It’s about time! Obama’s speech on race.

Here is a link to the “Cliff’s Notes” of Obama’s speech on racism which was given in response to Obama’s pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s controversial and inflammatory sermon.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/cliffs-notes-fo.html?cid=107448942#comment-107448942

After reading it I am convinced Obama is good at what he does. Throughout Obama’s time campaigning he has been accused of style without sustenance, and this speech is probably an example of that. I think if he was sincerely interested in the topic he would have made it an issue from the beginning, but you got to give Obama credit for his ability to address the situation in way that in intelligent and non-divisive while still bringing attention to the matter. Instead of sweeping the issue “under the rug” Obama decides to directly address the problem and offer his “solution”. That Obama is able to pull off this save, I believe, is a good indicator of his ability to navigate tricky situations – an invaluable asset for the political arena.

For insight into the white side of the race debate: http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/

Arnold, control your people!

In response to a CNN story: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/12/berkeley.marines/index.html

Code pink and the Berkley city council are the left equivalent of Fred Phelps- a pastor who picketed military funerals saying God allows soldiers to die because the U.S. supports gays. People like these let their emotions act out in a strong and irresponsible way. Like a moment of road rage, some members of the Berkley city council acted in error and abused their first amendment rights. Even though their actions are protected by the first amendment, and limitations like “clear and present danger” probably don’t apply, these statements and actions are misdirected, benefit no one, and serve to cause great division and hurt.

Luckily, people like councilman Worthington help show that being progressive doesn’t just mean be as far left as you can be- you must unite people for change. To the rest of the members of the council I can say this: you will be glad the military recruits if you are ever stuck in the middle of a war, like in Lebanon, and there is a Marine carrying your, most likely crying, self to safety.

The NYT on it: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/12berkeley.html

Port Security II

The Dubai Ports Deal Fiasco: Is Globalization to Blame?

Recently the Dubai Ports deal has garnered a large amount of attention from diverse people ranging from reporter Lou Dobbs to law makers like Hillary Clinton.  Besides the obvious concerns about security this recent event is another example of the debate over the big G.  Globalization has been present throughout history, but it is only in the past two decades has Globalization gained prominence.  So what is globalization, and why does it cause so much friction in society?

According to Jan Aart Scholte, in his book Globalization: A Critical Introduction, globalization is a process which allows connections and interactions between peoples to exist regardless of the physical-territorial-places the person might currently be located.  Scholte’s goes on to say that globalization contributes to a “proliferation of social connections that are…detached from a territorial logic,” (p 47) as results of two factors.  The first factor-compression of the world; leads to the second factor-interactions that transcend the boundaries of the territorial state.  Scholte observes that the space separating people is becoming smaller.  In the past technology like the printing press and centralized governments gave rise to the creation of a national community; technology today has given rise to a quicker and a greater connectiveness building the global community.  The advent of the satellite, internet, and jet plane all has decreased the significance of space and time allowing for the process of globalization.  It is the process of globalization which allows for events like the Dubai Ports deal.  The opportunity cost of large distances has shrunk making lower operating costs a larger factor than the company’s physical location.  But this phenomenon is not new.  Today it is common to see events like outsourcing tech support service jobs. Similarly outsourcing of manufacturing is becoming a main stay as super ocean transporters, GPS and RF tracking tags, and supply chains have pushed the process of globalization allowing for the growth of outsourcing.  In these examples of outsourcing are labeled free trade not a national security threat.

The process of globalization also contributes to the dichotomy between reaction towards the Ports Deal and other forms of outsourcing.  In other industries adaptation and innovation became solutions.  Employees moved to sectors not readily exportable; corporations reconsidered cost cutting measures.  Despite initial opposition, there was eventually acceptance and then innovation.  However, with port operations the main focus is the perceived threat to national security.  The reaction to the Dubai Ports is in many ways like agricultural subsidies for security reasons.  This perception of a foreign threat is a direct result of globalization.  While globalization has allowed McDonalds to proliferate globally it also allows cultures to retain autonomy outside its historical territorial bounds.  This notion seems to hold true for the many unassimilated Muslim population in Europe causing a negative perception in the West of the Islamic culture.

Whether these perceived threats are real or not globalization can create friction.  Acting in two ways globalization allows for the existence of these events, and globalization can contribute to resentment and distrust.  Perhaps it is this perception which triggered a negative response to foreign ownership of ports only after an Arab nation took over the ports. Regardless of accuracy, globalization helps perpetuate the changing perceptions of different cultures and peoples causing friction in the social fabric of nation states trying to reconcile the old notions of national sovereignty with the new dynamics brought on by globalization.

Port Security I

For my first entry I will talk about this episode of Montel Williams I saw recently on day time TV. First let me say I hate talk shows and I suffer greatly when I am home because I do not have cable TV. Normally during day time TV I am switching between game shows, and PBS, but that day Montel did something very interesting- He hosted some news reporters to discuss current issues facing the nation. One issue that was brought up was the Dubai Ports deal, and how the administration really dropped the ball on that one. People defending the president said that it was racist to discriminate against Dubai’s intensions due to the fact they were Arab, while those against it point to the UAE’s dubaious record when it came to terrorism. Personally I feel like both sides have credible arguments and counter arguments. Something I would consider if I was in a situation to make a difference would be: possible backlash from the US’s new ally the UAE or other Arab nations, possible ramifications with free trade, UAE’s record on terrorism…

However, to me the saddest part of the whole deal is the fact that the port management industry in the US is not competitive enough to compete with foreign companies. Whether it is poor management, unreasonable union demands, a little bit of both, or something totally different the fact is that US corporations cannot compete in that market. Even though the situation was diffused when DB World Ports agreed to give up the operations to a domestic company we realize that there are no domestic capable of running the operations. In the end there will probably need to be government support for ports operations! In this global economy it is essential to innovate and remain competitive. Otherwise two things will happen: either the industry gets outsourced like team India Dell Tech support or reservations are raised and the government has to step in. The Port Security II post is an essay I wrote on the situation read it if you have time.