Hansel: Hotel Rwanda

In my opinion, first world countries have no particular responsibility to intervene when such political insanity occurs. What I picture America doing in such a crises is similar to the scene in which the United Nations officers threw his beret to the ground as he finds out that just the foreign nationals are to be evacuated. Another scene that looks similar to what I believe would happen if America intervened is the one in which the United Nations try to carry the refugees to safety only to be thwarted by the Hutu militia. My third scene that compares with America’s hypothetical involvement in Rwanda is the scene in which Paul calls Mr. Tillens, the Dutch owner of the hotel. We see Mr. Tillens in another country in a completely different situation. This mirrors how I feel most American civilians would feel about Rwanda. As discussed in class, Americans see Rwandans as the lowest of classes due to their different lifestyle. Thus, Americans do not care about the Rwandan genocide. I would also like to refer back to my first point: first world countries have no particular responsibility intervening when such political insanity occurs. I prefer a strong isolationist policy where it comes to intervening with foreign affairs. Interventionist policies are often fueled by imperialism. America believes that they are some sort of super power who can make everything better with the sweep of their hand and some AK-47s. We  believe that we can show countries the magic of democracy and crony capitalism and their country will be fine. In addition, we believe this with countries who have things that we need. Rwanda is not a particularly large exporter of things that United States consumes. Therefore, we do not very much care what is going on. Possibly if Rwanda had oil, we would have been over there cracking skulls and saving lives in no time. I would really like to say that first world countries with the resources should go and assist Rwanda in their times of struggle, but I know it would wind up getting botched somehow, instead of a simple act of charity or a sort of country companionship. 

Hansel: Human Trafficking

Image acquired from http://theinspirationroom.com

I do not believe the question should be as to what should the government do to put an end to human trafficking, but it should b “What should citizens do to help put an end to human trafficking?” I feel this way for two reasons.

The government will never be able to put an end to human trafficking, or any crime for that matter. This is why we should be careful when recommending policies. There is no perfect society in which things that most people see as bad do not happen. For that reason, I changed the question to include the word “help.” Anyone can do things to help human trafficking. Nobody can end it, even the government.

Going hand and hand with the idea that the government can help end human trafficking is the broad notion that government has to do something to help it. Why does government have to step in? Isn’t that just giving the government more power, which it will inevitably abuse? The Bush Administration instituted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act which set up standards and offices to combat the modern slavery. After fours years of the instituted program, advocates for the program were disappointed. What I don’t understand is how they are surprised. Is the United States government supposed to step in other countries and regulate their abductions and kidnapping? If we are consistent in our opinions on foreign affairs, than that appears to be an absolutely dreadful solution. Trying to add government regulations will not solve the problem, but just add more trouble for the government and increase spending.

Thus, the questions still remains, “What should citizens do to help put an end to human trafficking? I must admit, I did not know very much about human trafficking before we watched the film and read the articles. This, I feel, is the very issues. Not enough citizens are aware of this problem. The solution to this is not in government regulations or foreign affairs, but in the action of the citizens. We must fight human trafficking from the bottom-up, not from the top. If we continue to make citizens aware of this modern slavery through films, charities, private companies aiding the fight against human trafficking, then it will begin to appear in the public eye more often. Just look at environmentalism. It is still a problem, admittedly, but multiple corporations have taken aim in making things such as vehicles and house cleaning products that are more environmentally friendly in the midst of the growing concern for the environment. What I’m saying, basically, is that if we want change, we must cause it ourselves, and not depend on the government to solve all of our problems.

Hansel: District 9

I appreciate the social commentary of District 9 in their parallels with apartheid and xenophobia in general, but I think the filmmakers went about doing it in a way that almost took their credibility. The film gets a tad silly and hard to take seriously at times, particularly involving cat food for exchange. Silliness aside, I would like to address the message of the film that I enjoyed noting: xenophobia. The film shows how easy it is to despise a race of people because their customs and appearance. In the film, humans disown the aliens because of their appearance and behavior that humans found objectionable. This aspect obviously mirrors our idea of races and how cultural difference can separate societies. If we had looked past the differences, we would have cooperated with the prawns in order to better society in harmony with them. Instead, because of their ghastly cultural differences, we banish them and force them to a distinct part of the world. The parallels with the aliens fit well many a time, in my opinion. However, the Christopher Johnson story was hard to take seriously in the sense that he looks like a giant cricket but expresses sympathy, intelligence, and human body language and traits. In addition Christopher’s son was anything but cute and adorable. I realize that is the point the filmmakers tried to make, but I think science fiction writers must be careful when they make films that speak so much about society because they are bound by the fine line between silliness and respectable satire. Perhaps District 9 is supposed to be campy in some way, but they did not make it totally clear. The mockumentary style of film making was very creative and made the film much more entertaining to watch. It makes it more believable in a sense that if we were actually living through it, we would be viewing the story through media. In my opinion, this is one of the best formats for a socially topical film like this. It works for any film, however. I particularly remember from 2008, Quarantine being quite the scary film because of it's video camera plot style.

http://drnorth.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/distrcit-9-sign1.jpg

Hansel: Restrepo

The way Sebastian Junger wrote the article made it sound even more personal, how it was directed to Tim Hetherington personally. It shows how serious war media should be. I’m not saying every journalist should go out and risk their lives to get the news to people. Obviously, someone like a fashion or sports journalist would not be expected to do so. However it took pure journalistic passion of the two men to deploy themselves in Korengal Valley, one of the most dangerous places in Afghanistan. I found it interesting that Junger mentioned the two journalists’ affinity for risk. It almost made them sound like soldiers themselves, like the guy who talked about how he does not know how he’ll make it back in America because of his love for shooting guns and the natural high that results. I imagine what kept them pushing through the terror they must have felt was the idea that they were going to get the truth to those whom have never seen what it’s like for soldiers in Afghanistan Media like this helps the overall mindset Americans have towards war, in my opinion. Through documentaries like Restrepo, civilians get a more accurate impression of what war is like now. This could affect their decisions in voting for a president that might be anti or pro-war. Regardless of how it makes them feel, it educates their standpoint more. Seeing numbers of how many soldiers died in a war has a temporary emotional impact, but not a lasting one. We see them as just numbers in a battle against the enemy. Through the documentary, we see them as human, not only in combat, but also eating and joking around with friends. The most affective scenes, in my opinion the ones in which the soldiers mention their family, like when the guy is working on his gun talking about his ranch back home. Also, when they are in the mess hall wrestling around with the cook, we get to see the human aspect of the soldiers. This might not be all too much of a change for someone whose family member is in the service, but for me the documentary provided a good outlook on men at war and the emotional effects that result.

Image acquired from 

http://www.clarksvilleonline.com

Hansel: Rendition

Torture is wrong legally, morally, and rationally. By legally, I mean that the United States government is not following due process with the law OR rules of war established in the Geneva Convention. One does not generally see countries doing this. It just fuels the idea of Americans feeling superior. Morally, most people would agree that torture is correct. Often, this is overlooked due to the fact that people claim terrorists should not be treated as human beings, but as thugs. We can see this by the look on Douglass Freeman’s face as he witnesses the torture. Rationally, torture does not work. The article titled “Outsourcing Torture” includes a section on it. We can even see it in “Rendition” by the fact that Jeremy El-Ibrahimi just listed names from a soccer team. Torture goes against the fourth, fifth, and eighth amendments to the Constitution. The fourth, against illegal search and seizure, is broken simply by them stripping the suspected terrorist of his clothes. The fifth, due process, is obviously broken by the fact that they are punishing suspect terrorists without due process. The eight amendment, forbidding cruel and unusual punishment, is broken simply by the fact that what the torturers are doing in quite cruel and unusual. One of my questions regarding torture was how did it come about. Admittedly by one of the men who instated it, Michael Scheuer, it was created out of desperation. The government simply did not know what to do with the terrorism problem. I try not to directly crucify those who established the program because I can not think of another way to fight terrorists. When a nation is at war against ideas, such as religious terrorism, the rules of war might not always apply, especially in the case of the enemy using tactics that ignore the rules of war, as well. For example, how do we stop suicide bombers if they believe that they well be martyred? The threat of death does not stop them. Neither does shooting the terrorist while he is strapped with a bomb because of the dead man trigger where the bomb deploys when the grip is lost.

Acquired from cartoonstock.com

Hansel: The Social Network

Facebook is incredibly influential on the adolescents’ lives. The way we socialize is vastly different due to Facebook. For example, one of my best friends today is largely due to Facebook. I did not know him too well in real life, but I was Facebook friends with him. I started noticing that his posts and comments were quite hilarious and coincided with my sense of humor. Gradually, I started talking to him in school more and more often to the point where we became full on friends. Another example is how my mother continues to associate with her old high school friends displaced to other parts of the country. Due to Facebook, high school reunions are much easier to schedule. I also know some friends of mine who have suffered due to Facebook. This involved so called “cyber bullying.” Whether or not this is right, I do not believe in any way that there should be government regulations on social networking sites.  We should not waste our money making sure some kid does not get bullied on Facebook. It is not the government’s responsibility to do this, nor should it be in their power. If Facebook starts to abuse its power, people will simply stop using it. If they do not, it is their fault for partaking in something like that. Facebook knows this, which keeps them from abusing the power.

I know of some other social networking sites, most of them are less socially influential than Facebook. One of them is Tumblr, which is a blogging website. You can post text, however it is mostly meant to blog, or reblog, pictures that you think are cool.   Twitter involves nothing but status updates, most of which are along the lines of “My sheets were all twisted up today. #firstworldproblems” or the less popular “My soccer team kicks ass, but my brother runs a drug cartel. #secondworldproblems.” I have not really noticed any sort of social influence with Tumblr, other than possibly breeding a generations of whiny, introspective teenage photographers. Twitter, however, has a lot of influence. For example when Reggie Bush posted “Nice knowing u, New Orleans”, or something of the sort. Everyone interpreted it as him being traded away from the Saints. There was a big fuss over the whole situation. Similar occurrences have been reported involving athletes and celebrities of the like.

Hansel: West Wing

I do not think that the White House depiction in the pilot episode of the West Wing is entirely accurate. It reminds me of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington in the sense that it is an accurate depiction of government in aesthetic, but not in action. Both Mr. Smith and West Wing involve synthesized action created by the hopes and opinions of the writers of what government should be. I believe that, like Mr. Smith, the pilot episode of The West Wing is a bit idealistic, particularly at the end when Jed (Martin Sheen) plays the daddy role to everyone in the office. If presidents were consistently able to be such perfect heroes, the country's problems would be far less significant. The president created in The West Wing reminds me of the hyper-competent sheriffs that are the protagonists in Western films. They basically have no flaws past that of some sort of cutesy quirk, such as running a bicycle into a tree. In addition, I doubt the problems of the White House officials are as juicy and scandalous as the ones the pilot. If so, they cannot be that consistent. The writers had to make it more entertaining, so they added the prostitute subplot. Franklin D Roosevelt (or was it Theodore Roosevelt?) is often considered a successful president because he was very populist in his policies, often mirroring that of the general population's opinion.

It is impossible for a president to fulfill all of the goals presented during campaigning. Candidates holler lofty goals, such as social healthcare and no more foreign energy dependence. One person alone, however cannot fulfill all of these goals. Whenever change must be brought about, it is best to approach it from the bottom up, meaning with the people. If one person is trying to arrange all of these policies, even with multiple degrees and assistance of advisers, he is bound to estimate wrong on some of them. Also, in such a large system as American government, even the president can not make an enormous difference given the system of checks and balances. This is not to imply that checks and balances are wrong, but that changes should be made through an organized, populist movement. We need candidates that reflect the general population, which is almost impossible due to the corporate allocations given during presidential campaigning. Populist candidates such as Al Gore, John Edwards, and Ron Paul have not done well in elections, therefore the incentive for populist support is low.


Photo acquired from tigersweat.com