UCLA and the World

Africa Featured Middle East Security and Conflict Society and Culture UCLA and the World

Egyptian Peace Activist on Hunger Strike Awaits Appeal Against Three Year Sentence

by James Walker

Editor, The Generation

CAIRO – Ahmed Maher, architect of Egypt’s 2008 April 6 Youth movement and Nobel nominated political activist has been on hunger strike for the past two weeks. Maher, who visited the UCLA campus twice in the last year, continues his policy of non-violent resistance from within Torah Prison in the lead up to his appeal hearing on January 8.

Maher was arrested and charged with violating a controversial new law in Egypt that criminalizes gatherings of more than ten people. After voluntarily surrendering to authorities on November 29, he and two fellow activists, Ahmed Douma and Mohammed Adel, were convicted on December 22 and sentenced to three years hard labor. The three were convicted on charges of rioting, thuggery and the use of violence against security officers.

Maher has been kept in solitary confinement since his transfer to Torah, according to reports smuggled out of the prison. He has been denied access to writing materials, but managed to send out a number of messages written on toilet paper. Sources close to Maher confirm that he has been on hunger strike since December 25.

History of Activism

Maher first came to prominence during the 2011 uprisings against Hosni Mubarak. As one of the principal founders of the April 6^h Egyptian youth movement, Maher became a vocal opponent of the Mubarak regime, and a lynchpin in the electronic resistance efforts of Egypt’s “Arab Spring.” Since that time, he has continued to be an outspoken advocate for democratic reform, first against the perceived autocratic presidency of Mohammed Morsi and later against the military-installed Provisional Government of Acting President Adly Mansour.

Maher was nominated for a Nobel prize in 2011, alongside April 6 co-founder Israa Abdel Fattah, in recognition of their sustained efforts to promote non-violent change in Egypt. The organization has over 70,000 active participants and includes a strict code of conduct for members. During his recent visit to the UCLA campus, Maher described the extensive process applicants must go through to demonstrate a commitment to the non-violent ethos of the group before they are considered active members. Maher’s conviction on charges of violence have been seen by some as an attempt to denigrate the organization’s reputation and undermine its legitimacy.

Since the Egyptian coup d’état in July of 2013, the group has come under increasing pressure from Egyptian authorities. Maher has suggested that the military junta demonstrates the return of the remnants of the Mubarak regime to power in Egypt, negating the gains of the 2011 revolution. In a message from the prison dated Dec 10^th, Maher states that “All the corrupt figures of the Mubarak era are back and the abuses of human rights have increased…it is now crystal clear that this is a war against the January 25^th revolution.” In addition to the new regulations outlawing public gatherings, the current government has also instigated a severe crackdown on dissident groups, designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization and declared a state of emergency in response to mass protests throughout the country.

International responses to Maher’s conviction have been critical. Both the United Nations and the European Union have expressed concern over the suppression of political dissent and the targeting of democratic activists by the regime. In the United States, the State Department expressed deep concern over the worsening climate for freedom of assembly in Egypt and the notion that the conviction of opposition leaders and human rights advocates sends a “chilling message to civil society at large.”

In response to the heavy handed tactics of the police in suppressing political demonstrations and dissent, the Obama administration announced a temporary freeze in aid to Egypt in October, although Secretary of State John Kerry was quick to clarify that this was not intended as a punishment against the military regime. Calls for a stronger response from the administration against the suppression of democratic ideals in Egypt have gone unheeded.

International human rights activists and civil society actors have rallied around the convictions as proof of the anti-democratic and authoritarian nature of the interim government. A strong presence on Facebook and Twitter has gathered momentum in the build-up to the next court appearance in an effort to show solidarity with the pro-democracy movement in Egypt. A web-page (http://www.jan25solidarity.com) has also been launched to coordinate advocacy efforts and to focus international attention on the case.

Maher, Douma and Adel will have their appeal hearing on Wednesday, January 8.

January 6, 2014 2 comments

Security and Conflict The International Economy UCLA and the World Uncategorized

Europe in Crisis: Bolt from the Blue?

written by thegeneration

by Brad Rowe

I had the pleasure of attending a UCLA Center for European and Eurasian Studies (CEES) book talk with author Ivan Berend of the UCLA History Department. He invited discussant Stefan Biedermann, Deputy Consul General of Germany in Los Angeles to join him.

Berend’s book Europe in Crisis: Bolt from the Blue? described the history of the present financial crisis in Europe. He offers some policy and economic prescriptions to help the European Union emerge from the crisis with strength, peace and dignity.

HISTORY

Berend starts by referencing a Joseph E. Stiglitz quote which states that the financial crisis was “made in the U.S.” Berend disagrees. He argues that despite the prevailing wisdom that says the crisis was borne of Wall Street, indeed ten of the eleven European Union countries caused their own crisis.

Specifically, Mr. Berend feels that, in the lead up to 2008: Iceland had relied on a system of irresponsible banking, Greece was engaged in chronic irresponsible government spending, and Ireland was feverishly caught up in reckless consumer spending. Britain, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Latvia and Romania he argues were similarly adrift.

He backs his statement regarding Greece by citing their national retirement ages, in some cases as young as 48 years. A perhaps telling public spending gaffe during the 2004 Olympics allowed a $2.5 billion construction budget balloon to over $10 billion. When put into context with the widespread abject poverty so many Greeks are living in today, this opulence seems absurd.

GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY AND ARROGANCE

Connecting the European financial crisis to the global one, Berend gives the Lehman Brothers collapse and ensuing Wall Street panic credit for freezing international liquidity flows. This triggered a financial collapse, which in turn triggered the recession where the “real economy”–like industry, agriculture and the service sector–faltered.

An oddity among the twelve nations was Poland, which escaped the global crisis unscathed. This was not the case for most European countries, which ended up with a 14% reduction in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Since the beginning of the recession, six countries were bailed out. Complete repayment seems unlikely as these sovereign are currently only able to pay the interest on these loans.

So, what happened? First, globalization spread everywhere with its international interlinked finances. Secondly, neoliberal economics happened. Proponents of this economic ideology had declared victory over Keynesian economics and claimed there would be no more economic cycles.

As Ben Bernanke had called it, this was the “Age of Great Moderation.” Robert Lucas, a Nobel Laureate from the Chicago School of Economics, had trumpeted the trust of markets and skepticism about government. Fredrich Hejek said “Stock regulation and intervention is bad, it is a straight jacket on business. It is the road to serfdom.”

Berend clarifies that European economic shifts exacerbated the problem. There was a 27% drop in industrial employment. In fact, finance, insurance, and real estate (or F.I.R.E.) were bigger sectors of employment than manufacturing and had grown six times faster than industry, agriculture and services.

The other contributing culprit to the financial collapse was the destruction of enforced regulation. With waves of neoliberalism in America, England and Germany, regulation had been essentially eliminated from the 1980s onwards. Champions of deregulation were Reagan, Thatcher, and Chancellor Kohl.

Hedge funds became gambling institutions that won regardless of whether investors won or lost. Consequently, fund managers became eager to attract risky high yield investments. At the European Union’s (EU) very inception, Berend refers to the Euro currency and economy as a “birth defect” in that there was monetary unification without fiscal union. This was a problem because every country was totally different, each with its own fiscal traditions, taxation, and government policy. Greece and Italy had massive non-taxable informal “black economies”. Systemic tax evasion defined Greece and Italy as well during this period. Berend says this was not so for the core countries of the EU like Germany and France.

PRESCRIPTIONS

Berend suggests that the solution to the crisis is to reintroduce regulation and supra-national control. He envisions a “European System of Financial Supervision” for early warning.

Furthermore, he feels austerity measures integrated with growth policies should be a part of bringing Europe back to financial health. To reign in the peripheral countries like Greece and Italy, Berend prescribes a limit to credit extensions. He goes on to say that any level of credit will be maxed out and spent regardless of ability to pay the loans back.

For the long-term, Berend suggested that quasi fiscal unification could be healthy. His suggestion calls for a movement toward federalization with all budget policy being centrally guided.

Finally, Berend calls on the Euro zone to set up a two-tier union in which some more fiscally solid countries join the “fast track” and others participate at a level commensurate to their stability.

FORECAST

Berend’s forecast warns of a continuing crisis this upcoming year. He thinks Greece and Portugal could possibly default on their debts and depart from the EU. Additionally, he signaled that Eurosceptic Britain and Nationalist Hungary may deliberately leave the union. Berend calls Britain the “inside outsider.” They have maintained that the EU capital of Brussels “…cannot dictate to us. We want to be independent.”　

GERMAN REDEFINITION

To all of this: Stefan Biedermann, Deputy Consul General of Germany in Los Angeles, departed from Berend’s analysis by saying the European Union is not financial. “It is a vision beyond war, rage and violence…it is built on a rock of friendship between Germany and France.”

He stated that war between those two historical adversaries today is unthinkable and warned against today’s youth taking for granted the peace and stability that the EU provides. He says “they don’t realize the thin ice we are moving on.”

Biedermann predicts that the EU will emerge stronger out of this crisis. He hopes that the experiment of bringing a continent together in peace will work. The “United States of Europe” is his vision for peace in the future.

Brad Rowe is a second year Masters In Public Policy candidate at UCLA focusing in Education, Crime and International Affairs. Rowe is also a Rosenfield Fellow working on Educational Policy and Programs for the United Way of Greater Los Angeles.

January 24, 2013 0 comment

Global Health Security and Conflict The International Economy UCLA and the World

Stop Voting Against Yourself: The Difference between Opinions and Facts

written by thegeneration

by Shadee Ashtari
Editor-in-Chief

In less than 24 hours, our nation will face one of the most crucial decisions of the decade, not only for America, but for the entire world. Our nation will face a decision that not only directly impacts every American citizen today, but every American and global citizen for years to come.

All my (politically cognizant) life, I have been told by greedy, bigoted elders that I am a liberal because I am “young,” “naïve,” and “don’t pay taxes.”

Well, I may still be young (luckily), but I have in my short life: served as a caregiver for a mother with cancer for ten years; lost her to cancer at the age of 20; and worked multiple jobs to help pay for my family’s and school’s expenses (and hence, paid taxes for the last five years). I have experienced my fair share of bitterness and loss, sacrifice and hard work.

And still, I believe that I would rather work hard every day and give as much as I can to those who cannot fight for themselves. I still stand for the liberating and mobilizing power of a strong educational system. I still stand for whatever socially and economically most benefits the greatest amount of people in my country. I am first and foremost a caretaker of my fellow American, and I will defend whatever truly allows the majority of them to succeed.

I believe the greatest American tragedy and hoax has been the intentional and manipulative inception of a deluded lie to masses of good-intentioned Americans by a few profiting con artists. These con artists should be finally called for what they are: anyone who tells the American people that voting for Mitt Romney is in any way beneficial for the majority of Americans.

It is truly not shocking that upper class politicians and voters support his platform and policy outlines—(despite the clear moral and civic duties they choose to ignore) it makes sense that a millionaire would vote for a fellow millionaire to protect their mutual interests. Fine.

But what on earth is the other 96% of the population even considering? The decision between voting for Obama or Romney is not a complex, relative “opinion”—it is a simple fact-based decision between one man’s platform directly economically and socially benefiting 96% of the American population vs. the latter directly and exclusively serving less than 5% of the population.

Anyone who is a student, a member of the middle or lower class (96% of Americans), a woman, a champion of American jobs, cares the slightest about the rest of the world and the future of their children, has half a heart or half a brain ought to vote for President Obama; otherwise, they literally, socially and fiscally, VOTE AGAINST THEMSELVES. They vote to increase their student tuition. They vote to outsource American jobs to China and India. They vote to veto bills ensuring equal pay for men and women. They vote to alienate global allies, increase tensions with unstable countries like Iran, and essentially significantly increase risks of another unnecessary and financially impossible war. (Note, I am steering clear of a few social issues like gay marriage because I am making a point that the majority of Americans, despite their religious or cultural beliefs, will financially and socially benefit on more “indisputable” social issues like equal pay for women from voting for President Obama.) Unless you are part of the top 4%, if you are voting for Romney, you have been conned in Romney’s longest-standing scam. Let’s break it down, for fact’s sake:

GLOBAL IMPACT

To begin with, what would a Romney presidency do to the rest of the world?

Well, it seems like the international community agrees: the outcome would be disastrous. A BBC World Service opinion poll recently found “sharply higher overseas approval ratings for US President Barack Obama than Republican challenger Mitt Romney. An average of 50% favored Mr. Obama, with 9% for Mr. Romney, in the survey of 21,797 people in 21 countries.” Only Pakistan’s respondents chose Mitt Romney as a preferred winner in the November election.

Ouch. Quite the disparity there, Mittens. Apparently the rest of the world seems to understand their inevitably interrelated fates within the international economy. Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics and Professor at Columbia University, explains, “Romney’s proposed contractionary policies – the attempt to reduce deficits prematurely, while the US economy is still frail – will almost surely weaken America’s already anemic growth, and, if the euro crisis worsens, it could bring on another recession.”

At that point, U.S. demand will be shrinking and the rest of the international community will directly feel the negative economic impacts of a Romney presidency. In the face of globalization, countries around the world need resolute and collaborative efforts to confront issues of trade, climate change, and nuclear arms. And although Romney’s chest-puffing may have fooled some Americans, the rest of the world agrees his macho rhetoric will not serve as a constructive leader in the challenging years to come.

STUDENTS

How would a Romney vs. Obama administration value you as a student?

President Obama:

–Has launched an initiative to help universities and community colleges cut the rate of inflation in half in college expenses. The new system, explains former President Bill Clinton, “sets aside a long reserve in the federal budget, gives money directly to colleges and to students so the loans cost less money… far more important, every single person after next year that gets a college loan from the federal government…can pay that loan back as your choice as a small fixed percentage of your income for twenty years.” Essentially, no student should ever have to drop out of a college or university again because of the cost of college tuition.

Romney/Ryan solution:

–The Romney administration’s plan would “slash more than $15 billion of mandatory and discretionary funding from the Pell Grant program beginning next year, resulting in a 42 percent cut to Pell Grants,” explains Stephen Steigleder, Policy Analyst at CAP Action.

–Governor Romney’s advise to students? “Borrow money if you have to from your parents.” Romney then goes on to tell a story about a friend who once needed money and borrowed $20,000 from his parents at a “low interest rate.” Must be nice. Oh wait, except for the fact that students who even qualify for Pell Grants probably don’t have parents who can just cough up $20,000.

Impact: Eliminating Pell Grants for more than 1 million students and adding thousands of dollars in loan debt to college students and their families.

JOBS & THE MAJORITY CLASS

Who will protect your job? Who will ensure a secure and fruitful future for your children in the job market? Who will make America a competitive leader of the free world?

Romney (as Massachusetts’s governor):

-Vetoed a bill banning state contracts with companies outsourcing state work overseas.He opposed George W. Bush’s tariffs on imported steel from China and opposed President Obama’s tariffs on tires imported from China (factcheck.org).

-Argues that companies like his Bain-owned company Sensata Tech. betray American workers because of a “high tax burden.” But the truth is, the effective corporate tax rate is the lowest it has been in 40 years, while many of our largest corporations pay close to or nothing in taxes (similar to Romney and his offshore Cayman accounts). So the actual explanation for Romney’s record of outsourcing our children’s jobs to China and India is essentially, the bottom line. His priorities are not the 96% of hard-working Americans—his priorities, as reflected by his policies, are cutting overhead costs and finding the cheapest labor possible, for the maximum amount of profit possible, for the fewest number of people possible.

Obama: The majority of Americans, 96% according to Pew Research, are not upper class, so why do half of Americans choose to vote for them?

Maybe they think a businessman like Romney can fix the economy? Well, let’s look at the numbers.

When was a last time our economy witnessed a surplus?

Under a Democratic administration, the Clinton Administration. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 22.7 million jobs were added between January 1993 and January 2001. What about in the last Republican administration? “There was a net increase of nearly 1.1 million jobs”—20 million less jobs for American workers (factcheck.org).

What about today?

Today’s report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics “showed that the economy added 171,000 jobs last month, beating analysts’ expectations. The private sector added 184,000 jobs…making this the 32nd consecutive month that the private sector has grown.” Overall, under Obama, “the private sector has added 759,000 jobs. At this same point in the George W. Bush administration — October 2004 — the private sector had lost more than 1 million jobs.”

Not to mention, when it comes to Romney and his tax rhetoric, there is an enormously annoying point missing: “the fact that although the rich pay higher taxes than the poor, middle-class people actually pay a higher percentage of their income in total taxes,” according to a 2010 study by Citizens for Tax Justice. Although federal income tax rates are progressive, deductions, loopholes, and “special treatment of capital gains reduce actual tax rates for the top earners.” So what is actually happening? Upper-middle-class taxpayers are paying the highest actual percentage of their income (over 31%).

How strange, I guess a deregulated pro-business, upper-class tax-cutting model didn’t really work out. Seems a middle-class economic growth plan, empirically, yielded a fiscal surplus and that Romney does not seem too opposed to taxes when it comes to pushing them down to America’s working class.

WOMEN

Obama:

-Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, legally eliminating wage discrimination barriers for women, as his very first executive action as President.

-Increased funding for the Violence Against Women Act in an effort to protect victims of sexual assault and combat violence against women.

-Obama’s Affordable Care Act also ensures women can receive cancer screenings and mammograms without co-pays or deductibles.

Romney’s plan:

-“Get rid of” Planned Parenthood funding, “overturn Roe V. Wade,” and hand over women’s rights to “employers” to decide their access to birth control coverage.

There is no excuse for any human being who values a woman’s safety and her access to life-saving resources like mammograms to vote for Romney (who plans to repeal these measures)—a woman doing so, is yet again, voting against herself and every other woman’s basic liberties. There is more at stake than one’s particular (and irrelevant) religious or cultural reservations; “the bottom line” is the universal civil rights and health of an entire female population.

VOTE FOR YOURSELF

So as voting day approaches, I make my last plea: vote for you; vote for the student, the woman, the middle class, the majority; vote in the interest of the international economy.

Despite your particular traditional reservations, this year, VOTE FOR YOURSELF.

Martin Kaplan, associate dean of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication, once said:

“…news is not what it used to be. It has fallen into a bizarre notion that substitutes something called ‘balance’ for what used to be called ‘accuracy’ or ‘truth’ or ‘objectivity.’ That may be because…the notion of a truth doesn’t have the same reputation it used to, but, as a consequence, straight journalists both in print and in broadcast can be played like a piccolo by people who know how to exploit that weakness.”

There is a difference between opinion and fact—don’t be played like a piccolo.

Facts and figures from factcheck.org, Pew Research Center, The Huffington Post, and CNN.

Shadee Ashtari is a senior at UCLA majoring in Communications with a minor in Political Science. At the Burkle Center, Shadee is the Editor-in-Chief of The Generation. She debates on the UCLA Debate Team and edits for the UCLA School of Law’s Communications Department. Her current research focuses on student homelessness in the U.S. and the rise and decline of religiosity in industrialized nations.

November 5, 2012 14 comments

Security and Conflict Technology UCLA and the World

International Online Piracy Panel (with video)

written by David Taylor

By Lilit Arabyan

What began as a panel discussion with two diametrically opposing sides soon turned into an effort by panelists to reach a rational middle ground — where the tires of the arguably vicious Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) would meet the proverbial road of just punishment against copyright infringement. On Wednesday, April 25th, four esteemed panelists Noam Dromi (business developer for SocialType), Dr. John Richardson Jr. (UCLA Professor of Information Studies), Nat Segalof (ACLU representative) and Danielle Van Lier (senior counsel, SAG-AFTRA) took on the controversial issue of digital theft and its implications on free expression in the wild terrain of the web, for a room full of UCLA students and eager guests.

Jennifer Ching, co-editor of The Generation, gave the opening remarks for the much-anticipated The-Generation.net-sponsored event that was moderated by fellow co-editor Reza Hessabi. Only one of the panelists faithfully maintained their position in support of the now-dead act and the treaty. So what was wrong with SOPA and ACTA, according to our other guests? The legislative proposals were disingenuous, over-reaching, overly vague and, in Dromi’s ironic reading of it, even hypocritical. To Van Lier’s comment that digital theft was hurting the middle-class guy who depended on downstream revenue, Dromi rebutted that it was this same guy, within the industry, who was doing most of the pirating while simultaneously pushing for such legislation to pass. This example, to me, painted perfectly the image of our broken system, which leaves the working-class individual wanting to rip the system off at all costs. But one point that most of the panelists could agree on was that the vagueness of the law presented fundamental problems. Specifically, the unjust removal of non-infringing content on websites that do contain infringing content is increasingly being seen as a violation of personal rights, as was demonstrated by the recent Blackouts. “There have to be enforcement mechanisms and due process, such that the responsibility does not fall onto the websites,” said Dromi.

When asked by the audience to suggest alternative solutions to battling the issue of intellectual property theft, the panelists called for our active participation in demanding effective legislation and newer business models that would keep up with the current era of informational revolution. Instead of supporting legislative proposals it would be wise to engage in honest conversation, and more constructive policy proposals that set feasible international guidelines of accountability whilst fostering and not hindering the growth of creative capacity.

Taylor Plasz, a 16-year old singer/songwriter in attendance, admitted to feeling guilty for the occasional free download. “Now that I am recording my own original music, I can see how other artists feel about their work being copied or stolen. Not a good feeling,” said Plasz. While most of the songs in her iTunes library are paid for, Plasz recognizes that individuals abroad sometimes violate fair use laws because the same music is not made available to them. “If we gave them recent art for a price, maybe they wouldn’t download illegally,” she remarked.

What are your thoughts?

Lilit Arabyan is a fourth year Political Science major, with a concentration in International Relations and a minor in Global Studies.

—

Video is the author’s own.

May 3, 2012 0 comment

Mexico and Latin America Security Security and Conflict UCLA and the World

Sec. Janet Napolitano speaks with The Generation (video)

written by David Taylor

On April 16, 2012, Janet Napolitano, the current Secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and former governor of Arizona, visited UCLA and spoke at the Anderson School of Management. The Generation co-editors Rachael Cameron and Reza Hessabi had the opportunity to sit down and speak with her about a number of issues, including U.S.-Mexico relations and cybersecurity.

Click here for a podcast of her full remarks at the UCLA Anderson School of Management.

—

Video is the author’s own.

April 23, 2012 2 comments

Middle East Security and Conflict UCLA and the World

The Generation Interview with Senator George Mitchell

written by David Taylor

The Generation co-editors, Jennifer Ching and Brad Rowe, caught up with Senator George Mitchell on March 1, 2012 during his visit to UCLA’s Burkle Center for International Relations to share his experience and thoughts on the art of negotiation and peacemaking.

Mitchell is a veteran of several administrations and famously served as the key negotiator during the peace talks in Northern Ireland that led to the Good Friday peace accord. From 2009-2011 he served as President Barack Obama’s Special Envoy to the Middle East to negotiate an agreement between Israel and the Palestinian territories. Mitchell also served as U.S. Senator from Maine from 1980-1995.

Daniel Melling, an undergraduate intern at the Burkle Center, had this to say about the special day:

Before taking the lectern to deliver the Bernard Brodie Distinguished Lecture, international problem-solver and Democratic legislator Sen. George Mitchell met at Schoenberg Hall with a small group of Burkle Center interns and graduate students to answer questions about his career and the prospects for peace in the Middle East. With the Burkle Center’s Alexandra Lieben and UCLA Vice Provost Judi Smith observing, Sen. Mitchell took the head of a seated circle to begin the discussion.

Answering a question about public service, Sen. Mitchell encouraged students to use their careers to embrace a cause larger than themselves. As the conversation progressed, Sen. Mitchell warned of the danger overpopulation could pose to governments. Sen. Mitchell fielded a variety of questions from how negotiations can legitimize odious factions to what role ambiguous terms can play in peace accords. When asked about how negotiating parties use religion to further their cause, Sen. Mitchell quoted himself as a senator reprimanding Col. Oliver North in the Iran-Contra hearings: “Although he is frequently asked to do so, God does not take sides in American politics.” With the time elapsed and the main lecture approaching, Sen. Mitchell rose to leave, but not before a group photograph to remember a conversation with one of the United States’ foremost statesmen.

Click here to watch Senator Mitchell’s speech and conversation with NPR’s Renee Montagne.

Brad Rowe is a Master of Public Policy graduate student at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. He is working toward influencing drug and crime policies in the United States and abroad.

Jennifer Ching is a senior at UCLA, double majoring in Communication Studies and Political Science. After graduating, Jennifer plans to pursue a career either in news media, features journalism, or international diplomacy.

Daniel Melling is a senior history major at UCLA. At the Burkle Center, Daniel has revised historical archives and planned for upcoming conferences.

—

Images and videos are the author’s own.

April 8, 2012 1 comment

Security and Conflict Society and Culture The International Economy UCLA and the World

The People of North Korea, Silenced for Too Long

written by David Taylor

By Lilit Arabyan

North Korea saturated international headlines late last year after the country’s dictator and supreme ruler, Kim Jong-il, died of a heart attack on December 17, 2011. Footage of Kim Jong-il’s funeral procession, released by the state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), showed millions mourning their departed leader. This footage triggered a torrent of commentary and analysis by organizations like Liberty in North Korea (LiNK), who quoted an unnamed North Korean citizen saying, “If you don’t cry in North Korea after the leader dies, then you could come under suspicion as being against the Government. Then you have to live with that label and suspicion for the rest of your life.”

February 20, 2012 0 comment

The International Economy UCLA and the World Uncategorized

Crocodile Tears and a Steamy Bowl of SOPA

written by thegeneration

A Steamy Hot Bowl of SOPA

by The-Generation Co Editor Brad Rowe

Folks, let’s get real. SOPA’s (Stop Online Piracy Act) enforcement is as much about first amendment rights as shoplifting is to people’s rights to browse in stores. It is a ridiculous notion to say that by not being able to steal music and movies off the Internet – that somehow your rights to free speech are being impinged upon.

I know. I know. SOPA is dead, but there are other pieces of Anti-Piracy legislation coming in its wake to accommodate for some overly zealous penalties in the original. And they need your support.

I am a working an actor, a husband and a father. In the last ten years I have seen the entertainment industry decimated by content distribution online. The truth is no one knows truly how to monetize on the internet. It is a business model that is far from being proven.

Some will tell you otherwise, but from where I’m sitting, the music business is almost totally dead. Television programs are scrambling to find out how to make money as their content appears on sites like Hulu and even on their own websites as they try to keep up with self-promotion. Same challenge goes for the movie studios.

Beyond providing little in the way of monetization, the internet has provided safe passage for another dubious villain – the content pirate. They use cool names like ‘Anonymous’ to hide behind and herald their weapons like ‘MegaUpload’ as great social equalizers, but they are not. They are just covers for base thievery: same as throwing someone’s Chevy up on blocks and taking his new rims. Same as following the Artful Dodger and becoming a pickpocket.

Dickens aside: End result is profits for the industry are down. Way down.

So you say ‘Boo Hoo’ poor rich movie actors and studio big wigs are going to have to cut back the number of islands in the Bahamas they own. Fat cat music producers are going to have to unload a few Bentleys… Waaaah!

Well, let me share dose of reality with those of you who are buying the “SOPA-sucks-First-Amendment” argument. Stealing movies off of the Internet doesn’t hurt Steven Spielberg, or hip hop mogul Russell Simmons, or TV goliaths like JJ Abrams. But it does affect (pardon the occupyism) the 99%.

I’m going to take a quick break to bring something up. Regardless of whether a business one year is profitable or unprofitable the next, it’s the little chumps that take it on the chin when property gets stolen — but thats a larger economics question we won’t get into here.

See, when you click ‘download’ and don’t pay – we don’t get paid. And as the saying goes “By ‘we’, I mean ‘me’.

And here is my broader long term labor commentary. Online piracy hurts me… And my kid. Why, you ask?

The vast, and I mean VAST majority of actors, background artists, writers, producers, editors, cameramen and other working stiffs that make the entertainment industry run are living on the margins.

Take one job description for example: Of the 200,000 dues paying members of the Screen Actors Guild, only 10% make a living wage. I am one of the very lucky few who has been able to carve out a living doing this for the last 15 years.

The average annual salary for a SAG actor is $5,000. Obviously most actors carry a second or third job. This is a far cry from what most people’s perceptions are of fabulous red carpets and fancy dinners at the Ivy in Beverly Hills.

These are people who work as hard to get the work – as they do to do their very specialized technical jobs when they are on a set or in a studio. Your average thespian auditions (interviews) for 50 jobs before booking one paying gig. These talented and hard-working people struggle to attain earnings minimums so that they can provide their families with basics like health insurance and food.

So back to me… And my kid.

When you download a TV episode or a movie I was in for free – It just means that I might not make my earnings threshold to qualify for insurance this year. Which means, next time my son is sick, we will think twice about making a doctors visit that could set us back $700. There it is – the bottom line.

You no pay… My kid no get better. Simple enough?

There will be some version of SOPA that survives and makes it to the President’s desk. Please consider supporting your representatives that support anti-piracy.

And of course, please go to the movies, buys records and tune in…Enjoy the show!

* * * * * * *

Crocodile Tears

by The-Generation Co Editor Reza Hessabi

One of the most inspiring arguments against SOPA is that the Internet is a digital frontier, a powerful force for change and free expression that should never be touched or trampled upon by evil institutions like government or Hollywood. It speaks directly to the Manifest Destiny legend that rests in every American’s heart, and to the general ardor most human beings have for being able to do whatever they want with as much anonymity as they want. It’s a clever ploy and in a perfect world it would work. But perfect this world is not – and cleverness can only get you so far.

While I agree with the argument that the anonymity of the Internet and the vast freedoms that its wildly unexplored terrain could provide should remain untouched, I feel that any attack of SOPA should be grounded in the reality of the situation brewing between pirates and the media conglomerates. Now while I am attacking the idea of SOPA, I’m using Hollywood as a specific case study because they are one of the top exports in America’s economy.

So what is this reality? As the media conglomerates would have you believe, profits are barreling down a mineshaft to oblivion. Dragging the entire media industry with it, pirates are barreling a hole built from pickaxes of greed and lit by the Internet’s wanton freedoms. But look at these companies’ profits. From 2000 to 2010, Hollywood’s profits specifically have rocketed from around 8 billion to 10 billion dollars. Avatar destroyed old box office records, and every summer the blockbusters of superhero fame come rollicking by with multi-million dollar budgets and even bigger profits to rock the wallets of the world. Quite literally, business is good for the elites of Hollywood.

So what’s really pressing them? They’ve been claiming that profits are lost, mainly because they believe ardently that each movie lost to piracy is a profit gone forever. Forget about the fact that if that movie was provided for a much more reasonable price (Blu-Rays are offered for $30 usually and DVDs are no better), people would actually buy them. Forget about the fact that it is ludicrously easy to pirate movies in the first place (Forbes contributer Paul Tassi got the process down to seven steps).

The creation of a model like this is a blatant attempt at “juking the stats”. When one movie is stolen in the underground digital marketplace, it is replaced almost immediately. Of course profit loss is going to be disastrous when millions are stealing an infinite product.

So the reality of the situation is that profit losses are being boosted, corporations are making a ton of money, but piracy is still growing. So what’s scaring the big bad elites? Maybe it’s that fewer and fewer people are going to the movies. Ticket sales are down, way down, compared to 1997 when Titanic destroyed box office records. Compare ticket sales from now to when Star Wars was first released and the numbers are pathetic. Profits are up, but that’s because ticket prices are up. Not that there are more butts in seats. More and more people are choosing to stay at home, to rent or download illegally or to sift through Netflix. And this is the way things are, it cannot be course-corrected by heavy-handed legislation.

Piracy is only one part of this equation. It is not the largest segment of the decline in movie ticket sales. How many middle-aged Joe Schmoes know how to work a torrent? Or to stream films online? The demographic that includes internet pirates is very narrow and unique. Renting, or choosing to simply stay inside and bask in the overwhelming amount of better quality storytelling on television, is the real pain for Hollywood conglomerates. It isn’t hurting their profit margins, but it could. It could lead to a digital revolution in how media is consumed, and God forbid, force them to change their distribution model.

And it is this that infuriates me the most about SOPA. It is a translucent expression of just how stubborn, ossified, and slow an institution can become. Rather than adapting to changing lifestyles, or simply making the big-budget movies they shell out from March till September better in quality, Hollywood decides to ram this down Americans’ throats. The attack on SOPA was a powerful allegory for the American economic ethic: adapt or die. It is ironic that one of America’s strongest moneymaking powerhouses is so virulently opposed to an essential aspect of this country’s economic model.

February 17, 2012 3 comments

Global Health UCLA and the World

The State of Health in Nicaragua

written by thegeneration

By Stephan Chiu

This past December, I returned home from a Global Medical Training (GMT) trip to Nicaragua. GMT organizes trips in which college students travel to foreign countries to work with local doctors and translators in medical clinics. Eight days and 60 patients later, I come back with a better perspective on the state of health in Nicaragua, as well as global health in general.

Nicaragua is a poor country with over half of the country living below the poverty line, and most ailments of patients were a result of their living conditions. Parasites such as roundworms and amoebas are rampant. One 13-year-old patient shocked us when she threw up during a clinical visit, revealing no less than twenty roundworms wriggling in her vomit. Contamination in water supplies, combined with improper hygiene, leads to these parasites being a part of daily life there.

One clinic day, I went with a few group members and a doctor on a house visit to see a patient who was too weak to make it to clinic. After treating her, we were allowed to tour their home and get a glimpse of daily life for villagers there. I saw a stagnant tank of water sitting in the open. When I asked what it was used for, they answered for washing and drinking. In addition, I saw their “shower” – it consisted of a pitched black tarp surrounding several buckets of water.

Although we served hundreds of clients during our time there, I feel that our impact, while significant, was only a temporary solution to a larger problem. What we need is not more pharmaceuticals or supplies, but better education. The poor and uneducated of Nicaragua often do not have basic understanding of hygiene and sanitation. Even implementing fundamental changes to their lifestyle could make a great impact on their overall well-being.

To help make these changes a reality, health education tables should be implemented at clinics and hospitals in poor afflicted regions such as the ones I worked in. Helpful advisors and easy to understand pamphlets would educate patients on the basics of sanitation, healthy diet, diabetes prevention, and other pressing issues. Just a simple increase in health education could prevent much of the pain and complications that I witnessed.

January 14, 2012 1 comment

UCLA and the World

Occupy Movement: Dead or Alive?

written by thegeneration

There is little doubt that the Occupy movement has lost some of its original steam. But is the phenomenon dead? The Generation co-editors, Brad Rowe and David Taylor, performed exploratory surgery on the patient in question and determined their individual prognoses.

Only ‘mostly-dead’ — why the Occupy movement still has a pulse

By David Taylor

From the Wisconsin state capitol building, to Cairo’s Tahrir Square, to New York’s Zuccotti Park – the image of the protestor left an indelible mark in the minds of the global public in 2011. While a the bulk of last year’s protest-related coverage concentrated on the Arab Spring, toward the end of the year attention shifted to the Occupy movement – a worldwide protest against economic inequality. The phrase “we are the 99 percent” – popularized on a Tumblr blog – came to represent the protestors’ belief that the top 1 percent of the world’s population holds the bulk of the financial and political power.

Yet the Occupy movement, once a media darling, has been relegated to the back pages of newspapers as newer stories (e.g., the death of Kim Jong-il, the U.S. Republican Party primaries) enthralled the public. Meanwhile the Occupy sit-ins across the United States and elsewhere have dwindled in the wake of police raids and cold weather. The perception that the media has moved on, combined with the notion that the demonstrations lack leadership and a clear aim, has led some to conclude that movement is on its last legs.

Yet, it would be premature to begin writing an obituary. Recent events show show that the movement is still inciting action. In December the Occupy movement inspired protestors in Bahrain to attempt to close down the Budaiya Highway, one of the countries main roads, in protest of the inequalities between the Shia majority and Sunni ruling minority in that island nation. Moreoever, the Occupy movement still possesses a strong Internet precense. Occupy protestors plan creating an alternative to Facebook, entitled The Global Square, to help sustain the cause.

These revelations evince that the largely dormant Occupy movement may reemerge as the hectic holiday season ends, warmer spring weather arrives, and the U.S. election season switches into high gear. Ultimately, however, the outcome of several key events in early 2012 will act as arbiters to determine the Occupy movement’s long-term sustainability:

1) The recall election of Governor Scott Walker: the new Wisconsin governor came under strident criticism for supporting state legislation that ended collective bargaining for public unions. The resulting protests in early 2011 laid the groundwork for the Occupy movement. In response to Walker’s action, some Wisconsinites began to circulate a petition to recall the governor. It appears that the petitioners are on track to collect the 720,000 signatures needed to force the recall election. If the election occurs and Walker is defeated, then it will provide the Occupy movement with momentum, not unlike the election of Senator Scott Brown served as a rallying cry for the Tea Party in 2010.

2) A transition from protests to politics: “Occupy Wall Street, by definition, eschews the mainstream political process as corrupt beyond repair, which is certainly a reasonable position, but politics remains how business gets done and history is altered,” wrote The New York Times’ columnist David Carr last November. Indeed the Occupy movement must undergo a metamorphosis. This change is necessary for a number of reasons. For one, it is because the sit-ins and protests are routinely being broken up by authorities. More importantly, however, is that the movement must work inside the byzantine political system to truly achieve results. The Tea Party made its presence felt in the 2010 midterm elections by supporting key conservative candidates and using their collective power to assist the Republican Party in recapturing control of the U.S. House of Representatives. As the election season progresses the Occupy movement will have a myriad of chances to perform a similar feat. If the movement begins to coalesce around certain candidates – and more importantly these candidates begin to pander to it with their platforms – then we know that the Occupy movement will exist at least until the 2012 elections.

3) The formulation of leadership: the aforementioned selection of political candidates naturally leads to another question – who will lead this movement? Although the premise behind the Occupy movement as voiceless and leaderless is an attention-grabbing tagline, the fact remains that, historically speaking, protest movements typically require iconic leaders to succeed. Take, for example, Mohandas Gandhi’s protest against British rule or the iconic African American Civil Rights Movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. and others. The Occupy movement will need a leader equivalent to Alexei Navalny, the blogger who inspired much of the anti-Putin protests occurring in Russia, or Anna Hazare, who led a recent fast in protest of corruption in the Indian government.

The Occupy movement may be in a lull, but it is far from dead. To sustain itself the movement must reinvent its approach. If the movement can accomplish this, then is may play a potent political role in the 2012 presidential and congressional elections. If not, it will be a mere historical curiosity, occasionally mentioned on NPR podcasts and in LexisNexis research queries. Yet, before we collectively sign its death warrant, we should see what happens in the next few months.

by stanjourdan

Occupy is Dead

By Brad Rowe

Please tell me Occupy is like a possum playing dead. That, once all of the evictors have returned to their offices and all of the police go back to their stations to refuel on hot coffee, Occupy will open one eye and then get back to its feet.

Because from where I’m sitting it looks like you might be dead. Should we call in the coroner? “Occupy – Time of death – December 2011”. And who do we contact as next of kin?

BOOM

It all started with a match. A produce vendor on the streets of Tunisia was pushed out of business by an oppressive government. He said ‘screw the establishment‘ and, in his anguish, set himself on fire. His countrymen heard the story, took to the streets, demonstrated, and 28 days later had a new government.

‘Wow, it worked’ rang through the hearts of oppressed Egyptians, where an embryonic mass strike exploded into a contagious demonstrating ferver in Tahrir Square. Same thing: Bam! Mubarak toppled.

This thing was taking on an international flair: Empathetic proletariat Arab and Jewish brethren in Jaffa, Israel carried signs in Hebrew and Arabic reading ‘Arabs and Jews want affordable housing.’

Then the Libyans… then the… then the… then the…

In come the Spanish, fueled that as of June 2011, almost half of Spaniards under the age of 24 were unemployed, and of those who had work, more than half were underemployed or earning close to minimum wage. In Spain, the mainstream media refered to Spanish youth as the “Neither-Nor” or “Ni-Ni” generation: neither studying nor working.

Yes, the Spanish wanted to ‘go big or go home’ and to do it with flair. They even had a cool name: ‘The Indignants’.

The numbers to hit the streets were staggering; 400,000 in Barcelona, 500,000 in Madrid and tens of thousands in several other cities. Wow, not only is Spain is my favorite country, but they started the movement on my birthday May 15, 2011. I was loving this.

They got the ear of the Spanish government and by all appearances were given promises that things would change.

Then on to America, the land of the free: “OK, this is working.” said a feisty group. And on September 17, 2011, a handful of protesters began to occupy Zuccotti Park in New York City’s Wall Street financial district. Their manifesto read as follows:

“The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%.”

And they didn’t stand for it. It became a media darling and caught the attention of regular folk and politicos alike: Before we knew it Boston, Chicago, Seattle and Washington had demonstration with many thousands in attendance.

And it didn’t stop there: Worldwide, demonstrations blew up all over with notable turnouts in Cape Town, Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Porto Alegre, Santiago (10,000), Tel Aviv, Seoul, Vienna, Brussels (8,000), Zagreb (10,000), Copenhagen, London, Paris, Berlin (10,000), Cologne, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt (5,000), Hamburg (5,000), Leipzig, Stuttgart, Athens (4,000), Dublin, Rome (200,000), Amsterdam, Lisbon (20,000), Porto (20,000), Ljubljana (Slovenia – 4,000), Melbourne, Sydney, Auckland.

The flame for justice was burning white hot.

LEADERS?

This was like a global rendition of Howard Beale’s “I’m mad as hell” speech from the acclaimed 1976 film ‘Network’. For the uninitiated: it went like this: Prime time newscaster, Beale has gotten beaten down by the establishment and big business and goes bananas. He rants to the evening news cameras: “You’ve gotta say, ‘I’m a human being, goddammit! My life has value!’ So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window, open it, and stick your head out and yell, ‘I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!!’

In the movie, people responded to Beale’s request. They went to their windows and shouted.

So here we are, 35 years after Beale, and there are people all over the world getting together to say “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!” But there is no Beale. This is a leaderless, faceless movement that makes proclamations and group decisions through direct democratic gatherings every evening at every location. There is no structure to the movement.

It is perfectly without establishment. In fact, the Occupy requests were all counter-establishment. As with the Arab Spring, they spoke out against overt government oppression and lack of free speech. They spoke out against American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. And against drone strikes in Pakistan… against the marginalization of minorities and LGBT communities… against attacks on collective bargaining, retirement benefits, and unemployment insurance… against criminalization of marijuana… against rents and educational costs that are too high… Occupy even spoke out against the low wages earned by the police officers who stood poised to shoot pepper spray in their collective faces.

Against, against, against. I mean, man, this was some really groovy American Freedom Riders, Polish dock worker Solidarity, South African Anti-Apartheid, stick it to the man, make them pay attention, grade-A stuff.

Or was it? There was no Dr. King, or Medgar Evers, Elie Wiesel, Cezar Chavez, Kim Dae-Jung or Harvey Milk. No Gloria Steinem, Nelson Mandela or Vaclav Havel. There were no brand name leaders to throw in front of the microphone. No names to pop off of the page when you read The New York Times or Le Figaro. No leaders to invite to guest appear on ‘Washington Week’ or Al Jazeera’s The Café, or The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

We watched as city after city enforced random sanitation or curfew codes and broomed the protesters out. And where were the leaders? As the police used batons, and brute squads, and pepper sprayed old ladies. Who was standing up and speaking on their behalf?

Or is that the point? That this is a media event where we see peaceful demonstrators speaking their minds and getting clubbed and gassed and sent off to jail – and then what? Leave it to the press to interpret what the demands are? I think this is far too important to let the cacophony of the press determine what the message is. All of the ‘against, against, against’ starts to blend into one din, until people cannot figure out what the message is. What ends up happening is that people then fixate on the insignificant details. They fixate on the circus of the demonstrations, the freaks and the bizzaros rather than message.

Maybe this lack of clarity is contributing to the death of the movement? With fewer people inspired to join and the existing troops running out of gas – will this spell fatal attrition?

ARE YOU STILL THERE?

Occupy, I ask, where are you today? It is Christmas 2011 and the movement seems to have devolved into some sort of mass navel gazing and contemplation. Maybe I don’t get it. As op-ed writer Douglas Rushkoff recently observed about the Occupy Wall Street movement: “…unlike a traditional protest, which identifies the enemy and fights for a particular solution, Occupy Wall Street just sits there talking with itself, debating its own worth, recognizing its internal inconsistencies and then continuing on as if this were some sort of new normal.”

Is this merely because the demonstrators are attempting to articulate that Uncle Sam is not looking out for their best interest; that the wealth being generated on average is not trickling down to them? Isn’t this really what all of these demonstrations boil down to?

Politics and money are inexorably connected. As inequalities in wealth and income grow around the world, so goes the divide in how we express ourselves politically. The poorest need their voice as much as the rich man does. The rich man can pay for his voice through the established means at his finger-tips. Those without the convenience of these resources must band together and project their collective voice.

This is what everyone had been doing exceedingly well all year. This is what we have seen replicated over and over in hundreds of locations around the globe. Individuals banding together, with the aid of social technology, to express themselves and take back some of the power and dignity that has been stripped from them by the establishment.

So let’s look at the reality of where Occupy is today. The winter is cold and camping out in town squares can be more than a pain – it can be down right risky. And I hate to point out the obvious, but — With a disintegrating social net and disappearing health benefits for millions, maybe long term health endangering encampments are no longer viable.

Having said that, I hope that the drop in temperature doesn’t also freeze the momentum that reached a feverish crescendo in the waning days of summer and into the fall.

Maybe Occupy isn’t dead. To bring up another analogy from the wild kingdom, maybe the movement is like a bear that will hibernate for the winter. This bear could return leaner and meaner in spring ready to fight for the rights and means it has brought to the table.

This ferocious creature could be a force to contend with worldwide, and specifically during the American election cycle in 2012. Or it could be a carcass to be fed upon by the naysayers who feel that all of this fire was perhaps just hot air.

Occupy, you aren’t dead – are you?

Title photo used with permission from:

by Benjamin Gunn

January 3, 2012 15 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts