The Final Post: "I Think I'm Going To Cry"

Saturday, November 22, 2008

The author of this article is basically saying that the United States is going to lose relative influence in three different ways: Economically, Politically, and Militarily

It is also saying that the loss of this relative power may have the effect of causing more conflict among the nations of the world. Right now the United States is the dominant economic power. We have the richest economy in the world and our domestic actions have the power to indirectly influence other nations. The article argues that emerging economies like Brazil, South Africa, India, and China will in the future soon converge upon the United States, putting economic power and influence in more than a few hands. It also implies that while we have these growing economies that are in need of resources, this may fuel resource conflict. The article implies that since the United States is so powerful in the ways stated above as of now it has no problem securing its needed resources. However emerging economies also bring in better military might. The article states that through scientific and technological advances and the proliferation of weapons the emerging economies will gain more military muscle. As stated this “increasingly will constrict US freedom of action.” This means that the United States will have to account more for its actions because there are going to be nations with relatively stronger muscle than before, and more power to respond directly and indirectly to the actions of the United States. Hence in the future the United States will not have the political power that it once had. The United States is less likely to go against the calls of other nations to not invade an entire country and take control of its government. I guess since the U.S. sees itself with so much power it feels it has enough room to flex its muscles on the world stage, and others may be less hesitant to step up to them.

I can agree with most of the article, but it is pretty pessimistic to me. It states that what can emerge in the future is that countries may likely start warring over resources. It can happen but I think it is unlikely. Yes the United States is going to lose some of its relative dominance, but it is still going to be the top dog. I do not see this as a sign of alarm as an American citizen.

Rodney Dangerfield

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Twenty minutes ago from the start of me writing this blog I just finished my Microeconomics exam. Ask me how I did on it. “How did you do on it Melvin?,” the curious reader asks. I’ll tell you how I did on it. I killed it! I got an ‘A’ off the top (I just know I did good, stop asking questions reader!). But I’m not surprised. I love economics and it’s my major.

When I tell people that my major is economics, they get this astonishing, almost scared look on their face. They almost start shaking at first hearing it come out of my mouth. I have come to find out that many people have mainly two views of economics: 1. It’s boring or 2. It’s hard as hell. In contrast I think economics is interesting, and I don’t find it too challenging. When I tell people I think economics is interesting the main response I get is “You’re a nerd.” But I don’t get frustrated at the comment. If not being a nerd means not liking economics, then I want to be a nerd. This is a passion of mine. I love the study and I think it is one of the most important fields in education, next to the maths, sciences, and language studies. There wouldn’t be economics (or any other study) without the latter, but I digress. Something just struck me; I think I am really a nerd, because only nerds use the phrases “but I digress” and “the latter.” Those are two of the main nerd terminologies; but I digress again on the latter!

Back to the main point. When I tell people that economics is not too challenging and that I can understand the concepts well they say that I must be a “real intelligent person” (basically that is a nicer way of saying nerd). They tend to be right on that one though because I am intelligent. But that doesn’t mean anything, because you can be intelligent and hate economics. It depends on what you like. For instance I can do chemistry, but hell no I wouldn’t major in it! I respect chemistry majors because I think you have to be a special (special in a good way) type of person to do it. They are nerdy as hell, but I respect them. That is one thing I would like to see: people having more respect for economics. You don’t have to like it, but respect it. The study is a big benefit to society. It is the main reason why the American economy and others like it are so prosperous, and why developing countries have the ability to improve. It is one of the most important studies of today and will be of more importance in future times, as long as no aliens come with something new; or as long as aliens don’t destroy this world.

Happy Holidays Melvin Diggs!

Monday, November 17, 2008

Jim Gaffigan on The Holidays

While waiting outside of my English 1102 class my classmate and I started talking about the holidays. She who has just emigrated from Jamaica said she did not understand Thanksgiving all too well. I satirically said that Thanksgiving was a simple holiday tradition in the United States. It is simply a day where Americans overeat with people that we do not like all too much. Of course this is not the true meaning of Thanksgiving, but this is the event that most of us experience every end of November. Me personally I like Thanksgiving for the fact that it justifies me being a pig. A lot of Americans pig out 365 days a year; and 366 in a leap year. We are an over consuming race of people we Americans. Our holidays just allow us not to feel guilty about eating a whole box of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, “because it’s Christmas. It is what Jesus would have wanted! People in Africa are starving; we should be thankful for him that we can put a ham sandwich between two glazed doughnuts and eat it.”

Another of my classmates made a comment and he said, “The holidays are a time when families remind themselves about how much they hate each other.” And that is ironic. Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Independence Day are all holidays that are big on togetherness. We get together to celebrate the harvest that all have benefited from and all helped to produce. We celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, whose religion speaks of man loving each other and caring for one another. We celebrate the Fourth of July when Americans stood together side by side to stand up against the dictatorship of King George III. And on these symbolic days is when most people would rather pluck each one of their pubic hairs out than to be in the presence of “those people.” I have some people in my family that I would never mind seeing again, just like a lot of other people. However most people feel that they need to keep tradition going, so they stick it out through the holidays; that is if they haven’t slapped the shit out of their stealing nephew by the end of it.

There was a time for me when the benefit of food outweighed the costs of getting my stuff stolen by one of my cousins. But that was when I was a fat kid. I am on this whole health tip now and don’t eat as much as I used to. Thus holidays do not mean too much to me as of now. That is why I am not going home for Thanksgiving or Christmas. That way I don’t have to deal with my relatives asking to borrow money from me.

I Can't Get Jiggy With This!

Friday, November 14, 2008

There is no art out there that I know of that I absolutely despise. There may be some art that I do not necessarily enjoy, but not despise. The way I look at it I do not think there is such a thing as bad art. There is no universal standard of what bad art is. People interpret art in different ways and who is to say who is right? Some people may think that the High School Musical series is one of the greatest shows to ever come out, and some people may think it’s just complete booty. It depends on the person. Even if I do not agree that a particular art is good, I could understand why some people may like it. Basically humans are different and we have different tastes. We have different things that interest us.

Mona Lisa

I would like to point out the Mona Lisa. To me, it is just a simple painting of a woman. That’s it!! If it was up to me to decide what art is, this painting would not be famous at all. It would just be a painting of a woman chillin’ in a chair somewhere in France. And the way people interpret this painting to me is just a waste of time. I hear people all the time talking about, “Da Vinci was saying this when he painted Mona Lisa” or “This painting represents feminine mystique.” The only thing I believe it represents is a woman chillin’ in a chair somewhere in France. To me anybody could have painted something just like it. I don’t see it as unique, but I can understand why some people would. Some people infer much meaning onto visual art. It is a way of expression for people that satisfies them. That is one thing all humans have in common. We don’t all like the same thing, but the things we do like we get a lot of satisfaction from it. Art is used to satisfy our particular senses, and that is why there is a lot of variety of art.
Here are some examples of my particular art that I find satisfying. It is in the art form of comedy and music.

Marvin Gaye – Sexual Healing
Jim Gaffigan - Comedian

Maria Full Of Grace

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

I have a few thoughts on the movie. First off to respond to your note on the religious symbolism on the film, I didn’t take notice of it at all. As of today just getting out of class I learned that the film “cover” had to do with something about Catholicism. As I am not catholic I totally missed that part. I did think that there was religious symbolism in the cover, just not in the catholic interpretation. The hand that was holding the pellet, I thought that was the hand of god. I thought the pellet symbolized baby Jesus. And I know that that main character Maria represents Mary. Therefore, the cover symbolizes the incident where god inserted baby Jesus into Mary. As for the religious icons in the background I wasn’t paying too close attention to the background to see that. There wasn’t anything out of the ordinary in the background for me to take notice of. There wasn’t anything like a purple monkey eating a snow cone in the background when the main characters were performing, so I mostly kept my eyes on the main characters.

Another small thought on the movie is how it depicted the American drug dealers. The movie depicted them as uncaring, selfish, M.O.E. (money over everything) types. They did not care about the welfare of Lucy. They cut her body up to get the drugs out of her. I believe through the American drug dealers the movie comments on the bad side to capitalism. The capitalist system is mostly motivated by profit. People get into a business (whether legal or illegal) to make a profit. Usually when chasing profits some capitalist do not take into account negative externalities, or the bad affects that there business actions have on other people. The American drug dealers are businessmen who are all about the bottom line of profit and are not sympathetic to what their actions are doing to their workers (mules). They do not try to make Lucy, Maria, and Blanca feel comfortable while they are in America. The guys are pretty rude and crass to them. That is why Blanca and Maria ran away from them so abruptly. The American drug dealers could have lost all the smuggled drugs and would have had to wait longer for another shipment.

Also, I did see the movie before but I didn’t know Don Orlando was a real person. That was very interesting to find out. All in all it is a straight movie. I like that is so “real.” It shows real life situations that actually happen, and those types of movies are good to see.

Ms. Eileen Barthe

Monday, November 10, 2008

I listened to the interview of Eileen Barthe, a caseworker who did relief case work during the depression in Chicago. She talks about how she did a case study of this man from Central Illinois who came to Chicago to look for work because he had lost his job. She tells the story of how she was required to go and find out empirically how her cases are living. She is told by her authority that she needs to “see” the poverty. She goes to the Central Illinois man’s house and asks to look in his closet. She says that the man was very prideful and very insulted and humiliated by the fact that she would want to look in his closet. Eileen then states that the way that she made him feel made her also feel humiliated. She was not happy about what she did that it still makes her cry years later in 1971.

My impression on this interview is one of understanding. I can understand why the man would feel insulted and humiliated. He has worked on the railroad all his life and has been able to provide for himself and his family. And then the depression comes. Now he has no source of income because he lost his job, and then there are no other jobs available due to the collapsed economy. This man who was self sufficient now has to ask for help from the government. Some people feel like it is an embarrassment to have to ask for help, and then going through the motions of getting help can make one feel less prideful. When Eileen asked to look in his closet to make sure that he really needed help, one could tell from the interview that was a dissatisfying experience for the man from Central Illinois. Eileen saw his pain and felt bad about how she was making this man feel. She was causing harm to him and is regretful for that. That is why she started crying in the interview. The deep poverty of the depression affected every working man and woman. It brought about a new pain that did not seem possible to materialize in these people’s lives. It hit them hard when it came.

Nothing Going On Over Here

Friday, November 7, 2008

You ask what the effects of a democratic president in congress will be. I say basically democratic policy implementations; that is about it. We will have liberal minded agendas. I don’t think there is going to be any significant effects to take notice of, or anything to be surprised about.
For instance, I can bet that taxes are going to go up, which I already believe they should. Obama says that he plans to raise taxes on corporate profits and people who have an income in excess of $250,000. This means that high income earners and corporations will pay higher taxes thus receiving less after tax income and profits than they would have. The effect of this action is that the government receives higher tax revenues which will ultimately be used to help finance all the public spending that the democrats plan to do. In response to higher taxes on businesses the tax is likely to be shifted to employees by the employer, so indirectly most moderate income earners will see that they pay more in taxes.

I expect that our economy will become more of a mixed economy, which is an economy in which there are elements of both public and private enterprise. I see a greater expansion in the public sector than in the private. Obama has been preaching socializing the healthcare system ever since he came on the ballot. If he is successful in his endeavor the government will have a stronger role in the U.S. economy. He also talks about improving public education and increasing teacher’s salaries which shall lead to more public spending. Again this is going to be financed by the higher taxes.

Also I see the chance of improved international relations with other nations. Obama says that he is one for negotiation with anyone who has a conflict with the way the United States does things. He is willing to sit down and listen to the other side, not just solely focus on the wants of Americans. This shall be good for the nation because the United States is not the only nation on earth. There are 5.7 billion more people out there that need to be taken into account. Our actions affect others, and others actions affect us. Also speaking internationally I see the United States getting out of the Middle East. Relations need to be worked on over there because the Bush Administration has caused a lot of animosity towards the United States from the Middle East.

Those are some of the most significant effects of democratic rule. Overall it’s going to be the same old same old, unless a major war starts somewhere for whatever reason, or if we have a phenomenal technological advance of some sort that benefits the human race significantly.

The New White People, you can't scare them!

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Yesterday Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama won the election for President of the United States of America. His election is a historic moment because he is the first black president of the United States of America, so this time is a very special one. Today while getting ready for school in the morning I was talking to my roommate about the win. He commented that as a black person he was extremely happy about this turnout; he said that he could hardly believe that it happened. When he asked me (also a black person) if I felt the same way I replied to him that I was not surprised that it happened. He went on further to say that he sees more truthfulness in the old American saying that “You can be anything you want to be in America.” Before the election of Barack Obama he said that he did not believe in the saying, that it was just bullshit. Now he is more hopeful than ever. I can guess that many other black people today feel the same way that he does.

I conflicted with my roommate on both his standings. First I was not surprised that a black person won the presidential election. Secondly I did believe in the saying that you can be anything you want to be in America. Now I may agree that if you are a black person, obtaining your goals may be more of a struggle for you than for another race, but overall the goal is still attainable. I knew that it is possible for there to be a black president. The real question is when? I remember when Obama was first being heard of. All you heard from black people is “please, nobody is gonna vote for him.” By “nobody” black people basically meant “white people” who make up the majority of the population. But why wouldn’t the mass of the white population vote for a black person? Two basic reasons are racism and the more important, an inferiority complex.

The white race has been preaching inferiority of the black race through much of American history, and a lot of people believed the lie. It was part of societal culture to think that way. However, it is hard to keep a lie going without some rational people realizing that it is a lie. The older white population grew up during a time of segregation where they had a different view of the black race than the younger generation. The younger generation experienced and learned about the extent of the 60s and a time of integration. The old lie about black people being inferior was not holding up too well from the ‘60s and up. Those old effective arguments about blacks started to gradually evolve into irrational bickering. The evidence was not there for the younger white population to believe that black people were inferior to whites. It was the younger generation whites who put Obama in office, no doubt. Even though we still have white people with the inferiority complex or who are just racist against blacks, there influence and abundance has weakened over time. This led to a black man finally being able to achieve the highest office of the executive.

Maybe the only reason for me to be astonished is that it happened so soon.

Elephants in the Grass

Monday, November 03, 2008

This story is basically about the United Nations sending a convoy to bring resources to a people in an area that has been affected badly by fighting. There has been some fighting between the government of The Democratic Republic of The Congo and General Laurent Nkunda’s rebel regime. The two sides have been fighting, and the people in the middle of it are the ones feeling it the most. It is just like the saying goes, “When two elephants start to fight, the grass suffers.” I don’t know where the saying came from but it is true. The ones who are neutral are getting the bad end of the deal right now. Thus, the United Nations has decided that it would be beneficial to help these people. So they are sending in medical supplies, food, water purification tablets, and anything else that could help the plight of the people that are stuck in the middle of the fighting.

The article also talks about the plight of the “elephants”, which are the Nkunda Regime, the state of The Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the state of Rwanda. General Nkunda of the Congo says that he is fighting for his people, the Tutsis, whom are being threatened by Rwandan Hutu rebels. The state of the Congo has been accused of aiding the Rwanda Hutu Rebels, and that is why General Nkunda is fighting against the state. The relationship between the two elephant countries is not so rosy. The article states that Rwanda has invaded the Congo twice in recent times, and there is strong animosity between the two. The Rwandan government has been accused of aiding General Nkunda in his effort to overthrow the government, likely because they want to overthrow the Congolese government also.

There is not too much I know about this situation, but it looks like people are just lobbying for power. It seems so that Nkunda’s people need humanitarian aid and that he is not doing a good job of making sure they are secure. Rwanda and the Congo are both throwing accusations at each other about their dealings with the rebel group; they have been breaking peace honors, and being unreasonable. And why? Somebody wants a bigger slice of the pie, and the people who are neutral are in the path of the knife.