A must-read profile piece

Naturally, a profile piece that I found so impressive comes from The New Yorker. It may not just be the writing, though David Grann never leaves me bored (and it’s a very long piece). The story, “The Chameleon,” is about a con artist, who didn’t con for money. He would “become” a fictional child to find love and a belonging, or so the piece suggests. But, as you’ll find it out, he took it a bit far by “accidentally” impersonating a real American teenager, who had gone missing three years earlier. Strangely enough, the family took him in for such a significant time that authorities began to wonder if the family wasn’t purposely trying to believe the con artist in order to hide something. It’s certainly a strange story and a thrilling read. It’s the type of psychological story I love most: a writer who tries to get inside the head of another person who may never be understood. Give yourself a good chunk of time and enjoy!

Belgish identity crisis in us all

The European Union has been having an identity crisis lately. It can’t decide who it should let in (is Turkey in Europe or Asia?), how united it should be (remember Ireland’s no vote to the Lisbon Treaty) and even how to go about voting. Europeans are at odds as to which direction the union should go.

Within this EU frame comes another question of identity and international relations brought up in Belgium, a country on the brink of a split. In the North of Belgium is an area called Flanders, made up primarily of wealthy, Flemish-speaking Belgish. This area of the country comprises 65 percent of its national GDP. In the South is Wallonia, the French-speaking, poorer area of the country.

The conflict has grown due to financial differences. In July, several government representatives began calling for Flanders to have more financial autonomy, which soon led into the argument that Flanders should separate from Wallonia. Since then, no decisions have been made because no one can agree on how to solve the problem.

The source of the problem is not only financial. Rather, the underlying problem and the reason Belgiums can not agree on the next step is deeply rooted in cultural differences. It’s not because Belgium is split into a wealthy Northern region and a poor Southern region, but rather that the citizens in the Northern region are Flemish and the Southern French. And both group maintain a strong sense of pride over their heritage. Check out from this article and this article from the New York Times for additional background information.

This doesn’t have political and social ramifications only for Belgium and France but for the entire EU. The further breakdown of European countries has been occuring for the last several decades, such as with the Czech Republic and Slovakia, Yugoslavia and Bosnia and most recently Kosovo and Serbia. It’s a trend that Ian Burama, professor for human rights at Bard College in New York, says will have negative effects on the EU.

Writing in The Guardian Burama said, “Many Basques would like to break away from Spain, as would many Catalans. Corsicans would love to be rid of France, and many Scots of Britain. … No doubt some of these peoples would be able to survive perfectly well on their own. But history does seem to suggest that the cumulative effect of states falling apart is seldom positive. … Nation-states were often formed in the 18th and 19th centuries to promote common interests that transcended cultural, ethnic, linguistic, or religious differences. … The problem now is that interests are no longer the same, or even held in common.

Burama puts part of the blame on EU shoulders. Because the EU actively promotes regional interests within a larger nation-transcending framework, the authority of national governments is weakened. The existence of the larger EU, which brings with it economic and political protection, allows regional governing bodies that are based on cultural identity to believe that they can flourish independently of a national government. If you’re Scotland, why be part of the U.K. when you are part of the EU?

“The fate of Belgium should interest all Europeans, especially those who wish the Union well. For what is happening in Belgium now could end up happening on a continental scale,” Burama wrote. “Without having intended it, the EU now seems to be encouraging the very forces that postwar European unity was designed to contain.”

This argument is part of the question of how large can one’s own identity become in such a globalized world? Can someone think of themselves as only a European - not Italian, Welsh or Catalonian - and still feel a sense of self-importance within a strong cultural identity? Enough of a sense of self-worth to operate appropriately within the politcal and global realm?

The question goes back to an idea of basic psychology, humans need to feel tha they belong to a group. This is true in mundane, everyday situations, which is why we join sports and activity groups and have a common set of friends, but this is also a determining factor in a more broad sense, which links to religion, politics and race. In order to unite each other, people need a “them” or a group of “others” that can not be part of the unity because they are different. This border between us and them is almost always subconscious. Throughout history it is often imperceptible, especially to outsiders, however, most often or perhaps most notably are the divisions along obvious, physical factors, such as race, gender and religion.

The way people and nations divide and unite themselves along this “us” and “them” line has changed significantly with economic and cultural globalization. Distance is no longer as important, and most people have multiple cultural identites, starting with the local and including trans-national, such as an European or Christian identity. But one thing that I would argue that will never change are these divisions along race, religious and, now, historical backgrounds. Though one can argue that the world is continually becoming closer in cultural values and norms and political idealogies, these subconscious and inherent feelings within people - the need to feel as a part of a group - will always divide people.

Can black journalists cover Obama?

This question is certainly interesting from a journalistic perspective, but at the same time the question seems invalid. Jeff Winbush, a freelance journalist, writes that he is a black man first and a journalist last, and so he supports Obama first rather than maintaining complete objectivity as a journalist. But there are two arguments that I propose that makes this question obsolete.

First, as Winbush notes in his article, a journalist can never be completely objective, which applies to white journalists covering white politicians as well. Some black journalists support Obama, and their support may show in their writing. But just as many white journalists support McCain and other presidential candidates in the past, yet the question of their objectivity, especially along the lines of race, is never brought into question.

The second argument is that not all black journalists or black citizens support Obama. African Americans do not simply align their presidential convictions on race alone, just as all women didn’t automatically support Hilary Clinton because she was a woman. During political races, many factors for one person’s decision come into play, not least of which is one’s political ideals. All African Americans are not democrats and are not, therefore, automatically Obama supporters.

The question of whether black journalists can cover Obama is a fairly ridiculous concept, especially when asked so broadly. Journalists’ integrity she be evaluated on an individual basis only, not by race, gender, religion, etc.

McCain funds Viagra, not birth control

McCain has repeatedly voted against covering birth control like other prescription medicines. This essentially means McCain would rather have Viagra and other erection, baby-making pills be more affordable than birth control.

The Nation Blogger Katha Pollitt reports that in early June, McCain yet again voted against a bill that would have required health insurance companies to cover birth control if they covered any type of prescription medications at all, such as Viagra. When asked about it, McCain said that he didn’t know enough about the issue and that he couldn’t even remember casting the vote because he’s cast hundreds of votes in his lifetime (You can watch his response on YouTube).

His answer is ridiculous for numerous reasons. First, casting hundreds of votes doesn’t excuse any Congress member from being ill-informed about an issue that he or she will vote on and therefore impact, in this case thousands, of Americans. Second, birth control isn’t just about sex and pregnancy but also about serious health issues that can involve serious health risks to women.  And finally, McCain has voted against allowing coverage of birth control every time, which is decades now.

The availability and affordability of birth control is also about women’s rights and when medicines like Viagra are covered it also becomes an issue of equal rights.  Additionally, birth control can help tackle problems like unwanted pregnancies, unsafe abortions and population control in areas where families can not afford children. Half a million women die during childbirth every year, according to the United Nations.

Of course, that has less to do with McCain’s vote for the US health care system, but the domestic issue is just as important. Perhaps Pollitt puts it best when she wrote in her blog,  “This is not a trivial issue. There’s the basic unfairness of not covering these essential, even life-saving drugs and devices, so fundamental to women’s health and well-being, and the added insult of denying coverage while men are lavished with cut-rate erections.”

Great WP article

I really enjoyed this article by war photographer Warren Zinn, who was embedded in Iraq for almost two years. He tells his story about a famous photograph that he took of a U.S. army soldier and wonders if his photo had anything to do with the soldiers death recently in the U.S.

Where is the EU going?

The European Union is currently in a crisis, said Dr. Eckhart Stratenschulte from the Europaische Academy of Berlin. As the recent disruption of the Lisbon Treaty by Ireland demonstrates, the European Union is at a bit of a crossroads, and no one is entirely sure which way to go.

“There’s no consensus about where the EU is going and who is coming with it,” Stratenschulte said.

He said that the EU needs to work together and should become a large international player alongside the U.S. The foreign policy of the European Union is relatively new, but the U.S. can not possibly lead the world alone even if it is the most powerful nation, Stratenschulte said.

While there are many issues that the EU and the U.S. do not agree on, their views on human rights are similar enough that it should be the basis for working together in a foreign policy with other countries.

The EU must work out its own problems first, namely that the EU must be reformed in order to keep up with a changing world and with the addition of new member states. The Lisbon Treaty aims to do just that, but because it hasn’t been ratified yet, the question of where exactly the EU is headed, in terms of its power and rights throughout the world, remains.

Stratenschulte’s argument relates to that of Samuel P. Huntingdon’s thesis in his book, “The Clash of Civilizations,” in which he argues that the world’s power is divided into several “orders” based on similar culture and religion, such as Western Christian versus Russian Orthodox versus Islam versus Latin America. Therefore, the European Union and the U.S. must work together in order to extend their power throughout the world and continue to protect their own culture.

Freiheit oder Gleichheit: Freedom or Equality?

While studying in Berlin, the theme of socialism vs. the American system of a free market economy has come up in seminars numerous times.  While both systems have heir weaknesses and strengths for various economic and social reasons, historian Uwe Hillmer brought up an interesting point that this argument boils down to the question of which “heit” is more important for a better life: Freiheit oder Gleichheit or Freedom vs. Equality and uniformity.
One reason that this question is particularly relevant in Germany is its history of East and West Germany, whose effects are still seen today, both in physical manifestations, particularly throughout Berlin, and German’s mentalities.
The legacy of communist DDR to an outsider, particularly an American whose been taught the importance of democracy and capitalism and the fallacies of communism, is one of repression, human rights abuses (think Stasi), citizens without political power and a disastrous economy.
Though much of this is correct, this is not the only life of an East German. Frau R. from the Freie Universitaet Journalisti-Kolleg, an east German who was ten when the wall fell down, said that the experiences of she and her family were quite positive, especially from one day to the next. The mentality of East Germans was certainly different than West Germans, she said, but every day life was not so negative as many have portayed* it to be. Though East Germans didn’t receive Western imports, such as Coca-Cola or chocolate, they had other chocolates and products from Eastern Europe and Russia.
Hillmer showed statistics from a survey of Germans in 2004, in which 16 percent of former East Germans preferred that both countries hadn’t reunited in 1989. Understandably, this percent for former West Germans in 2004 was slightly higher at 22.  According to Hillmer and some other professors that have spoken to the DAAD interns, many West Germans dislike how socialist Germany is today. They believe the burden is too great on German citizens and would like to align themselves more with the American capitalist, free market system. However, East Germans, said Hillmer, agree more with the socialist system and many even would prefer a more communistic system.
Hillmer argues that the difference in opinion has less to do with how rich the country is economically or the political system, but more of a mindset that boils down to what is more important: freedom or equality.
To former West Germans, many believe that an enforcement of equality in all areas of society erodes ones freedoms. The argument is that merit and hard work is never awarded. If everyone goes to university, what separates the brighter and more talented students from the others who just don’t have the talent for it? If everyone is guaranteed the same or near similar salary, no matter what the job, then what motivates people to work up the ladder or how does a state encourage innovation?
On the other hand, is the idea of a meritocracy, where everyone has the freedom to live as they choose. But what about the people with specific or unlucky circumstances, who can’t work or can’t go to school? How do you control a laissez-fair economy from resulting in monopolies or huge corporations who aren’t responsible to citizens, the state or the environment? America’s history has seen the negative result of some of these issues in the form of robber barons in the late 19th and early 20th century and during the industrial revolution, in the form of workers having little rights.
In addition to the economic negatives to the idea of Freheit over Gleichheit are social and moral issues, like discrimination, worker’s rights, environmental damage and the poor.
It is an obvious statement to say a balance between these two “heits” is the correct answer. What no one can agree over is in which direction these balancing scales should tip.

Ireland and Zimbabwe in a greater debate

I recently read an interesting article in the International Herald Tribune, in which the writer, Alan Cowell makes an “improbable comparison” between the crisis in Zimbabwe and Ireland’s rejection of a new EU treaty for reform. His argument is that both nations display different examples of a question of how much jurisdiction, if any, international coalitions should have over the sovereignty of other countries.

Cowell writes: “The question in Ireland was whether the democratic voice of a land of 4.2 million could dictate events affecting the lives of 500 million Europeans. The question in Africa was whether an undemocratic coterie around Mugabe could defy its neighbors, its people and its own continent with complete impunity.”

Is the sovereignty of a nation the most important, or should organizations like the African Union, the European Union or the United Nations be able to force leaders of nations to give up power in their own nation based on the ideals of the rest of the world? Just how important is national sovereignty?
This topic as always interested me, particularly when looking at human rights abuses and genocides. At what point should the consciences of other nations force those nations to bound together to stop a country that is harming its people? Human rights abuses should be the core of any international coalition stepping into a particular countries’ business. However, with so many different ideologies about the role of government and the way people should live, the line often becomes to fine to draw and to blurry to lead to an agreement.
If human rights violations become the only reason for international coalitions to be able to completely overrule another country, what exactly constitutes a human rights abuse? In the case of Zimbabwe, could a completely broken economy with an inflation rate of 100,000 percent be reason enough? How much of a role should politics play? Is the lack of a free and democratic vote in Zimbabwe enough to step in? What about China, Russia or Cuba? Is one or a few countries’ dislike for another nations government system, like America’s dislike of Fidel Castro’s communism, reason enough for the whole world to get involved?
How many complaints about discrimination, whether based on ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation or religion, equal Does the situation have to be so out of hand, that only a genocide gives other countries that right? If that’s the case, as we’ve seen in the past, it is difficult to quantify a genocide for political reasons, especially during wartime.

German vs. US social system: which is broken?

America may not be the only Western first-world country with a broken social system. According to a handful of German professors, the German social system requires citizens to pay so much to the state without getting enough in return.

According to Professors Gerd Habermann and Guenther von Lojewski, the major reason for the broken system is the high rate of unemployment in Germany. However according to the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, Germany’s unemployment rate was 7.6 percent in April 2008, one of the country’s lowest levels.

Besides just the rate of unemployment, part of the “Arbeitslosigkeit” problem lies in the many benefits that the unemployed receive. Each unemployed person receives 60 percent of his or her last paycheck. If that person has children, he or she will receive 67 percent. This is per month. According to Habermann it is fairly easy for a person to simply not have a job and ride on the system.

Unemployment compensation is just one of many social help programs that Germans receive; others include monetary support for raising children, in which each person receives money per month for until the child is grown, and health insurance. All of these Sozialehilfe are financed primarily through taxes, so they become a burden on ordinary taxpayers. The amount a person pays in taxes is based on that person’s salary. The more one makes, the more taxes they pay. But everyone pays more than 50 percent of his or her salary to the state. The employer then matches and raises the amount of taxes that each employee pays.

Though unemployment contributes the problem, the largest factor seems to be that the younger generations are shrinking, while older generations are living longer. This results in an increasing need from a shrinking pool of money, a similar situation that the U.S. is facing with social security. So the “Grosse Frage” becomes should taxes or the amount of social help the government provides be shrunk?

No one knows the answer, but many Germans seem to believe that they pay too much into the system and receive too little. Professor Habermann said the U.S. had a better system because people can choose how to spend their money. However, he failed to recognize the social problems that are inherent in the American system. Though the majority of Americans live fairly well, fewer and fewer can afford everyday needs, such as health care and college-level education. When such necessities become a majority of one’s expenses, it leads to a society that will continually look for shortcuts or that will completely bypass the expense altogether. In terms of education and health, this would be disastrous for society as a whole.

On another level, the German social system is about helping everyone within society, so that those in need get a decent standard of living, something that not everyone in the U.S. is guaranteed. Anyone can see this in any American city ghetto. The German system allows everyone to be an equal competitor, especially in education and work, something the U.S. claims to do, but in reality completely ignores. Additionally, the German system will never let too large of an income gap occur between the rich and poor, a gap that is huge in the U.S.

Such a social system may put a large burden on citizens, but at least Germany’s citizens see results with free health care, great public transportation systems throughout the entire country, extremely low crime rates and low poverty rates. Germany’s social system takes care of its people while the U.S. preaches individualism which becomes an excuse to allow large corporations to reap profit off of citizens’ basic needs and a large percent of American citizens to live in poverty.

The future of journalism

I found this article on Columbia Journalism Review Web site and think it perfectly describes the changes that are going on in the media world today and the way journalists, young and old, are responding to it and are affected by it. It’s a long article, but definitely worth checking out.