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.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
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)
