Names of the Decade

There is no official name for the decade for the years 2000-2009. Some options are "The Ohs", "The Aughts", "The Naughts" and "The Naughty Aughties" (uh). With the approaching new year and decade, I've found myself thinking about the past decade a lot. I've been thinking about how most decades in the 20th century had a certain feel - I can associate different images in my mind with them every time I think or hear about them, most good.

What I couldn't help but thinking at first was that this decade wasn't really that cool (to me). Superficially, the 20s or 60s sound much more appealing. But, The Beatles' album 1 was in fact the best selling album of this decade.

I used wikipedia as a source for the options of names, but it also provided me with timelines, new innovations, and events that took place. It wasn't very cheerful - the economic crisis, energy crisis, wars, MJ, 9/11, and internal conflicts listed can really bring ya down.

But, I decided I must not be so pessimistic on New Year's Eve Eve. I have to think about all the good:

• Barack Obama
• HD Television
• Mac OS X
• CGI

I stopped because as I tried to create this list, it slowly became filled with more and more technological things.

I feel as though I've associated technology with good too often. Hasn't America's modernity caused heated tensions in regards to Islamic nations and distractions in regards to nations facing genocide and mass atrocities? (Bear in mind, I'm not blaming the US for those things) Has our undying love for capitalism caused our once booming economy to dwindle?

What do you think the America's greatest point was in this decade? Why? Do you think America will be able to address more of the bad and focus on the $ less? Will our priorities change in the decade to come?

Up in The Air

Today, I went and saw Up in the Air, and was shocked to find out some things about the "Firing Industry." George Clooney worked as someone who flew across the nation to fire multiple employees of a company and leave. He was paid well to do so, and felt like he was living a great life.

Now I'm not 100% sure as to whether or not companies such as these exist - but I wouldn't be surprised. The timing was sort of perfect for this movie to come out (if you saw it, you'd know why a bit more). The economy has often caused unemployment rates to soar, and it can be difficult to let a loyal, employee or friend of 30 years go.

So what?

You spend money to fire someone YOU hired because you don't have enough money? I'm not sure this is very ethical.

What do you think? Does getting less personal and more efficient outweigh decency?

United Nations Scandals

I was watching The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson on Thursday night and he made a comment that I found a little surprising during the show. He was talking about the climate change summit in Copenhagen, and said quite sarcastically that whenever the UN tackles a problem, they succeed.

I remember visiting the United Nations when I was younger and dreaming about being a part of it all. I thought the idea sounded so perfect - maybe a little too perfect. The idea that all 192 countries involved would agree on every little thing and would look out for everyone's best interests was a little naive of me. As the years passed, I learned about the whole Sudan/China oil deal and the ineffectiveness of peacekeepers. But that was pretty much it.

So I googled the United Nations and saw on Wikipedia that there have been accusations of sexual abuse, rape, and the soliciting of prostitutes made against peacekeepers in numerous countries. I was so surprised, and I knew I had to find something more substantial than Wiki. In a fit of confusion, I googled "peacekeepers abuse" and found this essay or book about UN scandals (page 5).

I thought it was ironic and weird timing because I just commented on Mr. Bolos' latest blog post about if there are more males or females in the world. I said there were more males, maybe not numerically, but in Darfur and Congo, rape is used as a weapon of war - to take away social status and respect.

So, I was astonished to find that peacekeepers, of all people, that are being sent to help others are doing exactly what the oppressors are.

Did you know about this? What does it say about overall peacekeeping efforts? What does it say about a reputation that a certain organization (or even its name) holds and how it can cloud one's judgement?

"One article described a fourteen year-old girl

named Yvette who is called the “one-dollar girl” or the kidogo

usharati, “little prostitute,” in her community in Bunia because that is

what she charges U.N. peacekeepers for sex."

George Washington Letter Worth Millions

A four-page letter written by George Washington was recently sold for $3.2 million dollars. Upon reading, I wondered why and what kind of (most likely, awesome) person would want the letter so bad. All I could picture was Nicolas Cage in National Treasure over and over again. I mean, it was an unidentified buyer, and I figured a museum would be open to announce this new purchase. We'll stick with it. So, what is the motivation behind this wealthy Mr. Cage?

In it, George Washington wrote (apparently with slanted penmanship) that he was in full approval of the Constitution, drafted in 1787. To the public, he remained neutral, but he felt that a stronger, central government was needed, and displayed his strong opinion in this letter.

Was it perhaps the fact that there are some pretty juicy secrets revealed? Should the British descendant of our Founding Father be auctioning it away to someone who could choose to do anything with it? Should it be stowed away, on display for those who pay for an admission ticket?

Pentagon Pictures

Today in class, we discussed Daniel Ellsberg's decision to turn over 4,000 pages of the Pentagon Papers, the document that recorded the U.S.'s actions in Vietnam throughout the war. Ellsberg was asked if he would ever do it again, and he said absolutely. He also very strongly urged those who knew anything about the Wars in Iraq or Afghanistan to let it be known.

There is a large debate over whether or not pictures displaying the torture of suspected terrorists and foreign soldiers in U.S. custody should be released to the public. Many reasons as to why they shouldn't be released are stated in the article: Obama was all for the release at first, but was urged not to approve by military leaders; it would not be good for Pakistan and other U.S. partners; it would weaken our reputation and strengthen the enemy's.

What kind of Espionage Act are we under? What civil liberties are being limited, or are they?

Criminal charges have already been placed on some of the soldiers. Laws and bills have been signed in response to this incident preventing the release of such photos.

It makes me wonder, why do we need photos when we know the reality of the situation? Should there the next step be something more than "show us the pictures"?