Break out the vegetable oil

During the age of tough economic times, we've seen an increase in prices of just about everything, but the most memorable is gas. Gas prices spiked in 2005 with Katrina and the damage to oil rigs, but they continued to rise as the dollar decreased in value. This is quite the double edged sword. Foreign countries are able to buy oil much cheaper than they were previously because oil is priced in USD, which is one reason that the dollar has maintained value. For supply and demand, the less oil people think we have, the more they want it and the more they're probably willing to pay for it. At the same time, however, the higher the price, the less some people will buy. If the price stays high for a long period of time, it may lead to an increase in the extra oil and thus drive prices lower because companies will want to sell their oil and not have it sitting around.
http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2008/3/10/why-gas-prices-rise-as-the-dollar-falls.html

84 million barrels of oil are produced daily, and almost all are "spoken for" or needed. There is little to no excess oil being produced, especially with developing countries increasing their demand for oil. The US alone uses around 20 million barrels a day, but the increase in demand has come from places like China & India- accounting for 45% of the increase. If oil was produced more efficiently in certain countries, there would be more oil available on the daily market, an estimated 6 million barrels. I feel that the best plan would be for the developing countries, who are now starting to use more oil, to find oil/start production within their country. This would not only help with the situation of lack of oil, but it would also create jobs and boost the growing economy.

So is the world really running out of oil or are we simply not looking in the right places and not properly using what we have? If you think about it, there are tons of undiscovered oil reserves, many of which could easily be put to use. Alaska, although it houses a wildlife reserve, has a lot of oil. There are many laws and regulations about tapping oil on a wildlife reservation site, but if worse comes to worse, will the world care about humans or animals? (Dinosaurs became extinct didn't they?) It just takes the man power to get out there and get the oil. In reality, there are many factors effecting a lessened oil production, so oil will most likely remain at a high price...until we can increase our productivity.
http://www.businessinsider.com/have-we-reached-peak-oil-2010-1

In the meantime, there are many different ways to get energy. Solar panels, wind and wave power, things that cannot run out can fuel our world. The issue is storing this energy, because it doesn't occur all of the time. Technology needs to be worked on and developed in order to do so, but that also requires funding. If the government were to provide funding for this, it would be wonderful, but it would still take years to develop. There is also the potential that people will not be willing to switch to different forms of energy, especially since many of them are more expensive than what we use today. It all boils down to how much we want it and what we're willing to do for it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648710.stm

What's in a dollar?

The US Dollar, USD, was once the world's leading currency. The US controlled the currency market because everyone trusted the value of the USD. This past weekend I watched a movie, The Counterfeiter, which depicts a Nazi concentration camp set up for making counterfeit money-the most important and desired being the USD.


If only that held true in today's society. The USD has decreased in value, 21% since 2002. This has occurred in large part by the government's decision to bail out big banks. Banks were in debt because they had invested in sub prime mortgages and other things in the real estate market deemed now as "toxic." The rescue plan involved $700 BILLION, little to none of it being readily available from our government. People felt that if the government was having to bail out banks, then no one could really be trusted with their money. The stock market began to decline rapidly, banks who decided to help other banks by taking on some of their debt--if the bank was to go under, soon found themselves faced with the unthinkable, paying the debt of some of the largest banks in the US.

With the government taking on the debt of banks, it's only going to hurt the citizens in the end. Just because the government decided to intervene, doesn't make the debt any less prominent. If the government isn't able to pay off the debt, will confidence in them and their ability to keep us "safe" waver? I think so. The whole shebang was bonkers, think of it, the government, choosing to meddle in business, thus creating a smaller separation in what they're able to do regarding personal business practices. They've got their hand in it, they can now do what they want with it... It was just too good to be true and too fastly done, even if it was a time sensitive issue.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/19/freefall-excerpt-its-not_n_427509.html

Since the government had to borrow most, if not all, of the money used in the bailout plan, they created a downhill spiral. More debt was created by the government, while trying to pay off the debt banks acquired. The US also has a lot of debt to other countries and some countries owe the US. Obama has promised that these countries, namely China, will be paid back, but the debt we've acquired hasn't been paid for years AND we haven't been getting the money we're owed. Obama claims that our political system is strong and that's why investments have gone up in the US since our "crisis," but I've got to disagree. Investments have gone up because the USD is down, meaning that it's cheaper for foreigners to buy in the US. If you wanted to look at it from a more political standpoint, you could even say that other countries would love to have a hand in the US piggy bank, so that they have a say in what goes on here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/politics/15prexy.html

The question remains - can we pay all that we're borrowing back, or will we simply continue to borrow? Many feel that since the US has never failed to repay debt, only changed the way debt has been paid off, that the US will bounce back. Mhmmm... If you take Japan as an example, they tried to boost their economy by creating large amounts of debt, thinking that once things were better they'd be able to pay it back. This didn't work out so well for them, their debt in 2002 had reached 154% of GDP. It's projected that this year for the US our debt will be 60% of GDP.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/09/AR2009010902325.html

Fun in class

My group, group 6, won our in class activity, so there will be no blog. Joyous!

The Continuing Challenges in Darfur

Fighting and genocide in Darfur has been going on for years, but the situation has unfortunately not gotten much better. Mostly due to the government's lack of response and the lack of foreign aid originally, there hasn't been a significant decrease in fights. Fights are taking place between the two separate groups who are against the government, as well as towards citizens who are of varying race.

The worst part about Darfur is that people the government hired to help decrease fighting, have decided to run a government funded killing spree. No one can be 100% sure if they were hired to carry out genocide like the other two groups are doing, but they have been using their governmental rights to kill many. There is really no one to be trusted.

Foreign aid came too late in terms of stopping a mass movement. Since many governments refused, (and still do), to refer to the situation as genocide, they've been skeptical about providing troops and aid to deal with the on-going problem. There has been much talk about how to solve the problem in Darfur, but no true conclusion has been decided upon. The more meetings held, the less action, and the more people driven from their homes, raped, and killed.

Overall it's like playing russian roulette. If action is taken, it could do some good for the government, scare them into taking affirmative action to ending the fighting in their country, or it could blow up in the face of the country who is taking action. The US doesn't want to get involved because we cannot be seen as supporting a country who is experimenting an ethnic cleansing, but we also do not want to be seen as not supporting a nation in need---this is how most countries seem to feel on the matter.

There's no right way to handle the situation, but not handing it isn't doing any good either.

Since 2003, many people have fled and felt that returning to their homes would surely mean death. It's just this year that some from refugee camps have decided to return to their land and plant crops. This will hopefully bring back some stability into the country. It just causes me to wonder if the fighting groups will take advantage of this and decide to kill those who have come back.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/02/world/africa/02darfur.html

The one thing that continually pops up into my mind is the questioning of whether or not things in Darfur are getting the amount of attention they deserve. The US certainly has it's hands full with all of the countries we're trying to help and the wars we are fighting, but has Darfur become lost in the number of started projects? There seems to be little that we can do to spark interest, but perhaps there are some people who can reach out to a fraction of society and rekindle the fire. Tracy McGrady, from the NBA, recently visited Darfur and came away with a new appreciation for helping the situation. He has started children's programs to raise money to help Darfur and with such a well-known person working to spread the word, hopefully more people will become interested in and willing to help the situation.

http://www.theledger.com/article/20100101/NEWS/1015023/1002/Sports?Title=Darfur-Visit-Changes-NBA-s-Tracy-McGrady-Igniting-in-Him-a-Fight-for-Their-Lives

Russia- big, bad, not yet powerful

The Russian government feels as if the US is keeping them at bay by establishing many anti-war units around their borders and most importantly, an anti-missile defense unit. While Russia is twice the size of the United States and probably has much better relations with other countries because of their natural gas supply, they lack the population and man-power that the United States boasts. For any country, this would seem like a bad thing; it's not the size of your army, but how you use it.

Russia is concerned that an arms race will begin and that they will see an increased need to update their own missile defense systems. While this could never be a bad thing, the need to be on top of your weaponry has never been more prominent than in the age of nuclear warfare. It's interesting to think back upon the days of the atomic bomb and how much up rise there was over that, and then to look at the capabilities of weapons today. It blows the atomic bomb out of the water, quite literally.

As the article we read on a New Russia states, a "managed democracy established by Putin--based on firm control of all primary levers of power and influence, including the internal security forces, mass media and expanded state monopolies--can survive only by evolving from its current cult of personality." Thus, to continue progress the country must also continue in corruption.

The biggest issue with the Putin/Medvedev power is that the presidency could be losing support from the people. It would seem as if one person is being able to manipulate the entire government, just like what the US is supposedly doing to the world... After a while, little faith may be left in the government and internal wars may arise. With two big "powers" trying to share the responsibility and decision making of one country, they will soon find themselves at odds.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/putin-is-medvedevs-biggest-spoiler/397236.html

With the Obama administration in order, it would seem as if Medvedev has put aside all worries about the US intervention in Iran and there has been talk of the two countries working together to put an end to nuclear weapon plans in Iran. This comes as a surprise since they previously saw the US as overstepping bounds and out to get them. Maybe we've made a new friend, as long as we don't pull out the destructive toys just yet. It also makes me wonder whether or not Russia is hiding tons of weapons from the US and other countries. They have the land, actually lots of land since most of their country is undeveloped.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/world/europe/02arms.html

Breaking news on Russia/US relations and arms deal:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/20/AR2010012002598.html

Humans, not Governments, are supposed to have rights?

This seems to be the take many political systems have on the rights of the individual. In places like China, they've proven to be almost non-existent. Especially with the on-set of the Olympics in Beijing, Chinese citizens found themselves faced with more governmental issues than before.

An article that sheds some insight into how bad things were during the Olympics...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSPEK5747220080807

Problems with societal life in China did not begin, nor do they end, with the Olympics. Problems have been around since as far back as history books, or I, can recount. Most of the problems are suppression of the people by the government. The go-to course of action seems to be, if it's good for the majority, it'll do for the rest. Taking a look into the film we watched in class, many people have become sick with cancer because of waste deposit in waterways. The company at fault, is hardly being held responsible, and those who have become sick aren't provided proper medical care by the government. This leads to many deaths and even more dislike of the way things are in the country.

Like the story of Neda, the young woman who was killed as a bystander of a protest in Iran, her only hope if she had one day to live would have been to leave the country; many Chinese want to leave their country as well.

The best part of China's government...they'll happily dictate how many children you can have. Just what we need.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-04/13/content_322740.htm

Essentially the amendment to the previous law is saying that everyone and every family needs to be putting in their part, with regards to working, to making China better or more prosperous. There will be no free-living off of the government---which is exactly what we need in the United States, but perhaps not to this extent.

One last bit on society in China and in many other countries, the way women are treated/not respected in society. Arranged marriages are vary prominent and it not only disgraces the person who refuses to be in an arranged marriage, but the entire family. The best example of a country that primarily has arranged marriages is India, but there are quite a lot out there. Arranged marriages, while keeping the family's name in society, does little for those who simply feel forced into it. So is it worth disgracing your family for your own happiness?

You've gotta fight for your right to....

Well if you're living in 4 of the world's 193 countries, not really anything, perhaps to party! If you're on the other end of that scale, you're probably fighting for everything, even staying alive.

Only four countries offer total equality for women. FOUR, quattro, vier... I could say it in every language and it would still have the same significance. The United States, being one of those, doesn't even cut the progress that some other countries have made, or always had, in the way of women's rights. To think, that one of the most "up and coming" countries has yet to have a female president. Interestingly enough, Europe, where most of our ancestors are from, had many female rulers; namely England. Were our ancestors so scarred from queens and women in power that it has led us to be the same way?

Even though women make up 1/2 of the population on this planet, they're poorly represented and in almost every sense taken advantage of. Women are thought to be, by many people I know, incapable of thinking without their emotions, (SO horrid right?!), and unfit for many things that require strategizing and planning. I'd actually say that women are better foreseer's of the future than men and that using a little emotion in thought is never a bad thing. Think of it in these terms: Women who have held high-power positions, have spent more time thinking of ways to better living standards, environments, communities, health care, etc... While men are more willing to plot about weapons of mass destruction and allocate more funding towards weaponry.

With a lot of suppressed women throughout the world, it's interesting their reactions to their conditions. In one of the films we watched in class, a woman commented on how much she supported the Taliban and that given the opportunity, she would become a member. The members of the Taliban and groups like Al Qaeda, are part of the reason that women are faced with such harsh conditions, but people would support them without question?!

Other women are so desperate to earn money that they take any and every job available to them. This leads to overworking and to terrible working conditions for many. Due to globalization, many jobs are in sweatshops, helping to grow crops, factories...the list goes on. The workers are 3rd party workers, they're never in touch with their "real boss," thus they're not able to fight for any workers rights. Some women's land has even been taken from them into to have more space to grow crops for exports.

An argument for solving the suppression of women is to implement labor protection, but how is this going to stop women from being murdered for dating/marrying someone outside of their religion, wives from having acid thrown upon them because their husbands are dissatisfied with them, or human trafficking into the sex trade?

Unfortunately it wont. Until women are given rights via the government, nothing will TRULY change, at least not enough to say that conditions have improved.


Something to ponder- what are people's views on arranged marriages?
* Is it simply a cultural thing that has taken place for so many years that we must accept it
* Is it something that should be looked at as a part of women's lack of rights?
---More to come on my thoughts regarding this---


While the majority of this post has been dedicated towards women's suffrage, it's not fair to discuss one thing without discussing the other. That other being human rights.

I want to discuss this more after our class discussion, but the rights of those living in China, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc... Are almost all alike. The government controls everything and other than what they say or approve...you're SOL.

Human rights are barely even defined in countries such as those listed, all because of the way the government is set up-isn't that the way it is in most countries? It's not fair, but it hasn't changed and wont anytime soon.

I like how the article listed below sees no difference in the rights of women and men, because human rights are after all meant for all humans. I do not think that the rights of women will be so easily gained by ignoring any government that does not recognize women as equals. In the documentary we watched about the middle east, one woman spoke of how she and others had returned to covering themselves up in the streets because they were being condemned. This is not simply a governmental issue, it's society, cultural, and deeply inbreed into those in countries who feel women are the lesser species. It almost seems like an oxymoron to think that there would be no males without the female's carrying them for 9months, giving birth, and nurturing them; yet women are not even allowed simple pleasures like eating at the same time their husband eats, having rights, being able to say and do as they please.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,185643,00.html

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LYGf22G4Km2f7TqHBfSFhsQc74ZSQRd8Z1VHSG1zd84zJZcJ0Q5D!-1784052340!351573012?docId=98938035