North Korean Nuclear Report

In meeting with the new South Korean president Lee Myung-bak, President Bush denied suggestions that his administration has been too lenient on the North Korean government and the military dictator Kim il-Yung in forcing them to declare their nuclear facilities. In declaring their nuclear facilities and various power plant and uranium enrichment centers, North Korea will give the international community information about where they exist and how many there are in the country. It will also pave the way for a comprehensive and detailed explanation of how these nuclear power plants operate and what their intentions are for this reactivated nuclear program. The established deadline for that declaration ended last year and the agreements that were paired with that declaration are now part of an uncertain, unprogressive aura that has seemed to stagnate any immediate action or plan to stop North Korea’s secret nuclear program.

President Bush is receiving criticism because of the possibility that he is predisposed to accepting a half-hearted and misleading declaration from North Korea. As a majoritarian foreign policy matter, public opinion is inclined to place the president as the dominant figure. Currently, public opinion generally disagrees with President Bush’s foreign policies, especially concerning this issue that deals directly with America’s homeland security. The majority of the public finds the president incompetent. They believe that he is not handling the situation with the assertion and the decisiveness necessary to disable North Korea’s nuclear reactors. President Bush stands firm that his administration will make a judgment on what appropriate diplomacy should take place based on whether or not North Korea has met its obligations to the international community in terms of destabilizing its entire nuclear program, including all of the nuclear reactors and facilities that are currently stated as “not operating”.

The National Security Council has agreed to lessen demands that have an unnecessary negative effect upon a potentially new negotiated settlement with North Korea. Furthermore, the Asian Affairs committee within the National Security Council has agreed for a separate negotiation to take place apart from last year’s agreement and this new negotiation will involve only the United States and North Korea. However, within the context of this negotiation, President Bush and his advisors are giving North Korea more time to make their declaration, although the administration has not specifically stated how much time they are actually planning to grant. President Bush and his conservative supporters within the executive and legislative branches do know that they will not allow “under any circumstances” North Korea to possess nuclear weapons. They also clearly state that a negotiated settlement is the most effective way in ridding North Korea of nuclear arsenals.

North Korea tested a nuclear bomb in 2006 and it is believed that they have the technology and the materials to produce several more major nuclear bombs. Immediately after the North Korean testing, the United Nations imposed numerous sanctions on North Korea as a way to punish the country for going against orders made within the Security Council and Resolution 1695 was drafted. North Korea seems to be relatively more defiant than the United States anticipated, but the United States and other allied countries are perhaps even more determined to keep North Korea from attaining potentially powerful nuclear arsenals.

Worlds in Collision~Tibetans and the Chinese

Farmers in Tibet find themselves subjugated by the Chinese people who have inhabited and who have sought to maintain control over the Tibetan's ancestral lands. The farmer's Buddhist temple, peasants point out, is blackened by the smoke of a big Chinese factory not far into the distance. Many locals agree that Tibetans are given the hard-labor, low-paying jobs while the Chinese are offered more sophisticated, higher-paying positions, even if they are no more qualified than Tibet civilians. Those people of Eastern China are known as the Han Chinese and they have begun to infiltrate the infrastructure, occupying the world of Tibet through prejudice and repression. China has not granted this many times violent segregation as official ethnic discrimination, but it still occurs, nonetheless.

While the media continues to maintain a heavy bias against Tibetans, Beijing further seeks to undermine Tibetan sovereignty with a project known as the Tibetan Autonomous Region, which has encouraged the settlement of the Han Chinese in the area and is intended to weaken the influence of Tibetan Buddhism. Ultimately, this Tibetan crises may become an issue revolving around religious independence, and thus political and social independence from China. At least among Tibetan peasants, the return of the Dalai Lama, who represents the rebellious and independent character of Tibet, means a voice given back to the people of Tibet.

In condescension and hostility, the Han Chinese believe that the Tibetans are being ungrateful and they adopt an almost victimized and meek attitude, sounding perplexed as to why the Tibetans should protest and riot when China has invested billions of dollars in the region. Whatever the debate is surrounding the common notion that TIbet is part of China, the reality is that the Chinese have the control and Tibet seems to continuously be fighting a lost cause.

While this may be entirely cliche, it is beginning to become apparent that the riots and the violence are not solving anything as war usually does not solve the world's problems. All the political bickering and civil war will not find resolve and certainly will not lead to an independent Tibet if this crises proceeds on its current path to nowhere. This is a case where I believe international intervention is needed because it does not look as if either the Chinese or the Tibetans will reach a resolution or compromise on such a divisive and contentious issue. International pressures (I, by no means, advocate the boycott of the summer olympics) and incentives (a little bargaining) may help weaken Chinese influence in Tibet and force these two regions to work out appropriate diplomacy measures. However, I am not one to think this will be such an easy effort, seeing as how invested China is in Tibet and how resilient China may be against outside efforts to end the crises, especially since the 2008 Olympics draw near and China wants to preserve some sort of clean, optimistic image. Then there is also that little task of convincing governments worldwide to confront the Chinese government of not only ending its bitter conflict with Tibet, but of also using its influence over Sudan to help end the Darfur crises.

More than anything, I am disappointed and frustrated over the lack of awareness and the distortions in truth among the Chinese people, although the international community is starting to pick up on it. No one is willing to listen to the other side and all that is left for these people to hold onto are their presumptions rooted in bias and their pride steeped in insecurity and intolerance.

Elitism and the consequences it breeds

Elitism:

1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite.
2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group.
(Dictionary.com definitions)

Some consider it a hold-back toward open-mindedness, a form of snobbyness, for the "insecure," etc... but does it always apply? For our purposes, we'll look at it within a culture I'm most comfortable with, though it is not restricted to this culture: metal.

Is "metal" a culture? Isn't it just "any of a class of elementary substances, as gold, silver, or copper, all of which are crystalline when solid and many of which are characterized by opacity, ductility, conductivity, and a unique luster when freshly fractured" or the music genre which was argueably created by Black Sabbath (and which made Ozzy Osbourne a household name as a result)? Well, it's more than just music. You've heard in the past from your parents or friends about how some things go "hand-in-hand" - for example, if your mom really loves cooking more than she loves just eating the final product, she'll more-so lean towards the idea of being a nutritionist, while the final product lover just wants to eat. How does this pertain toward the metal culture and elitism in general?

Meet our fake character, Mike. Mike's a real troublemaker. His parents want him to cut his hair, so he grew it long out of spite. His family is totally Christian, while he's a Satanist who writes stories about burning Churches and pornography with lots of bondage involved. He primarily favours women in tight leather. He's also very open with his usage of racial slurs. He's very misanthropic in his own light. These "themes" in his life fit very well with the musical style of (sadly) many metalheads within metal fandom, so it is a culture within itself. Although, bondage and leather does sound kind of....

However, there are varying degrees of extremeties within the metal culture. This resulted as a desire for difference, which came from a type of open-mindedness. Sure, the first in a series will always heavily criticise the new (especially when a band "betrays" their original style). Hell, even the new will criticise the originals, and will say, "Hey, you're just still on this or you're criticizing that just because you want to look br00tal for the rest of your traditional metal buddies." Funny enough, that is a kind of elitism in itself.

Okay, now that we've established that elitism can be just as prominent within both extremes, we'll take a look at how elitism can breed positivity: creative rebellion. However, it does not breed it because of itself, but rather the obstacle that elitism breeds. As it has been said, those who paint new paths will be constantly scourged by those who only believe in some set ways.

To give you a good personal perspective from myself, I'll talk about a band that is very different from its peers: System of a Down. Yes, I'm quite against the genre which they are considered significantly part of. Nu Metal, a sin upon music and upon my ears during the early '90s, was made popular by one of the crappiest bands of all time: KoRn (who are WAY over-fucking-rated). Suffice to say, System of a Down took part of that style, mixed it in with others where elitists existed the most (Death Metal being one), and created something else. They pissed off a lot of people, but I enjoyed what they did. They took a risk. I have their entire discography.

So, the lesson of this entry is that negativity can create an environment for positivity (and an amazing debut album). Look in the future for a possible post on false eclecticism.

Issues surrounding genetics

There's plenty of issues surrounding genetics today, but 2 of the biggest ones are cloning (which includes tissue restoration) and incest. These issues of genetics challenge us heavily in our modern-day society to ask ourselves what is right and what is wrong. Some say such things are just "cultural taboos" and nothing more, but I ask you, are they really just that? We'll take a look at some of the reasoning behind the dislike towards such things.

Firstly, we'll start off with cloning and tissue restoration. There's a few ways that you can get the stem cells needed to go through the process necessary to provide the proper results. The first is destroying an embryo, the second is taking stem cells from an adult's bone marrow, and the third is taking the stem cells from fetal tissue (stem cells are very prevalent here because the fetus required many stem cells to develop, but things got kind of "half-way" since they were aborted during their most important period of growth). When Clem Persaud came to St. Jean De Brebeuf Catholic Secondary School (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada) in 2008, he discussed the differences between these different methods of extracting stem cells.

The first method of extracting stem cells, according to Clem, is the most unethical at all for these reasons: if women are creating these embryos just to be destroyed for medical purposes, they will be thought of as "egg carriers," which is demeaning. Furthermore, stem cells extracted from embryos can be cancerous.

The second method of extraction is very ethical, because you can take the cells from an adult, have them divide and divide, and give back the necessary amount of cells to the adult. These cells taken from the adult can help repair an injury in one month rather than several months. It's also key to note that they are not cancerous at all.

The last method is moderate; in between the ethical levels of the second and first methods mentioned. The reason being is that there's the possibility that some women will abort their babies due to bribes for the baby's stem cells. However, if there's sufficient enough evidence that this wasn't why the abortion was finalized, then taking the stem cells would be ethical, though some would find it debateably unethical.

Now, onto incest.

Sometimes, 2 people from the same family have sex. Let's say they had a child together, just for the sake of this explanation. Within families, there is usually a few diseases that are recessive, meaning that those people don't suffer from the disease but carry it, and will send it to their future children if their partner carries the recessive gene as well. It actually doubles the chance that their offspring will develop these genetic weaknesses, such as cancer, diabetes, etc... and also, quite early.

I've just provided you with a bit of background on some of the reasoning behind the anti-incest and general genetic ethics. I would love to hear what you say, but don't provide me with irrelevent crap.

Rockstars get to do it...

Sorry I haven't posted in a while. I guess, at times, one can lose inspiration. Kind of like rockstars, right? Except I'm a rockstar behind a computer. Just kidding... sort of.

Okay, some serious business: I'll be posting again. I was just having some personal quarrels, and academic ones at times. Seems Flamenco has had her fair share of them, too.