Kaleidoscope March 9th, 2007 - The Journalism of Attachment
Rob Bolton, Daniel Bernal, Nikki Macmillan, Remy Kalter
As news media becomes affected by pop culture increasingly, we are starting to see a journalism of attachment, where the stories we are told become viable not because of the facts but because of the individual saying them. This can be positive, but the trend towards trash talk journalism has gained momentum and is an increasingyl worrying phenomenon.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Climate Change & Urban Sprawl - February 23rd, 2007
Kaleidoscope February 23rd, 2007 - Climate Change & Urban Sprawl
Rob Bolton, Catherine Cyr, Meghan Lenchyshyn, Remy Kalter
Climate Change is of course something we hear about constantly nowadays. But it's been such a fashionable concept to bandy about, what does it actually mean, and what tangible measures are actually being put in place to do something about this issue. As well as this, what aspects of our lives in terms of where and how we live, is actually contributing to this problem, and how can we tackle that?
Rob Bolton, Catherine Cyr, Meghan Lenchyshyn, Remy Kalter
Climate Change is of course something we hear about constantly nowadays. But it's been such a fashionable concept to bandy about, what does it actually mean, and what tangible measures are actually being put in place to do something about this issue. As well as this, what aspects of our lives in terms of where and how we live, is actually contributing to this problem, and how can we tackle that?
Slavery: a phenomenon of the past? Not really.
- Daniel Bernal
You scramble through the classifieds, find a number, make a call and an hour later, your sexual thirst is sated and your wallet is a little lighter. Except, maybe this time you’ll ask her what her story is.
It could be the story of any young women in Eastern Europe being deceived by criminals to be trafficked to the West, or the Middle East. It could also be the story of Filipino women shipped to South Korea and Hong Kong to be served as a commodity in the sex-trade market. The locations change, the story does not; it’s like a cheap soap opera being replayed with different actors, over and over again. I say it could be, because not all prostitutes are victims of trafficking, but that it is a possibility should be worrying enough.
Human trafficking is the fastest-growing illicit activity worldwide. Most trafficked people are traded for the sex industry or for forced labour at sweat shops, construction sites and agricultural fields.
The U.S. State Department’s 2006 Trafficking in Persons Report, a common cited source for human trafficking figures, reports that 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked yearly. Of these numbers around 80 percent are women and 50 percent are minors.
In terms of profit, the human trafficking industry amounts to some USD$32 billion. This figure, released in 2006 by the Organisation of Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), makes human trafficking the third most lucrative criminal undertaking, after the drug and arms trade.
As a commodity, people are quite possibly closest to the ideal product. Women can be resold over and over again. Because the “goods” are illegal, hence no regulation, they can be abused and maintained for minimal prices. Since resources are plentiful, once a women is no longer bringing in the desired profits she can be discarded and a new prospect will fill in the gap. In countries where people are desperate and fall into the trap of bogus jobs abroad, the raw materials—young, beautiful, educated girls—are in no shortage.
More numbers by Interpol tell that a single women can bring in anywhere from $75.000 to $250.000 per annum. The rest is simple math and one can easily guess why organized crime is exploiting this old source of revenue.
One problem highlighted by all parties trying to tackle human trafficking is that international law has focused on dealing with the issue as an organized crime problem. Thus, human trafficking falls under the jurisdiction of the Palermo Protocol. This protocol, adopted by the United Nations in 2000, has three specific focuses: prevention, protection and assistance of victims, and cooperation among nations to meet the aforementioned.
While these objectives were drafted undoubtedly in good will, they remain too general and don’t force countries to adopt any specific measures. Moreover, the Palermo protocol remains a tool for battling criminal activities, when the problem is much wider and in need of a more comprehensive approach.
Most resources are being put to combat the supply side of the issue, while very little is being done to curve down demand or too hold accountable those corrupted officials in host countries that make human trafficking possible.
In “The Natashas”, an inquiry into the global sex trade, Viktor Malarek, a renowned Canadian journalist, undertook the task of portraying the misery of those whose lives are taken from them, sold as commodities, while the most of us sit and let the status quo prevail.
In his book there are too many examples of how the human trafficking phenomena is not only reserved for unscrupulous criminals, but it is facilitated by corrupted or oblivious—one may wonder which of these two is worse—authorities in developed countries, the so-called “host nations.”
In Malarek’s book one can also find numerous examples of people doing exactly what it’s outlined in the introduction of these lines. Of course, most clients never go as far as asking for a story.
In these lines, I barely scratch the surface of the issue at hand. I have not even touched upon one of the key issues to tackle; the demand side of the problem. And why do I miss that? Because there is little research done on it, and few conclusive results have arisen. One thing that is clear is this is a crime that needs to be tackled from numerous angles at research isn’t available, or perhaps, it doesn’t exist.
That tells you how unprepared—even unwilling—we are to tackle the problem. After all, it’s countries like Canada that are prime host countries, and it’s the men in our societies, our fathers, brothers, sons, husbands who fuel this whole business. Maybe it’s time to ask them for a story.
You scramble through the classifieds, find a number, make a call and an hour later, your sexual thirst is sated and your wallet is a little lighter. Except, maybe this time you’ll ask her what her story is.
It could be the story of any young women in Eastern Europe being deceived by criminals to be trafficked to the West, or the Middle East. It could also be the story of Filipino women shipped to South Korea and Hong Kong to be served as a commodity in the sex-trade market. The locations change, the story does not; it’s like a cheap soap opera being replayed with different actors, over and over again. I say it could be, because not all prostitutes are victims of trafficking, but that it is a possibility should be worrying enough.
Human trafficking is the fastest-growing illicit activity worldwide. Most trafficked people are traded for the sex industry or for forced labour at sweat shops, construction sites and agricultural fields.
The U.S. State Department’s 2006 Trafficking in Persons Report, a common cited source for human trafficking figures, reports that 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked yearly. Of these numbers around 80 percent are women and 50 percent are minors.
In terms of profit, the human trafficking industry amounts to some USD$32 billion. This figure, released in 2006 by the Organisation of Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), makes human trafficking the third most lucrative criminal undertaking, after the drug and arms trade.
As a commodity, people are quite possibly closest to the ideal product. Women can be resold over and over again. Because the “goods” are illegal, hence no regulation, they can be abused and maintained for minimal prices. Since resources are plentiful, once a women is no longer bringing in the desired profits she can be discarded and a new prospect will fill in the gap. In countries where people are desperate and fall into the trap of bogus jobs abroad, the raw materials—young, beautiful, educated girls—are in no shortage.
More numbers by Interpol tell that a single women can bring in anywhere from $75.000 to $250.000 per annum. The rest is simple math and one can easily guess why organized crime is exploiting this old source of revenue.
One problem highlighted by all parties trying to tackle human trafficking is that international law has focused on dealing with the issue as an organized crime problem. Thus, human trafficking falls under the jurisdiction of the Palermo Protocol. This protocol, adopted by the United Nations in 2000, has three specific focuses: prevention, protection and assistance of victims, and cooperation among nations to meet the aforementioned.
While these objectives were drafted undoubtedly in good will, they remain too general and don’t force countries to adopt any specific measures. Moreover, the Palermo protocol remains a tool for battling criminal activities, when the problem is much wider and in need of a more comprehensive approach.
Most resources are being put to combat the supply side of the issue, while very little is being done to curve down demand or too hold accountable those corrupted officials in host countries that make human trafficking possible.
In “The Natashas”, an inquiry into the global sex trade, Viktor Malarek, a renowned Canadian journalist, undertook the task of portraying the misery of those whose lives are taken from them, sold as commodities, while the most of us sit and let the status quo prevail.
In his book there are too many examples of how the human trafficking phenomena is not only reserved for unscrupulous criminals, but it is facilitated by corrupted or oblivious—one may wonder which of these two is worse—authorities in developed countries, the so-called “host nations.”
In Malarek’s book one can also find numerous examples of people doing exactly what it’s outlined in the introduction of these lines. Of course, most clients never go as far as asking for a story.
In these lines, I barely scratch the surface of the issue at hand. I have not even touched upon one of the key issues to tackle; the demand side of the problem. And why do I miss that? Because there is little research done on it, and few conclusive results have arisen. One thing that is clear is this is a crime that needs to be tackled from numerous angles at research isn’t available, or perhaps, it doesn’t exist.
That tells you how unprepared—even unwilling—we are to tackle the problem. After all, it’s countries like Canada that are prime host countries, and it’s the men in our societies, our fathers, brothers, sons, husbands who fuel this whole business. Maybe it’s time to ask them for a story.
Microsoft does Terminator:Hasta la Vista User Control
- Daniel Bernal
Wow? Is it about: Wow, this looks incredibly like Apple OS X? Or more like, Wow, you really can’t get it right?
Let’s decode “wow”. And I'm not referring to the acronym one uses to refer to World of Warcraft—a game said to take over your life. The little palindrome “wow” works as an interjection and expresses a feeling of strong surprise. The three letter word has been springing up all over our city (haven’t you seen it at the subway stops?) thanks to Microsoft’s marketing team who have decided “wow” is what better describes their new operating system: Windows Vista.
Vista was released on January 30 to the general public and is set to distance itself from its predecessor, Windows XP, by its elegant looks and improved security and has been dubbed my Microsoft as the most exciting OS since Windows 95. Yes, the looks, even if sometimes very similar to those long enjoyed by Mac users, are nice. However, such attractiveness comes at a cost. Most PC users won’t be able to simply upgrade to Vista, because the fancy graphics demand a lot of internal power in the form of hardware. According to research done by SoftChoice, an IT consultancy group, only 6 percent of all corporate PCs are ready to handle Vista requirements.
But, the problems don’t only come with its appearance. More troubling is what hides beneath gorgeous façade, the End-User License Agreement (EULA) or fine black print to which users usually click “agree” without even reading it.
“Vista's legal fine print includes extensive provisions granting Microsoft the right to regularly check the legitimacy of the software and holds the prospect of deleting certain programs without the user's knowledge,” says Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa and technology columnist for the Toronto Star. And this is only the beginning.
According to research done by Peter Guttman, a computer scientist at the University of Auckland, Microsoft added a series of limitations to Vista in order to serve the movie industry’s interests. In his paper “A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection,” Guttman tells us about how new DVD technologies such as Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, which are mostly about better image quality, the picture will be downgraded because Vista will not allow to play the new format because most computer monitors aren’t licensed to play such content.
Vista’s EULA cautions the user that Windows Defender, the anti-virus that protects the system from spyware, adware and other threats, will automatically delete certain software that it somewhat arbitrarily classifies as harmful. As a result some software wanted by the user could malfunction or be permanently removed from the PC.
Microsoft’s new OS sells in five different categories: home basic, home premium, business, enterprise and ultimate. The cheapest version, which comes as an upgrade can set you back $129, while the “ultimate” experience will cost $499.
If you don’t want to spend much money you’ll have to expect even more limitations. The EULA of the home basic and home premium versions doesn’t allow users to use Vista “virtually,” which means they won’t be able to run Vista on Macs, or have multiple sessions of Vista running at the same time.
But ultimately, why should we care about Microsoft’s user agreements? According to OneStat and Net Applications, both Internet research companies, Microsoft controls more than 85 percent of the operating system market share. As PCs are starting to sell with pre-installed packages of Vista, this new EULA will take over and with that will go a lot of user’s liberty and privacy.
There’s no arguing the important role of computers in our everyday life. According to the Computer Industry Almanac there were 822.15 million PCs in use in 2005. If global distribution of these figures was equal, that would mean one PC for every eight people.
IDC, a leading IT market analyst, estimates the PC manufacturers will ship 257.1 new units into the market in 2007. The growth of the market is calculated just above 10% and is set to remain at that rate thanks to great demand by emerging markets such as China, India and Russia, and the slowing demand in other saturated markets such as Europe and the United States.
With corporations like Microsoft writing their user agreements in a manner that benefits the content providers and not the consumer, it’s very important that the user keeps control of what goes on in their PCs. As PCs perform more of our daily tasks and are used by more people, we should be wowing about the loss of control over our desktops, rather than to stare open-mouthed at the sleek graphics of Vista.
Wow? Is it about: Wow, this looks incredibly like Apple OS X? Or more like, Wow, you really can’t get it right?
Let’s decode “wow”. And I'm not referring to the acronym one uses to refer to World of Warcraft—a game said to take over your life. The little palindrome “wow” works as an interjection and expresses a feeling of strong surprise. The three letter word has been springing up all over our city (haven’t you seen it at the subway stops?) thanks to Microsoft’s marketing team who have decided “wow” is what better describes their new operating system: Windows Vista.
Vista was released on January 30 to the general public and is set to distance itself from its predecessor, Windows XP, by its elegant looks and improved security and has been dubbed my Microsoft as the most exciting OS since Windows 95. Yes, the looks, even if sometimes very similar to those long enjoyed by Mac users, are nice. However, such attractiveness comes at a cost. Most PC users won’t be able to simply upgrade to Vista, because the fancy graphics demand a lot of internal power in the form of hardware. According to research done by SoftChoice, an IT consultancy group, only 6 percent of all corporate PCs are ready to handle Vista requirements.
But, the problems don’t only come with its appearance. More troubling is what hides beneath gorgeous façade, the End-User License Agreement (EULA) or fine black print to which users usually click “agree” without even reading it.
“Vista's legal fine print includes extensive provisions granting Microsoft the right to regularly check the legitimacy of the software and holds the prospect of deleting certain programs without the user's knowledge,” says Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa and technology columnist for the Toronto Star. And this is only the beginning.
According to research done by Peter Guttman, a computer scientist at the University of Auckland, Microsoft added a series of limitations to Vista in order to serve the movie industry’s interests. In his paper “A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection,” Guttman tells us about how new DVD technologies such as Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, which are mostly about better image quality, the picture will be downgraded because Vista will not allow to play the new format because most computer monitors aren’t licensed to play such content.
Vista’s EULA cautions the user that Windows Defender, the anti-virus that protects the system from spyware, adware and other threats, will automatically delete certain software that it somewhat arbitrarily classifies as harmful. As a result some software wanted by the user could malfunction or be permanently removed from the PC.
Microsoft’s new OS sells in five different categories: home basic, home premium, business, enterprise and ultimate. The cheapest version, which comes as an upgrade can set you back $129, while the “ultimate” experience will cost $499.
If you don’t want to spend much money you’ll have to expect even more limitations. The EULA of the home basic and home premium versions doesn’t allow users to use Vista “virtually,” which means they won’t be able to run Vista on Macs, or have multiple sessions of Vista running at the same time.
But ultimately, why should we care about Microsoft’s user agreements? According to OneStat and Net Applications, both Internet research companies, Microsoft controls more than 85 percent of the operating system market share. As PCs are starting to sell with pre-installed packages of Vista, this new EULA will take over and with that will go a lot of user’s liberty and privacy.
There’s no arguing the important role of computers in our everyday life. According to the Computer Industry Almanac there were 822.15 million PCs in use in 2005. If global distribution of these figures was equal, that would mean one PC for every eight people.
IDC, a leading IT market analyst, estimates the PC manufacturers will ship 257.1 new units into the market in 2007. The growth of the market is calculated just above 10% and is set to remain at that rate thanks to great demand by emerging markets such as China, India and Russia, and the slowing demand in other saturated markets such as Europe and the United States.
With corporations like Microsoft writing their user agreements in a manner that benefits the content providers and not the consumer, it’s very important that the user keeps control of what goes on in their PCs. As PCs perform more of our daily tasks and are used by more people, we should be wowing about the loss of control over our desktops, rather than to stare open-mouthed at the sleek graphics of Vista.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Diamonds Are a Warlords Best Friend
- Meghan Lenchyshyn
Leonardo DiCaprio’s 2006 blockbuster hit “Blood Diamond,” like many films of its ilk, has raised the awareness of the general population to a fading memory in the international community, in this case, that of conflict diamonds. The term “blood” or “conflict” diamond is used to describe diamonds that are mined in war zones and sold typically to finance the war effort of an insurgent army. These clashes cause much insecurity in diamond-rich African countries and though much of the international community believes the problem to be under control, current statistics prove otherwise.
The mining of conflict diamonds has occurred predominantly in the nations of Angola, Sierra Leone, the Ivory Coast, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). It has occurred both during times of war, and has been a chief contributor and aggravator of violence.
In Angola, diamonds were used during civil war as a means of funding the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola, and the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola. Sierra Leone, is perhaps the most publicized example of atrocities committed in regards to this illicit trade, and it tells a similar story to that of Angola, with the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) funded in part by the diamond trade in their attempts to overthrow the government. Children and adults alike had their hands chopped off by RUF rebels and were often taken prisoner and forced to work as slaves in the mining camps. Another disturbing trend that became publicized in this conflict is that of child soldiers that were trained to kill and forced to become RUF soldiers.
Civil war in both Angola and Sierra Leone has since ceased, and both countries are said to be legitimate members of the diamond trade, however problems continue to persist in the Ivory Coast, where civil war is still occurring. The Ivory Coast is used and seen as a valuable route for exporting rough diamonds from Liberia to Sierra Leone.
Rebel forces take advantage of the high demand for diamonds by traders and consumers in the United States, United Kingdom, and Western Europe. Insurgent forces require money in order to purchase weapons and ammunition to further their cause, and the illicit trading of diamonds provides these factions with the revenue to finance their operations. Indeed, chief arms suppliers, such as the Germans, Russian and Chinese, are complicit with this trade, most notably the latter.
This same trade has also been used to fund organizations outside of Africa, and alleged links with Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda persist. Hezbollah has reportedly used Lebanese presence in western and central Africa in order to finance its operations. As well, there is much speculation that money laundered from diamond trading helped al-Qaeda fund the 9/11 attacks after many of their assets were frozen. It is alleged that Osama Bin laden focused Al-Qaeda’s activities in Liberia, and bought diamonds and other gems from Liberia and RUF rebels in Sierra Leone. Global Witness reports that Al-Qaeda laundered an estimated twenty million dollars through the purchase of African diamonds - both the Liberian government and Al-Qaeda unswervingly deny these allegations.
There have been procedures implemented to prevent the perpetuation of conflict through diamond trading, and in 2002, the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) had forty-five signatories attach themselves to the program. The KPCS states that all diamonds must have an authentic certificate of origin, in order to be able to distinguish legitimate diamonds from conflict diamonds. This certification also assures diamond purchasers that they have not contributed to the violence. There is also legislation in place outlining penalties such as criminal charges for countries violating the KPCS.
While the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme is indeed a step in the right direction in eliminating conflict diamonds from entering the international market, the question of how successful and therefore effective it has been remains very much up for debate. The KPCS has reduced though in no way eliminated the trade in conflict diamonds. Global Witness states that the diamond industry is falsely claiming the problem has been solved with the KPCS however, once a diamond is on the market, it is difficult, if not impossible, to trace its origin. A report released by the United Nations in September 2006 exhibits the ways in which weak government controls have allowed twenty-three million US dollars in conflict diamonds to enter trade through Ghana annually.
While many African countries that were formerly problematic have since entered the realm of legitimate diamond trading and production, there is still a large portion of trading being done illicitly by rebel forces in both the DRC and the Ivory Coast. Many of these diamonds, like much legal trade, find their way into the market through traditional colonial trade routes and networks, and perhaps it is these avenues that need to be concentrated on to further stfle the industry.
Consumers can do their part by ensuring the place they get their diamonds from has a set, clear policy on conflict diamonds. As well, purchasing conflict-free diamonds that have been domestically produced (as in Canada) is another way of helping to ensure that unwitting buyers are not contributing to the problem. Governments, non-governmental organizations, diamond traders, and civil society must all play a role in efforts to help end the trading of conflict diamonds.
Leonardo DiCaprio’s 2006 blockbuster hit “Blood Diamond,” like many films of its ilk, has raised the awareness of the general population to a fading memory in the international community, in this case, that of conflict diamonds. The term “blood” or “conflict” diamond is used to describe diamonds that are mined in war zones and sold typically to finance the war effort of an insurgent army. These clashes cause much insecurity in diamond-rich African countries and though much of the international community believes the problem to be under control, current statistics prove otherwise.
The mining of conflict diamonds has occurred predominantly in the nations of Angola, Sierra Leone, the Ivory Coast, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). It has occurred both during times of war, and has been a chief contributor and aggravator of violence.
In Angola, diamonds were used during civil war as a means of funding the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola, and the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola. Sierra Leone, is perhaps the most publicized example of atrocities committed in regards to this illicit trade, and it tells a similar story to that of Angola, with the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) funded in part by the diamond trade in their attempts to overthrow the government. Children and adults alike had their hands chopped off by RUF rebels and were often taken prisoner and forced to work as slaves in the mining camps. Another disturbing trend that became publicized in this conflict is that of child soldiers that were trained to kill and forced to become RUF soldiers.
Civil war in both Angola and Sierra Leone has since ceased, and both countries are said to be legitimate members of the diamond trade, however problems continue to persist in the Ivory Coast, where civil war is still occurring. The Ivory Coast is used and seen as a valuable route for exporting rough diamonds from Liberia to Sierra Leone.
Rebel forces take advantage of the high demand for diamonds by traders and consumers in the United States, United Kingdom, and Western Europe. Insurgent forces require money in order to purchase weapons and ammunition to further their cause, and the illicit trading of diamonds provides these factions with the revenue to finance their operations. Indeed, chief arms suppliers, such as the Germans, Russian and Chinese, are complicit with this trade, most notably the latter.
This same trade has also been used to fund organizations outside of Africa, and alleged links with Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda persist. Hezbollah has reportedly used Lebanese presence in western and central Africa in order to finance its operations. As well, there is much speculation that money laundered from diamond trading helped al-Qaeda fund the 9/11 attacks after many of their assets were frozen. It is alleged that Osama Bin laden focused Al-Qaeda’s activities in Liberia, and bought diamonds and other gems from Liberia and RUF rebels in Sierra Leone. Global Witness reports that Al-Qaeda laundered an estimated twenty million dollars through the purchase of African diamonds - both the Liberian government and Al-Qaeda unswervingly deny these allegations.
There have been procedures implemented to prevent the perpetuation of conflict through diamond trading, and in 2002, the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) had forty-five signatories attach themselves to the program. The KPCS states that all diamonds must have an authentic certificate of origin, in order to be able to distinguish legitimate diamonds from conflict diamonds. This certification also assures diamond purchasers that they have not contributed to the violence. There is also legislation in place outlining penalties such as criminal charges for countries violating the KPCS.
While the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme is indeed a step in the right direction in eliminating conflict diamonds from entering the international market, the question of how successful and therefore effective it has been remains very much up for debate. The KPCS has reduced though in no way eliminated the trade in conflict diamonds. Global Witness states that the diamond industry is falsely claiming the problem has been solved with the KPCS however, once a diamond is on the market, it is difficult, if not impossible, to trace its origin. A report released by the United Nations in September 2006 exhibits the ways in which weak government controls have allowed twenty-three million US dollars in conflict diamonds to enter trade through Ghana annually.
While many African countries that were formerly problematic have since entered the realm of legitimate diamond trading and production, there is still a large portion of trading being done illicitly by rebel forces in both the DRC and the Ivory Coast. Many of these diamonds, like much legal trade, find their way into the market through traditional colonial trade routes and networks, and perhaps it is these avenues that need to be concentrated on to further stfle the industry.
Consumers can do their part by ensuring the place they get their diamonds from has a set, clear policy on conflict diamonds. As well, purchasing conflict-free diamonds that have been domestically produced (as in Canada) is another way of helping to ensure that unwitting buyers are not contributing to the problem. Governments, non-governmental organizations, diamond traders, and civil society must all play a role in efforts to help end the trading of conflict diamonds.
From Miami to Cuba: Cuban Relations After Castro
- Vanessa Johnston
The Cuban exile community in the United States often long for their beloved island and culture that they were forced to flee. Despite their best efforts, they were unable to recreate this in their new homes on the south coast of the United States. They remember the beauty, their families, and those famous dance rhythms made popular around the globe, amongst other things. Miami is now replete with families whose lives were thrown into turmoil by Castro’s 1959 revolution and who, from time to time, fantasize about returning to the small island just 228 miles away. Their memories however, belie the current reality and with recent questions arising in regards to Castro’s health, the exile community must now face seriously consider whether or not relations between the severed populations, whose politics differ but who share a love of the same country, can mend after the elder Castro’s reign.
Since Fidel Castro’s Cuba defeated the U.S. invasion at the Bay of Pigs in 1960, Miami and Cuba have become settled in the post-revolution era. Exiles have defiantly condemned Castro’s vision and fervently supported the U.S. embargo on the communist state, while those remaining on the island have just as firmly supported their leader, 70% of whom today have known no other.
No event could have defined this feud more than the 1996 custody battle over Elian Gonzales, a young Cuban boy who miraculously washed-up on the shores of Miami, having survived the treacherous journey overseas when most of the others, including his mother, hadn‘t. His fate, whether or not he’d be returned to Cuba, became a symbol of political ideals- and the fact that he was eventually returned to his father back home, was regarded as a major victory for Fidel.
When Fidel overthrew General Fulgencio Batista’s government, his first victory, it was premised on the notion that Cuba would no longer be subject to American imperialism, a force that has devastated countries throughout Latin America. His fan club, including fellow foe of the United States, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, commend him for his brave efforts to defend his country and for successfully providing free education and health care to his people, something not even the U.S. has managed to do. However, a revolution that began with a noble purpose has soured over time; freedom of the press is essentially non-existent and poverty is so rampant that many are forced to turn to the black market or to risk their life crossing the dangerous waters to the U.S. border.
A seasoned 80 years old, Fidel Castro is currently recuperating from surgery he underwent in July to stop intestinal bleeding. Since the announcement of his illness and subsequent transfer of power to his brother Raul Castro, the state of the long-standing leader’s health has been kept a state secret. While U.S. leaders feverishly speculate about his health status, especially since he failed to appear for his 80th birthday festivities, Cuban exiles in Miami are unsurprisingly celebratory. Although there are no concrete answers about Cuba’s future, they at least appreciate that the man who is responsible for dividing their families and driving them from their homeland has, at best, limited days left in power.
For the long estranged Cuban exile community, the opportunity to return to Cuba, if only to visit, must seem tantalizingly close. However the reunion between Miami-based Cubans and Cubans living on the island is unlikely to be a smooth one; some Cubans have expressed fears that rich inhabitants of Miami will take-over or attempt to regain the land they lost during the revolution. And although the transition of power has gone over quietly in Cuba, the exile community seriously doubts that the Raul Castro-led administration can survive without Fidel.
Will Cuba shed its communist ideals and turn its back on a revolution that has failed to provide economic stability or will it continue to fight for Castro’s anti-capitalist, anti-American vision? While that remains to be seen, one thing is certain: half a century of fighting between the exile community and Cuba’s denizens has had dire consequences for relations among Cubans. The psychological wounds of such a long and bitter separation will be hard to heal, and the hopes of nostalgic exiles that Cuba will be exactly as they remembered are fragile- for Castro’s revolution has forever changed Cuba and the divided families who love it.
The Cuban exile community in the United States often long for their beloved island and culture that they were forced to flee. Despite their best efforts, they were unable to recreate this in their new homes on the south coast of the United States. They remember the beauty, their families, and those famous dance rhythms made popular around the globe, amongst other things. Miami is now replete with families whose lives were thrown into turmoil by Castro’s 1959 revolution and who, from time to time, fantasize about returning to the small island just 228 miles away. Their memories however, belie the current reality and with recent questions arising in regards to Castro’s health, the exile community must now face seriously consider whether or not relations between the severed populations, whose politics differ but who share a love of the same country, can mend after the elder Castro’s reign.
Since Fidel Castro’s Cuba defeated the U.S. invasion at the Bay of Pigs in 1960, Miami and Cuba have become settled in the post-revolution era. Exiles have defiantly condemned Castro’s vision and fervently supported the U.S. embargo on the communist state, while those remaining on the island have just as firmly supported their leader, 70% of whom today have known no other.
No event could have defined this feud more than the 1996 custody battle over Elian Gonzales, a young Cuban boy who miraculously washed-up on the shores of Miami, having survived the treacherous journey overseas when most of the others, including his mother, hadn‘t. His fate, whether or not he’d be returned to Cuba, became a symbol of political ideals- and the fact that he was eventually returned to his father back home, was regarded as a major victory for Fidel.
When Fidel overthrew General Fulgencio Batista’s government, his first victory, it was premised on the notion that Cuba would no longer be subject to American imperialism, a force that has devastated countries throughout Latin America. His fan club, including fellow foe of the United States, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, commend him for his brave efforts to defend his country and for successfully providing free education and health care to his people, something not even the U.S. has managed to do. However, a revolution that began with a noble purpose has soured over time; freedom of the press is essentially non-existent and poverty is so rampant that many are forced to turn to the black market or to risk their life crossing the dangerous waters to the U.S. border.
A seasoned 80 years old, Fidel Castro is currently recuperating from surgery he underwent in July to stop intestinal bleeding. Since the announcement of his illness and subsequent transfer of power to his brother Raul Castro, the state of the long-standing leader’s health has been kept a state secret. While U.S. leaders feverishly speculate about his health status, especially since he failed to appear for his 80th birthday festivities, Cuban exiles in Miami are unsurprisingly celebratory. Although there are no concrete answers about Cuba’s future, they at least appreciate that the man who is responsible for dividing their families and driving them from their homeland has, at best, limited days left in power.
For the long estranged Cuban exile community, the opportunity to return to Cuba, if only to visit, must seem tantalizingly close. However the reunion between Miami-based Cubans and Cubans living on the island is unlikely to be a smooth one; some Cubans have expressed fears that rich inhabitants of Miami will take-over or attempt to regain the land they lost during the revolution. And although the transition of power has gone over quietly in Cuba, the exile community seriously doubts that the Raul Castro-led administration can survive without Fidel.
Will Cuba shed its communist ideals and turn its back on a revolution that has failed to provide economic stability or will it continue to fight for Castro’s anti-capitalist, anti-American vision? While that remains to be seen, one thing is certain: half a century of fighting between the exile community and Cuba’s denizens has had dire consequences for relations among Cubans. The psychological wounds of such a long and bitter separation will be hard to heal, and the hopes of nostalgic exiles that Cuba will be exactly as they remembered are fragile- for Castro’s revolution has forever changed Cuba and the divided families who love it.
Chavez and Ahmedinajad: An Unlikely Alliance?
- Meghan Lenchyshyn
With tensions continuing to grow in virtually ever corner of the Middle East, it is not surprising that leaders of countries in this part of the world might begin to look elsewhere for new alliances and trading partners. Anti-American sentiment is as strong as ever and with it comes the desire to disassociate from all things American. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad has been vocally doing just that, perpetuated by his choice of alliances. As of late, Ahmedinajad has allied himself with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in an attempt to further polarize Iran and Venezuela, as well as other developing nations of the world, from what they perceive as the American imperialist agenda.
Recently, Iran’s political leader embarked upon a four day Latin American tour. During this tour, Ahmedinajad and Chavez agreed to contribute billions of dollars in order to help other countries free themselves from “US domination.” Chavez states that the fund is a “mechanism for liberation”, allowing Tehran and Caracas to “underpin investments above all in those countries whose governments are making an effort to liberate themselves from the US imperialist yoke”. In addition, both leaders have called for OPEC to cut oil production as a means of supporting falling crude oil prices.
Ahmedinajad stated that “Tehran and Caracas have the task of promoting revolutionary thought in the world” and Iran is attempting to demonstrate to the international community that it has support from other nations. Engaging other nations, especially Latin American countries as well as those in opposition to the United States, has always been part of Chavez’s agenda, and this newly formed alliance with Ahmedinajad can be viewed as a step towards no longer having to rely on the United States and the West.
So what, then, does this friendship mean for the United States? Chavez has openly and, might I add very outspokenly, stated his unabashed support for Iran’s nuclear program. By allying himself with Ahmedinajad, Chavez is essentially placing Iran in America’s backyard. Clear correlations can be drawn between the Castro-Krushchev relationship of the 1960’s, and the current Iran-Venezuela alliance, and serve to revive polarizing tensions. This is very much a case of the enemies of the United States utilizing that same weapon of absolutism as does the current US administration. While neither are really a menace to the well being of the US, they factor into an overall climate of insecurity.
At the end of the day, what we have is two revolutionaries blowing hot air. Neither country has any real belief that they can remove the US or the West from power, they seek merely to place themselves in direct opposition to the US, gain legitimacy as advocates of change in the Third World, and thus can no longer be pushed around in the international arena. And, after the Iraqi misadventure, can you blame them?
With tensions continuing to grow in virtually ever corner of the Middle East, it is not surprising that leaders of countries in this part of the world might begin to look elsewhere for new alliances and trading partners. Anti-American sentiment is as strong as ever and with it comes the desire to disassociate from all things American. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad has been vocally doing just that, perpetuated by his choice of alliances. As of late, Ahmedinajad has allied himself with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in an attempt to further polarize Iran and Venezuela, as well as other developing nations of the world, from what they perceive as the American imperialist agenda.
Recently, Iran’s political leader embarked upon a four day Latin American tour. During this tour, Ahmedinajad and Chavez agreed to contribute billions of dollars in order to help other countries free themselves from “US domination.” Chavez states that the fund is a “mechanism for liberation”, allowing Tehran and Caracas to “underpin investments above all in those countries whose governments are making an effort to liberate themselves from the US imperialist yoke”. In addition, both leaders have called for OPEC to cut oil production as a means of supporting falling crude oil prices.
Ahmedinajad stated that “Tehran and Caracas have the task of promoting revolutionary thought in the world” and Iran is attempting to demonstrate to the international community that it has support from other nations. Engaging other nations, especially Latin American countries as well as those in opposition to the United States, has always been part of Chavez’s agenda, and this newly formed alliance with Ahmedinajad can be viewed as a step towards no longer having to rely on the United States and the West.
So what, then, does this friendship mean for the United States? Chavez has openly and, might I add very outspokenly, stated his unabashed support for Iran’s nuclear program. By allying himself with Ahmedinajad, Chavez is essentially placing Iran in America’s backyard. Clear correlations can be drawn between the Castro-Krushchev relationship of the 1960’s, and the current Iran-Venezuela alliance, and serve to revive polarizing tensions. This is very much a case of the enemies of the United States utilizing that same weapon of absolutism as does the current US administration. While neither are really a menace to the well being of the US, they factor into an overall climate of insecurity.
At the end of the day, what we have is two revolutionaries blowing hot air. Neither country has any real belief that they can remove the US or the West from power, they seek merely to place themselves in direct opposition to the US, gain legitimacy as advocates of change in the Third World, and thus can no longer be pushed around in the international arena. And, after the Iraqi misadventure, can you blame them?
Monday, January 1, 2007
The Internet & Net Neutrality - Time to Pay Attention
- Daniel Bernal
It’s been a year and a half since the Net Neutrality (NN) trumpets started blowing. In the summer of 2005, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – our southern-neighbours version of the Canada Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) – decided to drop the regulations regarding NN, opting instead for “suggested principles.” The monopolists (The Bell Globe Media’s and AT&T’s) lobbying paid off. Back in 2002, cable providers fared similarly. The argument put forward is that older regulations were obsolete for new technologies, and thus the principle of Net Neutrality was dropped. This was the start of what could be called “the two-tiered internet paranoia,” and showed that the fear of ISP content regulation had become very much a reality.
Advocates of NN in the United States, mostly all under the banner of the organization Save the Internet.com, started fighting to bring the standards back, while the other side claimed regulation was pointless. And so we’ve lived the last year and a half in the midst of uncertainty while the US Congress argued about the future of the net.
In Canada, apart from our gullibility and apparent apathy about the huge issue of monopolies regulating the Internet, the situation isn’t much different.
What is interesting about the American NN scene is that their advocacy campaigns consistently cite NN violations that have occurred in Canada. ISPs north of the border have already played around with our (the consumer’s) data-packets to serve their interests.
In 2005, during a Telus Workers Union strike, the company decided to block its users from access to pro-union websites, or sites hosted o the same server. Not only did this action directly affect the organization of the Union but harmed businesses at the same location.
Many ISPs are also the biggest phone companies in the country. The emergence of Voice over IP (VoIP) telephony technologies has bothered traditional phone companies. As such, VoIP service providers such as Skype or Vonage, enterprises that could have only arises thanks to neutrality of the net and faster speeds, are facing increasing barriers.
Shaw cable has allocated a portion of its bandwith specifically to its own VoIP service under the label of a “managed network.” They have also introduced “quality of service” fees, whereby the costumer is asked to pay an additional $10 to ensure the connection is stable enough to carry out VoIP activities. Such fees are nothing but coercion from the provider, in this case Shaw, to force the consumer to pay an extra $10 or use Shaw’s VoIP service.
Interestingly enough, both advocates for and against net neutrality word their campaigns as a fight for democracy and the freedom of the marketplace. The question one should naturally ask is whose democracy and whose freedom?
Those against the cause, such as U.S. Republican Senator for South Carolina Jim DeMint, say that NN just means government regulation would stop Cable and telephone companies to operate in a fair field of competition, forcing them to abandon their investment in the infrastructure that would offer the consumer the service it’s asking for.
On the other hand, Lawrence Lessig, law professor at Stanford and founder of the school’s Center for Internet and Democracy, tells us that the debate is about “the internet starting to look a lot like cable companies (…) where a few players would control access and distribution of content.”
Art Brodsky, who works for Public Knowledge, a Washington D.C. based group that works on telecommunications and intellectual property issues, explains that the cable and telephone operators have framed the NN argument in terms of big players like them fighting against big internet companies like Yahoo or Google. However, he assures us that the fight is not about that. It is about the next Google or Yahoo, and ensuring the start-ups have the opportunity to take a chunk of the market and grow with it.
Background & Research
Save The Internet
A Guide to Net Neutrality for Google Users
Battle over "Net Neutrality" arrives in Canada (CBC) - Nov 2, 2006
What is Net Neutrality? (YouTube)
Keeping the Net Neutral
It’s been a year and a half since the Net Neutrality (NN) trumpets started blowing. In the summer of 2005, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – our southern-neighbours version of the Canada Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) – decided to drop the regulations regarding NN, opting instead for “suggested principles.” The monopolists (The Bell Globe Media’s and AT&T’s) lobbying paid off. Back in 2002, cable providers fared similarly. The argument put forward is that older regulations were obsolete for new technologies, and thus the principle of Net Neutrality was dropped. This was the start of what could be called “the two-tiered internet paranoia,” and showed that the fear of ISP content regulation had become very much a reality.
Advocates of NN in the United States, mostly all under the banner of the organization Save the Internet.com, started fighting to bring the standards back, while the other side claimed regulation was pointless. And so we’ve lived the last year and a half in the midst of uncertainty while the US Congress argued about the future of the net.
In Canada, apart from our gullibility and apparent apathy about the huge issue of monopolies regulating the Internet, the situation isn’t much different.
What is interesting about the American NN scene is that their advocacy campaigns consistently cite NN violations that have occurred in Canada. ISPs north of the border have already played around with our (the consumer’s) data-packets to serve their interests.
In 2005, during a Telus Workers Union strike, the company decided to block its users from access to pro-union websites, or sites hosted o the same server. Not only did this action directly affect the organization of the Union but harmed businesses at the same location.
Many ISPs are also the biggest phone companies in the country. The emergence of Voice over IP (VoIP) telephony technologies has bothered traditional phone companies. As such, VoIP service providers such as Skype or Vonage, enterprises that could have only arises thanks to neutrality of the net and faster speeds, are facing increasing barriers.
Shaw cable has allocated a portion of its bandwith specifically to its own VoIP service under the label of a “managed network.” They have also introduced “quality of service” fees, whereby the costumer is asked to pay an additional $10 to ensure the connection is stable enough to carry out VoIP activities. Such fees are nothing but coercion from the provider, in this case Shaw, to force the consumer to pay an extra $10 or use Shaw’s VoIP service.
Interestingly enough, both advocates for and against net neutrality word their campaigns as a fight for democracy and the freedom of the marketplace. The question one should naturally ask is whose democracy and whose freedom?
Those against the cause, such as U.S. Republican Senator for South Carolina Jim DeMint, say that NN just means government regulation would stop Cable and telephone companies to operate in a fair field of competition, forcing them to abandon their investment in the infrastructure that would offer the consumer the service it’s asking for.
On the other hand, Lawrence Lessig, law professor at Stanford and founder of the school’s Center for Internet and Democracy, tells us that the debate is about “the internet starting to look a lot like cable companies (…) where a few players would control access and distribution of content.”
Art Brodsky, who works for Public Knowledge, a Washington D.C. based group that works on telecommunications and intellectual property issues, explains that the cable and telephone operators have framed the NN argument in terms of big players like them fighting against big internet companies like Yahoo or Google. However, he assures us that the fight is not about that. It is about the next Google or Yahoo, and ensuring the start-ups have the opportunity to take a chunk of the market and grow with it.
Background & Research
Save The Internet
A Guide to Net Neutrality for Google Users
Battle over "Net Neutrality" arrives in Canada (CBC) - Nov 2, 2006
What is Net Neutrality? (YouTube)
Keeping the Net Neutral
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Turkey & the EU - December 29th, 2006
Kaleidoscope December 29th, 2006 - Turkey & the EU
Rob Bolton, Vanessa Johnston, Remy Kalter
Turkey's accession to the EU has been a hot topic of debate in recent times. Recently, due to the two parties inability to reach a consensus (something the EU manages to achieve on just about any topic), the talks have reached an impasse. Much of the debate surrounds Turkish-Cypriot relations, and this has led to the EU preventing any further discussion on 8 of the 35 chapters of negotiations. In this show, we look into the reasons for all the controversy, as well as the benefits for each of the parties invovled. Included in this show is an interview with 4 members of the group behind the Turkey symposium, a program that is part of the International Studies curriculum with Glendon.
Rob Bolton, Vanessa Johnston, Remy Kalter
Turkey's accession to the EU has been a hot topic of debate in recent times. Recently, due to the two parties inability to reach a consensus (something the EU manages to achieve on just about any topic), the talks have reached an impasse. Much of the debate surrounds Turkish-Cypriot relations, and this has led to the EU preventing any further discussion on 8 of the 35 chapters of negotiations. In this show, we look into the reasons for all the controversy, as well as the benefits for each of the parties invovled. Included in this show is an interview with 4 members of the group behind the Turkey symposium, a program that is part of the International Studies curriculum with Glendon.
Net Neutrality - December 15th, 2006
Kaleidoscope December 15th, 2006 - Net Neutrality
Rob Bolton, Daniel Bernal, Remy Kalter
The question as to who controls the internet is one that is perhaps not asked as often as it should. In truth, no one owns the internet per se, but when barriers arise due to the ownership patterns that control access to it, then questions arise about what we can and cannot access. Currently, there is legsislaton passing, slowly, through the US congress. Should the internet be regulated by the government, or regulate itself by the market? This could mark a profound change in the way we interact with this new media.
Rob Bolton, Daniel Bernal, Remy Kalter
The question as to who controls the internet is one that is perhaps not asked as often as it should. In truth, no one owns the internet per se, but when barriers arise due to the ownership patterns that control access to it, then questions arise about what we can and cannot access. Currently, there is legsislaton passing, slowly, through the US congress. Should the internet be regulated by the government, or regulate itself by the market? This could mark a profound change in the way we interact with this new media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)