New Zealand to Legalize Same-Sex Marriage

   With a vote of seventy-seven in favor and forty-four against, New Zealand is now to be considered as the first nation in the Asia-Pacific region and the thirteenth nation in the world to legalize same-sex marriage.

   Civil unions in New Zealand have been permitted since 2005.  Yet, Wednesday’s decision amends the 1955 Marriage Act, once against same-sex marriage, and also allows same-sex couples from other countries to marry in New Zealand.  With the policymakers that were each voting on the decision having been heavily encouraged to vote based on their conscience, and not on their policy platforms, the results proved to be both surprising and historic.   

   The new law will not go into effect until the end of August.  However, many in New Zealand have celebrated the progressive accomplishment through means of partying in the pubs of Wellington, and through singing the indigenous Maori love song “Pokarekare Ana” in unison with tears of joy.

   However, not everybody is completely in agreement with the recent news.  Australia, New Zealand’s neighbor, shot down the same-sex marriage proposal as it entered Parliament last September.  Julia Gillard, Australia’s Prime Minister, is also strongly against same-sex marriage, and does not seem to be interested in an agreement any time soon.  Meanwhile, other organizations in Australia, like Family First, have created several petitions against same-sex marriage, declaring that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.  Thus, while many Australian same-sex couples are currently making travel arrangements to exchange marriage vows in New Zealand, their marriages will not be recognized in Australia, itself.

   Yet, in retaliation, Australians have recently started a “rainbow rebellion” in which those supporting same-sex marriage “chalk” rainbow colors in public areas of Australia.  Although same-sex marriage still seems to be a stretch for Australia, hope continues to stay within Australia’s gay community as more nations around the world “face reality.”

     

   With New Zealand in the mix, countries that have legalized same-sex marriage now include Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Portugal, and Uruguay.

The Iron Lady

      At her funeral, most people turned out to show their respect, but there was a significant faction that were there to protest.
      Commonly compared to U.S. President Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and he were contemporaries and very close allies during the Cold War. Their relationship has been compared favorably to that of FDR and Winston Churchill. Together, they saw the fall of the Berlin Wall. She also saw to the end of the Argentinian occupation of the Falkland Islands, during which members of both the British and Argentine militaries gave their lives.
      At home, she was a deeply polarizing figure. While her funeral saw many mourners, many of them famous statesmen and ambassadors, many in northern Britain held protests or burned effigies in her "memory," still bitter over her closing of Britain's coal pits which left many out of work. In Ireland, IRA supporters criticized her uncompromising stance on the rebels during her tenure.
      However, for her family, the "Iron Lady" is best summed up by the note left on her coffin by her children, "Beloved mother, always in our hearts."

Perspective

     At about this time last year, I was confused about the United States’ role in world affairs, particularly in the Middle East. Like too many Americans, or anyone for that matter, I was especially uncertain why the U.S. had been waging a war in Afghanistan for more than ten years. I knew that it wasn’t about oil, because Afghanistan produces virtually no oil. I knew that it wasn’t about territorial disputes between nations either, because we were fighting Taliban rebels and Al Qaeda, not the Afghan government itself. Because of my relative ignorance, I opposed American military action in Afghanistan. I thought “We are so far away from West Asia, how does anything that happens there affect the United States?”

It wasn’t until I began studying international relations last fall when I realized that I was deprived of the information that would cause everything to make sense to me, that would cause me to obtain a proper perspective. I will concede that I didn’t seek the proper news sources that I should have. I read the San Jose Mercury, which is generally sensational local articles on the front page, filled with ads in the middle and sprinkled with Associated Press stories. I had quit watching television news because I felt that it was either not centered enough or, like my newspaper, had been sensationalized. I had forgotten about the News Hour.

I was brought out of the fog by the articles that my international relations teacher gave me. I started thinking like a global citizen and learned that nearly all nations are connected to each other in some way and any major event in any given country has the potential to cause a shockwave around the world. This made me see the conflict in Afghanistan in a different light. I began making the argument to people that the West Asian country is a haven for Al Qaeda, the group that ultimately conducted the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. I also argued that such terrorists are a major threat to the security of our allies. With the people who questioned our involvement with the Afghan government and supported complete unilateralism, I made the point that the government is going to need to be able to adopt a democracy and support its people in order to stop the growth of terrorist and rebel groups in Afghanistan. As a superpower, we truly are obligated to protect our allies, leading NATO forces to destroy any threats.

As soon as I learned more about why the United States was in Afghanistan and became able to analyze examples of military involvement such as these, I became ashamed of what I did not know before and of the fact that I didn’t seek the information that I should have. I do not agree with the direction in which mainstream news media is going, but I think that it is the responsibility of every well-educated individual who wants to express his opinion to find trustworthy, reliable news.

It seemed as if I came late to some great debate. By the time I knew what was going on, the Army, Marines, and Air Force were already packing up, getting ready to go home. Public sentiment had shifted dramatically in the negative direction, giving the military very little opportunity to right the wrong in terms of strategy and continue employing “small war” counterinsurgency tactics, which have only been used for a short time in Afghanistan. Even though I am just a student with a negligible amount of political pull, I feel as if I could have made a difference if I had developed a sense of perspective sooner.

Pew Pew: Military Lasers to be fielded by the U.S. Navy.

      I'm sorry, where was your home planet again?

      On Monday, April 8th, the U.S. Navy announced that it was moving ahead with mounting a ship-borne laser on a ship bound for deployment for the Gulf of Arabia. The new laser system, much lighter and cheaper than previous designs, is expected to give the ship, the USS Ponce, a cheap, effective weapon for downing drones and small attack boats, such as those favored by Iran. The Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert has stated that the weapon would be able to destroy or damage small drones at $1 worth of electricity.
      Eventually, the Navy, and presumably other armed forces, want laser weapons to increase in power and efficiency to allow it to shoot down incoming missiles, aircraft, and larger targets. Current countermeasures either involved missiles, which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per launch, or fast-firing defensive canons, which fire upwards of hundreds of rounds per second. Both are limited by the amount of ammunition carried as well as by the cost to operate.
      Contrary to popular belief, lasers are not bullets made of light, in the vein of Star Trek or Star Wars. Lasers behave almost exactly the way one would logically expect a heat beam to behave, that is, invisibly and incredibly accurate. Because heat in the electromagnetic spectrum is invisible, the only warning of a laser attack is something catching fire nearby and maybe exploding.
      The immediate benefits of replacing traditional kinetic weapons with lasers is a substantial improvement in range and accuracy, as gravity and wind do not affect light waves. A long term benefit is that ships will be carrying less weight, as shells and missiles are heavy and take up space.
      Also, lasers are cool.
      The navy laser is just the first project to be pushed towards field testing. The Army and Air Force also have their own prototype weapons, the former to shoot down artillery and mortar shells, the latter to mount of modified aircraft and provide a moving anti-ballistic missile system. The USS Ponce is expected to be redeployed in 2014.

Education

     I know that I touched on education in my first blog post, but I feel that it is too widespread and too significant to limit such a topic to a brief mention in an article.
     When I think about democracy as a whole, its successes and failures, how it could work better in some places and how U.S. policy could be different regarding the construction of new democratic governments, I notice a common thread. It seems as if every democratic government relies on the intellectual capacity of its people to survive as an institution that is truly controlled by its citizens. Since the United States has occupied Afghanistan, it has tried to establish a system where the Afghan population is involved in creating laws and representing themselves in the government. Unfortunately, Afghanistan's weak educational system has prevented the growth of a democracy similar to the United States and most European nations. It still excludes girls for the most part and much of the population remains illiterate. Afghanistan has established itself as a poor environment for democracy, solely because of its methods of educating its people, or lack thereof.
     What I feel is ironic is that the United States tries to impress democratic ideals upon nations such as Afghanistan, but Congress considers massive cuts to education quite frequently. What politicians from both parties need to realize is that education is the root of democracy. A more educated voting public insures that elected officials will be more qualified and less corrupt. It also has other perks, such as a stronger economy and better relations with foreign nations.
     Education is a long-term investment. This is why people are reluctant to allocate valuable capital to it. They worry that they will not see their returns in a timely manner. They see it as a leap of faith. But the truth is that money that is spent on schools rarely lacks returns. In the Cold War, the United States responded to the threat of an impending nuclear war and the spread of communism by strengthening the methods by which its children were taught. Math and science education reached a monumental high in the 1960s, as well as physical fitness education. Because of this, the United States was innovating at a rate higher than ever before for nearly two decades and its students were performing better than those of every other nation.
     I hope that it will not take another threat of nuclear proliferation to make leaders from both American political parties decide to invest in its people's intellectual capacity. It seems as if every day, people rant about how this country is going in the wrong direction and how they have little say in the government. Hypocritically, these same people refuse to vote on parcel taxes and other measures that have the potential to supplement schools with much needed funds to improve their pupils' learning.
     A solid education is the source of the commodity that is knowledge. Investing time, money, and political capital in education can provide better futures to United States citizens. It strengthens the government, involving more great minds in the creation legislature and providing innovative ideas to governments, from a municipal to a federal level, improving the U.S. as a whole.
  

Fighting the Future via the Past. Pt 5

Fourth Generation

      As technology far outstrips the abilities of a human, people, not necessarily commanders, realized that fighting a war against a modern military is tantamount to suicide, even more so than before, and suicide is only a strategy for inspiration. Nobody won a war by dying better than the other side.
      The fourth generation of warfare is a reaction, not necessarily to any previous generation of warfare, but to the technologies and power stemming from previous military and political developments. This style of warfare is the strictest interpretation of the expression "Warfare is a continuation of politics by other means." Instead of trying to even fight, fourth generation leaders use force to promote their goal.
      It is the ultimate merging of the military and the civilian sectors because no target is above consideration. Often, the ultimate goal is to persuade a greater power that, whatever their goal is, it is much too expensive given the economic, time, and human costs. Among the weapons available are terror, propaganda, secrecy, and if all else fails, force.
      However, fourth generation warfare is not just seen in these irregular groups. It can also be used by large countries wanting to avoid war.
      Here, I mean cyberwarfare. By avoiding costly and destructive war, large countries can retain their infrastructure while striking at each other. This is the warning of my entire column, that warfare is no longer measured in tanks, ships, and men. All of the previous eras of war have definitively shifted with a bang, but the beginnings can be seen years earlier.
      In this case, the cyberattacks flying between countries is the herald of the times to come. By the time the world wakes up to the era-changing bang, somebody will be on their knees, infrastructure crippled and economy drained.

      For the sake America's future, don't let that be us.

Possible Chemical Weapon Use in Syria

The United Nations has agreed to investigate accusations about chemical weapon use in Damascus and the Aleppo province in northern Syria. The United States viewed these allegations with skepticism, but the different claims between the Syrian government and opposition forces have called for verification from United Nations officials. The central government claims that it lacks chemical weaponry and that it would not use chemical power against civilians; opposition forces insist that they also do not have such weapons and do not have the ability to make them.

However, many military analysts believe that Syria possesses one of the largest supplies of chemical weapons in the world. These stockpiles may include nerve agents such as sarin and VX gases as well as mustard gas, which is prohibited under international law.

Why would countries even use chemical weapons if they could possibly detriment their own people? Compare chemical weapons to nuclear power. Chemical weapons are relatively much less expensive and they are easier to stockpile. They can be used more frequently than the costly, few atomic bombs that countries create. In general, they can be easier for armed troops to handle and use at will. Especially in Middle Eastern countries, armed forces also view chemical power as a possible method of combating or at least deterring the nuclear weapons that Israel possesses.

Last August, President Obama stated that the Syrian government would be held accountable for use of chemical weapons within the country; use of or transport of chemical weapons would draw "a red line for us." If Syria truly is home to such deadly chemical weapons, will the United States finally become more involved in the Syrian conflict?