Alec Weisman, Editor-in-Chief
Hey everyone,
I got this email from a good friend whose organization is holding a sustainability event at UCSD. Although often portrayed as a liberal ideal, sustainability is a good thing except when taken to extremes. Self-reliance is a conservative ideal, and so can sustainability be. Remember, renewable resources are a strategic benefit to the United States, so we can break the stranglehold of OPEC.
Here is the blurb about the event:
Jessica Baltmanas, EcoNaut
The Housing EcoNauts are hosting “Rush EKO” during fifth week to encourage student involvement and advocacy for diverting on-campus waste and promoting a more sustainable lifestyle. Tips, resources, support, and organizational outreach will be provided for students interested in advocating and promoting more personal sustainable practices. Events will take place on library walk week-long from February 2nd-5th. Join the EcoNauts and see how easy these changes can be!
Looking forwarding to meeting you there!
the EcoNauts
Every Tuesday, Tritons For Israel Host an Israel Update from 2:00pm – 3:00pm where they discuss Israeli current events. If you are at UCSD, come check it out! Today it’s in the Green Table Room in Sungod Lounge.
Link
This Week’s Articles for discussion are below.
(more…)
This anonymous controversial cartoon was on one version of our January issue of the California Review. Please voice your thoughts & comment.
PS. This is an exercise in free speech, so any violence against any member of the California Review will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Update: The Fort Hood Report lacks any mention of Islam as a motivating factor
This just adds to our cartoon drawing attention to radical islam & the excess of political correctness running rampant in America.
Alex Farzan, Staff Writer
After many years of political, economic, and worldwide authority American dominance of the world is now in question. Other states are beginning to play a larger role in the world, and a newer world order may be emerging. China, in particular, is rapidly growing and is showing signs of joining America as one of the world’s superpowers. While many say that the rise of China and the development of a bipolar international system would lead to more peaceful interstate relations, others argue that international systems are more peaceful when they are unipolar. In the following paper, I will argue why the Chinese challenge to American hegemony is in fact the most important threat to international peace in the future, and that it is in our international system’s best interest for there to be continued American unipolar dominance of the world. I will also show that transitions from one hegemon to another will almost always lead to world conflict and war. Lastly, I will explain why a democratic hegemon is more likely to foster world peace and order than an autocratic hegemon, like China.
Ever since the middle of the 20th century, America has maintained the position of the world’s dominating superpower. If China were to challenge American hegemony in the future, our international system may face something similar to what happened during the Cold War: a bipolar international system. Some critics of the Cold War claim that it was a time of peace, and that the bipolar international system was an effective way to facilitate conflicts throughout the world. However, while it may have seemed peaceful to some, others speak against this claim and argue that the Cold War period was not peaceful by any means. As a matter of fact, the bipolar international system during the cold war stirred many conflicts and also encouraged the world to split into two sides: democratic America, and Communist USSR. True, the major powers of the world never engaged in war; however, as Professor Roeder presented in a lecture in his Political Science 12 course, “conflict between the superpowers was displaced to the periphery and was fought through proxies in the cold war.” Another negative result of the bipolar international system during the Cold War was the division that took place in Europe. “The US announced that it would support governments in Europe fighting against communist pressure, and Europe became divided- one side tied to Moscow, the other to Washington”(Roeder). Clearly, the bipolar international system did not encourage peace throughout the world, but rather created conflicts and divided states from one another. If China were to join America as a super power in the world and establish bipolarity, our international system may witness the same negative effects that the world experienced during the Cold War. This begs the question, “why is our international system better off under a unipolar balance of power?” Structural realists who argue that international systems are most peaceful when they are unipolar present a few reasons why our world is better off under the pax Americana. For one, the hegemon creates a stable international order and preserves peace throughout the world. “Since 1500, each of the major periods of long peace is associated with a hegemony of a single power”(Roeder). For example, during the pax romana the Roman Empire was the only hegemonic power in the world, and formed a long period of peace. Additionally in the 19th century, Britain was a hegemon and established a century of peace, known as the pax Britannica (Roeder). These examples show that in order for our international system to reach and maintain peace America must continue to be the world’s superpower, and any challenge to American hegemony by any other state, like china, would only interfere with our international system’s move toward peace.
(more…)
Aaron Simon Louie, Los Angeles Correspondent
At what could be my very last blog before turning 34 this Friday, I would like to share my recent epiphanies concerning a couple of my favorite auteurs, David Cronenberg and William Friedkin.
Some time ago, while I was using the director’s commentary extra of Friedkin’s To Live And Die In L.A., I am reminded of what he said about not holding back graphic content, for the sake of creativity. Concurring with Friedkin’s sensibilities is fellow 1970’s, “New Hollywood generation” film maker, David Cronenberg, when he said on some early 80’s promotional material (regarding Videodrome), that nothing should be off limits regarding sexual and/or visceral (read, graphic violent) content–though, Cronenberg did opined that showing live animal killings/mutilation is something of a cowardly cheap shot, as in a dumb gimmick to substitute whatever lack of visual ingenuity… which then leads me to this following thesis:
Is showing graphic film sex and violence (especially today) is a sign of having no real talent, whatsoever? Maybe back in the early days of the MPAA, and various other, international film ratings boards (i.e, the UK’s BBFC, Japan’s Eirin, Hong Kong’s Category I-III system), flaunting graphic sex and violence had some cultural and creative relevance, given that in the late 60’s/early70’s, everybody’s in the (show) business of letting out the sort of visual content previously/largely restrained from the Silent era, onward ’til, BUT…
(more…)
Matt Moser, Staff Writer & President of Young Americans for Freedom at UCSD
“Remember the Maine!” Americans gathered around this battle cry as our nation prepared for war in February of 1898 after the tragic sinking of the battleship U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor on 15 February of that year. Little more than a century later, Americans would be heard with a similar slogan, “9/11 We Will Never Forget.” These two attacks, and the wars that followed, would define how Americans rationalize war, and usher in a new era in American foreign policy as a “police state.” The terrorist attacks in New York City and Arlington, Virginia on 11 September 2001 were a ground shaking moment for many Americans, and the United States responded by waging a war on terrorism against the perpetrators of the attacks, with overwhelming support. Within hours after the attack, the Central Intelligence Agency’s Special Activities Division had boots on the ground working with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. Like in 2001, the Americans of 1898 were crying for justice after the “attack” on the U.S.S. Maine. The newspapers were feeding the fire by telling Americans of the Spanish atrocities in Cuba. Patriotism was at a high and Americans were not going to let this Spanish transgression go unpunished. Years later the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine would prove to most likely be an accident; but with that knowledge being unknown to Americans at the time, it is important to note that concerning the Americans at the time, the sinking was an attack to the best of the public’s knowledge. The sinking of the Maine was just the final nail in the coffin for Spain; the American public had been bombarded by sensational news stories, published by Hearst and Pulitzer, telling readers about the humanitarian atrocities committed by the Spanish. Hearst and Pulitzer actively urged the public to seek war with Spain to save the Cubans.
In the Spanish-American War, the United States responded to the sinking of the Maine by declaring war on Spain. For the military, this meant fighting a two-theater war. The war would not only take place in the Caribbean where the U.S.S. Maine was sunk, but also in the Philippines, which was a Spanish colony at the time. The war itself only lasted less than a year with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in December 1898. The Filipino insurgency after the war lasted for years afterwards and is sometimes referred to as an entirely new war, under the moniker of the Philippine-American War. Hostilities in the Philippine-American War lasted until 15 June 1913 at the Battle of Bud Bagsak. The Philippine-American War developed as a direct result of the Spanish-American War when the McKinley administration refused to grant the Philippines independence.
(more…)
