Ukraine, a dramatization

Scrolling through my news feed, I've noticed an increasing amount of posts concerning Ukraine, critquing Obama's approach to the situation. Some of them justifiably equating Russian actions in the Ukrainian crisis to the American decision to invade Iraq in 2003; others, more alarmingly, to World War II. "Remember when Chamberlain did the exact same shit you're saying? Then 6 million people died. Whoops." Refferring to Chamberlain's decision to overlook Hitler's invasion of Sudetenland.

Addressing the latter, there are political and economic bodies in place today that did not exist in the early 20th century, designed specifically to prevent the killing of another 6 million people. For example, the United Nations (if you believe in that sort of thing...) was inspired by Woodrow Wilson's Leauge of Nations, whose essential purpose was to prevent World War III. The European Union, regardless of its capitalist aims, has created a peaceful Europe and a common unity that has prevented war. Please note that Ukraine is NOT a part of the European Union as of yet. This point stands. To even compare the Ukrainian crisis to events that spiraled into World War II is slightly melodramatic.

Secondly, Obama is not conceding to Russia and allowing this annexation, like Chamberlain did. He is imposing sanctions on Putin, and his inner circle, aimed specifically at those who hold heavy stakes in Ukrainian policy and the institutions that surround them. While these may not directly effect Putin, pressuring those around him is strategic, and is already having an effect on the Russain economy.
There is an international consensus that Putin's actions in Crimea is a war crime, and is illegal. To imply that the United States is being selfish, or unjust, for not invading so as to save lives is completely ridiculous. First off, it's not our place. It is more the responsibility of the European Union, as the reason Russia went in the first place was to protect their interests in former Soviet satellite states and prevent Ukraine from joining the EU. Obama's move to offer support to the EU is absolutely the appropriate response. 
This is not the Cold War. There is no longer an overlying need to "contain" or prevent a "domino effect", and the United States is offerring support to the European Union, and the Ukrainian people, anyway. 

Types of people in this world; Personal musings

There are those who are content in their ignorance, and there are those who have contempt for their ignorance. I am the latter. It is my impression that the majority are the former, and are happy with it. And therein lies the problem with my generation. We discuss Oscar nominations, Victoria's Secret Angels, frivolous things that do not matter for the sake of distraction. Some of us want to be them, most of us live our lives unfulfilled. We cry about it.

I listen to my friends rue the thought of being a "cog" in the "corporate machine". I have done the same. Leading the life that has been lived one million times, it is not appealing. Original thought seems like a myth now.  But in their awareness they cannot find it in themselves to leave, or care enough to change it.

Do any of us feel powerful enough to wonder about the world around us? To care about our governments that claim to know best... do they? We blindly trust and I worry there will be a point where we do not see anymore at all. 

I do care. I want to see. I will to know. This is why I am studying International Relations. I do not care if others feel I do not have conviction, or vocation. I do. I will not justify myself. 

I hear my Dad in my ear, "why would you want to go into something so degrading as intelligence?" I wonder why this is even a question: who would ever willingly choose to be the one without information?

And thus, I am the latter.

Why aim to be a cog, when you can aim to be the machine?

Dear Mr. President

Today, you called on support at M. Luis Construction in Rockville, Maryland. Close to my own home. You spoke to construction workers, using their disbelief at the Republican party shut down to fuel your own spite, continuing to harass your adversaries where you should be channeling your energy into resolving glaringly obvious issues with them. Do you really think heckling them is going to encourage their cooperation? 
"This isn't happening because of some financial crisis! It's happening because of a reckless Republican shutdown in Washington!" you proclaimed. 
Who said anything about a financial crisis? 
It's happening because in 2008, when you could have taken advantage of the Democratic-ruled government bequeathed to you, you instead traveled the world playing diplomat (efforts that were completely undone by the Syria fiasco, but that's a different letter for a different time).
When Republicans took majority, you watched as they stripped the Affordable Care Act down to the bare minimum. And now, you watch as they struggle to have the program defunded completely. 
I agree with the Affordable Care Act's elimination of discrimination against patients with pre-existing conditions, and its efforts to provide baseline affordable (affordable to the nearly non-existent American middle class family, that is) health coverage, among other things. However, I cannot say that the efforts made by big businesses to drastically cut hours for employees who need them so as to avoid taxation laws implemented by the Act is a positive outcome. Not to mention to ludicrous amount of money actually being used to fund the bill. With Obamacare, the deficit will increase by $6.2 trillion dollars. Additionally, multiple sources have confirmed that the promise to lower health care bills by $2,500/per annum are optimistic at best. 
The GOP are threatening to throw our country into default, obviously a step too far, but the positive measures they are taking to try and reopen national parks, museums like the Smithsonian, and allow Washington D.C. to use local revenue to reopen basic services (like trash collection) will be foiled by the Democrats as soon as the bill reaches the Senate. How is this productive? 
"Yes we can", your slogan for the 2008 elections. Apparently, we can't even do the basics.
In an aside to both parties, I'd like to say that this is an absolute disgrace.  It's unfortunate I split the bill at election time, I apologize for assuming that seasoned politicians such as yourselves could come to a mature and hasty decision regarding something so basic as a budget which has already been spent. 

Syria-ness Business

It is exhausting to watch as the Assad regime taunts the Obama administration. A year ago last week Obama eloquently stated in an address that, "we have been very clear to the Assad regime... That a red line for us is if we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized." Secretary of State John Kerry continued, confirming that the CIA alongside other American intelligence agencies have assessed with "high confidence" that the Assad administration are using chemical weapons against its own people. But considering the recent revelations involving the NSA, how high is American confidence in these assessments?

It seems we have backed ourself into another war. If America intervenes, we risk lives. But if not, credibility. The Obama administration is faced with the difficulty of determining which is more important. 

After having spoke with friends and family, it is clear that the American psyche is weary in the aftermath of the Iraq-Afghanistan war. It is strange to find myself siding with Syria's allies in oppression, knowing that Russia and China will follow through and veto the movement for military action on the UN Security Council, even though it will be for all the wrong reasons. 

I refuse to believe that military intervention is the only option. I am unsure why the West thinks it is our duty to "spread good" in the world, when what we need to be doing is focusing on our own issues and working to solve them before involving ourselves in controversial international affairs.
Are we even a force for good anymore? With claims that if the West intervene militarily, it will result in the Middle East will hating us even more? The Taliban bombed an American base in Afghanistan just yesterday, and there are more threats that terrorism will flourish. 

Obama believes this is the only way, the right way. Time will tell, and so will congress. 

Good Morning, Baltimore.

I listen from London as rumors concerning the National Guard intervening in Baltimore flutter about an old friend circle. Army vehicles line up I-95, shielding Marylanders from an unseen threat. Unlikely rumors, but not unwarranted ones. Twenty-eight murders in one week, “Are we headed down the same path as Detroit?” My mother asked me on FaceTime one evening, concerned. Another friend provided an answer in a different conversation, “We’re just as bad.” A grim conclusion.

Baltimore-Detroit: a connection hard to ignore as news of Detroit’s bankruptcy poured in. As I read on the widening gap between promised pensions and companies ability to pay them to their employees, dim statistics about Maryland’s similar pension schemes floated to the top of my mind.

A long history of Maryland politicians have promised heightened pensions to constituents, a cop-out:  it’s easier to push the promise to the future rather than raise wages in the present. Maryland politicians Stephanie Rowlings-Blake and Martin O’Malley tried and failed to put pension reform at the head of agenda, only to be drowned out by merciless screams of crime victims that propel Baltimore to number 9 on Buisness Insider’s list of 25 most dangerous cities, claiming its place as “Heroin capital of America”.

 Maryland is riddled with corrupted (and naive) government; highlighted by Sheila Dixon’s recent 2009 trial, the only upside of which stripped her of an $83,000 pension to be put back into the dwindling money pot. Simultaneously, Bob Erlich blithely voted to raise pensions for Maryland teachers (the education system being a conversation for an entirely different time).

But what can be done to solve the pension crisis, when Maryland’s voters are being murdered before they have a chance to speak their opinions? Firstly, we need someone to step forward to organize. Someone who can place the problems in an identifiable loop that will allow us to determine which problem set off the domino effect that is destroying our state. Secondly, someone who can reunite the discouraged police force, and enforce legislation that will demand gangs leave. Thirdly, positivity: though The Wire is bringing big money to Hollywood tycoons, it is advertising Baltimore’s bad reputation and giving gangs a bar to measure themselves against.

I only lived in Baltimore for 7 years before moving away for University. It was long enough to fall in love with it. I want people to know of our quirky traditions, to experience a crab feast in summer warmth, to know Old Bay, to watch an Orioles game at a student night. To be able to smile when people sing the opening line of Hairspray, knowing how perfectly that movie embraces our small town.

It makes me sad to hear these rumors from the place I used to love, but it gives me hope thinking that one day, eventually, surely, someone will step forward to help restore Baltimore to the place it used to be. 

BRICs: building more than houses

Although BRIC nations seem to have hit their economic stride, it is not preventing them from laying foundations in other regions; particularly India and their growing interest in Africa.

Though the $65bn of Indian investment pales in comparison to China’s $200bn, they are investing with purpose. While China focuses on shallow, short-term investment almost exclusively limited to resources, India sees itself in Africa’s ever-growing economy. Their investments in sectors such as telecommunications, agriculture, automotive, and education reveal a strategy more likely to pay off in coming years. China, however, continues to view Africa similar to how European nations did during colonization, rather than as potential market worth investing in.

Africa’s finite resources, eager population, and open areas of investment seem to mirror images of India twenty years ago.  Then, India took work too expensive to do in the West and outsourced it domestically, where the same amount of labour could be done at a significantly lower price. They have since adjusted to modernity; as such an advantage is only applicable for a short time. Now, India is increasingly looking to recruit professionals from the United States and Europe, which will allow them to make their international businesses more global, and thus more versatile.

Africa is fast realizing their place within the global economy. While China’s continued investment in African resources heightens demand, Africa can in turn raise price, which could eventually cost the Chinese more than they intended. However, India invests in growing sectors of the economy. Strengthening relations with Africa now means more openness for trade in the future, within the fields that they will have helped advance.

Though India’s surge in growth at the beginning of the 21^st century has declined, projected to be around 5%, nearly half what it was, signs indicate that we have not seen all India has to offer. 

What price tradition?

As royalists and media tycoons cooed at the birth of the royal baby, Facebook critics take it upon themselves to harsh the vibe.
"It's a 'royal' baby, it denotes that the baby is special by virtue of blood," says one Facebook user. Another continues, "I just thought that seeing as we're supposed to be enlightened people we would have moved past this by now."
A fair point, one that seemed to accumulate quite a few 'likes'. But the royalists countered back, "but tradition?!", incredulous at how anyone could be so pessimistic at such a glorious birth.
Well, money.
Republic, a campaign base against the monarchy, found that the royal family costs Britain roughly £202.4 million a year, £7.9 of that coming from public funds (i.e. taxpayers money) to "support the exercise of her duties as head of state".
But is abolishing the monarchy worth the price of the roughly 1200 people the royal family employ? A small number in the long run, but in these financially difficult times any number is significant.
Or the price that would come with changing the branding of the "royal" mail, or bank? Who would grace pound notes? And Buckingham Palace?
It is as if abolishing the royal family would be done simply because it could be.
"Being the royal family now means almost nothing. They are not the kings and queens of old. It's like their keeping the tradition for traditions sake and nothing more".
Another fair point; but consider: if royalty was so  unnecessary, why hasn't it been abolished already?