Salut

There are few words in any language that have such contrasting meanings such as "hello" and "goodbye." But they are nonetheless out there, like "salut" (pronounced sa-lyoo), which in French means both "hello" and "goodbye." As a result, the word requires special attention, listening to the context, tone of voice, and situation. In other words, the word demands multiple perspectives.

Looking back through memories of freshman year excitement, my first C on a test, I can say that I've been battered and worn out, but I have managed to come out with one important battle scar. That battle scar being the ability to acknowledge, think, and learn new perspectives that might be alien to me.

Entering high school as a freshman, I had been trained to take everything as it was given to me. My motto was believe everything your teachers say and what your parents say. Then I met Ishmael. Ishmael is a talking gorilla, but he was also the beginning to the journey I was taking. He had told me that our entire society was flawed. Never in my life did I think that there was another side to the "taker" life. That was the start to shedding my old life as thinking with only my perspective.

The word, "sophomore" means a wise fool. Let's just say I had a bit more fool in me than wise at this point. While school continued to open more perspectives, I was the given the opportunity to live in a completely new perspective for three weeks in Kiel, Germany. There, I learned the value of thinking in new perspectives, as it sped up the immersion process in their culture. At the same time, listening to such contrasting opinions on health care and even the environment reinforced the prominence of multiple perspectives.

Junior year was my caveman days, rarely finding the time to eat, shower, socialize. However, it was the year I first tried Original Oratory on the speech team. While I had initially joined because I loved to talk, as I began attending tournaments and receiving criticism for my speech, I learned that even an argument as harmless as the need for foreign language education drew a flood of comments and ideas. I had to learn how to acknowledge those different points of view and sincerely address them in my speech.

My senior year has been the time for these past smaller realizations to culminate into who I am today. Senior year has been very much about rearming myself with the gear to better develop multiple perspectives, by learning about the mythical lens, Marxist lens, and ecocritical lens. It's a realization that has allowed me to further appreciate words like "salut."

As I look to college, I'm optimistic that it will build off this journey and battle scar, but I also hope that it will be another journey that moves me beyond understanding multiple perspectives. So until then, Salut!

Parlez 당신 Deutsch?

When asked by our teachers which issue in our society needs to be addressed, many immediately think of poverty, diseases, hunger, and climate change. However, one issue that will affect all of us and our ability to communicate in an ever globalized world is the lack of foreign language education, especially in the elementary schools.


Currently less than 26% of American adults speak another language, in comparison to over 54% of Europeans who are able to hold a conversation in another language. What does this increasing gap of ability to communicate exactly mean?

- According David Gray, former Secretary of Labor, it significantly reduces American competitiveness in global markets, as they cannot fully communicate without an aid. He explains, "To make a sale, you have a great disadvantage if your competitor speaks the language of the customer and you don’t.”

- According to ACTFL (American Council of Teachers for foreign Languages), our national security is further weakened, as there is an ever diminishing number of translators working within the FBI as well as diminishes diplomatic efforts with a lack of cultural awareness.

Despite these real implications, only 25% of elementary schools in the entire US offer foreign language programs. In addition, the only bill that specifically supported foreign languages was eliminated in 2012.

So why is there a continuous lack of attention to foreign languages?

1. Americans don't see the need for foreign languages.

To put it in perspective, a Gallup poll survey was conducted in 2001, asking the question, "How important is it that Americans learn to speak a second language other than English?" 

	Essential	Important	Not too important	Not at all important	No opinion
2001 Mar 26-28	19%	50	18	12	1

 A mere 19% of those surveyed thought that learning another language was significant. In comparison, a similar study was conducted by the European Commission in 2001, and the results revealed nearly 74% of Europeans believed that learning another language was essential. However, what was important to notice was that only 34% attributed their belief to the fact that the other languages are widely spoken, whereas 73% attributed it to increasing job prospects.

2. This leads me to the second reason as to why Americans don't find the need to learn foreign languages, our geography and our history.

Head of the American Council on Teaching of Foreign Languages, Marty Abbott puts it best, "We have never had a compelling reason to interact with the rest of the world. We have been isolated geographically, and haven’t had that urgency [to learn other languages] that Europeans have had.” 

Because English has become a global language, and we ourselves have never had to compete with our surroundings (as our surroundings are bodies of water), we use English as a badge of national expression and identity. As a result, according to Shuhan Wang of the National Foreign Language Center, "it becomes a two-edged sword. People understand us, but we don’t comprehend them. We are losing so much and are not aware of it.”


The world has changed and we can no longer be satisfied with bypassing cultural lessons and foreign language classes simply because we know English. The world is quickly adapting, when will we?

For a little Culture "Shock" check out some of these popular German, French, and Korean songs!

Terrorism: The Word

My name is Austin Bream, and I write a blog called How Underdogs Win. Today, I’m going to guest write here, and give language a shot. I guess today I’m the underdog.

As I sat down to write this blog post, I didn’t expect the events I was writing on to become the base of one of the most terrifying weeks in America. Yes, of course I’m referring to the Boston Marathon attacks, and subsequent manhunt. But what captivated me in the attacks, besides the deeply unsettling casualties and historical shutting-down of Boston (fascinating recap), was the language surrounding what had actually happened.

For the most part, news sources informed the public of these attacks, referring to them as “acts of terror”. One person did noticeably avoid the phrase. President Obama. As I listened to his first speech, made Monday night, I noted the absence of what has unfortunately become too common a phrase. Why was Obama not using the phrase “act of terror”, especially when so many others were, including a White House Official who spoke immediately after Obama with a clarification on the absence of the phrase in his speech?

The best point to begin with is the word’s history and connotation. First popularized during the French Revolution, the word had positive implications, a government initiated system to restore order amidst chaos through the use of terror (think guillotine). History also shows us that terrorism was organized, heavily planned in advance, a characteristic taken into account by the CIA definition, which describes terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents”. It was only through the anti-colonialist sentiments after World War II, which fueled attacks against European powers, that the word took on its modern connotations of attacks against a government and not by it.

This information aids in understanding Obama’s decision. At the time he gave his first speech, he did not know if political motive existed. And with the memory of his phrasing of the attacks in Libya and the controversy there created, he wished to be deliberate in his words. But the next day he spoke again, and used the word terror in describing the attacks. However, he also clarified that the motive and actors were as of yet unknown.

The language surrounding the attack continues to be important through the crazy events that have followed the attacks. The actors in this attack have been called “devout to Islam” and hail from Chechnya. Yet whether they wished only to cause damage or had a more political motive is still unknown. And thus, dubbing the attacks terrorism is not precise. And it is risky. For in so doing, their home region and religion instantly becomes associated with acts of terror, hate crimes occur, and more fear arises. But if their motives were not political, and even if they were not related to religion or homeland, then no terrorism occurred. Thus the phrase acts as a trigger for more fear, more violence.

To conclude, should we ever use the word terror? It seems to me that as soon as the label is given to any act, the action gains further success. Let me explain. A terrorist wishes to incite terror, to use the attack to fuel instability and collapse. When, after an attack, we enter into a period of fear and become unstable, we aid the attacker. And using the word terror incites this fear. Furthermore, the word is tricky as to its correct usage, high risk with little reward. Thus, I don’t see merit to using the word terror, but I do recognize the importance of language in terrorism. And how terrible it can be.

To all the victims of the attacks in Boston: You are in our hearts and prayers, our thoughts and wishes. This is a reminder of how great America can be. Not in our fall, but in our ability to rise and come together again. As we stay together through tragedy, we ensure those wishing to destabilize us through violence do not succeed, and what could be terrorism isn’t.

The Birds and the Bees 2.0

Contrary to popular belief, speech and words weren't magical gifts thrust upon our ancestors by the gods. Instead, according to MIT's Shigeru Miyagawa, it was due to these guys:

    

While the explanation for the origin of human language varies from the bow-wow theory to the pooh pooh theory (they're real!), Darwin couldn't have better put it when he said that the origins of words may have come from singing, which gives rise to words with emotions as well.

Simply put, human language comes from the combination of elaborate songs of birds and the more utilitarian, information bearing types of expression found in other animals. This, therefore, leads to the idea that human language in essence has two different layers. The first layer is called the "expression" layer, or the fluidity of order of the words. The second layer is called the "lexical" layer, or the core content of the sentence. For example, take the sentence "Bob saw a bird". The expression layer is revealed as we could manipulate the order of the words and even add other words to ask, "When did Bob see the bird?". However, the lexical layer is that the main content of the sentence remains the same, "Bob," "see," and "bird."

So, how do the birds and bees play a role?

According to Miyagawa and Chomskey, birdsong contains the expression layer of human language. Rather than containing actual content in the songs, birds simply use melodies that simply have one meaning, such as mating or territory. Nightingales are known to be able to recite from 100 to 200 different melodies. (Listen to some of those soothing bird calls here.) Whereas the communicative waggle of bees, resembles the lexical layer. For example, bees communicate through precise waggles in order to share with other bees the location of food, while other primates use a range of short sounds to indicate threats.

Humans have simply put the two together to create language that contains both expression and content. Darwin even goes to suggest that humans first developed the ability to sing, and then learned to apply the lexical layer to the singing. Thus, developing the ability to communicate in essential information in melodious, flexible structures.

Parents all around the world will have a hard time explaining this "bird and bees" story.

Disney is Eating the Next Generation

With women like Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandburg encouraging women to embrace their inner Hermione Grangers, it seems our society has graduated from the days when women couldn't vote and receive an education. 

Although we have come a long way, seeing the familiar faces of Disney, the cornerstone of most of our childhoods, we might not be as transformed as we might think.  

However, what is it about these pretty in pink creatures that make them so dreadful? According to Peggy Orgenstein's Cinderella Ate My Daughter, language plays a big role in infiltrating the minds of wishful seven year olds. Language in songs especially unconsciously embed in our minds that women are weaker, less intelligent, and less capable than men. 

Back when I was 3 foot and 5 inches, my favorite princess had to be Mulan. She is a brave warrior who sacrifices her comfortable life in order to save her father. One of my favorite songs that I loved to sing, "I'll Make a Man out of You", and still sing sometimes today, inadvertently diminishes our quest to equalize our society.  

So, I recently went back and listened to the song again.
Here's one quote from "I'll Make a Man Out of You" that particularly spoke to me: 

• "Did they send me daughters, when I asked for sons?"

Through a feminist lens, the first quote revives the patriarchal society that we've been trying to shed for decades. The outright comparison between men and women immediately paints the picture that women are incapable of fighting and far weaker than men. As author Orgenstein puts it, "it prompts girls to simply wait for princes they've never met to rescue them from misery". This mentality at a young age allows girls to lower their expectations by convincing themselves that in the end, they'll marry a rich man and live happily ever after.

We may say that these words don't really affect us. We're intelligent. We can filter out the messages. However, according to the New York Times, "Studies have long shown that media messages have a pronounced impact on childhood risk behaviors." Words matter, especially words with catchy tunes. 

We have made such incredible progress in creating an equal society, but we're stuck at the crossroads. Do we keep a childhood cornerstone such as Disney? Disney has managed to capture our every dreams in hour long movies, but if we keep feeding Disney to our future generations, Disney will keep feeding them words and ideas that advances notions that it's acceptable to keep women in the kitchen, that women are weaker than men, that women can be treated differently.

You decide. Do we keep feeding Disney to future generations?

"It's Like Ridic"

Impersonate a girl talking. In response to this order, most people switch to an upper range, and all of a sudden begin to add "like" after every word and uptalk. For decades, what we have named as Valley Girl talk and more recently Kardashian talk, have become markers of immaturity and stupidity. Yet, Dr. Penny Eckert, professor of linguistics at Stanford and linguists argue that women and teenage girls should be given credit for pioneering vocal trends and slang that serve more than to be just "cute". 


So, what do I mean by vocal trends? According to the Journal of Voice, after studying samples of recorded speech of women aged 18 to 25, the professors have found evidence of the emerging vocal trend of "vocal fry" aka a guttural fluttering of vocal chords. Need an example? Imagine the raspy, croaking sound at the end of sentences of Mae West saying, "Why don’t you come up sometime and see me." Or even more recently, it can be heard on SNL's Maya Rudolph's impersonation of Maya Angelou.

While uptalk and vocal fry can be found from Reese Witherspoon's portrayal of Elle Woods in "Legally Blonde" to the senior members of a Texas sorority, both vocal fry and uptalk are timeless vocal trends. In fact, vocal fry can be traced back to 1964 among British men who used this tool to establish their superior standing. Showing that it's not only women who have found vocal fry effective.


The question remains: why are we so fond of these particular vocal trends? More importantly, are women on to something? According to Fought, yes, "The truth is this: Young women take linguistic features and use them as power tools for building relationships.” In addition, these tools are particular effective when women are trying to assert their authority or position. Giving the saying, "It's not what you say, it's how you say it" a whole new meaning.

The next time you hear someone uptalk or use vocal fry, rather than criticizing his or her "mainstreamness" or convergence to pop culture, try it for yourself. 

Shut Up and Listen

Up until now, getting someone to shut their trap has been a difficult feat. We’ve relied on shushing, witty insults, and even good old duct tape, but these methods have been useless, difficult, and assault, respectively.
But all that toil has come to an end, with the new speech jamming gun affectionately known as the speech jammer. According to Popular Science on March 1st, 2012, Japanese researchers Kurihara and Tsukada have taken the simple design of a radar gun, combined it with a microphone and a speaker, to create Delayed Auditory Feedback.
This invention means several benefits:
 
1. Ability to treat stuttering
 
According to the Stuttering Foundation, “DAF used in speech jamming guns induces fluency in many individuals who stutter.” The East Carolina University conducted an experiment with 9 adults with stutters who would conduct 15 business phone calls, and without the participants knowing, DAF was applied on the telephones. The result? There was nearly a 60% reduction in stuttering frequency among the participants.
 
2. Moderate discourse
 
In an article of Japan Today, Kurihara and Tsukada reveal that their initial purpose for the device was to use it in public settings on “people who just can’t follow normal rules of conversation.” For example, in the recent presidential debates, moderator Jim Lehrer desperately needed this speech jammer when President Obama and Governor Romney “accidentally” went over their allotted speaking times.

While I'm sure we can all think of that one person to use the speech jammer on, the device doesn't come without heavier implications.
 
1. Ending up in the wrong hands
 
For example, in a public setting, such as a political rally, the device in the hands of an audience member could be used to silence the speakers. Whereas in the hands of an oppressive regime, political dissenters and demonstrators could be completely shut down vocally.
 
2. The sound and silence paradox

If people are speaking or acting with the threat of silence upon them, this can potentially change their behavior which will stifle creative thinking and problem solving. This raises an important question: At what point does a disciplinary measure become a deterrent? At what point does a simple shush towards one person turn into the power to silence an entire generation?

What do you think? If this device hit the stores, would you be the first in line? Sound off in the comment section below!

Meanwhile, curious to see how this device works? Check it out for yourself:

Raising Dead Languages

Sanskrit

From Latin to Ancient Greek to Sanskrit, it has been more than thousands of years since words have been spoken in these respective languages. For any culture, its language is one of the primary ways it stays alive. Without the continuation of the language, the culture loses its significance as well as its influence.   

For a long time, the only way to stave off a language from going extinct was to find the few native speakers and physically document the language or to labor over documents and decode the language. One prominent example of trying to save a dying language is the journey of Geoffrey Khan, a linguist at the University of Cambridge. His goal was to document Aramaic, a Semitic language related to Hebrew and Arabic, and was the common tongue used throughout the Middle East. Aramaic even dates back to the time of Jesus Christ, as he cried in Aramaic on the cross, "Elahi, Elahi, lema shabaqtani?” (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”). Despite its presence throughout a majority of history, Aramaic is down to its last one or two generation of speakers. As a result, Khan has taken the extended effort to interview and record the native speakers. While the direct interaction with those who speak the language is a personal way of keeping a language alive, it just isn't humanely possible to speak to everyone, nor are there always people who speak all the languages. 

However, with our advanced computers, raising dead languages might not be out of reach. In fact, according to Canadian scientist Alexandre Bouchard-Cote and his research team at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver theorize that the world's dead languages could be reconstructed using computer programs to build extinct languages, word-by-word. In other words, computers could use current languages to recreate extinct ones. 

Although the future of dying languages seems a little brighter, this raises an important question. Is it right to allow technology to keep languages alive, when languages fundamentally begin through speech?

Under the Gigil Spell

           
If you're squealing in your seat, wanting to simply snatch these cute animals and squeeze them, you're not alone.

From statements like "I just wanna eat you up!" or "I can't handle it," the words we express when seeing something cute reveals a dark side to our infatuation with cute. In fact, this "cute aggression" as one researcher puts it, is quite normal and instead exposes an innate response.  And in the Philippines, they even have a word for it:

gigil n. the urge to pinch or squeeze something that is unbearably cute. 

Yet, this aggression, as clarified by Society for Personality and Social Psychology, doesn't imply any harm.

The bigger question becomes, "Why is it that the language and motions that we use to react to cute pictures, animals, etc. are so violent?"

Paradoxically, our brains function in a way that rather than approaching something cute and cuddly with gentleness and care, our brain turns it into aggression. Intrigued by the correlation of cuteness and verbal & physical aggression, researchers split up the experiment into two. The first experiment consisted of 109 participants rating pictures by how much they felt the pictures made them lose control. This was measured specifically through the verbal reactions to each picture. Whereas the second experiment focused on the connection of verbal aggression and physical aggression, by gathering 90 male and female volunteers who were given bubble wrap. The researchers found that the participants watching the cute slideshow of animals popped more than 120 bubbles, as compared to 80 for those watching a funny slideshow, and 100 for those watching a neutral slideshow.

While the correlation between the "aggression" in our words and cuteness has been established, according to Popular Science, the causation is still in the works. However, Dyer offers two possibilities: the overwhelming positive emotions are expressed negatively in an attempt to control ourselves. It's a bit like crying at truly happy events. Or, it's because the overwhelming positive emotion stirs in us a desire to take care of it, but because it's a picture, frustration turns into aggression.

Whatever the reason, let's just say, we have a little bit of Steinbeck's Lennie Small in all of us. However, not to worry, as Dyer of Yale puts it, "We don't have a bunch of budding sociopaths in our studies that you have to worry about".

Wait, Free Speech Doesn't Cover That?

"It's a potential catastrophe for patients." - Steve Nissen (Head of the Cleveland Clinic)

No, not the zombie-apocalypse that we narrowly missed last Friday, but the possibility of protecting off-label promotion of medical drugs as free speech.

About a week ago, American drug giant Pfizer (proud bringer of Lipitor)  paid the US government more than $55 million in fines for the actions of one of its companies, Wyeth, which overstated the benefits of its drug protonix, despite warnings from the FDA.

While drug companies paying for similar offences is an age-old story, a recent court ruling could deeply reduce the trust we have maintained with drug companies. According to US vs. Caronia, it was initially ruled that the defending company (Jazz Pharmaceuticals) was over exaggerating the benefits of its drug Xyrem, and thus had to pay the fines. However, a federal appeals court has overturned that statement, saying "that off-label promotion should be protected as free speech." The case will proceed to the Supreme Court, meanwhile, what will it mean for us if off-label promotion does indeed become protected?

Well, two things.

1. Loss of trust between patients and drug companies (if there was any to begin with)
2. Discourage "good science"

By allowing drug companies to have unrestricted promotion of off-label uses, our job as consumers becomes that much harder. We have to begin analyzing which uses and side effects to truly take into account, or whether they should be taken into account. Allowing off-label promotion will not only affect the way we buy drugs, but also the way we approach drug companies. Is it really necessary to add suspicion to an already uneasy relationship?

According to the journal Nature, forcing drug companies to go through the FDA-approving process encourages companies to invest in trials in order to provide truth to their off-label uses. Trying to turn off-label uses to label uses, progresses Science and Medicine development. For example, through the trials Johnson & Johnson was able to expand its drug label, for patients who have advanced prostate cancer.

Good habits lead to good science, something we can't avoid losing so that drug companies can simply make more money.

Pardon My French... or My Asian?

                       
Would you categorize either as "Oriental?"

When Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" overtook the charts on May of 2011, it wasn't the expression of creativity that shocked the audience, but her overt use of the word, "Orient."

Defined by Merriam Webster,
Oriental: sometimes offensive : Asian; especially : one who is a native of east Asia or is of east Asian descent.

So, why is it so offensive to use this word against people like, say me? And in fact it is considered so offensive that in the states of Washington and New York, the word "Oriental" was banned from all legislature. Jeff Yang explores this age old question in an NPR article.

To be quite honest, the word "oriental" actually isn't a slur (believe me, there are worse things you could be called), but it's offensive because it is more indicative of the time period.

Oriental was predominantly used in the early 20th century, a time associated with the subordinate status of Asians, from exoticism to the old stereotypical geishas. Professor Wu states that the word "oriental is like the word negro. It conjures up an era." It brings up the 1952 Asian exclusion acts, racism that prohibited Asian immigrants from attaining citizenship. As a result, the word "Oriental" is considered racist. Using the word implies the same thoughts and opinions felt during the mid-1900s.

At the same time, the word, according to Jeff Yang, is just inaccurate. "Orient" translates to just "the East," and that term for the Asian region is incomplete for two reasons. First, only in a flat world does it truly make sense to be calling the Asian region the "Far East" because in the context of our spherical world, if you keep going east, it eventually becomes the west. In other words? It's really outdated. Second, "Oriental" also effectively leaves out completely the Indian subcontinent, whereas, the term "Asian" includes the Indian subcontinent. Therefore, the term "Oriental" is not only inaccurate but also ignorant of current times and geography.

So, while Lady Gaga was just trying to prove the necessity of being our own individuals, maybe next time she can prove the necessity of being politically correct individuals.

How neutral is neutral?

Reading Reading Lolita in Tehran, I was introduced to the complex world of wearing veils in the Muslim culture. Naturally, the controversial issue of its ban in countries such as France and Belgium came up. I asked myself, "How does a country go about expressing a ban on a religious veil neutrally?" So, I went on a quest to answer this question...

As I looked at the different cases for the burqa ban, I noticed two things:
1. Absence of any "signal" words - veil, muslim, etc.
2. Playing the Hero

An article analyzing the 5 arguments of the French burqa ban legislation, claimed that, as was expected, the words, "women, veil, Muslim, or even burqa" were never mentioned in the entire bill. Instead, it was phrased as prohibiting:

"porter une tenue detinee a dissimuler son visage" ("wearing attire designed to hide the face")

While this shows neutrality in the law, there were a slew of exceptions that followed:

"The prohibition described in Article 1 does not apply if the attire is prescribed or authorized by legislative or regulatory dispensation, if it is justified for reasons of health or professional motives, or if it is adopted in the context of athletic practices, festivals, or artistic or traditional performances."

These exceptions indicate the subtle bias within the legislation, and perhaps even a favoritism to Christianity. In fact, the French's main response to the legislation is that they have a similar "dress code" for other religions too, a ban on the Jewish yarmulke and large Christian crosses. Yes, Christian crosses. The main difference is that the yarmulke and the headscarf are both religious obligations, whereas the Christian cross is not an obligation.

However, what was most appealing about the analysis, was the presence of the idea of "imprisonment" in the bill. The idea of imprisonment was portrayed through the bill's explanation of the coercion that the women are put through to wear the veil as well as the suffocating aspects of the veil. For example, the veil was described as a "degrading prison" by one of the legislators, as it objectifies women. At the same time, because the veil covers the entire body, it's seen as hot and uncomfortable, and therefore a health hazard.

By taking a deeper look at the bill's efforts to "free" the women, we see both a superficial understanding of the religion and an attempt to play the hero role in a situation where a hero wasn't called for. But, I'll leave that for you to judge. How neutral is such a ban? What does it reveal about a country?

A Trapped Democratic Republic of Congo

In recent light of events involving the M23 in the Democratic Republic of Congo, let's take a deeper look at the effect of the 4 traps described by Paul Collier in the Bottom Billion.

The Conflict Trap:

Among the slew of nicknames that the DRC has, "conflict" ought to be one of them. Collier defines the two greatest risk factors for those that fall under this trap are low income and low growth. With a stagnant and slowly declining growth rate of approximately 6% and nearly 70% of the population in poverty, the DRC has had a civil war under Kabila. Yet, the root cause of the conflict in the DRC goes back to the Berlin Conference of 1884. Unaware, the European nations largely combined some Rwandan speaking population along Northern Kivu and Southern Kivu with Congolese populations. For example, the Banyarwanda (aka "those who come from Rwanda"), populate much of North and South Kivu. While, they live in the DRC, they speak the language of Rwandans, and thus with the lack of even good governance, the area is constantly mired in conflict. Language can play the important role in unifying a country and tearing it apart.

At the same time, this internal conflict fuels the conflict coming from the outside. The M23 rebel group provides ample evidence of this. Because of the internal divisions spawned by the linguistic and ethnic differences, allows the M23 rebel group to even set up de facto administration within the DRC and to overtake Goma and Sake.

But let's take a closer look at the role of having Rwanda as a neighbor...

The Landlocked with Bad Neighbors Trap:

While Collier defines this particular trap with the characteristics of being fully surrounded by other countries, the DRC partially falls under this trap. The DRC, although it appears to be at the heart of Africa, actually has approximately 40 km coastline. For example, it has access to trade, to export one of its main natural resources, its mining industry. However, just because it's not landlocked, doesn't mean it avoided the bad neighbors.

History shows that not even 20 years ago, because of the DRC's greedy neighbors, Uganda and Rwanda, the country struggled in a great civil war. And most recently, the M23 rebel group infiltrated the DRC, capturing Goma and Sake, reviving the bad blood among the Ugandans, Rwandans, and Congolese. After all, the M23 is largely found to be heavily supported by the Rwandans and possibly Ugandans.

Yet, why the Congo is deeply affected by its neighbors relates back to not only the aforementioned language issue, but it's a case of bad governance makes the situation worse. As Collier states, " a good government can most surely make a difference in a landlocked resource-scarce country, even with bad neighbors" (63).

Bringing us to...  

The Bad Governance Trap:

The DRC hovers the boundary of falling under this trap. It hovers because it hovers the boundary of being a failed state and not being a failed state. A failed state, is based on the parameters of bad governance and bad policies, according to Collier. So, remember Moise Tshombe or Mobutu? People who antagonized ethnic groups by supporting regional strong men who plunder resources. These figures created the DRC's past as a failed state. In this sense, the DRC is a paradox. While the current president, Kabila has implemented budgeting programming, it lacks in its ability to stop figures like Bosco Ntaganda (aka the general of the Congolese army).

Further evidence of bad governance points to the humanitarian crisis that remains uncontrollable by the government. With nearly, 1.8 million women raped, at a rate of approximately 1 rape per minute. Rapes committed primarily by unpaid government soldiers. The inability to stop the humanitarian crisis, leaves the population largely behind, especially since this then affects education. Although Collier mentions that a precondition for a turnaround necessitates a large enough population so that the educated population reaches critical mass. However, in the case of the Congo, if such a large portion of the population is oppressed, education becomes second to survival, and thus, the bad governance trap remains.

The Hall of Fame - DRC's leaders over the years

Kasavubu

Mobutu

Laurent Kabila

Joseph Kabila

The Natural Resources Trap:

The DRC unfortunately also has a case of the Dutch Disease. Although it is blessed with precious resources such as cobalt, copper, diamonds, gold, zinc, etc, it has known exploitation and corruption as a result of these resources. In fact, The Heart of Darkness delineates the Dutch Disease and its effects on the DRC. The DRC's particular case of Dutch Disease comes with two implications. The first is the humanitarian crisis that it has spurred. In terms of the value of human life in the DRC, it is worth very little. The armies and proxy militias of nearly 6 different countries as well as those of the Congolese government and rebel groups have taken no shame in plundering and looting the natural resources of the DRC.

The second implication is that of Collier's: using natural resources to fuel conflict, especially since the DRC is democratic while it is also very ethnically diverse. In fact, the mining industry of the DRC is evidence of corruption and exploitation. For example, many "makeshift" mining ores are built to exploit these resources, and many during the wars affecting North and South Kivu, creating the profit to buy more arms for the militias. This in effect prohibits further growth, as the country is put under the conflict trap as well.

What's in a name?

In the aftermath of one of the worst hurricanes in history, naming the storm became a quite controversial topic. With CNN banning the coined phrase "Frankenstorm" made popular by meteorologist Jim Cisco. From Hurricane Sandy to Hurricane Exxon, this hurricane is having a bad case of an identity crisis. 

        But if you're someone like me, the first question that popped into my head was, "Does it even matter?" However, according to this fascinating article post, there's a lot to be learned from Hurricane Sandy's name. 

Hurricane Sandy, in fact had 4 different names: 
1. Frankenstorm
2. Sandy
3. Megastorm
4. Hurricane Exxon

 
 Starting with the name Frankenstorm, a combination of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and mother nature's wrath. The name indicates what happens when human error combines with mother nature. According to Bill Nye (Yes, the Science Guy), although climate change does not cause hurricanes, it sure makes them worse. In other words, the name is far from just a Halloween nickname, but it prompts us to recognize how this hurricane is in part due to our own mistakes.

 
 Then there's Sandy. Following in the footsteps of the centuries old tradition of naming hurricanes, Sandy was the lucky winner. Yet, does using the name Sandy really do anything? Well, if anything, hearing the name Sandy flashes images of Olivia Newton-John or even the dog from "Annie." In other words, giving the hurricane such a common name anthropomorphizes the natural disaster. Putting names and faces to the hurricane creates a more emotional connection and allows us to talk about the hurricane in the context of our the ones we love and care about.         

 However, Tina Rosenberg of the New York Times reminds us, the cost of Sandy just this year might amount to nearly $50 billion. That's some major bucks, which explains this next name, Megastorm. While Sandy's impact is catastrophic, the name also reminds us the money, energy, and time that goes into "saving the world." Maybe rather than having to save it all the time, making certain choices to avoid that path would create efficiency. 

Yet, my personal favorite has to be Hurricane Exxon. As Bill Mckibben explains, "Hurricanes should be named after fossil fuel companies." As of this year only, fossil fuel companies have spent more than $150 million blocking solutions to the climate crisis that affect the companies. Naming the hurricanes after fossil fuel companies would directly associate mother nature's wrath to the big fossil fuel companies.

While we don't realize it, naming makes a significant difference to what narrative we subscribe to, whether it's the belief that it's a human made error or it's the fault of fossil fuel companies. However, could the naming process be considered as a waste of time? After all, the focus might not be what we call it, but how we react to it? Could it also serve as a dividing force in a time when unity and teamwork is necessary? 

Discuss!

The Twitter Election

As if the millions of conferences and brainstorming the nastiest thing that can be said about the opposing candidate aren't enough to keep the presidential candidates busy, add conquering the Twittersphere to that list.
      Yet, while this article by Dr. Janet Johnson talks about Twitter as another setting for candidates to use, SNARK - Twitter's winning trait - might just be changing the Election rhetoric, as well as the rhetoric of candidates as well.



Now, looking at the stats, there's no doubt that Twitter is a medium that people use in order to discuss politics, but it's actually the sound bites that leave the biggest impact. With trends like #horsesandbayonets dominating the Twittersphere, the audience is evidently keyed into the snark aspect of the election. In fact, according a Vancouver Sun article, people are more interested in what the Twitter feeds are saying more than the actual articles or accounts in the news.

This leads us to ask, what kind of impact is this leaving on the candidates themselves?

Because the one liners lead to much more satisfactory trends than some statistic or a long-winded, sophisticated speech, President Obama, according to this article has changed from a tone of hope to to one of snark.
Even Governor Romney agrees in the power of snark, as he told New York Times that ahead of the first debate his strategy was to memorize one liners.

And despite some critics, the snark rhetoric is winning. According to most pundits, the final debate, where President Obama scored multiple one liners, was considered absolutely a win for President Obama.

So, what kind of snark are we talking about? Let's recap...

At the final presidential debate, President Obama showed a true transition from the hope rhetoric that he has for a long time exemplified, to the more Twitter approved, snark rhetoric.

1. President Obama's Seinfeld experience.
While discussing Russia in foreign policy, in response to Governor Romney's statement that Russia is the #1 geopolitical foe, President Obama channeled his inner George Constanza.

"The 1980s, they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years." - Obama

 2. “Well, governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We also have things called aircraft carriers that planes land on and submarines that go under water.” - President Obama

This particular one liner was so "snarky" that more than 100,000 people tweeted about it within a minute of the president's saying it. In other words, in the Twittersphere rather than remarks about the statistics of the actual number of ships in the navy, it was Obama's snark that dominated. As a result, for those who have resorted to Twitter as their news source, that puts Obama in the lead or at least in the forefront of people's minds.

3. “[Romney is] changing up so much and backtracking and side stepping we’ve got to name this condition he’s going through, I think it's called... Romnesia." - President Obama

#Romnesia has for a while circulated the Twittersphere, indicating the impact of the snark rhetoric.

This particular shift and importance of Twitter even in our elections, might be a tad troubling. After all, how are we changing the rhetoric of elections? Debates?

Is President Obama's snark rhetoric what we need to hear? Is Twitter ultimately healthy for our elections? I mean sure, the candidates can get more coverage, but if it changes how they're talking then, is it really all that great?

Although there is a typical positive response to snark, does it in the end affect how people vote?

Please share your thoughts or any particular tweet/trend that you found to be satisfying!

Joan d'Arc of Our Decade

Words cannot describe the horror of what happened to Malala Yousufzaii, and as a female living in the US being handed my education, it's given me a lot to think about...

Last night, however, as I was reading different articles about the event, I noticed two things:

1. The power of the phrase "Daughter of the Nation"
2. Westernized word choice

The first article that I stumbled upon, described the new name that was created for Malala, "Daughter of the Nation." Despite the brutal context of the event, I think there's some romantic aspect to the name. From spurring demonstrations by the tens of thousands to becoming the rallying cry for the heroine, the use of this phrase has done something for Pakistan that hasn't been achieved in a long time. Unity.

Now, knowing a little a bit about Pakistan might help to see just the extent of the unifying power of this rallying cry. For the longest time, Pakistan has been a country torn among different religious groups all under the larger umbrella of Islam.

Different religious groups in Pakistan

 
And even up until Malala, protests against violence against women striving for an education have been small and negligible. Yet, both this phrase and Malala have brought together Pakistanis of all different stripes.

"So what is it about the phrase that could make it so powerful?" I asked myself.


I saw that in the phrase, "Daughter of the Nation," the use of the word nation implies a representation of Pakistan as a whole. Rather than, for example, "Daughter of not Taliban or Freedom or Education," which would alienate Malala from the people. Instead, this phrase gives the Pakistanis an idea that they can identify themselves with. At the same time, it's also an identity that they're sharing with the world, albeit a different one. For a while, other countries have viewed Pakistan solely through a religious lens or even as "the place where the Taliban are located," but this time Pakistanis are rallying behind someone who represents the larger idea of rights as a human being, which is something almost everyone can agree with.

At the same time, I've been wondering, is this phrase appealing to other countries because it can be seen as very westernized word choice?

Speaking of westernized word choice, did you know Malala was Christian? Yes. Nor did I. But a better question to ask might be, does it matter? And if it were added what would it bring/not bring to the conversation?

I'll give you a couple seconds to ponder that...
...
...
...
...
...
...


Well?

I guess for myself, I saw this event larger than religion, which was precisely why I thought it transcended the discontinuity among religious ideologies. Yet, the second article I happened by took me by surprise. Unlike the title of the first article, which was "Pakistani teen shot by Taliban becomes 'daughter of the nation', the title of the second article was, "Christian girl hailed as 'daughter of nation' by senior Pakistani cleric."

Yes... both titles include the phrase "Daughter of the Nation," however, one describes the teen as Pakistani and the other as Christian. Although, both are exactly 9 letters, they imply and add very different ideas to the conversation. Associating Malala as Pakistani, reestablishes the intent of the phrase, using her as a mascot of representation of what the Pakistani people believe in, which is the idea that it's wrong to have bullets settle disputes. On the other hand, describing Malala as Christian, who comes from a country where Islam is the major religion, could be possibly detrimental and beneficial. For instance, by adding that she's Christian, it provides the opportunity for people to compare Islam and Christianity. Perhaps, even to the extent of saying Christianity is better than Islam because Malala was Christian, and look she was standing up for ideals championed by Western societies: education and rights, while the attackers are based on an extremist form of Islam. 

A less pessimistic take on that might be that defining Malala as Christian actually allows others to relate to the cause and to Malala. Since, some of us won't necessarily understand having to fight for our education or risking our life to simply have the chance to learn.     

But at the same time, comparing the two articles, is there really a significance in mentioning her religion? Wouldn't that create more of a separation between Islam and Christianity in the minds of readers?


My heart goes out to Malala and her family, and wish her a swift recovery~