Hypocrisy in Clinton's trip to Africa:
I read an article in the New York Times that showed the reality of Clinton's ground-breaking trip to Africa rather nicely: "President Clinton has had precious little to off in terms of new financial help during his 12-day tour of Africa. But he has been dispensing regret by the shovelful." (James Bennet, "Week in Review", 3-29-98)
This is incredibly accurate, in my opinion. The regret he has expressed is also very glib, and seems ignorant. The President has apologized for American slavery, support of African dictators during the Cold War, "neglect and ignorance" of Africa, failure to interfere with Rwandan genocide in 1994, American involvement in aparteid, and failure to intervene in Bosnia (man, where did that come from).
First off, why apologize for slavery? Slavery was the result of tribal warfare. The losers were taken captive and sold by the winners to the Americans. I think people have an image stuck in their head of American slave traders going up on the beach and subduing the Africans and taking them as slaves, and it just didn't happen that way.
Second, while you're apologizing to the Africans for support of Cold War Dictators why don't you apologize to the Haitians. Their ruler would inject dissidents with a blowfish toxin, that makes all your vital functions slow down to the point where you look dead. Then, after they were buried, dug them up, and with their brains fried from oxygen deprievation, set them off. Incidently this is where the term "zombie" comes from.
If Clinton's going to talk about not intervening in various conflicts, he should talk about the Sudan Civil War. This battle between Arab North and Black Animist South is bloody and ruthless. Mother Teresa wanted to fly in to deliver aid, and was basically told they would shoot her out of the sky if she even attempted. Quite frankly, I wouldn't put up with that...send her in anyway, with air and ground support. And what about Algeria, where 500 people are massacred each day, yet the news hardly reports it at all. One person dead is murder, 1 million people is a statistic...no where is that more apparent.
I don't know about the rest of Clinton's apologies, but it seems Clinton's "all-talk, no-action" philosophy is in full force in Africa.
Violence in the Media:
Television. Internet. Radio. Media. These are the major forms of influence in today's society. Is what is shown through these mediums the mold of our culture, or merely a reflection of it? Should we start controlling media in order to curb violence and crime in the real world? There are many arguments pro and con for this and one has to look at the history of the issue, current statistics, and trends to fully understand what should or shouldn't be done.
First off, violence and conflict...things that have existed throughout the ages, and the present. It is naive to blame television completely for deviant behavior. You can't say, "Oh look...John's just killed twenty people he thought looked at him funny...must be because of "Friends". I think conflict is inevitable with large population growth (making the Twentieth Century the most violent in the world's history), so Television isn't the only thing in this equation. I believe television is, however, making some people think that violence is an acceptable way of initiating change and/or solving conflicts. Throughout history, revolutions and rebellions have been the main design for change.
I find this unacceptable...humanity must discover that violence is not the answer to a problem. This is merely a dream, though...violence has two parties and if one party is stubborn and holds onto strands of ignorance steadfast, violence may be inevitable.
To curb violence on TV, offensive song lyrics, and cyberporn on the internet, there have been ratings systems, net blocking software, and Parental Advisory stickers. Let me ask you this: How many people who weren't 18 saw Showgirls when it came out? In that you have the answer as to the effectiveness of these techniques. With TV Ratings, kids almost certainly use a Mature Rating not as a blockade, but a certification that the show is something they want to watch. I see no viable solution to this problem...it's too deeply embedded. But through increased awareness, we may start better educating our children, showing them morals and ethical values. Even then, television, radio, etc. could be an effective tool...
Pros and Cons of NATO expansion:
As many of you know, there is a plan being presented to various legislatures to expand NATO to include Poland, Hungary, and the former Czech Republic. I'll get right to the point; this could cause a communist/ fascist/ nationalist backlash in Russia, and that could be deadly.
Why are we expanding NATO? The Cold War is over, it time to shut down archaic symbols of a bygone era! Well, one of the arguments is that NATO prevents its members from having violence between one another, and if this is the case, we need to rethink NATO's overall role.
It's role, in my opinion, should be to protect against internal conflict rather than external. If a NATO member country decides to attack another NATO member country, then the rest of NATO would pacify the aggressor country. With this we could go so far as to admit Russia to NATO, hopefully ensuring peace for years to come. In NATO's current state, all we'll do is alienate Russia, allowing nationalists within the country to come to power.
Current Position of Iraq:
What happens when a child spill something on a floor? They try to clean it up before the parent comes into the room. Well, that's whats happening in Iraq right now. Iraq's biological weapons program and products thereof are the spill, and the United Nations is the parent. Iraq shut the door, cleaned up the mess, and then let the inspectors in free of restrictions. Iraq has had months to churn out biological weapons, and clear away every trace of the operation. We'd be naive to think Iraq has changed...unfortunately, there really isn't anything we can do about it...we'll just have to wait and see. Your move, Saddam...
