The Sequester Has Been Signed

 President Obama signed the order titled S-16 and known as the “sequester” into implementation today. He was required to sign the order before 11:59 pm.

           Sequestration describes a fiscal policy. It is a policy that makes sure Congress resolves the budget deficit rather than having appropriations put into bills and make reforming the deficit be problematic because it will be too late to change.  In theory, each agency has the same percentage taken by the Treasury. When it was introduced in 1985, sequestration was considered so terrible that Congress would pass a new budget resolution that would avoid sequestration all together, but when Congress fails to pass a new budget resolution or cannot agree on how to reduce spending, an automatic spending cut known as “sequestration” ensues. This is demonstrated in the introduction of the OMB report that states,

 “In August 2011, bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate voted for the threat of sequestration as a mechanism to force Congress to act on further deficit reduction. The specter of harmful across-the-board cuts to defense and nondefense programs was intended to drive both sides to compromise. The sequestration itself was never intended to be implemented. The Administration strongly believes that sequestration is bad policy, and that Congress can and should take action to avoid it by passing a comprehensive and balanced deficit reduction package.”

     Now, 85 billion in spending cuts will be enacted which will start from Saturday all the way to October 1. The impact of the sequester has been raised over the last couple of weeks and what it will have on millions of Americans. Hagel says he hopes to preserve the Pentagon’s effectiveness, even though, his department is facing a 46 billion dollar cut. The military will suffer especially from the sequester especially because it is one of the biggest employers in the United States, and in the last quarter, it reduced spending by 22 percent. The sequester has been believed to increase unemployment, and furlough days are being discussed in the IRS.

The surprise that comes from “the sequester” is that it was never supposed to happen.

A Progressive Move in South Korea

Photo credits to BBC.

   While South Korea has already gained fame in the global arena with the rise of Samsung and Hyundai, it has reached a completely new level of public appeal with the election of Park Guen-hye, the first female president of the nation. 

   Having been elected last December with fifty-two percent of the popular vote, Park, a fiscal conservative, was sworn into office on Monday, and now begins her five-year presidential term.  Park’s win in South Korea, a nation with a predominantly male parliament, marks a strongly progressive step forward for Korean women.  Yet, many continue to question Park’s ability as President due to her family’s past, most notably that of her father, Park Chung-hee. 

   A former political figure in South Korea, Park Chung-hee is often referred to as one of the main founders of modern Korea.  Yet, after ruling South Korea from 1961 to 1979, he is characterized through mixed reviews with some describing him as the  “cornerstone of prosperity,” and others as one that abused human rights.  With his legacy having lived on since his assassination during his reign in 1979, many in Korea and around the globe now look forward to seeing what his daughter has in store for the next five years.

   Although Park now faces the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea’s (DPRK) threats of nuclear weapons, she still hopes to be able to create future peace between the two sides and prosperity within South Korea.  While Park advocates her idea of “trustpolitik,” a philosophy based on “mutually binding expectations” with the DPRK, Park also hopes to increase investment by cutting taxes for businesses and improving South Korean welfare programs. 

   With the title of the first female President of the South Korea and such a strong political foundation, can Park possibly make progress with the DPRK? Also, could her leadership also lead to improved relations with America, as well? 

Il Papa

Or why this resignation is news.

     1415 was the year that the English army under Henry V defeats the French at Agincourt. It was also the year Pope Gregory XII chose to step down from the Papacy, an event not to be seen again until February 28, 2013. As one of the world's oldest and farthest-reaching institutions, the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church is not only the embodiment of the entire history of Christianity and much of Europe, he is the head of a religion of 1 billion souls.

     Seeing as the last abdication was almost 600 years ago, the resignation of Benedict XVI is expected to transform the Church, not in the least because of what role the former pope may play. Gregory XII retired to a relatively obscure town in Italy after his abdication. Benedict XVI will not have that luxury. What would the social dynamics be of a Pope who could often be just a phone call away? More importantly, how will a living  former Pope affect the policies and actions of the current Pope?

     The conclave to elect the next Pope is scheduled to begin on March 15, but the process to elect a new Pope can, and has, ranged from just weeks to over three years. In that time, the only indication of whether or not anything has happened will come from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel in Rome. Until white smoke blows, the world will not know who is to be Pope.

Fighting the Future via the Past. Pt 1

Introduction

     The modern world is at war in a way as real as the Blitzkriegs of the early 1940s and the jungle battles of Vietnam, or even the massed line formations of the American Civil War. In terms of "Generations" of warfare, the 21st century is currently in the 4th. What does this mean? Why does this matter? More importantly, what does this have to do with International Relations?

     We can put off the first question for now, there's plenty of time for that later. Now as to the relevance of the subject at hand, I believe that history and the development of the modern world is inextricably linked to the ways nation-states wage wars. One is dependent on the other and the other is dependent on the one. War is, after all, a continuation of politics by other means. 

     First coined in 1989 to describe the new decentralized form of fighting that the United States was faced with, the concept of the "4th Generation" was expanded on in 2006 by the book The Sling and the Stone by Col. Thomas X. Hammes, USMC. The idea that modern military power will be measured in terms of armies and firepower is becoming antiquated, even as the Pentagon pushes more advanced weapon systems and multi-million dollar fighters designed to swat dozens of other warplanes out of the sky.
     In light of a modern military's sky-shattering ability to destroy, a smart opponent becomes subversive, attacking the enemy's metaphorical "rear" in terms of infrastructure at home. An example: cyberspace becomes the new battlefield, and hacking attacks the new surgical strike.
     War has always been a method of imposing one's will on an opponent. This will not change. What will change, however, is the methods of waging war. Missing the moment of change will inevitably lead to bloodshed. From the Somme to the Blitzkrieg to the actions of the Comment Crew, each of these events could be taken as a herald of the changing times, with the perquisite disasters to those who failed to notice the newest developments in war.
     This will be a five-part series exploring the changes to warfare throughout the past 400 years of military and political history. Unfortunately, it will be Eurocentric as I am best versed in European and Western history. In all fairness, the idea of Generations of warfare is also a rather Eurocentric idea, as you will see.
     So grab a helmet, hang on, and let's see if you can't learn some history/politics/strategy/ economics along the way.

Toolkit to Tackle the Modern World #1: Intellectual Property

Greetings! Welcome to the first of what I hope to be many blog posts, all of which I aim to help bring you up to speed to what is the real world. First diving in to the world with its many countries and big players, it can seem a bit scary, and it is definitely not for the faint of heart, but by taking baby steps at first, we can be ready to be active movers and game changers of our society, and hopefully give back to the international community! I believe in providing information in a manner that covers both sides of an argument (since unbiased presentation is way way difficult). Pleasantries aside, let us dive into the first topic: Intellectual Property laws.

First lesson!!! The difference between copyright and trademarks and patents:
Patents apply to the right to make, use, and sell a certain invention
Copyright applies to works of authorship (eg art, songs, publications)
Trademark applies to the name/catchphrase/slogan

Benefits: Without intellectual property protection, businesses will not have incentives to produce and invest domestically, with the fear of losing their share of the market/their goods to fierce competitors. In other words, the risk outweighs the rewards. In addition to that, the Constitution's clause on patents and copyright states that they are "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing... the exclusive right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." I'm not too sure on this interpretation myself (honestly? Promote progress of science by keeping their discoveries to themselves? What hooligans) but I do know that more often than not, creators are interested in what they "deserve" or "are entitled to" by their creation. Which leads us to drawbacks.

Drawbacks: It is argued that these laws have stifled creation and blossoming of innumerous private industries. It can be argued that it is a government subsidized monopoly, and is just a tool to allow businesses to put some of the risk on the governments back instead of their own. Drawbacks for copyright laws include that it reduces transparency (eg. a copyrighted document by a corporation that has incriminating evidence can not be used in a lawsuit against them), and that it has stifled scientific research, by keeping research papers sealed from the public eye. Also, these cases can clog up courts, and often have outrageous sums demanded as compensation, the patents themselves are unspecific and open to interpretation, and there is little to no punishment for bringing up a false claim of intellectual property.

In terms of time, patents are kept generally for around 20 years, copyrights can go up to 120 years (depending on the life of the author, and whether it was created by a corporation or not), and trademarks are timeless (as long as the paperwork is kept in order).

Touching upon international intellectual property matters briefly, there is no such thing as an international copyright or patent law. Instead, there are multiple treaties which set up standards for intellectual property rights. However, from my understanding, it only provides a bare skeleton, and different nations often have different systems installed, which often clash with one another (For example, this is a major problem in multinational corporations). The first example which comes to mind is the history of China stealing intellectual property from the United States, which may have my audience screaming bloody murder, but we can't be too quick to forget how, only a few centuries ago, the Americans also stole British inventions in order to fuel their own Industrial Revolution.

In my humble opinion, intellectual property laws have their pro's and cons; we can't live with them, and we can't live without them. They are one of the necessary institutions to create a prosperous capitalist economy, but they have created a mess which stifles innovation. I believe that the one key problem with intellectual property laws in their current state is that their timing is much too long, which dis-incentivizes innovations. By lowering the time which companies can profit from their discoveries, new entrants into a new market can be able to improve on previous ideas and create a better product overall, as seen by the example of Facebook succeeding Myspace. But in the end, intellectual property is going to be a HOT topic in the world of tomorrow, as globalization continues to rush and pack our world together, smaller and smaller. The value of a unique idea will go up and up, as the communication and information dissemination increases throughout the world. With the global market at our feet, the stakes are higher than ever for the next big hit, whether it be the new Apple Ipod or the new Facebook.


Cheers
~Vince

*Fun Fact: The paper that inspired me to write this was actually taken down for not keeping with Republican party ideals, and the author has been laid off
*I didn't know that there was a different between copyrights, patents, and trademarks until halfway through my essay; I had to revise everything to maintain accuracy.

Sources of Interest
Unfortunately, the original document was taken down due to copyright issues! Just kidding. Click below for the link to the document!
http://archive.org/stream/RscThreeMythsAboutCopyrightLaw/rsc_policy_brief_--_three_myths_about_copyright_law_and_where_to_start_to_fix_it_--_november_16_2012#page/n0/mode/2up


Extra: The U.S. Supreme Court has recently decided to hear a case about plants recently (which is big, considering the court only hears about 75 cases a year). You must be thinking, plants, how BORING. I beg to differ.
In this case, according to current patent law, the "First Sale Doctrine of a patent law says that once a consumer buys a patented product, the consumer can do whatever they wish with it, like sell it again. The interesting thing about the current case is that it involves bio-engineered seeds; you would presume that a farmer, after purchasing said seeds, could do whatever they want correct? Wrong. Under current laws, a farmer cannot save bio-engineered seeds and replant them next season. Think about those implications! The current case is dealing with the legality of replanting after a farmer has sold his bio-engineered crop to a "grain elevator" (for now, think of them like a pawn shop for seeds) and then the grain elevator selling those seeds to a new farmer for replanting. The ruling by the lower court was that this practice was illegal.
Fascinating, and I'm excited to see what the final verdict will be.
http://westernfarmpress.com/government/supreme-court-will-review-crucial-biotech-seed-patent-case

On Andrew Guzman's WAC Presentation

     Last night, a few colleagues and I went to the World Affairs Council in San Francisco to listen to  Harvard Law graduate and esteemed economist Andrew Guzman. The topic was climate change. before yesterday, I was steadfast in my stance on global warming. I was certain that changes regarding air pollution in America were needed , but I was insistent that the government should should limit its involvement to existing laws and regulations. A high degree of regulation is expensive and generally does not align with my views on what the role of government should be in the United States.
     The main idea of Guzman's speech was that global warming's effects are more than a rising ocean level (although he emphasized on the seriousness of rising oceans by bringing up the Maldives as well as the fact that Bangladesh would lose 17 percent of its land if the global temperature went up 2 degrees Fahrenheit). Climate change depletes people's access to fresh water, which has a directly negative effect on food supply. Guzman described the decrease of fresh water as a "danger multiplier" in areas of conflict such as India and Pakistan and Israel and Palestine that are already relatively deprived of water. Wars may eventually be fought over rivers and reservoirs as access to glacier water decreases dramatically. In the two aforementioned conflicts, the risk of nuclear proliferation is always existent. A decrease in water would bring this risk to an entirely new level.
     Needless to say, I changed my view on government involvement. While I do not believe that cap-and-trade and carbon credit programs should be overly burdensome and have the ability to kill small businesses, the government should create reasonable regulations that allow future generations to live comfortably without as much war and suffering.
     Citizens have a commitment to this as well. By living on Earth and reaping its benefits, humans make a negative impact on the environment. They always have. We can lessen our impact slightly, however. It does not hurt to recycle more or drive a little less. We don't have to live off the grid or sell our cars. Just acknowledging our impact on the world and slightly changing our habits accordingly makes a monumental difference.
  

"X" Marked the Question

     On the December of 2010, a man hanged himself in the upmost secure sector of the Ayalon Prison in Israel. His death was first published on the Israeli Newspaper but immediately got taken off within a minute. As soon as the foreign media picked up the story, international news, conspiracy theorists, and investigators took interest and investigate the stories about this man while the Israeli government tried to suppress the leaks regarding this prisoner, who was well known for the name of “Prisoner X”.

     So who is this “Prisoner X”? Drum roll please… Prisoner X was an Israeli spy. Prisoner X, whose real name is Ben Zygier, was born in Melbrone, Australia where a small Jewish community resides in the city. Years later, Zygier moved to Israel from Australia. There he had been recruited by Mossad to seek out Jews and bring them back to Israel. Worked under Mossad, an Israeli version of CIA, Ben Zygier in the past had done assassinations, cover-ups, and even nuclear sabotage around the world, traveling with multiple fake passports allowing him to travel freely. There are reports from Australia Security Intelligence Organization that Zygier tried to recruit Middle Eastern students in Monash University of Australia, where the country’s intelligent suspected him along with two other Australian Jews who are labeled as “Paul Y.” and “David Z.”

     Before Zygier committed suicide, he was known to be imprisoned in Ayalon Prison’s Unit 15, the most secure and secluded confinement unit in the prison. In fact, Zygier’s cell was so isolated that not even the Jailer knows his identity, only referred him as “Prisoner X”. Until during the summer after Zygier’s death, an Israeli newspaper published a story about “Prisoner X”, which got removed the next minute it was published. Afterward, the matters regarding Prisoner X are now restricted by the Israeli military censorship.

     However the mystery still lies in Zygier’s crime. What crime was he been accused for? Many experts said Zygier may have been a double agent of Australian intelligence that leaks Israeli confidential information to the country. While other said Zygier had turned by the Australian government as mercenary to obtain Iranian nuclear information during his mission ordered by Mossad, which there are evidences show that Zygier had constantly travel to Iran within year basis, making him very unusual.

     Unfortunately, the secrets have to be buried with Zygier as his family quietly gave him a proper burial in a Jewish cemetery in Melbourne. The most questionable thing is the family in Australia did not turn to the Australian government for help when they were notified of Zygier’s secluded imprisonment. Why? In a bigger picture, what role did Ben Zygier play between the Australian- Israeli relation? Are there stories behind Zygier's crime?To unravel the enigmas, we must have to continue to dig into the puzzling past of Prisoner X.