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: Capitalism: A Love Story

Image acquired at failblog.com

I believe films with a heavy bias can change people's minds. Conversely, Capitalism: A Love Story did not change my mind in any way. It did have an effect on me in the sense that I looked into the theories of capitalism and socialism more in depth in an attempt to discuss the two better. One scene in particular that I found interesting, is the scene in which Moore attacks Reagan's "letting the bull loose" policy that resulted in significant job loss. As an advocate of free market capitalism, this was particularly jarring. In another scene that I thought fell almost completely flat, Moore uses Hurricane Katrina as a representation of capitalism at its worst. Practically everyone in the theater scoffed at its pure lunacy. 

Moore does not try to find common ground because he has several of his own ideas that he would like to portray instead of showing pro-capitalist arguments. Within the confines of time due to the mainstream movie market, he cannot make the film too long. One must remember that Capitalism is not entirely a persuasive documentary, but also a produced film with the intent on selling well. This confinement might not necessarily forward the most intelligent and respectful arguments. This is why I think Frontline does a better job in portraying the wall street bailouts. The problem with Frontline, however, is that is not nearly as entertaining as Moore's film. Frontline focuses more on giving straight information in the form of narration, photography, and direct words from individuals involved. Capitalism, however, uses emotional response, music, and even sarcasm to convey points. The latter is much more entertaining to watch and still gets the point across. It sacrifices detail, however. If a student in free enterprise were to approach me asking about the financial meltdown for a particular assignment or project, I would tell him or her to consult the Frontline special regarding the topic. If this student just wanted to know a little bit about it and did not seem extremely interested already, I would recommend Capitlism: A Love Story. In Moore's defense, I think he makes his films entertaining and you get a pretty good idea of his opinions and justifications. Although, at times, he dances on the edge of yellow journalism in the sense that everything can be sensationalized. For example, comparing capitalism and hurricane Katrina? How many people does he honestly think he can convince with that one? I also did not appreciate how much of the documentary was spend with footage of people crying. I realize emotion is a large part of argument, but in an argument of capitalism as quantitative as this, it is not in good taste as far as a respective argument goes.

Hansel: Drug War

http://www.leftycartoons.com/

There is very little that I can say regarding the war on drugs that has not already been stomped into the ground repeatedly by anyone with the proper ability to observe and analyze national occurrences.  Despite the fortune being dumped into the drug war, no improvement has been made.  (Sounds kind of like public education, but that's a whole other  issue.)  There are also other costs of the drug war, including broken up families, loss of constitutional rights, and spots in America's already severely overcrowded prisons.  Personally, I do not think that any sort of unity between Mexico and the United States, nor any sort of improvements in the policies will benefit the Drug War. Call me a pessimist, but drug policies have been tested and failed for entirely too long in America.  One would think that the government would pick up on this sort of consistent failure in policy, but what can you say?  Our friend Mario claimed that marijuana legalization would help the drug problem in the United States, and I strongly agree with him.  Often, in the legalization arguments, I hear that government regulation of the product will help prevent from unsafe condition of marijuana.  This, on the other hand, I do not even agree with.  What parents often worry about with pot is that some teenager is going to wind up with a bag of shitty Mexican dirt weed that is laced with cocaine and is going to kill their little  white Rastafarian poser son. This is a problem that is not only highly uncommon, but is also a problem that could be solved almost entirely by legalization of marijuana. Said white Rastafarian poser son is not very apt to visit the hospital when he starts feeling a little too funny from this tainted bag of herb, due to the regulations on his previous activities.  If companies were able to compete with marijuana sales on the terms of quality of the product, it will result in safer bags.  Said "shitty Mexican dirt weed" will become extinct, not to say that we would no longer import the product from Mexico, especially given how much America loves to consume other nations' goods. This will result in legal, less dangerous methods of crossing the border.  Let's say, for the sake of continuing the suburb boy narrative, pot is legalized, and this boy, for whatever reason, still buys pot from his friend down at the alley by Piggly Wiggly.  If this bag is tainted, he is much more apt to go to the hospital and get treatment.  This situation would be practically extinct in the days of legalization.  The previously mentioned point, in my opinion, would not only apply to marijuana, but to cocaine.  Obviously, the still existing laws regarding cocaine would be much more harsh as to refraining from driving, how much is legal to own, the age limit.  The points I hear against cocaine are often regarding the quality and the quantity.  People are afraid that the product will have other harmful, deadly contents, which is a problem eradicated by legalization.  Also, people worry that they will overdose.  Of course, this would still exist in the days of legalization, but treatment centers and regulations would help those in need of such just as treatment for smokers and alcoholics already exist.  I know several other points that support legalization, but I do not want to ramble on.  If you would like to hear more points regarding legalization, you should follow the link I put at the bottom regarding such.

http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/  

Government using ENRON-esque accounting technique to lie about Drug War costs?  Fancy that!

If you really really care about prohibition, particularly regarding marijuana, this presentation by Loyola's own Dr. D'Amico, will capture your fancy.

Thank you for reading, please enjoy the links I put up.  Most of them are from a website run by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a "think tank" of sorts for Austrian economics and libertarian theory. I spend a lot of my day on this site.

Hansel: str8 up G

My name is Stephen Hansel and I am from Slidell, Louisiana, which is an unexciting suburb on the north shore.  Needless to say, I am quite elated to be in a new college environment.  I enjoy film, music, and business.  I can sing, but I usually play guitar, bass, and drums.  I'm in a band called Yellow Light Accelerators, and we give away our music for free.  I enjoy wearing ties and oxfords, because I dress for success! (It’s actually because I’m painfully narcissistic.)  In addition, my favorite kind of music is Sam Cooke, Thelonious Monk, Bilal, and Caddywhompus.  I enjoy Sam Cooke because his singing style is soulful, adding a certain spontaneous element into his performance.  I love Caddywhompus because I feel that their style is close to my personality, like the songwriter and I are similar people judging strictly from the music.  My favorite genres include R & B, jazz, and noise rock.  Lately, I've been enjoying voice over other instruments, mostly due to the fun of performing and expressing oneself through vocalizing and various other techniques that I don’t even realize I use.  Politics and Reel Life will be an exciting class because I enjoy films, particularly regarding history and politics such as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, The Public Enemy, and Apocalypse Now. I find myself reading more non-fiction and economics journals; however, I want to read more of the classics (hence, my future choice of fun English classes). It’s just easier for me to get through non-fiction because I enjoy knowledge and statistics, which is the same reason I greatly prefer college football to the National Football League.  I have never been outside of the country, although I do plan to study abroad, possibly in Europe. (I’m totally in it for the food.)  As far as academics goes, my major is Marketing under the College of Business.  Today, I signed up for various clubs including University Planning Board, NORML, Queer-Straight Alliance, Economics Club, and the Howlin' Wolves.  I figure I'll try every club that looks interesting and be more involved in the ones which I prefer.  I strongly look forward to this class and discussing film with my peers.