This year, the GOP has decided not to let anyone who exhibits even a smidgen of intelligence or honesty run. It is the race to the least vile and abhorrent. Amongst all the clowns, Gingrich and Perry take the cake. Huntsman has a very lackluster candidacy and seems like he should belong in the Democratic party, and Santorum is a hypocritical and loony Christian fanatic. I ultimately think that it will come down to Paul, who is suddenly being touted as some sort of hero and Romney, who will say anything to win. I will be outlining and comparing these two in this article.
Fearless author Arundhati Roy’s first and only novel to date, The God of Small Things is a critically acclaimed best seller and winner of the prestigious Booker Prize award. The book, published in 1997, is well worth the hype. Not only is it a literary delight in terms of the construction of the plot, the richness of the prose and the mastery with which Roy illustrates imagery; the several underlying themes in the fairly straightforward plot paint a vivid and brutally accurate picture of the political and social issues in modern India.
In this post, I will be focusing on the issues of race and culture through a Western European perspective. Specifically, I will be looking at the history of cultural discrimination in Europe, particularly in the pre- and post- Enlightenment eras; and the social construction of race and the evolution of it from a social and class concept back in the Victorian era, to something that signifies skin color now.
Zeitgeist: Moving Forward is the third installment in Peter Joseph’s film series of the same name. The movie was released on January 15, 2011, in over 60 countries and in over 30 languages. It presents a case for a needed transition out of the current socioeconomic monetary paradigm which governs the entire world society. Here is the trailer:
Watch the entire movie at http://www.zeitgeistmovingforward.com/
Sovereignty is a much discussed topic today, in lieu of globalization and increased transnationalism. It is a notion that has been highly misunderstood, misconstrued and abused by individuals and nation states. Sovereignty is often described as a state in which a nation has complete and utmost authority over its territory and the government of the nation is independent in making decisions. The biggest problem with this perception of sovereignty is that it is heavily focused on states and territorial independence. I will be arguing throughout this essay that sovereignty cannot be tied down to these issues.
Sovereignty in the state-centric view is outdated and inapplicable to the highly transnational world we live in. Indeed, many groups and individuals who believe that being sovereign is inexplicably tied to not being affected or linked with any global processes on a transnational level are highly mistaken and naïve: “The glittering bribe the globalists are extending to us is this: Enhanced access to global markets –in exchange for your national sovereignty!” (Buchanan 1994). An anti-globalist, primarily due to fears about this supposed threat to sovereignty, people like Mr. Patrick Buchanan try to rile up hatred against anything “un-American”, arguing that this will lead to the betterment of the USA. There are scores of publications that are promote xenophobia, isolationism, symbolism and national pride as a backlash against the adverse effects of globalization and transnationalism on this cherished idea of sovereignty. Indeed, as Mary Tsai puts it, sovereignty “remains a jealously guarded right of every state.” (Tsai 2000). I will firstly be studying the concept of sovereignty, how it came about and how this history is interpreted and understood today. Following this, I will be examining the importance of sovereignty in our world today, how it is affected by capitalism, the role that international institutions and agreement play in the supposed eradication of sovereignty, and the possible future of sovereignty in the world.