administration they determined that the program must be abandoned before Spain turned into another situation like Greece.

Some stats about the so called “green economy”:

•Spain’s “green economy” program cost the country 2.2 jobs for every 1 job that was “created”.
•The “green economy program” spiked the cost of electricity in Spain from below the EU average to above the average at 5% higher. (This essentially affects household welfare because Spanish households are now paying more for electricity which they can’t afford since most households in Spain only have on average 1 adult parent currently working.)

•The competitiveness of Spain’s industries is at risk as well since energy is a key input in the industrial production processes.
Basic industries have energy costs that are three times higher than labor costs.
•Spanish industry electrical costs are 17% higher than the EU average.
The Not So Good Green Economy:
•since 2000 Spain spent €571,138 to create each “green job”, including subsidies of more than €1 million per wind industry job.
•The programs creating those jobs also resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every “green job” created.
•Each “green” megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs on average elsewhere in the economy: 8.99 by photovoltaics, 4.27 by wind energy, 5.05 by mini-hydro.
•The Average subsidy in the 3 fields of renewable energy per worker was around more than half a million Euro to well over 1 million Euro for photovoltaic power.

Now obviously this leaves some major implications for the average Spaniard citizen. The average Spaniard would have to deal with higher rates for electricity or higher taxes (public deficit). Reducing emissions, a major rationale for “green jobs” or renewables regimes, hits the poorest hardest. A cap-and-trade system aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions by just 15% will cost the poorest quintile 3% of their annual household income, while benefiting the richest quintile. Since 2000, the renewable subsidies have created less than 50,200 jobs. (0.25% of Spain’s employed workforce)

Why did this all happen? From 1998-2007 low interests rates & easy credit allowed industries such as renewable energy to develop with great success. Between the credit bubble & the economic crisis that hit, crisis was bound to happen. From 2007, as heavily leveraged sectors (real estate, transportation & machinery) started to fall, renewable energy remained a preferred outlet for credit concessions. Specifically, photovoltaic power grew enormously from 2007 to 2008 due to economic distortions from government regulation. The purpose of “green economy” programs were to create more jobs; however the resources had to be pooled from other areas of the economy which couldn’t happen in a recession.

Critics of Spain's near economic collapse argue that the potential of an IMF bailout could lead to the collapse of the EuroZone. This has major implications on the future of the EU seeing as Spain, one of the EU's stronger economies who had unemployment rates in the 80's and 90's that were at times better than the EU average is now looking at IMF assistance. It will be a domino effect for sure on the EU countries that are also struggling in the midst of the economic crisis.

I love how Obama kept saying on at least 8 different occasions how Spain was a model country to follow as they lead the way in green economy and green job creation. So is this what Obama wants for America? Does he want the average American to see a huge spike in their electric bills? Does he want 2.2 jobs to be lost for every 1 created? Does he want to see the average American struggling more than they need to because a Green Economy Initiative looks ideal? Obama do not follow in Spain's footsteps!

a little bit of philosophy

Socrates and Plato as well as Augustine were all great philosophers of their time. Each had different ways and styles of presenting an argument. Their studies on good and evil are both very unique yet they have many similarities and differences. Socrates philosophy-his teachings relied on the student learning for himself and drawing his own conclusions. Plato’s works were similar. However, Augustine was more forthcoming with his thoughts and ideas in his work more than Socrates and Plato; he did not leave it to the discretion of the person hearing or reading his works to decide how they should be interpreted.

At first Socrates did not believe himself to be wise but after traveling and asking many questions he realized he was wiser than most. However, Socrates had his critics; he ended up poor and unable to hold public office because of his viewpoints and the questions he raised. Augustine like many philosophers including Plato and Socrates also had his critics. During the time of these great philosophers being outspoken was not something that agreed with the flow of societal norms. Their teachings and philosophies went against the Church and the way people were brought up by their families at the time. This is what I find to be most interesting because despite the fact that they would be ostracized for what they said, they said it anyway. It is not like people today who just say things because they believe it will get them the most followers on Twitter or the most Likes on Facebook. Those guys actually had something to say; something real-- something that made you actually think whether you agreed with what was being said or not.

Being a Sophist or a Naturalist were not things Socrates considered himself to be. He did not follow a particular school of thought nor did he charge for his teachings. (This is something else that I find fascinating about Socrates. People actually listened because they wanted to listen and he didn't charge them for it. This would never happen today!! Kim Kardashian gets paid to tweet that she went to the gym....its insane.) Socrates believed in everyone living an examined life; a life in which they question life. He argued that one should live their life “according to the good life." Socrates followed an ethical discourse and searched for what good is and how one should live according to it. However, Socrates never claimed or believed that he knew the truth. He believed that through reason everyone has the potential to know the truth on a subject as long as that truth is sought out through the guidance of a teacher such as himself through a technical process. Socrates does not particularly define what is good and what is evil. He believes that is something one determines on their own through a carefully examine magnify glass to life. Once they have examined something they determine for themselves what is good and what is evil. Socrates is “the rational examiner of the good life”. This is something I totally agree with. I do not like society placing labels on what is good and what is bad. I truly believe that it is something we should determine for ourselves. Now DO NOT get me wrong...I am in no way saying that drinking a case of beer then getting behind the wheel is good, for example. Obviously there are limitations to good and evil. There are boundaries--- Too much of anything is never a good thing. However, what I am saying is that I do not like how society places labels on things. I agree with Socrates that living life and exploring is the only way to determine for oneself what is good and what is evil.
It is such a shame that Socrates was charged with corrupting the youth and blasphemy because he was a great philosopher!

Socrates developed something called “Socratic Irony” that allowed the student to figure out the truth on their own. In Socrates’ comment on his death he believed that no evil can happen to a good man. This is an interesting point. Although, I do not agree 100% with it. I believe evil CAN happen to a good man because it is a test from God to see how he will react to it. It is not to say that Socrates was religious because even upon his death Socrates believed that God was all knowing because he said he was going to die and the people he was addressing were going to live- which was better? Only God knows. However, it is arguable as to whether Socrates actually believed in gods or just spirits.

Plato on the other hand, dealt with all things divine and transcendental beings. Plato followed much of the work of Socrates and was under his guidance. Most of Plato’s work is attributed to the help of Socrates. Plato would rather embrace a possible good than to avoid a certain evil. I have to ponder about this point often. Why would want to embrace a good thing that is ONLY possible but not guaranteed rather than avoid a certain evil? I suppose by embracing the potential good you are somewhat assured that you will stumble upon that good eventually. I guess its like that quote goes: "reach for the moon and if you fall you'll land among the stars." So if you surround yourself with positive energy in a quest for the possible good it will eventually come to you. However, avoiding a certain evil does not guarantee that another evil will not fall upon you. So maybe I do agree with Plato on this.

Socrates’ overall philosophy consisted of numerous points. Here are a few key points I found to be noteworthy. One point he makes is “the most blameworthy ignorance is to believe that one knows what one does not know”. Wow I think everyone on the entire planet must be guilty of this ignorance at one point or another. How many times have you heard someone speak about a topic that they have no clue about? It reminds me of my father when he talks about politics. It makes me laugh because he doesn't have the basics of how diplomacy works. He thinks you can just go into politics and do whatever you want. Socrates argues that by examining the world around you, other people and oneself to be the very essence of philosophy. I find that to be the very essence of life. Take a look around you. See all the beauty there is to see. Learn about those around you. This is advice that I can give but I can't easily take. I am writing this blog because I am feeling a bit inspired to actually start living my life....yes at 21. I feel like I have so much to examine and learn. Other injustices that one can commit in the eyes of Socrates that I have found interesting is fearing death and believing there is no God. It is none of my business if someone doesn't believe in God but I have to many reasons TO believe in God. I am not criticizing those who are non-believers but I do find it something that I just cannot agree with. I have many friends that are atheist and we discuss how since you can not see God's presence he must not exist and that is where I just have to change the conversation because it comes down to a matter of how you feel inside. Its a personal choice. Other injustices include believing one is not wise when in fact one is wise. This is something I need to learn. I guess I am committing an injustice in the eyes of Socrates. I would not call myself wise but I also have to learn that I am not stupid. I believe that everyone has there own area of knowledge; their own forte or expertise.

On the other hand, Augustine though of things as more black and white. God serves as the vital basis of good. God did not create anything evil or sinful. Everyday norms today such as creating a child out of wedlock and living with the opposite sex caused turmoil within Augustine because of his concept of what was evil and good. Augustine continuously questioned what was evil and what was good. To Augustine there was only one God who created all things good. So one of the things that Augustine questioned was if there is only one God then who created the devil and furthermore, where does evil come from?

Augustine sought to find where evil came from by asking several questions. Maybe God did not create evil but he created lesser goods. To him, this option did not suffice because creation was made by the Creator therefore, it is also good. His second question asks if God created something that had some sort of evil that was never morphed into good. Augustine wisely and rightfully so ruled out this question as well because God is all knowing. He knows everything that is going on at every second in a minute. He knows what is going to happen before it even happens. By asking all these questions, Augustine is following Socrates’ notions of living an examined life. I believe that evil is what happens when a moment of weakness occurs. I believe that evil exists because we give into temptations that are around us.
Augustine continues on to argue that evil must be removed from God then. We believe in evil and evil doings because they are not a part of what God created. They are at variance from other things. In my interpretation this means that evil exists when God is not around; when his presence is not felt. Augustine takes it a step further to say that there is an absence of God due to the presence of evil. Although, in my opinion, I believe that there is a God who allows the opportunity of evil to present itself as a way of testing the faith of those who claim to follow Him. However, I have to wonder this: If evil is present when God is not around then who created good? Augustine, in my opinion is saying that there is no good; only evil. However, if only evil exists then how can it be that there are rules and punishments or consequences for such evil? If God created only good things evil can still exist but it does not have to mean God created it. It simply means that someone deviated off that good path. This is a point Socrates makes by saying mortal sins were created. God may have not created evil but he created humans who are a product of the environment they live in and therefore, compelled to sin.

Augustine must be arguing then that to have these variances of other things such as evil and evil doings then humans are evil from birth. Evil is something that is not taught; it is not a product of environment. Rather he is saying it is within all of us from when we were born. For instance, Augustine considers it a sin when a baby cries. A baby does not know the learned teachings of right and wrong. Maybe Augustine is saying that all humans no matter how young do in fact know right from wrong because it is inside of them from birth; it is not something that can be taught or learned. Socrates also believed that certain acts equated to evil and sinning. Humans, however, inherently know right from wrong.

Augustine goes on to continue with the concept of good and evil. For him God only created mortal sins. Augustine believes that evil can be an actual event that we fear or evil can be in the act of fearing. Even though Augustine keeps shifting from good and evil and if they do in fact exist, his argument keeps reverting to the lack of God due to the presence of evil. He states falsehood which is another form of evil is “nothing but the supposed existence of something which has no being”

Clearly, for Socrates and Augustine, God is all knowing. He is the creator of all things good. However, for Socrates good is objective; it is meant to be discovered within each person. Augustine believes in a similar notion however it is not as rigid as Socrates’ ideals. Unlike Socrates and Plato, Augustine believed that it was defined. Things such as crying as a baby or living with someone whom you are not married to out of wedlock were sins. They were these defined acts of evil. I agree that good is objective and so is evil. I believe that God's presence allows for good to attempt to prevail over evil but since God's presence is not felt, evil sometimes occurs because of the temptation that exists due to most humans being products of their environment and not questioning what is around them.

RIP. In Memory of Lois Mae Carter Davis-- 2/20/1926-5/12/11

Lois Mae Carter Davis, there are no words that can express your absence. Your legacy was amazing. Your heart was golden. Your laugh was infectious. You are truly an inspiration; a real hero and role model for all women. You survived the odds a thousand times. Unfortunately, it was your time to go. Actually, while we are all mourning the loss of our dearest nana, you passing away is unfortunate for everyone EXCEPT you because you deserved better. You were too good for what is here on earth so you became an angel on that beautiful Thursday afternoon. You were always an angel here on earth to so many but now you are all of ours' guardian angel.

I wrote a little poem well its more of a note about us losing our dearest, sweetest and most beautiful nana. Here is how it goes:

God saw you were growing tired of this pain.
A Cure was not destined for there would be no gain.
He wrapped his arms around you as it was time to say good bye.
God told you Lois Mae raise your arms it’s time to fly.
Nana you became an angel today, our guardian angel.
You didn’t deserve the pain you felt,
So God laid you to rest as he took you under his wing
And into the gates of Heaven you flew.
Oh wow how beautiful and amazing Heaven must be.
After all, they only accept the best and that is why you are there looking down on us
We yearn for a few more minutes or even a few more seconds with our amazing nana.
That would be selfish though for us to wish you were still because it was your time to go.
Our only comfort is that we know you are in a better place with no more suffering.
You would not want us to be sad or bitter or question God
But you’d want us to turn our grief into joy by doing for others.
Your legacy will live on in our hearts and through our good deeds towards others.
We will long for you and cry for you every day because you are worth every lonely moment we feel and every tear we shed.
I will love you and miss you each and everyday for the rest of my life, Lois Mae, my hero, my role model, my nana.


I will always remember my nana's laugh and her smile. They lit up the entire room. Everyone she met, she touched their hearts and engaged their mind. Even as she began to grow more sick, she still had a kind word for everyone; she always had the best advice.

Nana had some of THE funniest statements and words to live by:

"who licked the red off your lolipop, sugar?"
"if you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen."
"if you don't have something nice to say don't say it at all."
"you catch more bees with honey than with vinegar."
"I like strong coffee and weak men." (This was her daily saying when she had her morning cup of coffee.)
"Hmm Lois you are so hott, there should be two of you."

I could keep going on and on but if I did we'd have a book not a blog. Plus, there are really no words great enough to express who my nana was. My only regrets are not being able to spend more time with her and not introducing her to my friends before it was too late.

Allah yr7mha w ysknha jnnat aln3eem ( God forgive her and rest her soul; welcome her to heaven.) Allah akbar. dayman ya rb.

Always and forever in our hearts, Lois Mae Carter Davis. <3

Tucson Shooting-- What if the shooter was Muslim?

On January 8th there was a shooting in Tucson, Arizona at a supermarket where Representative Giffords was holding a meet and greet with constituents. A gunman who was identified as Jared Loughner shot at Giffords causing her to be hospitalized. Giffords remains in the hospital in critical condition. Loughner wounded several people and killed six people. The most tragic of those deaths was a nine year old girl who was born on September 11th, 2001. She was born on a tragic day and died on a tragic day. It is horrible to hear things like this happen especially when innocent victims are caught in the cross-fires. Clearly Loughner is unhappy with the political process in this country-- maybe particularly unhappy with Giffords herself. However, this was not the way to deal with that frustration towards the government.

What I find particularly interesting is the response that has followed the attack. I cant help but notice that this is a white guy so naturally given the state of our country's chosen group to discriminate this guy doesn't fit the bill. Loughner is simply going to be described as disturbed. Government officials have described him as being an extremist. Now let me say this along with everyone else who has already asked the same question: What if he were Arab? What if he were Muslim? What if??

If this guy were Muslim he would automatically be labeled a terrorist. So why isn't this guy who killed a 9 yr old girl, a judge as well as several others and wounded a congresswoman?? I am sorry but the last time I checked the definition of terrorist is someone or a group of people who frightens and instills fear in others through the use of violence for political purposes. UMM HELLO??? Is anybody awake? is that not EXACTLY what Jared Loughner did? He stood outside a supermarket and shot up the place because he was unhappy with our government. That screams terrorism to me. However, since Jared Loughner is white he is politically acceptable. He is not part of the Arab minority or Muslim minority that is so greatly discriminated against in this country. If Jared Loughner were Muslim he would be far more ostracized than he is right now. But why is that when an Arab or Muslim commits a crime, the first word that comes to mind is terrorist?

Terrorists just like extremists are generally labeled as loners, outcasts, disturbed, frustrated with political dealings etc etc etc. How come those labeled as extremists do not have a racial profile but terrorists do? Here is a terrorists racial profile: Arab. Man. Muslim. Long beard. Religious fanatic. What is an extremists racial profile? Answer: Non existant. So Jared Loughner, Timothy McVeigh, the unibomber, and every white guy that has ever caused fear is not categorized?

The political discourse that occurs in this country is quite fascinating to say the least. All I know is like Bin Laden, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Jared Loughner is no different in my book.... A crazed person/group looking to release their frustration against America in a violent way aka terrorism. Loughner is no different than any other terrorist. There are just very few people who have the guts to call him for what he is.

May the victims families take solace in the fact that America is behind them and may we listen to Obama's words he delivered at the meeting to usher in a time of civility and to strive to be the America Christina Taylor Green, the young girl who died that day imagined.

uprising in Egypt

A little less than two weeks ago there was a bombing at a Church in the northern part of Egypt in the city of Alexandria as churchgoers attended mass on New Years Eve. Approximately 21 people were killed and over 70 people were injured. This terrorist attacks symbolic of rising problems in Egypt, an Arab nation with a Muslim majority. Coptic Christians make up the minority population in Egypt. After the attack, Coptic Christians rose up and protested the attack. This attack was an attack on religion; an attack on civilians; an attack on ideology;

Today a shooter boarded a train in southern Egypt and shot a Christian man,71 years old too no less and wounded 5 others; one was the wife of the man who was shot. The shooter was identified as a 23 year old off-duty policeman. This is really startling and unsettling. I do not understand how Hosni Mubarak can stand there and say he is doing everything to protect the Christians in Egypt when a policeman can board a train and do something like this. Mubarak is not doing enough to protect his people.

This is not first or the last time things like this wil happen. However, it is becoming more frequent. I think Muslims and Christians in Egypt need to stand together to stop the violence. The religious tensions in Egypt are bound to rise and create much strain on the government to control the violence. However, whoever is responsible for the attack on the church may very well want exactly that---for the tensions to rise.

Its just really scary to see all of this violence occurring due to religious and political ideology differences that exist in Egypt. There are stark similarities to the violence occurring in Egypt and the violence that is occurring all over the world. It is clear the people of Egypt are fed up. The Christians are fed up with the religious persecution they face. The Muslims are fed up with the Christians complaining about the inequality/discrimination they face. The Muslims AND Christians are fed up with the overall lack of concern for the citizens of Egypt from the government. The rich, the poor, the Muslims, the Christians-- Every class of people, every religious group in Egypt has something to complain about. So its no wonder that in a matter of two weeks two violent acts occurred.

It is time for Egypt to wake up and realize that the current state of the country is NOT ok. Egypt, a nation that used to be so successful in ancient times has skipped a beat in recent decades and fallen off the charts to be one of the most corrupt and religiously as well as economically divided countries in the world. The gap between the rich and poor is getting worse everyday! As appalled as I am by the attacks, I am not all that surprised. It was only a matter of time before an attack like this caught the attention of the world. If reform doesn't occur soon in Egypt the country will see alot more than just a terrorist attack on a church or a shooting on a train.

My Grandma =)

Ok so to everyone in cyber world who does not know my G-ma, you are probably not interested in reading this. Well, then again maybe you should! why?? because my G-ma is one of the most fascinating people I know; if not THE most fascinating.

My grandmother is a survivor...A true survivor! Nana or G-Ma as I like to call her had breast cancer, lung cancer, knee replacements, a hysterectomy, 10 children (yes i said TEN!!). She dealt with abusive husbands. She juggled 2 0r 3 jobs at a time all while raising her children. She recently just survived a heart attack over the summer. She suffers from dementia. However, even after dealing with all that she still fights back.

As a kid, my grandmother was one of fourteen. Her father passed away when she was just a teenager. I think she was thirteen at the time. She grew up during the Great Depression when times were really tough. Her mother struggled to make ends meet during one of the worst times America has ever seen.

My grandmother lived through the Great Depression, World War II, Pearl Harbor, the civil rights movement, the Cold War, Vietnam, the Watergate Scandal, the energy crisis in the 80's, the Gulf War, September 11th, the War on Terror among many other things. She has seen America at its best of times and at its worst of times.

My grandmother has some of the best stories in the world that I love hearing over and over again. One of my all time favorite stories is when she saw herself in the mirror at a hotel and looked in the mirror and said "mmm Lois you are so hot there should be two of you". That story is absolutely priceless for me. I tell it to so many people and they all get a kick out of it. I have a friend that attends uni with me and he asks me to tell the story every time he asks how my grandma is.

Some of my favorite quotes from my grandmother include:
"if you cant handle the heat get the hell outta the kitchen."
"you know you catch more bees with sugar then you do with vinegar"
"who licked the color off her lollipop?"
" I like strong coffee and weak men." (this one drives everyone crazy. literally a riot of laughter breaks out when she says this one.)

Someone literally could write a book on everything my grandma has experienced. However, unfortunately for me I actually do not know all the details of my grandma's life. I know bits and pieces of stories told over holiday dinners. I would really love to have everything documented somehow and compile her memoirs. I really believe my grandma has an amazing story to tell.

God bless you g-ma!! <3 you so much. You are a hero. A survivor. An inspiration.

A Mark on U.S. Birth Certificates

A recent proposal by state legislatures would allow birth certificates to be marked indicating if a child's parents were born in or outside of the United States. If this proposal is passed states would basically be given a free pass to practice discriminatory policies against kids with non-US born parents.

i think it is utterly preposterous that our state legislators think there should be a stamp on birth certificates signifying if a child has US born parents or not. It will divide our country from the native born and the ones born abroad. This country is supposed to be the melting pot. However, lately the violence, acts of terrorism, radical changes and preposterous statements show another side of America. This proposal is just another turning point in our nations history. It is nothing more than a form of discrimination against kids born to non-U.S. citizens. If this proposal makes claims to not discriminate based on the markings on a birth certificate, I have to question why even have the markings? What is the point? It surely will lead to racial profiling, discrimination and unequal treatment towards children with non-U.S. born parents.

Yes, I realize this proposal is not attempting to redefine the birthright status that America grants to people born on U.S. soil. However, under the 14th Amendment in the Constitution of the United States it allows children citizenship regardless of their parents origins as long as that child was born in the United States. The U.S. and Canada are among the VERY few westernized countries that have such a birthright status. Most countries do not care if you were born on their soil; they will not grant citizenship unless you were born there and have lineage and ancestry from that country as well. However, regardless of the fact that the U.S. does not want to change the birthright status it is enough that they want to put a ridiculous mark on birth certificates.

The U.S. would be in violation of not only their own laws but international law as well if this proposal is approved. I have to ask: what has this country come to? I am disgusted by this proposal. This would be another check mark on America's list of hypocrisies! How on earth can America criticize other countries for their laws on treating those born in their country and those simply residing there?

We can't allow our legislators do this to our country. We are all supposed to have equal treatment under the U.S. Constitution and under International Law. Allowing such a proposal to go through would be the very breach of those rights.

The WTO protest in 1999

Alittle over 10 years ago, the Seattle Protest against the WTO Ministerial Conference happened. Over 100,000 protesters from all over the world in Seattle to protest unfair free trade and too much corporate control. These protesters ranged from students to religious leaders to human rights groups and environmental groups. Most of the protesters were non-violent, however, there was a small group that caused a state of emergency to be declared because of the violence and looting they caused.

The media's coverage showed extremists who were anti-trade or in some cases just angry people who are clueless to life basically. The media portrayed some protesters as an "interference" to trade. Haven't there been numerous protests that actually led to productive and long-lasting changes? The mainstream media was actually lacking on this protest. What was shown was biased against the protesters portraying them as nothing more than crazy fanatics.

Most protesters agreed that international trade and interdependence could be beneficial to the entire world. What they did not agree with was what they viewed as unfair trading and policies. They were not against international trade agreements rather they were upset by the rules and procedures for carrying out those agreements. Furthermore, these protesters were angered by the corporate control in international trade as well as the fact that developed countries tended to reap more of the benefits through those agreements. They wanted to see policy changes so that more underdeveloped nations could benefit as well. The protesters were suggesting the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development oversee any international trade issues.

Companies such as Banana Republic, Gap, Old Navy, Bank of America, McDonald's and otehr major corporations were the target of these protesters outrage. They viewed these companies as having "corporate control" over the WTO and they were involved in unfair and even dehumanizing practices. They were also angry at the U.S. and this protest was a part of what was known as anti-globalization protest.

In my opinion, yes the WTO, IMF, World Bank and other institutions that were established to govern the international community should be held responsible. What is the point of having these institutions if they allow corporations to get away with unfair trade policies, corporate domination and dehumanizing practices such as sweatshops?

Even though this protest happened over 10 years ago a lot of the issues still ring true today. A lot of corporations are more powerful and have more money than some countries. Companies like Microsoft, Ford, CNN and others have larger GDP's than countries. It is alarming to read and hear about sweatshops and child labor in the news. It is also alarming to hear how much money the top executives of these companies made as an annual salary and they still find ways to cut corners by outsourcing the work to countries who have no safety standards, environmental standards, no notion of corporate responsibility or child labor laws.

What is the WTO really doing? Just like the IMF I believe they are serving as a scapegoat for the more powerful countries in the world to exert their control.

is the IMF nothing more than a scapegoat?

The IMF was conceived in July 1944 after World War II as a way to create international economic cooperation and regulate currency. It was formally established in the latter part of 1945 when 29 members signed the articles of agreement. In 1947, France became the first country to borrow from the IMF. By the 1950’s the IMF was growing due to African countries applying for membership. Until 1971, the world followed the Bretton Woods System which allowed countries to keep their currencies pegged against the U.S. currency in terms of gold. According to the IMF website, this system was known as the par value system and it worked until 1971 when the U.S.” suspended the convertibility of the dollar (and dollar reserves held by other governments) into gold.” (IMF.org) Since then, the IMF has loaned thousands upon thousands of dollars to countries in need. So why is the IMF under so much heat? Why are many viewing the role of the IMF as one that is unnecessary? Is the IMF really just a “scapegoat”?

Well, in the article I read titled The IMF Strikes Back by Kenneth Rogoff, Rogoff outlines the four most common arguments against the IMF. For countries in dire need of cash, the IMF tends to lay down “harsh fiscal austerity” (Rogoff) The fund also encourages reckless investments made by financiers. The advice that the IMF lends to countries tends to only intensify the already severe economic conditions. Lastly the fund, according to the article, pushes “countries to open themselves up to volatile and destabilizing flows of foreign capital” (Rogoff). However, up until 1971 the IMF helped out the first world, countries who don’t particularly need help.

There is something that really struck an interest in the article. The article states that all 184 member countries could decide to offer grants to countries in need rather than a loan. This means that those countries receiving the grant would never have to repay it. Furthermore this means member countries that are more economically developed (i.e. the United States) would need to constantly give money to the IMF so the IMF could in turn give to those countries in need. So at that rate, why is the IMF even needed? Countries in need could just address the international community directly rather than addressing the IMF. It almost makes the IMF an invalid institution if the loans were just converted into grants. Lets say the UK was ever in need of borrowing from the IMF again, instead of going to the IMF just go to the U.S; one of the main contributors to the IMF, and ask them for a grant. It cuts out the middle man. Essentially that is all the IMF is-- a political machine that U.S. uses a their middle man.

There is a possibility that the IMF could be one of the most powerful non-state institutions in the world effecting the economies of more than 180 countries. Countries are supposed to use the IMF as the extremely last resort however it is more common for a country to just get a loan from the IMF. The IMF has become more of an institution were larger more developed countries use it as a forum to push their economical policies on the less developed world. How can the IMF state that their macroeconomic focus will help developing nations find a balance even when there is a need to find alternate methods to ensure that a country's domestic markets still thrive when enhanced aid materializes yet the IMF’s own economic policies are sometimes not the best for a country? (REFER to my blog on Zimbabwe). I read in a textbook for my Global Political Economy class, that the “newly industrializing countries of East and South-East Asia” who had been success stories inadvertently caused the Asian Financial Crisis in the late 1990’s. "The IMF praised its strategy to ensure macroeconomic adjustment but at the very moment the baht was nosediving”.

The Asian Financial Crisis may have not been directly caused by the IMF’s lack of good advice but it was certainly part of the problem. Furthermore, the IMF has policies that end up eliminating jobs, reducing employment; cut back government programs in turn driving up food prices all while increasing speculation. Is that not a little contradictory to what the IMF is supposed to do: increase international stability? It seems to me that the IMF's so called macroeconomic policies are nothing more than the western world's way (mainly the U.S.) of pushing their political and economic ideology on the underdeveloped world.

In my opinion, the IMF is nothing more than a “scapegoat” where countries like the U.S. exert power over other countries. In was done in 1976 when the British applied for a loan from the IMF. The U.S. pushed harsh conditions for the loan to be approved which the British did not like because they were far to the left and a republican was in office in the U.S. at the time. This shows that since the U.S. holds more power in the IMF they are able to exert their political, economic or social power. Right now the IMF is just cradling the needs of first world countries to exert their force. It is almost like a popularity contest. If the IMF had more reform and stability it might actually help the international community in the way it is supposed to and do more than it already is.

I honestly think that the grant idea is an excellent way to boost the underdeveloped world and help the poorest nations in the world like those on the continent of Africa become more developed and actually give them the tools they need to compete in a global economy. If the IMF offered grants rather than loans to countries there would never be debt to pay back. The countries who borrow from the IMF wouldn't be bogged down with lengthy loan terms with absurd interest rates. Furthermore, those countries would be able to use the loans to finance infrastructure development and economic growth rather than just being scrutinized and tied down to strict rules that are attached to the loan. The IMF has fallen into the guise of being this helpful institution. However, I have seen it do more harm than good.