Middle East Unrest

I chose to include February 11, 2011, Domino Theory and Libya Debate in my E-Portfolio because they best reflect my interest in international relations and its impact on national politics. They are also closely related and make a mini series in my blog posts dealing with the unfolding change in the Arab world.

A year in a dorm--is more than enough

My first year in college is almost over and if I learned anything is that I can't live in a dorm. I got lucky, lived in North Halls where every room has a little living room and only four people share a bathroom. My roommates were also very laid back and we had no problems at all. But I am too old to be sharing a room or to be confined to less than 80 square feet of personal space. Call me spoiled, but I need to be able to live on my own schedule.

My roommate goes to bed at midnight everyday and gets up at eight every morning. But I happen to have my prime hours of productivity in between those nightly hours. I need to be able to have the light on when I need it. I need to be able to play music when I want to and I need to be able to come and go out of my room whenever I want to and as loud as I want to. Sounds selfish and I guess it is but in order to be productive and creative, doesn't everyone need some real alone time?! Actually, I find it quite impressive that some students manage to live in dorm their entire college career because I am slowly going crazy and can't wait for this semester to be over and I will have my own room again, where I can come and go as I please. 

Most frustrating however, is that Penn State seems to think that a desk that is full as soon as you pace a book and a computer on it makes a student work efficiently. I don't expect an L-shaped office desk for school work but at least some more space would be great and I could actually sometimes be productive in my dorm. Enough ranting, I just wanted to get that out there because I think dorm life is about as conducive to college success as the great campus food we're all enjoying...

American Superficiality

One of the characteristics of American culture that is most renown around the world is that Americans are extremely friendly among strangers. Some find that to be superficial and thus negative because no one actually cares how you are but I believe it makes every day interactions a lot more delightful than in less superficial cultures. Furthermore, foreigners have a hard time adapting to those day to day exchanges and respond within the culturally established framework of phrases. I notice this all over campus and State College when I see international students interact with Americans, whether they are fellow students, faculty, staff or employees downtown.

There seems to be a relationship between general English speaking skills and the ability to interact with American strangers. The more limited the English speaking skills appear the less capable the students are to respond to superficial American kindness. There are international students who barely nod and grunt when they are asked how they are or just plainly need to respond with a thank you. Another common misunderstanding for those students with slightly better conversational skills: actually attempting to explain to a cashier at the giant who much life sucks right now...

It comes down to international students being perceived as rude because they are unable to go along with the rites of American daily interactions. But that's not actually the case, we just don't know any better. How to change that? Make us aware. It took me a while to resist the urge to lengthily explain how life was these days when my counterpart had already moved on to talk to someone else. Also, a good orientation can make an international students life a lot easier and create a more favorable disposition among American students towards those less fluent in the English language because they at least know the basics of daily interactions.

The Libya Debate

Over a week ago, the United States began its first military operation under President Obama. The President decided to utilize the US military to protect civilians and human rights in Libya. Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi had been forcefully putting down a rebel uprising against his 41 years in power. Obama acted on United Nations Security Resolution 1973 which called for the implementation of a no-fly zone over Libya. So far the very brief facts.

As soon as Obama authorized the military to carry out cruise missile strikes from ships in the Mediterranean Sea to disable Gaddafi's air defenses, the question of the legitimacy of the President's actions arose in the United States' media. Leading the way, my favorite red news network titled "Should Obama have consulted Congress?" and the commentaries below the article and internet poll all called for the impeachment of the President. Some comments were so far removed from fact and reality that they prompted me to create a fake email address so I could create a user account. I entered the debate and hoped to simply point out some other sides of the story (not that I actually thought that it would make too much of a difference). Here are some of the greatest misconceptions about the legality of the military intervention:

1) Obama doesn't have the right to declare war. Guess what, he didn't! And actually the US hasn't declared war since 1941. All later 'wars' were legalized through Congressional consent for the President to use necessary force to reach a military/political goal. Which leads to number two.

2) Unlike ANY other President, Obama took away Congressional rights. Well truth is, it wasn't just him. The Presidency as an institution has derived more and more rights and powers from Congress ever since FDR. Obama may or may not be acting within the realm of those inherent powers, but whether they are actually in the Constitution has nothing to with his Presidency in particular. If it was unconstitutional, you may want to question some other Presidents' actions, too. And I'm not only talking about G. W. Bush.

3) DISENFRANCHISING Congress. One branch of government cannot take away responsibilities from another. The other way around, yes. One branch can delegate to another. However, the mere notion that Obama has to report on everything he does and Congress only waits for him to do that is simply false. Remember checks and balances? Yes, checks especially. If Congress is unhappy, it can do something about it. Actually, Congress is considered the most powerful branch of government because it has the money! And other means of controlling the President.

4) Most importantly: Congress has a problem with the President following a UN Resolution. No, as a matter of fact, the Senate unanimously agreed on supporting a UN sanctioned no-fly zone before the UN passed a resolution and before Obama authorized its implementation. There may be differences among Congressmen and women as to how the military operations should be specifically conducted but generally there is Congressional support for the necessity of intervention in Libya's civil war. According to Gallup, a plurality of Americans also supports the intervention.

In conclusion, I just wanted to make everyone aware of the other side of this debate. This is not intended to defend the President. It is rather to ensure that all sides are considered and not only one portrayed in the 24 hour news cycle.

For continued coverage of the situation in Lybia:

BBC News - Libya Crisis

Boring Banquette

Last Saturday I was invited to experience a one of a kind American tradition—a Cub Scout banquette. While I clearly see the benefits of being a Scout and do not aim to trash the entire program, I need to say, that was something… Three and a half hours of relentless ‘presentations’ and advancements. I say ‘presentation’ because they were mostly so poorly executed that it was just a pain to watch or hear. Reading off a slip of paper that you clearly haven’t seen before is not exactly presenting. The advancements were also everything but epic… uncoordinated, lengthy and troublesome at best. Now, I know that this is a 100-year tradition but seeing five-year-old kids swear on things they have no power of understanding just creeps me out. I doubt anything bad comes out of it but I remember some form of early indoctrination in my country and while the Scouts are nothing like it, I’m still morally opposed.

Here’s the worst part, everyone whose there, hates it. No one wants to sit through those dire three and a half hours but no one seems to care to change anything about it. The whole thing just lacks efficiency and structure. It all started with the food. Imagine four long tables form a long line and they are all filled with multiples of mac and cheese, meatballs and barbeque. Instead of letting everyone check out what they want and just go get it, you make everyone line up at one end of the table row and than move down long both sides. Because people stop and fill there plates, two thirds of the buffet where not being used to get food. Watching that being on the last table that was going to get food hurt a lot… It took over an hour until everyone got food and was done eating. Like I already said, the ‘presentations’ and advancements have tremendous room for improvement. And if you want to honor a leader’s 40 years of service, don’t dig up every picture you can find and put them in a 15 (!!!) minute slide show with music where everyone watching is done after three minutes. Overall, just make it more interesting, I mean I had good intentions but I ended up doing the word search puzzles that were supposed to be for the kids…

Honestly...?!

People need to start being more honest, or call it sincere. In social interactions there is no need for lying or to put it nicely, letting things slip your mind. I am aware that we all do it on the regular bases because it makes life easier and I guess as long as it’s inconsequential that’s actually fine. If we addressed everything head on we would be sorting more problems out than we would actually enjoy life. But when it comes to essential facts or serious issues why not just mention them or talk about it.

I know I can get on people’s nerves and I personally have made peace with that. So sometimes you need to tell me to shut the f**k up. It won’t kill me, and no worries, I’d tell you too, so no harm done. If you however let me babble on and you don’t even care what I have to say but you won’t tell me, suck it up! Don’t go blowing off steam somewhere else and then it gets back to me, never a good idea.

Also, if you talk to someone at a bar and that someone tells you that your cute and keeps continuously texting you for the next couple of days, would you interpret that as some sort of interest? Yeah that’s what I thought. So how would you feel if a week later, you ask that someone to go for a drink or so and then you get awkward message slowly revealing… oh there’s someone else… sorry. Is it that hard to let such an important fact slip into the first conversation to make sure you are both on the same page? I don’t think so. I actually feel bad after talking to a girl for a few minutes at a bar and not making sure she’s aware that this couldn’t go anywhere. Even if the chances of that going anywhere were zero, it’s just honest. So I guess that was just me being a little honest and putting together what I’ve heard from friends this week or just noticed myself. Let me know what you think.

Domino Theory?!

Click Map to enlarge

A month after the Tunisians freed themselves and one week after the Egyptian Revolution succeeded in ousting President Hosni Mubarak after three decades, protests have erupted and continued in various other Arab nations. As I said earlier, no one can predict the outcome of the entailing demonstrations in other nations but the longer they go on, the greater their potential for success becomes.

The driving forces behind all protest are the young generations who in most cases have never known a different regime than the one they have been ruled by their entire lives. In all Arab nations that are experiencing unrest and demands for reform and/or regime change the median age ranges from 17 to 30 years. In all cases the youth unemployment rate is very high. Therefor, change for the sake of a more democratic government is not the sole motivation of the protesters. The economic situation and level poverty and literacy also play a decisive role, even in the oil-rich gulf nations.

A prime example is the Kingdom of Bahrain. It has been experiencing protests even before Mubarak was overthrown. A BBC article considered Bahrain to be the potential “next domino to fall” even though, according to the Economists Unrest Index, it had the lowest probability for popular uprising. The instability of a small and wealthy nation such as Bahrain is the next step in the evolution of Middle Eastern protest, especially since it has been ruled by one royal family since the 18^th century and previously attempted political and economic reforms to meet the demands of its citizenry. If Bahrain were to be the next domino to fall, it would set yet another precedent that could pose enormous threats to other Monarchs in Jordan, Saudi-Arabia and other small gulf states. Lastly, the international and especially US reaction to the protest will be closely watched as world leader once again try to balance intangible principles of self-determination with very tangible economic and military interests (The US Navy 5^th Fleet is stationed in Bahrain).

While Bahrain is a luxury example, countries such as Libya, Algeria, Morocco and Yemen are vastly poor and underdeveloped and are being ruled by dictators who have been in power for decades. Here, the motivation is ample frustration with all expect of governmental (in)action and the potential for reform is small because of financial limitations of the respective administrations. If any of those dictators were overthrown, most other may eventually follow. The greater the number of precedents grows the more encouraged and bolder other democratization movements will become. Once serious unrest spreads to the strong police state of Syria, anything is possible.

The Islamic Republic of Iran presents a case different from all others. After the 2009 Presidential elections the country experienced widespread protest and violent clashes between the opposition and police forces but the regime prevailed. The newly arising tensions between the Iranian government and the opposition have the least potential to overthrow the existing regime because the country is greatly divided into pro- and anti-government groups. There is no vast majority of greatly frustrated citizens as is the case in all other countries. Additionally, the Iranian security forces have not shied away from violence against protesters in the past. A chance remains that the current protest can development into more than those in 2009 but in Iran, the chances are clearly the smallest.

Taking the latest developments and future outlook into consideration, we may very well be witnessing fundamental changes in the dynamics of an entire region of the world which will alter the way we perceive international relations to a so far unfathomable extent.

What does this have to do with a Rhetoric and Civic Life blog? I believe that the events in the Middle East and particularly their significance have gone vastly unnoticed among many Americans or have just not been up for discussion. Since this is a blog that can  address issues of civil discourse, my goal with the last  two blogs was to draw more attention to the history unfolding and encourage awareness of and conversation on the topic.

February 11, 2011

A momentous day in Egyptian and world history whose true significance won't be known and cannot be judged for a long time.

The implications of the Egyptian Revolution in 2011 for the country itself, the Arab region as well as the international community are plentiful and vary widely.

For Egypt it is a new beginning and as my Egyptian friend opened my eyes, the first time that Egyptians have the opportunity to actually rule their own country. After pharaohs, many foreign oppressors and a chain of dictators which now ends after the 30-year rule of Hosni Mubarak, the people of Egypt are finally able to shape their own destiny. I daresay that no Western college student can imagine, let alone begin to understand, the sense of liberation young Egyptians feel seeing the end of a regime that was in place before they were born and they had not thought possible to overthrow until three weeks ago. 

The most pressing domestic questions now are: How is it all going to turn out for the nation? Will Egypt regain its stability under a democratic, secular government? What are the alternatives, a state in chaos without clear leadership? Will the military relinquish the powers now vested in it to allow a transition to popular government? Most importantly, will the new government be effective in addressing the economic and socio-political challenges of the nation?

Inspired by the success of the Egyptian and Tunisian Revolutions, demonstrations and protests are erupting in many Arab countries. Most are met with brutal force from the autocratic government they seek to overthrow. At this point, no one can predict how far the achievement of the Egyptian and Tunisian people will ripple across the Middle East. Undoubtedly, however, Egypt provides a tremendous precedent because of its importance to the region as well as the previous unlikelihood of regime change. If there is a continued ripple effect among Arab nations, February 11, 2011 may very well be in the neighborhood of November 9, 1989, when the fall of the Soviet Union and the democratization of Eastern Europe began with the removal of the Iron Curtain. The third wave of democratization would finally arrive in the Middle East.

For the international community, the demise of the Mubarak regime and the potential democratization of Egypt pose an entirely new challenge. While self-determination is widely supported around the globe, immediate concerns revolve around the stability of the country and the region. World leaders were reluctant to fully support the peaceful protesters because they were uncertain about the outcome of the demonstrations. Foreign powers couldn't afford to alienate Mubarak if he were to remain in power. Only after the protesters proved to be persistent, governments began to call for reform. When protesters made clear that an orderly transition in September would not be enough, leaders fully supported the democratic movement, implicitly asking for Mubarak’s immediate resignation. This delayed response exhibits the double standard applied by many governments in assessing and responding to the situation. While promoting democracy and human rights on an everyday basis, these principles seem to lose importance in the face of possible destabilization of an ally, no matter how gruesome that ally maybe. The threshold for a shift in tone regarding fundamental displays of democratic movement seems to be generally high and the outcome has to be clear for it to occur. It will be very interesting to watch how this wait-and-see policy continues to evolve as the transition in Egypt progresses and especially if and which governments start to erode in the future.

While there are many uncertainties about the gravity and influence of the events in Egypt to date it cannot be denied that history has already been made regardless and everyone should be aware of that and take a minute to look at the following video to honor the moment:

Ignorance beyond imagination – or let’s hope it’s just imagination

Thank you, Anderson Cooper, for bringing the following two quotes from Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann to our attention:

“It didn’t matter the color of their skin. It didn’t matter their language. It didn’t even matter their economic status. It didn’t matter whether they descended from nobility, or whether they were of a higher class or a lower class. It made no difference. Once you got here, we were all the same.”

I am hoping that most can agree that she has her history slightly confused. Many groups of immigrants had a rather dark period in their history as part of the US, whether it was merely because of public discontent towards them or direct government intervention. Anderson points out two groups of immigrants that have clearly been unequally treated in the past. One were the Irish (“No Irish need apply”) and another the Japanese who were interred under executive order by the FDR administration during World War II. Not to forget that only Irish (from the East Coast) and Chinese (from the West Coast) immigrants were ‘allowed’ to risk their lives to build the transcontinental railroad in the 1860’s, one of the greatest engineering achievements in US history. While in the meantime there are plenty of other examples to illustrate Mrs. Bachmann’s awfully distorted view of US history, she even fails to realize the current implications of her remarks. At a time, when a state can pass legislation that implicitly in it’s wording but clearly in its common perception discriminates against one group of immigrants. While having established that all were not the same once they got to the US, what about the Native Americans. Remember, they were here long before and never had a chance.

“We know there was slavery that was still tolerated, when the nation began. We know that was an evil. And it was a scourge and a blot and a stain upon our history. But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States. And I think it is high time that we recognize the contribution of our forebears who worked tirelessly, man like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest, until slavery was extinguished in the country.”

This one is even better, especially from a member of the House of Representatives whose initial composition was determined by the white population and 3/5^th of the slave population of every state. Slavery was in the constitution, not no more. It was a compromise. Yes, some founding father’s wanted to abolish slavery but, as Anderson says, others held slaves of their own. Anderson also points out that John Quincy Adams wasn’t even a funding father. While I honestly wouldn’t have noticed since John Adams was, I would have very well been able to place him long before the civil war.  How can someone who swore to uphold the constitution be unaware of the 13^th Amendment and its history?

Overall, I have a hard time believing that this woman got elected not to mention that these statements were actually made. This is beyond partisanship or political rhetoric, it is plain ignorance. It doesn’t matter in which context this speech was delivered; for once no one can say there was more to it. Worst of all, some international kid had a better grasp of US history than an elected government official. Thank you Mr. Evans and Professor Milligan. Or maybe German high school would have even sufficed for this.

Please indulge:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnQ3kvrIRVs

This I Believe Podcast

To good to be true

http://www.zshare.net/audio/8608079670d30e72/

idk

American society relies largely on text messages for any kind of coordination and communication. While most people don’t worry about whether that is a good or bad development in American ‘culture’ some have strong opinions on when and how texting is socially acceptable.

There are those who argue that texting is disruptive to personal interactions as well as writing abilities of those using abbreviations as much as possible. I agree to the extent that texting for some people has higher priority than a personal conversation. When you meet someone for coffee and you’re on your phone most of the time, you effectively have more conversation through your phone than with the person in front of you. I’m not saying that no one should check his/her phone anymore but when you can’t even finish one part of a conversation because of constant text message interruptions, you may want to limit your responses to essential texts only and continue other conversations when you actually meet the person you’re texting. Basically, when with other people, texting should be more coordinating immediate concerns and not entire text message discussions.

Abbreviations on the other hand, should be eliminated. It is horrifying how texting abbreviations and ‘grammar’ make their way into all ways of communication. When the differentiation of your and you’re in actual writing is lost to ur in text messages, it should be worrisome to everyone. Btw, just reading abbreviations is a pain unless when used occasionally by people who normally don’t, then they can be hilarious. But other than that, plz refrain from using abbreviations and dare use and enjoy the entirety of the language for a change; I’m sure most of us have unlimited texting anyway.

While I see the downsides of texting in most social situations as well as the negative influence it can have on the linguistic abilities of people, it can be quite challenging to hold a real conversation over text messages when no other form of communication is available. It is rather difficult to get an actual message across when intonation and facial expressions are absent from the process. Sender and receiver have to know each other well to understand what the words in a text aim to express. The sender has to be very distinct in his/her choice of words to avoid misunderstandings and even punctuation, that is mostly absent in everyday texting, can be quite important in this case. From personal experience, I can say that discussing and solving problems over text messages is enlightening and rewarding because it demands a sufficient command of language and more importantly an extensive knowledge of the person on the other end.

Rhetoric is personality

Ever since I came back to the US last summer, I realized that I pay some attention to the way people talk – to their personal rhetoric. By that I mean their choice of words and repetitions therein as well as intonation, articulation and use of sarcasm. Funnily enough, that constant analysis of language only comes to me in my first foreign language and not in my native tongue. When I hear or speak German it is simply information to me and I notice hardly any patters or let alone actually pay attention to how I communicate. I say communicate because as we all know there’s a lot more to language than ‘just’ words but I had never witnessed the application of that statement on an day-to-day basis so clearly before.

What it comes down to is that a person’s rhetoric is also part of her personality. I found myself drawn to people who speak in a matter that appealed to me, that I found to be mentally engaging, also hoping that the same was true for them. People that can hold a conversation on the same level and that I get to know not by merely the information they convey but the way they do it. 

 

During my first couple of days at Penn State I was simply excited about a certain choice of words; for example witty qualifying adverbs in front of adjectives: you are decently entertaining. As the semester progressed and I got more familiar with my new friends, the repetition of certain words and their actual meaning to the person became most fascinating for me. When you tell my girlfriend a story you will most-likely get either of two responses: uhm, delightful! or oh, precious! Both of which seem sincere and are definitely signature replies of her. However, it quickly became clear to me that when she was delighted, she actually cared what you had to say. If it was precious to her, she didn’t give a damn and just didn’t want to be mean (or she was making fun of someone…). When I started calling her out on that she made me stop because even people that are and have been around her a lot don’t realize the difference and she wanted to keep it that way.

While I could give you many more examples of her and other friends’ signature statements (and even sounds/moves) I just want to emphasize that how someone speaks can tell you a lot more about them and their personality than anyone realizes until you actually start paying attention. I would even go as far as saying that rhetoric can be a good match-maker, not only in love but also in friendship.