Thousands of young and beautiful Chinese women recently duked it out in a head-on, televised audition in an attempt to capture the job of their dreams. Contestants stripped down to sport their cutest bikinis, dawning their youthful and fit bodies. They lugged heavy suitcases, balanced drinks atop trays and served up cocktails to critical judges, with the hopes of becoming China Southern Airlines’ next “symbol of excellence.” These 5’3’’ to 5’7’’ women hopefuls, none of whom was over the age of 24, were each given the equal opportunity to become the new face of the airline—they were given the chance to become China Southern’s next flight attendant.
While in America it is no longer legal to give preferential treatment to certain applicants, say unmarried females over men or other married women, China remains steadfast in exploiting everything and anything that sells therefore airlines have narrowed their flight attendant searches to the youthful jaw droppers. Though China Southern denies the fact that they exclude men from the flight attendant applicant pool, the airline company exhibited a fair degree of discrimination by only featuring young female applicants who met certain criteria on it s annual recruitment drive on TV.
Despite such discrimination, one must question who really ended up on the shallow end of the deal: the men or the women? Sure, the men may have had to forfeit their chance to have their 15 minutes of fame, however, these featured women competing for the job of a stewardess in such a demeaning manner have been unrightfully exploited. These women were compelled to compete in outrageous competitions that seemed to only reinforce the subservient nature that many Asian countries to this day believe that women ought to follow. The show, which was funded by the airline, pitted thousands of women against each other in “swimsuit competition and a race involving luggage, makeup brushes and drink trays.” In one instance, women were paired up in which one team member would be “skipping rope and the other lugging a heavy suitcase…then grabbed trays of drinks to present to the judges.”
Making matters worse, the airline industry has been successful in brainwashing these female young adults with the belief that becoming a flight attendant via such competition is a prideful event. “This is every little girl’s dream,” said Lu Ju. “I want to be beautiful like the flight attendants.”
The airline industry’s exploitation of these female participants is apparently widely accepted by many Chinese citizens. In fact, the TV show’s website received over one million visits. Through my personal experience, it is quite common for many Asian countries to exploit the young and the beautiful in similar manners. Asian countries understand that sex sells, and they are quick to take advantage. For example, many big name shopping centers and stores that are peppered throughout major upscale shopping areas in the Philippines only hire young, good-looking individuals. A quick walk through of any major department store will provide anyone with the explicit truth. It is certainly not a coincidence that every cashier and sales person is within a certain height and weight range and considerably decent to good looking.
China Southern, for example, will not even bother giving the time of day to anyone over the age of 24 looking to become a flight attendant. Moreover, each applicant must be within a certain height range, a couple of inches taller than the average person, yet not obscurely tall. If you are fat and overweight, perhaps you should even reconsider taking the time out to fill out the application.
Though this hiring practice among many Asian airlines has become somewhat of a standard, some still oppose the system. Li Ning, an etiquette instructor in Beijing for flight attendant hopefuls, finds more diversity in the flight crew as more pleasing. Many would argue that with age comes wisdom, and strictly having such a young flight attendant crew could be detrimental to the safety of passengers.
Here’s some food for thought: many flight attendant hopefuls in this competition have never flown on commercial airliners on a regular basis. Though some may argue that this will help nervous flyers to feel more at ease since they can relate to each other on a more newbie level, this is certainly not the case. If any plane were experiencing some mid flight problems, I am sure that most would prefer a tested, proven, and experienced individual who is aware of the counter measures to ensure passenger safety, despite having a few wrinkles above the brow coupled with bags under the eyes. Or even tree trunk looking ankles. Appearance should not matter. Experience, knowledge, and the ability to handle situations under pressure should.
Quickly throwing off bikinis to change into a different outfit while touching up hair in front of tiny hand-held mirrors while being timed just does not seem to qualify as a significant amount of pressure.
While caked up women serving your favorite alcoholic beverage may be quite pleasant and relaxing on the eye, it sure would not do any justice in the event of a disaster. Merely looking extra attractive in a two-piece bathing suit or coming in first in a skipping rope race while hauling a luggage certainly does not qualify one to earn the job of a flight attendant.
Perhaps China Southern and other Asian airliners should forfeit this sort of beauty pageant-like selective process, and adopt one similar to that of the United States’, one in which merit and experience takes precedence over looks.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Saturday, November 17, 2007
“You can do it. We can help.”
This just in: Forget the glistening ocean, rows of towering coconut trees that provide shade upon the island’s beautiful beaches, or perhaps even the sight of a rare sea turtle’s silhouette gliding through the crystal clear waters. Because now, as airliners tip their wings on the final descent to the island of Guam, vacationers can now peek out their windows to revel in awe—over the sight of the second largest Home Depot in the world. Well, at least according to a number of Guam’s highest dignitaries.
Liuetenant Governor Mike Cruz believes that given the store’s location along Airport Road, tourists will have the great opportunity to “see a slice of Americana” as they approach the island by plane. Overly excited, local lawmakers even drafted a resolution to mark the opening of “the second largest Home Depot in the World.”
The Home Depot’s soft opening brought about a significant degree of fanfare to the island as a number of local residents and dignitaries alike eagerly waited to be one of the first to walk through the doors just moments after the final snippet of the ribbon’s cutting. Home Depot enthusiasts applaud the store’s opening; many are excited over the variety of items that the store carries and at such a low price—for many local business owners, however, perhaps at too low of a price.
At the store’s soft opening, some residents capitalized on the chance to score a number of picnic chairs at the unbelievably low price (for Guam) of $5 dollars a chair. Others searched for other bargains, quickly filling their carts. Items being sold at a fraction of what consumers are usually used to paying is usually a blessing for most. However, for the more skeptical and perhaps knowledgeable few, the enormous slashing of prices forebodes none other than disaster for competition.
Just years ago, Kmart opened its doors to the island offering their products at incomparable prices. Sure, every individual who walked out of the store remained enthused over the store’s bargain like prices in comparison to that of other local stores. Unable to compete with Kmart’s prices, many local businesses were forced to scale back or close, thus adding to the long list of casualties throughout the Kmart driven price war. Monopoly became the name of the game.
It has happened once, and it will definitely happen again. Huge American corporations with deep pockets have the power and financial backing to cut prices to such an extent that other businesses just cannot compete. Once the last formidable market competitor is finally driven to closure, prices magically begin to increase at a much quicker rate—too unproportionate to place the blame on inflation. With the opening of Home Depot, it is likely that this Kmart curse that once plagued the island has returned to elongate the business casualty list.
Only this time, Home Depot will do it, and local leaders and unsuspecting residents will be there to help.
Liuetenant Governor Mike Cruz believes that given the store’s location along Airport Road, tourists will have the great opportunity to “see a slice of Americana” as they approach the island by plane. Overly excited, local lawmakers even drafted a resolution to mark the opening of “the second largest Home Depot in the World.”
The Home Depot’s soft opening brought about a significant degree of fanfare to the island as a number of local residents and dignitaries alike eagerly waited to be one of the first to walk through the doors just moments after the final snippet of the ribbon’s cutting. Home Depot enthusiasts applaud the store’s opening; many are excited over the variety of items that the store carries and at such a low price—for many local business owners, however, perhaps at too low of a price.
At the store’s soft opening, some residents capitalized on the chance to score a number of picnic chairs at the unbelievably low price (for Guam) of $5 dollars a chair. Others searched for other bargains, quickly filling their carts. Items being sold at a fraction of what consumers are usually used to paying is usually a blessing for most. However, for the more skeptical and perhaps knowledgeable few, the enormous slashing of prices forebodes none other than disaster for competition.
Just years ago, Kmart opened its doors to the island offering their products at incomparable prices. Sure, every individual who walked out of the store remained enthused over the store’s bargain like prices in comparison to that of other local stores. Unable to compete with Kmart’s prices, many local businesses were forced to scale back or close, thus adding to the long list of casualties throughout the Kmart driven price war. Monopoly became the name of the game.
It has happened once, and it will definitely happen again. Huge American corporations with deep pockets have the power and financial backing to cut prices to such an extent that other businesses just cannot compete. Once the last formidable market competitor is finally driven to closure, prices magically begin to increase at a much quicker rate—too unproportionate to place the blame on inflation. With the opening of Home Depot, it is likely that this Kmart curse that once plagued the island has returned to elongate the business casualty list.
Only this time, Home Depot will do it, and local leaders and unsuspecting residents will be there to help.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
LAPD Entrapment
I could be wrong, I told myself, but the last time I checked the core mission and motto of the LAPD was to protect and to serve.
In a desperate search for some affirmation, I explored the LAPD website—and there it was. “‘To Protect and to Serve’ is not just a slogan—it is our way of life,” the site read, under its explanation of the force’s service to the communities.
Now if that entails some officers sitting on their bicycles, pen and ticket in hand, while stalking college students as they cross the street with the hopes of handing out j-walking tickets, then perhaps their motto is in desperate need of a complete overhaul.
While recently making my way onto the USC campus, I found myself distracted as I made the trek across the street at Jefferson and McClintock. I could not help but overhear an ensuing argument between a male ‘SC student and a LAPD officer who had his bike propped up against him. Though unaccustomed to eavesdropping, I made an exception. I discovered that just moments before my arrival at the scene, another ‘SC student was given a ticket for j-walking, or perhaps j-biking, given the fact that she was sitting off to the side atop her bike. Taking to her defense, the nearby male student questioned the officer’s motive for selectively ticketing that particular individual. “Shouldn’t you be somewhere else around the area? There are people trying to sell us drugs right around the corner, so why not start there rather than writing her up for a $200 dollar j-walking ticket,” the male student questioned. Immediately losing all composure, the bike cop found himself yelling at the student and asking, “Are you trying to educate me about the law? Are you telling me how to do my job?”
Taken back by such hostility, the student questioned the officer’s sudden display or rage, asking if it was really necessary, and suddenly it seemed as if the officer had simply had enough. Seemingly trying to put an end to the heated conversation, the bike cop ordered the student to go along and “step off the sidewalk. Step off the sidewalk. Please step off the sidewalk.” Well aware of the blinking crosswalk signal that had only seven seconds permitting individuals already in the crosswalk to finishing crossing, the bike cop continued to instigate the student to hurry along. Distracted by the officer’s orders, the student proceeded to cross. However the moment the student set his first foot onto the pavement of the road, the officer threatened, “I will ticket you.” Already too late, the student had begun making his way to the other side of the street. The bike cop then ordered him to come back because “I’m gonna give you a ticket for that,” the officer stated. The student then rightfully argued that the officer had just given him the order to cross the street a multiple of times. Despite such a plea to two other officers flanking the irritated bike cop, the student argued to no avail and was awarded a ticket for his compliance.
Though the LAPD would like to pride itself in always exercising the “integrity in the use of the power and authority,” it is quite evident that this is certainly not always the case. Because in this case, they exercised entrapment, and the student ate the apple because the officer had beguiled him.
According to its legal definition, entrapment occurs when a person is “induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.” Furthermore, for true entrapment to take place, three things must have occurred.
First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime. Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime. And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.
Not only was the bike cop a law enforcement officer, but he also commenced to verbally persuade the student into committing the crime. The student was in the heat of an argument with the bike cop, and merely sought to elicit a legitimate explanation for the cop’s actions, however his conversation with the officer was cut short, only to be prematurely dismissed, finding himself being sent off to “step off the curb.” The bike cop knowingly knew the implications of stepping off of the curb, laying in wait to write off and distribute yet another ticket.
If officers continue to behave in such outlandish manners, it becomes quite hard to view the Los Angeles Police Department as a leader in law enforcement. It becomes even harder to believe that its officers ensure that their values become a part of their day-to-day work. If integrity is part of their standard, such conduct exhibited by this LAPD bike cop certainly fails to merit the respect of the city’s people. Perhaps the LAPD needs to re-evaluate its officer’s core values, otherwise go back to the motto drawing board, and create a more fitting slogan.
In a desperate search for some affirmation, I explored the LAPD website—and there it was. “‘To Protect and to Serve’ is not just a slogan—it is our way of life,” the site read, under its explanation of the force’s service to the communities.
Now if that entails some officers sitting on their bicycles, pen and ticket in hand, while stalking college students as they cross the street with the hopes of handing out j-walking tickets, then perhaps their motto is in desperate need of a complete overhaul.
While recently making my way onto the USC campus, I found myself distracted as I made the trek across the street at Jefferson and McClintock. I could not help but overhear an ensuing argument between a male ‘SC student and a LAPD officer who had his bike propped up against him. Though unaccustomed to eavesdropping, I made an exception. I discovered that just moments before my arrival at the scene, another ‘SC student was given a ticket for j-walking, or perhaps j-biking, given the fact that she was sitting off to the side atop her bike. Taking to her defense, the nearby male student questioned the officer’s motive for selectively ticketing that particular individual. “Shouldn’t you be somewhere else around the area? There are people trying to sell us drugs right around the corner, so why not start there rather than writing her up for a $200 dollar j-walking ticket,” the male student questioned. Immediately losing all composure, the bike cop found himself yelling at the student and asking, “Are you trying to educate me about the law? Are you telling me how to do my job?”
Taken back by such hostility, the student questioned the officer’s sudden display or rage, asking if it was really necessary, and suddenly it seemed as if the officer had simply had enough. Seemingly trying to put an end to the heated conversation, the bike cop ordered the student to go along and “step off the sidewalk. Step off the sidewalk. Please step off the sidewalk.” Well aware of the blinking crosswalk signal that had only seven seconds permitting individuals already in the crosswalk to finishing crossing, the bike cop continued to instigate the student to hurry along. Distracted by the officer’s orders, the student proceeded to cross. However the moment the student set his first foot onto the pavement of the road, the officer threatened, “I will ticket you.” Already too late, the student had begun making his way to the other side of the street. The bike cop then ordered him to come back because “I’m gonna give you a ticket for that,” the officer stated. The student then rightfully argued that the officer had just given him the order to cross the street a multiple of times. Despite such a plea to two other officers flanking the irritated bike cop, the student argued to no avail and was awarded a ticket for his compliance.
Though the LAPD would like to pride itself in always exercising the “integrity in the use of the power and authority,” it is quite evident that this is certainly not always the case. Because in this case, they exercised entrapment, and the student ate the apple because the officer had beguiled him.
According to its legal definition, entrapment occurs when a person is “induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.” Furthermore, for true entrapment to take place, three things must have occurred.
First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime. Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime. And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.
Not only was the bike cop a law enforcement officer, but he also commenced to verbally persuade the student into committing the crime. The student was in the heat of an argument with the bike cop, and merely sought to elicit a legitimate explanation for the cop’s actions, however his conversation with the officer was cut short, only to be prematurely dismissed, finding himself being sent off to “step off the curb.” The bike cop knowingly knew the implications of stepping off of the curb, laying in wait to write off and distribute yet another ticket.
If officers continue to behave in such outlandish manners, it becomes quite hard to view the Los Angeles Police Department as a leader in law enforcement. It becomes even harder to believe that its officers ensure that their values become a part of their day-to-day work. If integrity is part of their standard, such conduct exhibited by this LAPD bike cop certainly fails to merit the respect of the city’s people. Perhaps the LAPD needs to re-evaluate its officer’s core values, otherwise go back to the motto drawing board, and create a more fitting slogan.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Feed Thine Enemy
This time around it was Sister Delta Goodhand and company who sought to steal the spotlight that has shone ever so brightly upon the Catholic Church in recent years, borrowing Archbishop Burke’s tactic of exploiting the Eucharist to make a statement. Sister Delta Goodhand, along with another member from the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a group comprised of male gay rights activists, were recently lambasted by a slew of conservative Catholics for their “provocative gesture” at the Most Holy Redeemer Church in the Castro district of San Francisco. Sporting flamboyant nun-resembling outfits and faces caked with makeup, the two were accused of making a mockery out of the church ceremony, culminating in their attempt to receive the Eucharist from the much obliged Archbishop Niederauer. While other clergymen in the past, such as our old pal Burke, have taken the liberty to grant themselves the power of discretion to administer the Eucharist to those of their liking, it was rather reassuring to know that other clergymen still followed the basic sacramental principle of communion distribution despite any personal reservations.
According to Reverend Jim Bretzke, a professor of moral theology at the University of San Francisco, the basic sacramental principle makes one a “manifest public sinner” if one were to deny the Eucharist to anyone who requests for it. Despite adhering to this rule thus dodging the label of a “manifest public sinner,” Archbishop Niederauer still suffers from the backlash from his innocent action involving the distribution of communion to these two “Sisters.” Unfortunately, he continues to take flak from the more conservative members of the Catholic Church, thus pressuring him to release a letter of apology to Catholics and the Archdiocese of San Francisco.
As a concerned Catholic, I find it quite troublesome how many Catholics are so quick to decry Archbishop Niederauer’s actions. The only wrongdoing on the Archbishop’s behalf was the issuance of a coerced letter of apology, capitulating to angry Catholics under the pressure of the San Francisco Archdiocese. Unless the two members of the activist group were formerly excommunicated from the church, he had no authority to deny their request to receive communion. Rather than be scrutinized, Archbishop Niederauer ought to be praised for his judgment call in choosing to administer the Eucharist to these two individuals despite belonging to a group which has a history of making a mockery of the Catholic faith, in one instance even distastefully reenacting the last supper of Christ and his apostles by dressing up as leather-clad homosexuals.
If Jesus were willing to dine with former sinners, then I find no harm in Archbishop Niederauer’s willingness to do the same. Sure, activists will continue to rant over the “practicing and promoting of sodomites in the middle of a gay friendly mass,” however, such criticism should never trump or influence a skewed interpretation of the basic sacramental principle. Nor should any form of criticism merit the issuance of an apology merely to quell the negative sentiment at the expense of an innocent individual. Or perhaps one day, these individuals may similarly make their way up to the alter, stand face to face with an Archbishop whose beliefs contradict their own, to only have their request for the body of Christ, denied.
According to Reverend Jim Bretzke, a professor of moral theology at the University of San Francisco, the basic sacramental principle makes one a “manifest public sinner” if one were to deny the Eucharist to anyone who requests for it. Despite adhering to this rule thus dodging the label of a “manifest public sinner,” Archbishop Niederauer still suffers from the backlash from his innocent action involving the distribution of communion to these two “Sisters.” Unfortunately, he continues to take flak from the more conservative members of the Catholic Church, thus pressuring him to release a letter of apology to Catholics and the Archdiocese of San Francisco.
As a concerned Catholic, I find it quite troublesome how many Catholics are so quick to decry Archbishop Niederauer’s actions. The only wrongdoing on the Archbishop’s behalf was the issuance of a coerced letter of apology, capitulating to angry Catholics under the pressure of the San Francisco Archdiocese. Unless the two members of the activist group were formerly excommunicated from the church, he had no authority to deny their request to receive communion. Rather than be scrutinized, Archbishop Niederauer ought to be praised for his judgment call in choosing to administer the Eucharist to these two individuals despite belonging to a group which has a history of making a mockery of the Catholic faith, in one instance even distastefully reenacting the last supper of Christ and his apostles by dressing up as leather-clad homosexuals.
If Jesus were willing to dine with former sinners, then I find no harm in Archbishop Niederauer’s willingness to do the same. Sure, activists will continue to rant over the “practicing and promoting of sodomites in the middle of a gay friendly mass,” however, such criticism should never trump or influence a skewed interpretation of the basic sacramental principle. Nor should any form of criticism merit the issuance of an apology merely to quell the negative sentiment at the expense of an innocent individual. Or perhaps one day, these individuals may similarly make their way up to the alter, stand face to face with an Archbishop whose beliefs contradict their own, to only have their request for the body of Christ, denied.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Too Much, Too Little, Too Late
Instead of hurriedly setting sail to bridge Hawaii’s outer islands, perhaps the Hawaii Superferry needed to first make its maiden voyage a trip back through time.
If bringing together the Hawaiian Islands was one of its goals, the Hawaii Superferry would have realized it has already been badly beaten to the punch. Any local can tell you that Hawaii’s world-renowned icon King Kamehameha fulfilled this unifying task long ago.
The Superferry once again attempts to alter what history has already written as its lobbyists push for Hawaii’s lawmakers to hurry through a bill that would allow for its operation, despite previously mandated laws that require an Environmental Impact Statement to first be completed.
Though the Hawaii Supreme Court has already made its decree providing an injunction to halt the Superferry’s activities until a thorough and comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement is made, Superferry and friends caught a break in the current that seemed to be pushing them toward a more permanent closure. Governor Lingle, a long time supporter of the ferry company, has disturbingly mounted increasing pressure on legislators to expedite a bill that would allow her to set environmental conditions for the ship’s operation, allowing for it to continue to “rebuild our marine highways,” without the necessary and extensive environmental impact research mandated by current law to ensure the well-being of the islands’ natural habitat.
Without conducting an in-depth study, Hawaii’s marine wildlife unnecessarily remains at greater risk. Hawaii’s waters are home to a host of sea creatures and without proper environmental regulation, these creatures will be threatened by the Superferry’s operations. Environmentalists have been raising concerns regarding such issues, citing potential damage to inhabitant whales and the possible transportation of invasive species hidden inside and under vehicles. However, just recently ferry lobbyists, along with others, were given the opportunity to legitimately voice their concerns. The public was given the opportunity to provide their opinion before legislators met in special session through the delivering of closely time-monitored, sound-bite length testimonies to state legislators at informational briefs.
While informational briefs are advertised as an information gathering process so that public ideas can be incorporated into proposed legislation, Hawaii’s legislators seek to use this notion to their advantage. These legislators, many of who remain concerned with their fate given the upcoming elections, have disingenuously engineered such informational briefs and scoping meetings to merely appease stakeholders who feel as if they have been left out of the entire decision-making process. Though a thorough and comprehensive study of the Superferry’s impact on the environment is expected to take up to two years to complete, legislators have instead deliberately chosen to base their decision on a mere two minutes of testimony given by an allotted number of concerned experts and citizens on limited occasions.
Surely, any legislation created on such limited information has the potential to create further problems and have haphazard results. The legislation concocted by State Legislators merely seeks to skirt the earlier court rulings requiring the creation of an Environmental Impact Statement before the permitting the Hawaii Superferry to resume operations. The Hawaii Sierra Club believes that the current drafted legislation still fails to incorporate important operating stipulations, including the reduction of speed by the Superferry, thereby failing to “adequately protect our environment while exempting the Superferry.”
If the Hawaii Superferry truly wishes to “rebuild” marine highways with respect for the environment, the company should do so with a more genuine effort by respecting past laws requiring an environmental impact assessment to be made before resuming its operations. Rather than further disaggregating public sentiment by pushing forward in its attempt to circumvent a number of court rulings, the company should seek to adopt a policy that is responsive to both the comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement as well as the public’s concern.
This prolonged feud between the Hawaii Superferry and concerned citizens has already brought the ferry a barrage of negative advertisement and will certainly hurt the company’s image and business. This battle has dragged on long enough that perhaps the Superferry should start thinking in terms of damage control. Because in this battle, it is likely that even Kamehameha would have struggled to emerge a winner.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Growing Pains
It was an unusual battle of epic proportions--pitting a flotilla of surfers atop their boards against a mechanized, sea faring giant. Kauai's recent bout with the Hawaii Superferry attracted throngs of people, onlookers and activists alike, exhibiting perhaps one of the oddest, yet most advantageous and eclectic mix from all walks of life. From the modern day aristocrat and intellectual, to the everyday beach bum—these islanders gathered, each feeling the need to become intrinsically involved in the fight to protect their island. And such a display of unity in diversity could not have come at a more opportune moment.
The latest face-off between disgruntled islanders and the first inter-island car-carrying monstrosity has finally pushed many of these locals far beyond their comfort zone. As a few entrepreneurial spirits herald The Superferry as a blessing for business, others (and rightfully so) are ironically threatened by the thought of a bolstering economy for their sleepy island.
Though the prospect of inexpensive inter-island traveling, coupled with an increase in tourism and the luring of big-name business may seem like quite the blessing from an outsider’s perspective; for locals, this could only mean one thing: their eventual displacement from the island which they have always called home due to an economic disparity.
The island of Kauai may already have its fair share of tourism which perhaps, in some ways, benefit the island’s economy. However, the seduction of alleged wealth and commerce associated with the Superferry’s coming must not allow locals to fall victim to another ploy engineered by the selfish individuals who seek to benefit from the Superferry’s future voyages.
Yes, with the Superferry’s ability to offer quick and convenient transportation between islands, the island will be more accessible to outsiders, and the prospect of opening bigger businesses becomes a real possibility.
Yes, such businesses may stimulate the economy by creating more jobs and providing more opportunities for residents and non-residents alike. Ideally, the Superferry may even place Kauai on the map, bolstering tourism and possibly even earning Kaui the coveted title of the most desired Hawaiian vacation destination.
But before getting carried away with the host of endless possibilities that can be sparked by the docking of a mere boat, let us not neglect some of the negative economic repercussions that locals may expect remorsefully.
The increase in big business will inevitably increase competition, and smaller businesses that have faithfully served the island’s community may be annihilated. Their pockets are simply not deep enough to survive price wars that accompany competition from business giants.
The increase in visitors and business investors are likely to find more interest in the island, thus causing the invasion of not only the business market, but also the real-estate market. Already, big names like Pierce Brosnan have already purchased land in some of the most breathtaking areas of the island.
While this not only prevents access for islanders from prime beaches and the like due to the sales of property sales, consequently it is a growing and disturbing predicament for many locals. Future surge in the real-estate market will displace the islanders themselves, due to the pricing in the housing market that will exponentially rise because of wealthy transplants.
The displacement of locals in exchange for a bolstered economy—it seems to reflect the recent paradigm of paradise. Parallels could be drawn between the current situation that threatens the local islanders of Kauai to that of other islands elsewhere. For example, the islanders on Guam face a similar plight as complacent Guamanians are already preparing for the incursion of a large military contingent. The influx will likely cause similar repercussions on their island’s economy, while they leave the battle to vociferous and efficacious activists.
While Garibaldi, a former Hawaiian Airlines chief financial officer who says that the airlines too once faced a similar predicament, believes that the Superferry has the support of the silent majority of residents throughout the island; one should be wary to accept such claims offered from such partisan interests. Though activists have already led the fight against the docking of the Superferry on the island of Kauai, others must not hesitate to continue the battle against what could ultimately force the very progeny of many islanders to be priced out of their own lands. Silent locals must take heed to what is going on—for the Superferry’s outcome will soon determine many of their own destiny.
The latest face-off between disgruntled islanders and the first inter-island car-carrying monstrosity has finally pushed many of these locals far beyond their comfort zone. As a few entrepreneurial spirits herald The Superferry as a blessing for business, others (and rightfully so) are ironically threatened by the thought of a bolstering economy for their sleepy island.
Though the prospect of inexpensive inter-island traveling, coupled with an increase in tourism and the luring of big-name business may seem like quite the blessing from an outsider’s perspective; for locals, this could only mean one thing: their eventual displacement from the island which they have always called home due to an economic disparity.
The island of Kauai may already have its fair share of tourism which perhaps, in some ways, benefit the island’s economy. However, the seduction of alleged wealth and commerce associated with the Superferry’s coming must not allow locals to fall victim to another ploy engineered by the selfish individuals who seek to benefit from the Superferry’s future voyages.
Yes, with the Superferry’s ability to offer quick and convenient transportation between islands, the island will be more accessible to outsiders, and the prospect of opening bigger businesses becomes a real possibility.
Yes, such businesses may stimulate the economy by creating more jobs and providing more opportunities for residents and non-residents alike. Ideally, the Superferry may even place Kauai on the map, bolstering tourism and possibly even earning Kaui the coveted title of the most desired Hawaiian vacation destination.
But before getting carried away with the host of endless possibilities that can be sparked by the docking of a mere boat, let us not neglect some of the negative economic repercussions that locals may expect remorsefully.
The increase in big business will inevitably increase competition, and smaller businesses that have faithfully served the island’s community may be annihilated. Their pockets are simply not deep enough to survive price wars that accompany competition from business giants.
The increase in visitors and business investors are likely to find more interest in the island, thus causing the invasion of not only the business market, but also the real-estate market. Already, big names like Pierce Brosnan have already purchased land in some of the most breathtaking areas of the island.
While this not only prevents access for islanders from prime beaches and the like due to the sales of property sales, consequently it is a growing and disturbing predicament for many locals. Future surge in the real-estate market will displace the islanders themselves, due to the pricing in the housing market that will exponentially rise because of wealthy transplants.
The displacement of locals in exchange for a bolstered economy—it seems to reflect the recent paradigm of paradise. Parallels could be drawn between the current situation that threatens the local islanders of Kauai to that of other islands elsewhere. For example, the islanders on Guam face a similar plight as complacent Guamanians are already preparing for the incursion of a large military contingent. The influx will likely cause similar repercussions on their island’s economy, while they leave the battle to vociferous and efficacious activists.
While Garibaldi, a former Hawaiian Airlines chief financial officer who says that the airlines too once faced a similar predicament, believes that the Superferry has the support of the silent majority of residents throughout the island; one should be wary to accept such claims offered from such partisan interests. Though activists have already led the fight against the docking of the Superferry on the island of Kauai, others must not hesitate to continue the battle against what could ultimately force the very progeny of many islanders to be priced out of their own lands. Silent locals must take heed to what is going on—for the Superferry’s outcome will soon determine many of their own destiny.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Lest We Forget the Foundation of a Great Nation
17-year-old Andrew Larochelle, earlier this week, schooled some of our nation’s highest government officials. Through a simple letter written to his congressman, Larochelle reminded leaders of the very tenets of our nation. He requested that a flag be flown over the U.S. Capitol in honor of his grandfather for his “love of God, country and family,” providing his congressman, along with many others, a sense of true American nostalgia. Though such a petition has left some to scoff at the entanglement of church and state through the inference of such a religious dedication, his request harkens back the long lost memories of this country’s humble beginnings through a few simple but powerful words.
He reminds U.S. lawmakers, who too often remain overly preoccupied in their partisan battles within the halls of congress, of their earlier roots. This country was founded by a diverse group of families, each with its unique history and purpose of moving to America. More particularly, Larochelle reminds that many of these families immigrated into America to escape religious persecution, in addition to a host of other reasons. America has since prided itself in its pursuit of such freedoms—whether it is the freedom of religion, speech, press, peaceable assembly, or to petition the government. Therefore, this country was essentially founded on the very expression that Larochelle addressed in his letter—for the love of God (religion), country, and family. Thus, it is America’s responsibility to uphold such ideals, and re-affirm Larochelle’s request to have a flag raised atop the Capitol in honor of his grandfather for his “love of God, country, and family.”
While some criticism over architect Stephen Ayers’s decision to include the word “God,” on certificates accompanying flags flown over the U.S. Capitol may remain, such a reaffirmation in policy is needed to remind leaders, along with others, that the true colors of our nation are reflected through none other than the will of the people. Representative Michael R. Turner (R-Ohio) affirmed that through the allowance of certificates accompanying flags flown over the U.S. Capitol to include the word “God,” the people have “won a great victory for American traditions, religious freedoms and freedom of expression.” In such divisive times as these in which lawmakers remain in deadlock due to opposing idealisms, it is important that individuals like 17-year-old Andrew Larochelle continue to challenge the government and its leaders to stick to core American traditions and values, reminding them of who and what they truly stand for.
He reminds U.S. lawmakers, who too often remain overly preoccupied in their partisan battles within the halls of congress, of their earlier roots. This country was founded by a diverse group of families, each with its unique history and purpose of moving to America. More particularly, Larochelle reminds that many of these families immigrated into America to escape religious persecution, in addition to a host of other reasons. America has since prided itself in its pursuit of such freedoms—whether it is the freedom of religion, speech, press, peaceable assembly, or to petition the government. Therefore, this country was essentially founded on the very expression that Larochelle addressed in his letter—for the love of God (religion), country, and family. Thus, it is America’s responsibility to uphold such ideals, and re-affirm Larochelle’s request to have a flag raised atop the Capitol in honor of his grandfather for his “love of God, country, and family.”
While some criticism over architect Stephen Ayers’s decision to include the word “God,” on certificates accompanying flags flown over the U.S. Capitol may remain, such a reaffirmation in policy is needed to remind leaders, along with others, that the true colors of our nation are reflected through none other than the will of the people. Representative Michael R. Turner (R-Ohio) affirmed that through the allowance of certificates accompanying flags flown over the U.S. Capitol to include the word “God,” the people have “won a great victory for American traditions, religious freedoms and freedom of expression.” In such divisive times as these in which lawmakers remain in deadlock due to opposing idealisms, it is important that individuals like 17-year-old Andrew Larochelle continue to challenge the government and its leaders to stick to core American traditions and values, reminding them of who and what they truly stand for.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Cast Ye the First Stone
It is nothing new, this time around, as Roman Catholic Archbishop Raymond Burke recently made a statement that he would deny communion to Republican Presidential hopeful, Rudy Giuliani. Good ol’ Burke just can’t seem to keep his nose out of the limelight, or at least, for the time being, politics which is now somewhat synonymous given the age of heightened media coverage. It was just last presidential season when the Archbishop made it public, reverberating that he would refuse to give Holy Communion to the Democratic Presidential hopeful, John Kerry (who later lost his presidential bid).
After reading this article, one is left to consider if Archbishop Burke is merely trying to uphold vague church doctrine, or if he has an ulterior motive of meandering with the upcoming elections by influencing the rather conservative Catholic voter base, which has taken the pro-life stance. While some U.S. bishops contend that it should be up to the individual to decide whether or not to receive communion, Archbishop Burke publicly and adamantly continues to believe otherwise. He even went further by publishing an article in a church law journal exploring the church’s right to deny communion. In his defense, the Archbishop stated that the denial of Communion is not a judgment because, “What the state of his soul is, is between God and him.”
Well, if Burke believes that the state of one’s soul is truly between God and himself, then why does he repeatedly wedge his personal views between such an intimate relationship? Why does he continually seek to draw public attention to the matter by freely speaking to the press about his decision to deny Holy Communion to various presidential hopefuls who hold beliefs contradictory to his? Burke’s argument stating that any ordained priest or lay minister is morally obligated to deny Holy Communion from politicians who support an abortion-rights position remains not only contradictory, but moreover, hypocritical of his core belief: that the state of one’s soul is between God and himself. Let it be up to the individual to discern whether or not he/she is worthy of receiving the body and blood of Christ.
It is one thing to see such drama happening exclusively in the political arena (especially during election time), but it pains me to see religious and church officials get so intimately involved in the election fray. Those like Archbishop Burke should not seek the limelight after using his discretion to deny Holy Communion to politicians, especially since the issue of the denial of Holy Communion still remains unclear in church doctrine, left to be later debated among bishops in the coming months.
In a world where morality is a constant battle, it is apparent that crimes of passion are not discriminatory and has repeatedly managed to invade the confines of the non-secular world. Given the international focus on the indiscretions of even those robed with the Holy Cloth, Burke’s true colors show forth in his quick passing of judgment onto others.
Perhaps Archbishop Raymond Burke should learn a lesson or two from those he criticizes most. Giuliani, in his response to the Archbishop’s statement stated that “Archbishops have a right to their opinion, you know…everybody has a right to their opinion.” However, he cautions others about against being so quick to judge, recalling a story in which Jesus said that only someone who was free of all sin should try to stone an adulterous woman. “Don’t judge others, lest you be judged,” Giuliani went on to say.
After reading this article, one is left to consider if Archbishop Burke is merely trying to uphold vague church doctrine, or if he has an ulterior motive of meandering with the upcoming elections by influencing the rather conservative Catholic voter base, which has taken the pro-life stance. While some U.S. bishops contend that it should be up to the individual to decide whether or not to receive communion, Archbishop Burke publicly and adamantly continues to believe otherwise. He even went further by publishing an article in a church law journal exploring the church’s right to deny communion. In his defense, the Archbishop stated that the denial of Communion is not a judgment because, “What the state of his soul is, is between God and him.”
Well, if Burke believes that the state of one’s soul is truly between God and himself, then why does he repeatedly wedge his personal views between such an intimate relationship? Why does he continually seek to draw public attention to the matter by freely speaking to the press about his decision to deny Holy Communion to various presidential hopefuls who hold beliefs contradictory to his? Burke’s argument stating that any ordained priest or lay minister is morally obligated to deny Holy Communion from politicians who support an abortion-rights position remains not only contradictory, but moreover, hypocritical of his core belief: that the state of one’s soul is between God and himself. Let it be up to the individual to discern whether or not he/she is worthy of receiving the body and blood of Christ.
It is one thing to see such drama happening exclusively in the political arena (especially during election time), but it pains me to see religious and church officials get so intimately involved in the election fray. Those like Archbishop Burke should not seek the limelight after using his discretion to deny Holy Communion to politicians, especially since the issue of the denial of Holy Communion still remains unclear in church doctrine, left to be later debated among bishops in the coming months.
In a world where morality is a constant battle, it is apparent that crimes of passion are not discriminatory and has repeatedly managed to invade the confines of the non-secular world. Given the international focus on the indiscretions of even those robed with the Holy Cloth, Burke’s true colors show forth in his quick passing of judgment onto others.
Perhaps Archbishop Raymond Burke should learn a lesson or two from those he criticizes most. Giuliani, in his response to the Archbishop’s statement stated that “Archbishops have a right to their opinion, you know…everybody has a right to their opinion.” However, he cautions others about against being so quick to judge, recalling a story in which Jesus said that only someone who was free of all sin should try to stone an adulterous woman. “Don’t judge others, lest you be judged,” Giuliani went on to say.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Pundits, Professors, Scholars, Doctors: Will the Public Intellectual Please Stand Up?
After reading Mack’s analysis of John Donatich’s panel discussion on the whole notion of the public intellectual that The Nation sponsored in 2001, I was compelled to examine some other posits put forth throughout the panel regarding the so called “decline” of the public intellectual through a lens of my own. In this discussion, highlighting quite an interesting point, I think, Russell Jacoby was quick to identify. “Where were the new intellectuals?” he questioned, arguing that many public intellectuals were becoming quite invisible—especially when compared to those of the past, “the Edmund Wilsons, the Lewis Mumfords.” The fleeting nature of that sort of public intellectual, Jacoby reasons, is in part due to a change that has happened within the last few generations. Academic institutions, such as the university, now beckon the conventional public intellectual of old, thus introducing a new breed of the public intellectual.
The big problem facing my current generation is that it is now, unlike ever before, overly credential-focused. There has been an explosion in the number of students with not only bachelor’s degrees (which now is now the norm) but also degrees of higher education: PhDs, JDs, MDs, and the like. They do this to establish a sense of credibility, which is an important trait for public intellectuals to attain so that they may be taken seriously as they seek to play an influential role as they “prod, poke, and pester the powerful institutions that would shape their lives.” According to Max Weber, the best way to attain power and influence is through establishing oneself through establishing: 1) tradition 2) charisma 3) legal rational authority. While the majority of us fail to hail from the prominent Kennedy-line, nor are we born into some sort of present day aristocracy, it is difficult to fulfill Weber’s first criterion. Next, and unfortunately, charisma is innate; it certainly cannot be taught. Thus we are left with but criterion to realistically build upon—the legal rational authority aspect. Those lacking tradition and charisma must over compensate by establishing a long list of credentials (i.e. degrees garnered from the university) to serve the legal rational aspect. As a result, the public intellectuals have become more of a student of, or loyal to, the realm of academia. They have, according to Jacoby, “become academics, professors locked in the university.”
As a result, those like Jacoby posit that the hailed lineage of the public intellectual has slowly diminished. The new generation of public intellectuals now write differently, and also think differently, which leads those such as Jacoby to contend that “the university and professionalization does absorb and suck away too much talent, and that there are too few who are bucking trends.” Now, while I believe that this generation of the public intellectual may include a great number of academics and professors who are supposedly “locked away in the university,” I ardently believe that these individuals still continue to criticize, and to “puncture the myth makers of any era, including his own,” however, they may do so in a new and unique way.
Though there may not be as many big name public intellectuals as in the past, I agree with Herbert Gans that the public intellectual is indeed alive and well. There are many that continue to exist today who continue to poke, prod, and act as the party pooper by offering a unique take on certain issues. With the importance of media on the rise in today’s society and the proliferation of the various forms of media — newspapers, tabloids, and television stations—they seem to keep themselves up in arms against each other. They continuously churn out stories on an array of subjects, constantly looking for credible sources from which to seek information and find appropriate individuals who can give their personal take on a general topic. This search often leads the media to one type of the modern day public intellectual.
Herbert Gans states that for this reason, some modern day public intellectuals, namely those on university campuses (such as professors), have become somewhat celebrities. These new breed of public intellectuals have become an educated class of pundits. Many public intellectuals, like those scoffed by Jacoby who have been abducted by universities, now function as quote-suppliers to not only legitimize the media, but also offer and apply their own ideas on certain topics, however still poking, prodding, and puncturing the myth makers of today which exist heavily in the media.
Nevertheless, one may argue that this sort of new-day public intellectual still pales in comparison to the full time public intellectual of old. This new breed of intellectuals, it is argued, are merely part-time public intellectuals who continue to crawl back into their office-caves to “just sit there writing books and teaching classes,” while not being called upon by those like the media to get their outward take on certain events or general topics. Therefore, this class of public intellectuals has sometimes been classified as the disciplinary public intellectual: the public sociologists, the public economist, the public humanists—public plus a discipline.
Take for example University of Southern California lecturer, Julie Albright—a beloved teacher, respected researcher on relationships, both on and offline, attraction and infidelity, and an expert in her particular field of sociology on marriage and family. Though ultimately, a faculty member in USC’s esteemed department of sociology, she has at times, been called upon by the media for legitimization. This sought after lecturer has provided her disciplinary insight, using her specialized skill to add something original to the public debate over certain issues in a number of media outlets including Yahoo News and MSNBC, just to name a few, by offering her take on things ranging from the “oversharing” of too much information, to her professional and unique take on celebrity drunk driving.
Though some may argue that Albright hails from the cast of the newer, and less revered breed of the public intellectual, she still, nonetheless, contributes to the puncturing of the myth-makers of today’s era. Those like Albright continue to offer her take on the issue—a flare of originality that deviates from the commentary of the norm, thus offering something very original and essential to the arena of public debate. Not only does she remain an example of one type of today’s public intellectual, a sort of disciplinary one, she also serves as an educator. Those like Albright wield the ability to potentially provide students with the necessary tools to become the next generation’s type of public intellectual, whatever that may call for. Therefore, to discredit the importance and influence of this new breed of public intellectuals, such as the disciplinary public intellectual, remains somewhat disturbing. Although they may differ in profession and writing style compared some former public intellectuals, they are still individuals “uniquely blessed with wisdom” who continue to serve the same and important function of offering insight, and criticism, thus fulfilling their duty-bound obligation as members of a democratic society by continuously prodding, poking, and pestering, as Mack puts it, the powerful institutions that shape our lives.
The big problem facing my current generation is that it is now, unlike ever before, overly credential-focused. There has been an explosion in the number of students with not only bachelor’s degrees (which now is now the norm) but also degrees of higher education: PhDs, JDs, MDs, and the like. They do this to establish a sense of credibility, which is an important trait for public intellectuals to attain so that they may be taken seriously as they seek to play an influential role as they “prod, poke, and pester the powerful institutions that would shape their lives.” According to Max Weber, the best way to attain power and influence is through establishing oneself through establishing: 1) tradition 2) charisma 3) legal rational authority. While the majority of us fail to hail from the prominent Kennedy-line, nor are we born into some sort of present day aristocracy, it is difficult to fulfill Weber’s first criterion. Next, and unfortunately, charisma is innate; it certainly cannot be taught. Thus we are left with but criterion to realistically build upon—the legal rational authority aspect. Those lacking tradition and charisma must over compensate by establishing a long list of credentials (i.e. degrees garnered from the university) to serve the legal rational aspect. As a result, the public intellectuals have become more of a student of, or loyal to, the realm of academia. They have, according to Jacoby, “become academics, professors locked in the university.”
As a result, those like Jacoby posit that the hailed lineage of the public intellectual has slowly diminished. The new generation of public intellectuals now write differently, and also think differently, which leads those such as Jacoby to contend that “the university and professionalization does absorb and suck away too much talent, and that there are too few who are bucking trends.” Now, while I believe that this generation of the public intellectual may include a great number of academics and professors who are supposedly “locked away in the university,” I ardently believe that these individuals still continue to criticize, and to “puncture the myth makers of any era, including his own,” however, they may do so in a new and unique way.
Though there may not be as many big name public intellectuals as in the past, I agree with Herbert Gans that the public intellectual is indeed alive and well. There are many that continue to exist today who continue to poke, prod, and act as the party pooper by offering a unique take on certain issues. With the importance of media on the rise in today’s society and the proliferation of the various forms of media — newspapers, tabloids, and television stations—they seem to keep themselves up in arms against each other. They continuously churn out stories on an array of subjects, constantly looking for credible sources from which to seek information and find appropriate individuals who can give their personal take on a general topic. This search often leads the media to one type of the modern day public intellectual.
Herbert Gans states that for this reason, some modern day public intellectuals, namely those on university campuses (such as professors), have become somewhat celebrities. These new breed of public intellectuals have become an educated class of pundits. Many public intellectuals, like those scoffed by Jacoby who have been abducted by universities, now function as quote-suppliers to not only legitimize the media, but also offer and apply their own ideas on certain topics, however still poking, prodding, and puncturing the myth makers of today which exist heavily in the media.
Nevertheless, one may argue that this sort of new-day public intellectual still pales in comparison to the full time public intellectual of old. This new breed of intellectuals, it is argued, are merely part-time public intellectuals who continue to crawl back into their office-caves to “just sit there writing books and teaching classes,” while not being called upon by those like the media to get their outward take on certain events or general topics. Therefore, this class of public intellectuals has sometimes been classified as the disciplinary public intellectual: the public sociologists, the public economist, the public humanists—public plus a discipline.
Take for example University of Southern California lecturer, Julie Albright—a beloved teacher, respected researcher on relationships, both on and offline, attraction and infidelity, and an expert in her particular field of sociology on marriage and family. Though ultimately, a faculty member in USC’s esteemed department of sociology, she has at times, been called upon by the media for legitimization. This sought after lecturer has provided her disciplinary insight, using her specialized skill to add something original to the public debate over certain issues in a number of media outlets including Yahoo News and MSNBC, just to name a few, by offering her take on things ranging from the “oversharing” of too much information, to her professional and unique take on celebrity drunk driving.
Though some may argue that Albright hails from the cast of the newer, and less revered breed of the public intellectual, she still, nonetheless, contributes to the puncturing of the myth-makers of today’s era. Those like Albright continue to offer her take on the issue—a flare of originality that deviates from the commentary of the norm, thus offering something very original and essential to the arena of public debate. Not only does she remain an example of one type of today’s public intellectual, a sort of disciplinary one, she also serves as an educator. Those like Albright wield the ability to potentially provide students with the necessary tools to become the next generation’s type of public intellectual, whatever that may call for. Therefore, to discredit the importance and influence of this new breed of public intellectuals, such as the disciplinary public intellectual, remains somewhat disturbing. Although they may differ in profession and writing style compared some former public intellectuals, they are still individuals “uniquely blessed with wisdom” who continue to serve the same and important function of offering insight, and criticism, thus fulfilling their duty-bound obligation as members of a democratic society by continuously prodding, poking, and pestering, as Mack puts it, the powerful institutions that shape our lives.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
The Power From Above?
92,000 strong-- a captivated and enthused audience at the Coliseum seats, while scores of others settle to watch the oft-sold-out Trojan football game on their high definition 52-inch plasma screens broadcast via satellite or Direct TV. Fan and foe alike have become accustomed to hearing the march down the field of the recent perennial favorites called by none other than the longtime USC public address announcer, Dennis Packer. Television and radio broadcast networks such as ABC, ESPN, FSN, ESPN Radio 710, and KMPC AM-1540 can be heard echoing Packer’s play-by-play calls to the nation’s NCAA football faithful who have made tuning in to such stations a fall season weekly regularity. The chance of raking in major profits from widespread broadcast media patrons have numerous television and radio stations skirmishing for the rights to broadcast such widely followed, audience-compelling events.
While the arena of sport-related broadcast remains an American staple for the sport fanatic, other programs have capitalized on a quite different audience. Networks have opted to cater to the more religious faith-based followers rather than targeting the usual fan based fanfare. Those such as James Dobson, former USC Trojan and Focus on the Family founder, has found a way to catapult his influential right-wing Christian program to new heights, successfully establishing faithful listeners through an impressive media-controlling empire. Although Dobson’s Focus on the Family more or less focuses on the Christian, right-wing conservative community, his programming remains highly influential in the realms of faith and politics because he masterfully uses his conservative, spiritual faithful as leverage to favorably influence political issues.
There are those such as Stephen Mack, an esteemed public intellectual, who seem to tackle this issue, or “Roveian strategy” of catering to the religious-right of America and the way the 2004 “post election punditry was consumed with talk about either the unsavory role Christian fundamentalists played in the campaign, or the ‘illiberal ways’ the faithful were treated by critics.” Accordingly, Mack attributes this play to tipping “the balance in small-town Ohio and Central Florida.” This could assuredly not be an understatement on his behalf, especially when taking into consideration the numbers game of a large religious right-wing organization such as Focus on the Family. According to People for the American Way, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family program alone is broadcasted daily over the radio on more than 3,400 radio stations in North America. Including international broadcasting in 15 different languages, Dobson has an estimated daily audience of over 220 million people. In addition, Dobson can also boast coverage on 80 television stations on a daily basis. His reverberations are also published in ten monthly magazines with 2.3 million subscribers. Earning revenue of about $138 million, the religious public intellectual such as James Dobson certainly has both the financial and spiritual backing needed to intertwine his religious views with politics to favorably impact society at large.
Well aware of his powerful deck of cards, Dobson has since dabbled into politics, taking a firm right-wing Christian stance on numerous controversial and polarizing political issues, thus gaining the support of many religious conservatives. For example, Dobson remains in strong opposition of gay marriage and relationships. In fact, he even goes on to admonish the rising gay marriage rates in countries such as Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. He states that they are attributable to the recognition of same-sex relationships by their subsequent political leaders. With the knowledge of Dobson’s influential role over right-winged Christians, he was given the opportunity to advise members of congress, once again using his influential power to warn lawmakers that this video made to teach tolerance to school-aged children was rather pro-homosexual, further citing the video as “an insidious means by which the organization is manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids.” Such strong statements made by a man who has garnered the clout to address members of congress at a black tie dinner in Washington celebrating President Bush’s election are made often, and come with heavy weight.
When it comes to abortion, Dobson remains adamantly pro-life in stance, thus again catering to the religious-right. However, Dobson has come under some criticism by some other pro-life supporters. Dobson’s Focus on the Family has since praised the Supreme Court ruling of Gonzales v. Carhart that regulate and provide alternative methods to abortion and which Colorado Right to Life president, along with a number of others, claim to merely “improve the public-relations image of the abortionist.” Such praise of a Supreme Court ruling further indicates the strong political agenda that the religious Dobson strives to also dedicate himself while trying to balance the support of the religiously conservative faithful.
Dobson has since found himself dodging harmful bullets accusing him, along with others as one who “puts politics ahead of righteousness.” After the Mark Foley scandal involving the exchange of explicit instant messages between Foley and a congressional page, James Dobson described the page-luring escapade as merely an affair that has “turned out to be what some people are now saying was a – sort of a joke by the boy and some of the other pages.” Dobson later even goes so far to defend his Republican brethren by shifting the focus of blame away from the Republican representative, stating that the Foley event pales greatly when compared to former President Clinton’s (D) Monika Lewinsky affair, which he deemed “the most embarrassing and wicked things ever done by a president in power.”
Despite the occasional backlash from the opposition, Dobson still remains the highly spiritual and political religious public intellectual. Dobson, in November of 2004 was labeled by Slate.com as “America’s most influential evangelical leader.” If ever needed, Dobson can still piece together a resume that can boast founder of the Family Research Council (a political arm through which biblical values could be made to achieve heightened political influence) and founder of the widely-listened to Focus on the Family, all the way to campaign leader of the social conservatives, a group powerful enough to block the appointment of the head of the United States judiciary committee. He has also garnered enough influence to even promise a number of Democratic Senators “a battle of enormous proportions” if they so chose to filibuster conservative appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court. Realizing his worth due to his large religious following of the right-winged faithful, Dobson, on Focus on the Family, warned that Republicans should not take his support for granted, warning “If I go, I will do everything I can to take as many people with me as possible.”
Though this Trojan alum does not hail from USC’s heralded football team, James Dobson’s notoriety and influence from his faith based programming has pushed his broadcast media audience upwards to over 220 million people worldwide. While throngs of football fiends continue to follow the play-by-play announcements of Dennis Packer, the USC public address announcer, millions of others remain faithful to the call from those echoing a spiritual (and sometimes political) message from those such as James Dobson, the religious and public intellectual. The leverage that he has gained from such a large and faithful following has allowed him to engage in the political meanderings of a number of highly controversial issues. Enlightened religious intellectuals such as Dobson have indeed, as Mack put it, “used the terms of their faith to build a sense of a larger American community,” in addition to further “insulate particular Americans within the cultural walls of more narrow communities” in part through the intricate intertwining of faith and spirituality with a political agenda.
While the arena of sport-related broadcast remains an American staple for the sport fanatic, other programs have capitalized on a quite different audience. Networks have opted to cater to the more religious faith-based followers rather than targeting the usual fan based fanfare. Those such as James Dobson, former USC Trojan and Focus on the Family founder, has found a way to catapult his influential right-wing Christian program to new heights, successfully establishing faithful listeners through an impressive media-controlling empire. Although Dobson’s Focus on the Family more or less focuses on the Christian, right-wing conservative community, his programming remains highly influential in the realms of faith and politics because he masterfully uses his conservative, spiritual faithful as leverage to favorably influence political issues.
There are those such as Stephen Mack, an esteemed public intellectual, who seem to tackle this issue, or “Roveian strategy” of catering to the religious-right of America and the way the 2004 “post election punditry was consumed with talk about either the unsavory role Christian fundamentalists played in the campaign, or the ‘illiberal ways’ the faithful were treated by critics.” Accordingly, Mack attributes this play to tipping “the balance in small-town Ohio and Central Florida.” This could assuredly not be an understatement on his behalf, especially when taking into consideration the numbers game of a large religious right-wing organization such as Focus on the Family. According to People for the American Way, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family program alone is broadcasted daily over the radio on more than 3,400 radio stations in North America. Including international broadcasting in 15 different languages, Dobson has an estimated daily audience of over 220 million people. In addition, Dobson can also boast coverage on 80 television stations on a daily basis. His reverberations are also published in ten monthly magazines with 2.3 million subscribers. Earning revenue of about $138 million, the religious public intellectual such as James Dobson certainly has both the financial and spiritual backing needed to intertwine his religious views with politics to favorably impact society at large.
Well aware of his powerful deck of cards, Dobson has since dabbled into politics, taking a firm right-wing Christian stance on numerous controversial and polarizing political issues, thus gaining the support of many religious conservatives. For example, Dobson remains in strong opposition of gay marriage and relationships. In fact, he even goes on to admonish the rising gay marriage rates in countries such as Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. He states that they are attributable to the recognition of same-sex relationships by their subsequent political leaders. With the knowledge of Dobson’s influential role over right-winged Christians, he was given the opportunity to advise members of congress, once again using his influential power to warn lawmakers that this video made to teach tolerance to school-aged children was rather pro-homosexual, further citing the video as “an insidious means by which the organization is manipulating and potentially brainwashing kids.” Such strong statements made by a man who has garnered the clout to address members of congress at a black tie dinner in Washington celebrating President Bush’s election are made often, and come with heavy weight.
When it comes to abortion, Dobson remains adamantly pro-life in stance, thus again catering to the religious-right. However, Dobson has come under some criticism by some other pro-life supporters. Dobson’s Focus on the Family has since praised the Supreme Court ruling of Gonzales v. Carhart that regulate and provide alternative methods to abortion and which Colorado Right to Life president, along with a number of others, claim to merely “improve the public-relations image of the abortionist.” Such praise of a Supreme Court ruling further indicates the strong political agenda that the religious Dobson strives to also dedicate himself while trying to balance the support of the religiously conservative faithful.
Dobson has since found himself dodging harmful bullets accusing him, along with others as one who “puts politics ahead of righteousness.” After the Mark Foley scandal involving the exchange of explicit instant messages between Foley and a congressional page, James Dobson described the page-luring escapade as merely an affair that has “turned out to be what some people are now saying was a – sort of a joke by the boy and some of the other pages.” Dobson later even goes so far to defend his Republican brethren by shifting the focus of blame away from the Republican representative, stating that the Foley event pales greatly when compared to former President Clinton’s (D) Monika Lewinsky affair, which he deemed “the most embarrassing and wicked things ever done by a president in power.”
Despite the occasional backlash from the opposition, Dobson still remains the highly spiritual and political religious public intellectual. Dobson, in November of 2004 was labeled by Slate.com as “America’s most influential evangelical leader.” If ever needed, Dobson can still piece together a resume that can boast founder of the Family Research Council (a political arm through which biblical values could be made to achieve heightened political influence) and founder of the widely-listened to Focus on the Family, all the way to campaign leader of the social conservatives, a group powerful enough to block the appointment of the head of the United States judiciary committee. He has also garnered enough influence to even promise a number of Democratic Senators “a battle of enormous proportions” if they so chose to filibuster conservative appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court. Realizing his worth due to his large religious following of the right-winged faithful, Dobson, on Focus on the Family, warned that Republicans should not take his support for granted, warning “If I go, I will do everything I can to take as many people with me as possible.”
Though this Trojan alum does not hail from USC’s heralded football team, James Dobson’s notoriety and influence from his faith based programming has pushed his broadcast media audience upwards to over 220 million people worldwide. While throngs of football fiends continue to follow the play-by-play announcements of Dennis Packer, the USC public address announcer, millions of others remain faithful to the call from those echoing a spiritual (and sometimes political) message from those such as James Dobson, the religious and public intellectual. The leverage that he has gained from such a large and faithful following has allowed him to engage in the political meanderings of a number of highly controversial issues. Enlightened religious intellectuals such as Dobson have indeed, as Mack put it, “used the terms of their faith to build a sense of a larger American community,” in addition to further “insulate particular Americans within the cultural walls of more narrow communities” in part through the intricate intertwining of faith and spirituality with a political agenda.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Uncle Sam to the Rescue: A Paradise Dilemma
America’s troops are spread thin across the globe, and it is of utmost importance that the United States remain ready to quickly and effectively respond in times of need in order to thwart attacks from enemies for the purpose of safeguarding its citizens and allies. Thus it is necessary for the U.S. military to proactively build and enhance bases in various foreign and U.S. territories for the purpose of protecting American interests abroad. The recurrent threat from recalcitrant nations such as North Korea, China, and Iran only exacerbate the situation, thus necessitating the shifting of troops across the globe in order to maintain a favorable balance of power.
As this is such, it is crucial for America to harbor a formidable force throughout the globe, particularly in the Western Pacific region. While the bulk of American troops and servicemen in this area are currently stationed on the Island of Okinawa, these American troops have been embattled with locals for years amidst accusations of inappropriate behavior, assault, and sexual misconduct. American troops and servicemen further continue to face the onslaught of local backlash due to the high dosage of noise and potentially dangerous situations that arise resulting from constant troop movement and training. However, only recently have the Japanese and American governments come to terms regarding this relationship-straining situation. The U.S. decided, with the coaxing of six billion dollars in funding from the Japanese government, to relocate about 35,000 troops and dependents from the island of Okinawa, Japan to a significantly smaller island in the Pacific—the U.S. territory of Guam. Although the impending movement of troops from Okinawa to Guam will benefit U.S. interests at large through the preservation of a national defense force in the Western Pacific Region, the people of Guam are forced to face the concentrated effect of absorbing the negative repercussions because the island may be adversely affected by the sudden influx of a large defense force contingent.
The Department of Defense, in 2007, released a proposed action fact sheet discussing the implications of the intended move that is estimated to bring the nearly 35,000 U.S. Marine Corps command, air, ground, and logistics units from Okinawa, Japan to Guam for the purpose of enhancing the nation’s capability to “fulfill U.S. Government national security and alliance requirements in the Western Pacific Region” (Proposed Action Fact). This vague document served to merely highlight improvements that would be made to existing facilities on the island to benefit the U.S. Air Force and Naval bases. The DOD seeks to augment current infrastructure that would be essential to military training and operations. To achieve this goal, improvements to the current waterfront infrastructure must be made in order to accommodate transient nuclear aircraft carriers that would dock at the naval base. Furthermore, the U.S. intends to station an Army ballistic missile defense task force on the island (Proposed Action Fact). However, accommodating these feats will require the construction or the upgrade of the island’s essential infrastructure including utility systems, roads, and waste facilities to sufficiently support the influx of a large U.S. military defense force. Despite the fact that the DOD boasts a plethora of upgrades to the island’s infrastructure, not all Guamanians remain as receptive to the intended move as do others.
To the benefit of the U.S. government, Guamanians in general are a highly patriotic people. Guam’s Congresswomen Madeline Z. Bordallo proudly boasts the fact that Guam’s rate of enlistment in the Army Reserve and National Guard remain the highest of any other state or territory in the nation (Glantz). Guam’s patriotism and allegiance to the red, white, and blue echoes back to the final days of the Japanese occupation of the island during World War II. On July 21, 1944 the Americans began their counter-assault on the Japanese, thus liberating the island from the reigns of the Japanese empire. Now as a U.S. territory, Guam continues to commemorate the 21st of July, which has since been dubbed “Liberation Day” by the local government (Guam Celebrates 60th). Guamanians, in gratitude, have since been hospitable and welcoming to the relatively small contingent of U.S. servicemen who have been stationed on the island. In fact, there are a number who eagerly anticipate the arrival of the 35,000 military troop and dependent contingent (Dumat-ol Daleno). Guam’s congressional delegate, Madeline Bordallo, also shares the same sentiment by stating, “when the Japanese attacked Pearly Harbor, they invaded Guam at the same time…we were occupied by the Japanese for three and a half years. Now you’ve got South Korea-North Korea, Taiwan-China. There’s a lot of unrest. A lot of us remember the Japanese occupation and don’t want something like that to happen again” (Glantz).
While those such as Bordallo embrace the troop movement at hand, others remain skeptical over the troop re-alignment process. Those opposed to the move remain concerned that Guam alone will have to endure the brunt of the burden. Residents remain nervous about the overcrowding of Guam’s major tourist and recreational spots. Because Guam’s population remains around a meager 173, 000 people, the immediate addition of another 35,000 people on the island that spans a mere 30 miles remains a legitimate issue of concern. According to the Census Bureau in its 2000 population count for Guam, the island’s population increased by 21,653 over the previous decade, representing a 16 percent increase (Hovland and Buckley-Ess). The forthcoming addition of troops alone, without taking into account future civilian residents, will eclipse the 16 percent, decade-long growth watermark within the next several years. Guam, therefore, will be faced with an unprecedented population increase over such a short period of time, when historically the capacity for on-island construction projects is just under $500 million (Bordallo 8). Such a capacity that may have accommodated the gradual growth the island has faced in years past will likely not suffice this never-before seen growth in Guam’s population.
With such a large increase in population over a short period of time, those opposing the move also have reason to fear certain negative social and economic repercussions. Guam currently prides itself in its local hospitality and its welcoming, or “Hafa Adai” spirit (Hafa Adai). This feeling of warmth from the islanders is one reason why the tourism industry on Guam continues to thrive. Every year many Japanese, Chinese, and Korean, tourists make Guam their desired destination spot. However, the impending movement of such a large force of U.S. troops to Guam may alter their potential vacation plans. Throughout Asia, the U.S. military has been given somewhat of a negative reputation, largely due to rape accusations that have plastered headline news time and again, causing some concern to tourists and Guamanians alike who remain wary regarding the move. The large increase in population could potentially brew more crime, thus causing social unrest similar to the likes of those seen in Okinawa which has spurred numerous sit-ins, hunger strikes, and other anti-base movements (Mercier). With a larger presence of troops on Guam, tourists may be more reluctant to visit the island and instead opt for a true get-away elsewhere.
To help offset the loss in tourism on Guam, the Federal Government has pledged a total of about $15 billion in military spending for the transfer of the troops and dependents. Although much of these funds will be used to build housing for the troops and augmentations to other military facilities, some funding will be put forth to support much needed improvements in the local infrastructure including the building of roads, water distribution, wastewater treatment, and other utilities (Guam Civilian-Military). In addition, the U.S. government recently passed H.R. 1585, the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization Act, which would allocate another $300 million for construction projects needed to support the move (Bordallo 4). Moreover, with the promise of federal funding for improvements of Guam’s infrastructure, coupled with the anticipation of nearly 35,000 troops and dependents, property values have risen by 300% within the past year, which some state will equate to more wealth for the people of Guam. Therefore, proponents of the military build-up claim to already be “amazed at how much the island has already benefited from the initial phases of the build-up” (Bordallo 3).
Granted that the island’s infrastructure may be improved to benefit the development of the military bases with incoming federal dollars, many proponents who believe that such funding will further stimulate Guam’s local economy remain to an extent, somewhat misinformed. Guam currently lacks the human capital to work on most of the coming military projects. There is an immediate need of skilled workers in order to prove to the Federal Government that Guam’s local government and private agencies are fully capable of completing building projects that would meet the federal standards. If this fails to happen, the Federal Government will award contracts to off-island companies that are unlikely to pump their money back into the island for the purpose of further stimulating the economy. In fact, two multi-million dollar contracts have already been given to one company based in California and another in Virginia ( Aguon). Furthermore, speculation of the impending move and upgrades to the island’s infrastructure has driven real-estate prices up exponentially, thus making current property owners wealthier, however preventing new locals from entering the over-priced real-estate market. High real-estate prices will also further make it more expensive for local business owners to create and maintain locally owned businesses, thus inviting larger corporations with a substantial amount of financial backing to capitalize on the situation.
Along with the inevitable invasion of the local markets, also comes the incursion onto Guam’s tropical environment. Guam’s coastal areas and reefs remain home to a host of plants and animals, including a variety of corals, reef fish, dolphins, and sea turtles. Locals and tourists alike enjoy spending much of their time engaging in water-related recreational activity including fishing, snorkeling, diving and surfing. However, in order to accomplish the plan to support Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, U.S. Coast Guard, Army Reserves, and Guam National Guard tactical training, the Department of Defense seeks to utilize “multiple ranges and training areas of land, sea space (near shore and offshore), undersea space, and air space under different controlling authorities in the Territory of Guam…and surrounding waters” thereby threatening the island’s beloved natural resources (Notice of Intent). To justify such training in the area, the Marines believe that Guam’s region is one of the only places in the Western Pacific where servicemen can aptly train for skill-based work on ships, submarines, and aircraft in such a realistic environment. Aware of local concerns, the military has issued a statement pledging that “protecting marine environment of the Mariana Islands is an important goal for the Services. Because the Navy training could affect the marine environment, the Navy follows programs to care for the environment and continues to improve these programs” (Fact Sheet: Mariana).
Since tourism remains Guam’s economic mainstay, the island strives to maintain a healthy environment. Anything that would serve to threaten the island’s natural beauty would not only negatively impact plant and wildlife on the island, but would furthermore be detrimental to Guam’s economic livelihood. Pristine beaches and coastal areas will be transformed into staging grounds and training facilities that will host a number of troops engaging in the testing of weapons systems which will undoubtedly alter the terrain of various training areas. In the military’s attempt to prepare their troops for combat in the region, the various military services would require the “testing, training, and fielding of advanced platforms and weapons systems into service force structure” (Notice of Intent) which would increase the risk of unexploded ordinances, toxic waste residue, in addition to potentially damaging a number of exotic plants and wildlife. Past military exercises in the surrounding region have already left the people of Guam to deal with “PCB-contamination in the waters, and down-winder’s radiation, as well as, radiation from the washing down of airplanes and ships used in monitoring nuclear testing in the Pacific” (Aguon). Those affected by such contamination want no more. Although the military claims that it will stay committed to protecting Guam’s environment during its attempt to enhance the nation’s capability to defend critical military assets in the Western Pacific Region, such promises have yet to be seen.
As the United States government finalizes its base relocation plans, Guamanians nervously await what lies in store for their island’s communities, economy, and environment. Well aware that rising tensions in the Western Pacific Region continues to threaten American soil, Guamanians remain torn in their sentiment. As residents of the local community, Guamanians are obligated to ensure the protection and well being of their island; as loyal citizens and patriots, they also recognize their allegiance to the American flag thereby realizing that they too must contribute to the larger national security effort. Indeed, negative repercussions that the island of Guam may face for their increased strategic role in the Western Pacific Region should not be taken in vain.
Aguon, Julian. "Activist and Author Speaks Out Against US Troop Deployment to Guam At UN." News Blaze. 10 Sept. 2007
Bordallo, Madelein Z. "Remarks to Guam Chamber of Commerce." Guam Chamber of Commerce Speech. Guam Chamber of Commerce General Membership Meeting, Guam. 30 May 2006. 9 Sept. 2007 <http://www.guamgovernor.net/content/view/645/2/>.
Daleno, Gaynor D. "Residents Speak Out on the Military Buildup." Peace and Justice for Guam and the Pacific. 17 Aug. 2007. 11 Sept. 2007 <http://decolonizeguam.blogspot.com/search/label/Military%20Build-Up>.
Glantz, Aaron. "Natives of Guam Decry US Expansion Plan." Anti War. 13 Dec. 2006. 10 Sept. 2007 <http://www.antiwar.com/glantz/?articleid=10156>.
"Guam Celebrates 60th Anniversary of WWII Liberation." Commemorating the 60th Anniversary of the Liberation of Guam. 2007. Guam Visitors Bureau. 10 Sept. 2007 <http://www.liberationday.com/2004/pages/index.php>.
"Hafa Adai...Means Hello!" Guam Visitors Bureau. 13 Sept. 2007 <http://www.visitguam.org/main/>.
Hovland, Idabelle B., and Julia Buckley-Ess. "Census Bureau Releases Census 2000 Population." Census Bureau News. 3 July 2001. U.S. Census Bureau. 09 Sept. 2007 <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/cb01cn174.html>.
Mercier, Rick. "The Peace Movement in Okinawa." ZMagazine. Feb. 1996. 10 Sept. 2007 <http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/feb96mercier.htm>.
United States. Civilian Military Task Force. Department of Defense. Guam-Civilian Military Task Force Contributions for Inclusion in "Scoping Process" for the Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement. May 2007. <http://www.guamgovernor.net/content/view/645/2/>.
United States. Department of Defense. Mariana Islands Range Complex Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement. 11 Sept. 2007.
United States. Joint Guam Program Office. Department of Defense. Proposed Action Fact Sheet. Apr.-May 2007. 09 Sept. 2007 <http://www.guampdn.com>.
United States. Representative Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Palau. Department of Defense. Notice of Inent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Mariana Islands Range Complex and to Announce Public Scoping Meetings. 12 June. 11 Sept. 2007 <http://www.guamgovernor.net/content/view/645/2/>.
As this is such, it is crucial for America to harbor a formidable force throughout the globe, particularly in the Western Pacific region. While the bulk of American troops and servicemen in this area are currently stationed on the Island of Okinawa, these American troops have been embattled with locals for years amidst accusations of inappropriate behavior, assault, and sexual misconduct. American troops and servicemen further continue to face the onslaught of local backlash due to the high dosage of noise and potentially dangerous situations that arise resulting from constant troop movement and training. However, only recently have the Japanese and American governments come to terms regarding this relationship-straining situation. The U.S. decided, with the coaxing of six billion dollars in funding from the Japanese government, to relocate about 35,000 troops and dependents from the island of Okinawa, Japan to a significantly smaller island in the Pacific—the U.S. territory of Guam. Although the impending movement of troops from Okinawa to Guam will benefit U.S. interests at large through the preservation of a national defense force in the Western Pacific Region, the people of Guam are forced to face the concentrated effect of absorbing the negative repercussions because the island may be adversely affected by the sudden influx of a large defense force contingent.
The Department of Defense, in 2007, released a proposed action fact sheet discussing the implications of the intended move that is estimated to bring the nearly 35,000 U.S. Marine Corps command, air, ground, and logistics units from Okinawa, Japan to Guam for the purpose of enhancing the nation’s capability to “fulfill U.S. Government national security and alliance requirements in the Western Pacific Region” (Proposed Action Fact). This vague document served to merely highlight improvements that would be made to existing facilities on the island to benefit the U.S. Air Force and Naval bases. The DOD seeks to augment current infrastructure that would be essential to military training and operations. To achieve this goal, improvements to the current waterfront infrastructure must be made in order to accommodate transient nuclear aircraft carriers that would dock at the naval base. Furthermore, the U.S. intends to station an Army ballistic missile defense task force on the island (Proposed Action Fact). However, accommodating these feats will require the construction or the upgrade of the island’s essential infrastructure including utility systems, roads, and waste facilities to sufficiently support the influx of a large U.S. military defense force. Despite the fact that the DOD boasts a plethora of upgrades to the island’s infrastructure, not all Guamanians remain as receptive to the intended move as do others.
To the benefit of the U.S. government, Guamanians in general are a highly patriotic people. Guam’s Congresswomen Madeline Z. Bordallo proudly boasts the fact that Guam’s rate of enlistment in the Army Reserve and National Guard remain the highest of any other state or territory in the nation (Glantz). Guam’s patriotism and allegiance to the red, white, and blue echoes back to the final days of the Japanese occupation of the island during World War II. On July 21, 1944 the Americans began their counter-assault on the Japanese, thus liberating the island from the reigns of the Japanese empire. Now as a U.S. territory, Guam continues to commemorate the 21st of July, which has since been dubbed “Liberation Day” by the local government (Guam Celebrates 60th). Guamanians, in gratitude, have since been hospitable and welcoming to the relatively small contingent of U.S. servicemen who have been stationed on the island. In fact, there are a number who eagerly anticipate the arrival of the 35,000 military troop and dependent contingent (Dumat-ol Daleno). Guam’s congressional delegate, Madeline Bordallo, also shares the same sentiment by stating, “when the Japanese attacked Pearly Harbor, they invaded Guam at the same time…we were occupied by the Japanese for three and a half years. Now you’ve got South Korea-North Korea, Taiwan-China. There’s a lot of unrest. A lot of us remember the Japanese occupation and don’t want something like that to happen again” (Glantz).
While those such as Bordallo embrace the troop movement at hand, others remain skeptical over the troop re-alignment process. Those opposed to the move remain concerned that Guam alone will have to endure the brunt of the burden. Residents remain nervous about the overcrowding of Guam’s major tourist and recreational spots. Because Guam’s population remains around a meager 173, 000 people, the immediate addition of another 35,000 people on the island that spans a mere 30 miles remains a legitimate issue of concern. According to the Census Bureau in its 2000 population count for Guam, the island’s population increased by 21,653 over the previous decade, representing a 16 percent increase (Hovland and Buckley-Ess). The forthcoming addition of troops alone, without taking into account future civilian residents, will eclipse the 16 percent, decade-long growth watermark within the next several years. Guam, therefore, will be faced with an unprecedented population increase over such a short period of time, when historically the capacity for on-island construction projects is just under $500 million (Bordallo 8). Such a capacity that may have accommodated the gradual growth the island has faced in years past will likely not suffice this never-before seen growth in Guam’s population.
With such a large increase in population over a short period of time, those opposing the move also have reason to fear certain negative social and economic repercussions. Guam currently prides itself in its local hospitality and its welcoming, or “Hafa Adai” spirit (Hafa Adai). This feeling of warmth from the islanders is one reason why the tourism industry on Guam continues to thrive. Every year many Japanese, Chinese, and Korean, tourists make Guam their desired destination spot. However, the impending movement of such a large force of U.S. troops to Guam may alter their potential vacation plans. Throughout Asia, the U.S. military has been given somewhat of a negative reputation, largely due to rape accusations that have plastered headline news time and again, causing some concern to tourists and Guamanians alike who remain wary regarding the move. The large increase in population could potentially brew more crime, thus causing social unrest similar to the likes of those seen in Okinawa which has spurred numerous sit-ins, hunger strikes, and other anti-base movements (Mercier). With a larger presence of troops on Guam, tourists may be more reluctant to visit the island and instead opt for a true get-away elsewhere.
To help offset the loss in tourism on Guam, the Federal Government has pledged a total of about $15 billion in military spending for the transfer of the troops and dependents. Although much of these funds will be used to build housing for the troops and augmentations to other military facilities, some funding will be put forth to support much needed improvements in the local infrastructure including the building of roads, water distribution, wastewater treatment, and other utilities (Guam Civilian-Military). In addition, the U.S. government recently passed H.R. 1585, the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization Act, which would allocate another $300 million for construction projects needed to support the move (Bordallo 4). Moreover, with the promise of federal funding for improvements of Guam’s infrastructure, coupled with the anticipation of nearly 35,000 troops and dependents, property values have risen by 300% within the past year, which some state will equate to more wealth for the people of Guam. Therefore, proponents of the military build-up claim to already be “amazed at how much the island has already benefited from the initial phases of the build-up” (Bordallo 3).
Granted that the island’s infrastructure may be improved to benefit the development of the military bases with incoming federal dollars, many proponents who believe that such funding will further stimulate Guam’s local economy remain to an extent, somewhat misinformed. Guam currently lacks the human capital to work on most of the coming military projects. There is an immediate need of skilled workers in order to prove to the Federal Government that Guam’s local government and private agencies are fully capable of completing building projects that would meet the federal standards. If this fails to happen, the Federal Government will award contracts to off-island companies that are unlikely to pump their money back into the island for the purpose of further stimulating the economy. In fact, two multi-million dollar contracts have already been given to one company based in California and another in Virginia ( Aguon). Furthermore, speculation of the impending move and upgrades to the island’s infrastructure has driven real-estate prices up exponentially, thus making current property owners wealthier, however preventing new locals from entering the over-priced real-estate market. High real-estate prices will also further make it more expensive for local business owners to create and maintain locally owned businesses, thus inviting larger corporations with a substantial amount of financial backing to capitalize on the situation.
Along with the inevitable invasion of the local markets, also comes the incursion onto Guam’s tropical environment. Guam’s coastal areas and reefs remain home to a host of plants and animals, including a variety of corals, reef fish, dolphins, and sea turtles. Locals and tourists alike enjoy spending much of their time engaging in water-related recreational activity including fishing, snorkeling, diving and surfing. However, in order to accomplish the plan to support Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, U.S. Coast Guard, Army Reserves, and Guam National Guard tactical training, the Department of Defense seeks to utilize “multiple ranges and training areas of land, sea space (near shore and offshore), undersea space, and air space under different controlling authorities in the Territory of Guam…and surrounding waters” thereby threatening the island’s beloved natural resources (Notice of Intent). To justify such training in the area, the Marines believe that Guam’s region is one of the only places in the Western Pacific where servicemen can aptly train for skill-based work on ships, submarines, and aircraft in such a realistic environment. Aware of local concerns, the military has issued a statement pledging that “protecting marine environment of the Mariana Islands is an important goal for the Services. Because the Navy training could affect the marine environment, the Navy follows programs to care for the environment and continues to improve these programs” (Fact Sheet: Mariana).
Since tourism remains Guam’s economic mainstay, the island strives to maintain a healthy environment. Anything that would serve to threaten the island’s natural beauty would not only negatively impact plant and wildlife on the island, but would furthermore be detrimental to Guam’s economic livelihood. Pristine beaches and coastal areas will be transformed into staging grounds and training facilities that will host a number of troops engaging in the testing of weapons systems which will undoubtedly alter the terrain of various training areas. In the military’s attempt to prepare their troops for combat in the region, the various military services would require the “testing, training, and fielding of advanced platforms and weapons systems into service force structure” (Notice of Intent) which would increase the risk of unexploded ordinances, toxic waste residue, in addition to potentially damaging a number of exotic plants and wildlife. Past military exercises in the surrounding region have already left the people of Guam to deal with “PCB-contamination in the waters, and down-winder’s radiation, as well as, radiation from the washing down of airplanes and ships used in monitoring nuclear testing in the Pacific” (Aguon). Those affected by such contamination want no more. Although the military claims that it will stay committed to protecting Guam’s environment during its attempt to enhance the nation’s capability to defend critical military assets in the Western Pacific Region, such promises have yet to be seen.
As the United States government finalizes its base relocation plans, Guamanians nervously await what lies in store for their island’s communities, economy, and environment. Well aware that rising tensions in the Western Pacific Region continues to threaten American soil, Guamanians remain torn in their sentiment. As residents of the local community, Guamanians are obligated to ensure the protection and well being of their island; as loyal citizens and patriots, they also recognize their allegiance to the American flag thereby realizing that they too must contribute to the larger national security effort. Indeed, negative repercussions that the island of Guam may face for their increased strategic role in the Western Pacific Region should not be taken in vain.
Works Cited
Aguon, Julian. "Activist and Author Speaks Out Against US Troop Deployment to Guam At UN." News Blaze. 10 Sept. 2007
Bordallo, Madelein Z. "Remarks to Guam Chamber of Commerce." Guam Chamber of Commerce Speech. Guam Chamber of Commerce General Membership Meeting, Guam. 30 May 2006. 9 Sept. 2007 <http://www.guamgovernor.net/content/view/645/2/>.
Daleno, Gaynor D. "Residents Speak Out on the Military Buildup." Peace and Justice for Guam and the Pacific. 17 Aug. 2007. 11 Sept. 2007 <http://decolonizeguam.blogspot.com/search/label/Military%20Build-Up>.
Glantz, Aaron. "Natives of Guam Decry US Expansion Plan." Anti War. 13 Dec. 2006. 10 Sept. 2007 <http://www.antiwar.com/glantz/?articleid=10156>.
"Guam Celebrates 60th Anniversary of WWII Liberation." Commemorating the 60th Anniversary of the Liberation of Guam. 2007. Guam Visitors Bureau. 10 Sept. 2007 <http://www.liberationday.com/2004/pages/index.php>.
"Hafa Adai...Means Hello!" Guam Visitors Bureau. 13 Sept. 2007 <http://www.visitguam.org/main/>.
Hovland, Idabelle B., and Julia Buckley-Ess. "Census Bureau Releases Census 2000 Population." Census Bureau News. 3 July 2001. U.S. Census Bureau. 09 Sept. 2007 <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/cb01cn174.html>.
Mercier, Rick. "The Peace Movement in Okinawa." ZMagazine. Feb. 1996. 10 Sept. 2007 <http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/feb96mercier.htm>.
United States. Civilian Military Task Force. Department of Defense. Guam-Civilian Military Task Force Contributions for Inclusion in "Scoping Process" for the Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement. May 2007. <http://www.guamgovernor.net/content/view/645/2/>.
United States. Department of Defense. Mariana Islands Range Complex Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement. 11 Sept. 2007.
United States. Joint Guam Program Office. Department of Defense. Proposed Action Fact Sheet. Apr.-May 2007. 09 Sept. 2007 <http://www.guampdn.com>.
United States. Representative Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Palau. Department of Defense. Notice of Inent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Mariana Islands Range Complex and to Announce Public Scoping Meetings. 12 June. 11 Sept. 2007 <http://www.guamgovernor.net/content/view/645/2/>.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Stevie Wonder? Indeed.
Good ol' Steve Jobs did it again this afternoon, releasing apple's new line of the revolutionary ipod (touch) in his usual, cultic of a release fashion. Amidst a captivated, die-hard, and mac-friendly crowd, Stevie hushed months, or even years of speculative, applestolic belief of a new ipod design that kept eager followers frothing at the mouth for its long awaited secondcoming. Well, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls--it has arrived. And it is as sweet as ever, although not a far cry from the overly hyped apple iphone. Thus begging the question: What is next to come (and when can we expect its release)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
