Author Archives: Brandon

The Intersection Between Government and Human Obligations

Posted on by
Reply

Last Wednesday, Professor Holly Case spoke on the Syrian refugee crisis in Europe, focusing specifically on Hungary, which has come under international criticism for erecting a fence in order to keep refugees out. During the discussion, there were three things that stuck out to me. The first is that prior to the erection of the fence, it was primarily Hungarian people who were reaching out and offering aid to the refugees as they entered Hungary. For a country that erected a fence to keep the refugees out, I hadn’t expected the public to have been so welcoming and helpful.

Secondly, Case stated that a large number of Hungarians wanted to either help the refugees, or were at least indifferent about them; the people who wanted to keep the refugees from entering the country were in the minority. Again, because Hungary is part of the Western tradition which abides by democracy, I assumed that public support must have been in support of keeping the refugees out; however, it appears it was a decision made by the government, not by the people, but rather for the people.

The third and final thing that stuck out to me was that the Two Tailed Dog Party, a political activist group that opposes the restriction of refugees entering the country, doesn’t actually want to take on a governing role. The Two Tailed Dog Party is fine with criticizing the government and advocates for different governing decisions, but it doesn’t want to actually enter the political arena. Although I believe that the content of their campaign is meaningful, the campaign itself seems empty if they aren’t willing to make an active attempt to change the political situation. The advice that I would offer the Two Tailed Dog Party is to “be the change that you wish to see in the world.” Since they want the political environment and governing decisions to change, they should try to change them by entering into politics.

In light of Friday’s terrorist attacks in Paris, it seems that the international community may dial back its criticisms of Hungary’s refugee decisions. Now other nations are having serious discussions about whether they too should continue to allow Syrian refugees into their country. Ultimately these discussions center on a government’s responsibility to protect its citizens from potential harm on the one hand, and the human obligation to help those in need on the other. Which responsibility takes precedence for a government? It will be interesting to see how these tensions play out in the coming months, and how those decisions will affect the strength and unity of the European Union.

Moving Toward Sustainability

Posted on by
2

Cornell dining is moving toward sustainability. Rose House Chef, Daniel Czebiniak and Cornell’s Associate Director of Dining, Paul Muscente spent much of Wednesday night’s talk discussing the various ways in which Cornell dining is moving toward sustainable practices. Some of the initiatives include reducing pre-consumer waste by improving food preparation techniques, composting almost all of food waste, and encouraging students to make protein a smaller portion of their diet.

As an Environmental Sustainability Sciences major, I am very pleased to hear that the dining service is taking steps to improve their sustainability. However, as a student, I have trouble jumping on board with all of their methods, particularly the means by which they are attempting to reduce students’ protein intake. The primary way that the dining service is attempting to reduce the proportion of protein consumed is by cutting proteins into smaller portions, and serving them to the students rather than allowing them to serve themselves.

To be entirely transparent, I don’t have a problem with this practice in and of itself if it is truly being done for the sole purpose of being more sustainable. Unfortunately, I am far from convinced that this is the case. Reducing the amount of protein served is an easy way for the dining service to reduce its costs. I’ve spoken to several dining employees who have said that the dining service is struggling financially because its budget hasn’t been raised for several years; although I can’t say that this is definitively true, the way Muscente took care to avoid a discussion of economics on Wednesday seems to lend credence to it. The combination of these factors thus makes me wonder if the actual reason that the amount of protein is being reduced is simply for the purpose of cutting costs, but is being passed off as a sustainability initiative because it sounds better that way.

Sustainability is praiseworthy, but so is honesty. I’ll withhold my praise of the dining service’s sustainability initiatives until I am better convinced that they aren’t being used to disguise distasteful economics. In the meantime, the dining halls do serve good food, and the workers are friendly, so I’ll offer praise of these aspects instead.

A Powerful Message Carried by Fragile Glass

Posted on by
1

Last Wednesday I attended Drew Harvell’s talk and film presentation about the Blaschka glass collection. The first thing that comes to mind when thinking about the Blaschka glass is simply…Wow! The craftsmanship put into those pieces of glass art is stunning. In several of the photos that Drew showed of the glass marine models compared to photos of the living organism, I actually couldn’t identify which photo was the real organism and which was the model. I suppose that my ineptitude pertaining to marine life probably didn’t help me with the identification, but I’m still inclined to attribute my inability to distinguish between the actual organism and the model to the stunning quality of the glasswork. Not only do the models match the actual organism in shape and form, they also match in color too.

Despite the unmatched quality of the glass marine works, I can’t help but feel a tinge of melancholy upon reflecting on them. The pieces were created in order to help teach people about marine life, and to a certain extent, they still do. However, now they also carry with them the message of things lost from a time that cannot be retrieved. Due to climate change, pollution, and other human activities, it is entirely likely that many of the species represented by the glass works are now extinct. When I see a model of something, I’m the sort of person that wants to see the real thing. While models are great for educational purposes, they never do the actual thing that is being modeled justice. Unfortunately, in the case of some of the species modeled in the Blaschka collection, it is no longer possible to see the actual living organism. The situation is made further regrettable by the fact that humans are the cause of many of these extinctions.

Rather than simply educating people about marine life, the Blaschka glass models now serve as a powerful tool to demonstrate just how destructive past (and perhaps current) human practices have been, and why there is a drastic need to change them. It is my hope that future generations will live in a world in which the oceans are still occupied by most of the species represented by the Blaschka models.

The Rules of Engagement: Have We Turned Warfare Into a Game?

Posted on by
1

Last Wednesday I had the opportunity to attend a talk hosted by Jens David Ohlins, an expert on international criminal law. What I learned was that international criminal law is extremely complicated and cannot easily be codified into a set of stringent rules. For example, civilians can’t be intentionally killed; that’s pretty straightforward. However, civilians can be killed if it is a result of targeting a legitimate military target, and the number of civilian deaths isn’t disproportionate to the value of the military target. As you may have guessed, “disproportionate” lacks a concrete definition in this case.

Additionally, the enforcement of international criminal law is a tricky matter. The International Criminal Court can only address matters if they are brought forth by a member nation, or if the U.N. Security Council refers a case to it. Becoming a member nation to the International Criminal Court is voluntary, so any nation that does not wish to be obligated by international criminal law can merely opt not to become a member. Furthermore, it is difficult for the U.N. Security Council to bring a case to the International Criminal Court thanks to the veto power of nations such as America and Russia.

Throughout the discussion, Ohlins repeatedly used the term “rules of engagement” to refer to the international laws governing what acts are and are not permitted during warfare. Acts such as targeting civilians, utilizing chemical weapons, and torture are all forbidden. While it may seem agreeable to have rules governing warfare in order to prevent atrocities and violations of human rights, the notion of “rules of engagement” leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

Whenever I hear the term “rules of engagement,” my thoughts immediately turn to some sort of game. I worry that by creating rules for warfare, we have denigrated war to nothing more than a game, thus severely lessening the severity of war. Is it possible that our good intentions have led us astray? Did we merely create the “rules of engagement” so that we have the freedom to act in war, all the while maintaining that we have done no wrong because we played by the rules? I surely hope that this is not the case, although I am not so confident.

The Field-to-Mouth Disconnect

Posted on by
1

Industrial agriculture has permanently altered the face of food for Americans. The vast majority of people in America really have no idea where their food comes from. Sure, adults know that their food is grown on farms, but they don’t actually have any idea of what all goes into the production of their food. As for children…many from urban areas simply believe that their food comes from the supermarket; they have no knowledge of the farms that actually produce the food. I wonder if these children know the old nursery rhyme about Old McDonald.

We all have an extremely intimate relationship with food. After all, we put it directly into our bodies and it provides us with energy. Being that the relationship is so intimate, one would think that we would also have an intimate relationship (or at least knowledge of) how that food is being produced, but that’s not the case in America. This lack of knowledge translates directly into social consequences. For example, people will lobby against various farming practices such as chemical fertilizers and genetically modified organisms without even beginning to comprehend how such technologies are actually being utilized to produce their food.

Additionally, the average American doesn’t know about the people who are producing their food. Across the country, the vast majority of farm workers are immigrants, many of whom are undocumented. Estimates for New York State places 75-90% of immigrant farm workers as undocumented. Considering that these immigrants are the power behind the American agricultural industry, you would think that more people would want to know about their needs and wants. Alas, because of America’s indifference toward farming, there also is a general indifference about the well-being of the farm workers.

Is this disconnect between the average person and the food that they consume truly the price that must be paid for industrialization? I personally don’t believe so, and I think it even has a relatively simple remedy. If we can encourage the development of small-scale, local farms, it is likely that more people would have at least a general knowledge about food production. People are more likely to identify with things if they are in their communities which is why I think the creation of small-scale local farms could help to mend the current disconnect.

What’s Worse than Repeating History?

Posted on by
Reply

The philosopher George Santayana once wrote “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” From this statement, various derivatives have come about to the tune of “those who don’t know history’s mistakes are doomed to repeat them.”

Looking back at America’s history, it’s pretty clear that we’ve made our fair share of mistakes. In history classes across the country students learn about America’s history and some of our mistakes such as slavery and denying various people the right to vote. These are mistakes that have been corrected over time. However, what is arguably America’s greatest mistake is rarely taught in schools, and perhaps that’s because this is a mistake that still continues today.

The mistake that I am referring to is the genocide of the peoples indigenous to America. For the sake of clarity, I am not using the word “mistake” to refer to an accidental act, but rather to refer to a wrongful act.

From the time of the arrival of settlers to what would eventually become America, indigenous groups have actively been persecuted. The persecution has taken many forms including murder, driving them from their traditional homelands, disregarding legally binding treaties, and a denial of their self-autonomy and sovereignty. For all of these forms of persecution, it seems quite strange that most history classes simply gloss over this information.

I would argue that we ignore this aspect of our history because the persecution of indigenous groups is still an ongoing process today. If we were to acknowledge the history described above, we would be obligated to cease their persecution in the present, and begin to make corrections for past wrongs. As a nation we have grown prideful and don’t wish to admit to our mistakes. Plus, making amends to the indigenous groups for our transgressions would be costly, and in a world governed by money, we aren’t prone to do that either. For these reasons, it’s simply easier to ignore this part of our past, rather than to openly address it for the wrong that it truly is.

Everyone is concerned with the possibility of repeating past mistakes if we don’t know our history, but there is an even worse fate. Worse than repeating the mistake is to continually live in the mistake, which is the exact policy that America has employed in relation to our history with indigenous peoples.

So, when will we make a change to this policy? And, how do we make this policy change?

The Three R’s

Posted on by
Reply

On Wednesday night, Dan Schwartz offered students advice about how to successfully navigate college. Being a junior, his advice wasn’t anything new or life-changing for me because I’ve heard it from various people multiple times. I’m not bashing his advice; it’s just that there are only so many ways of telling people to get involved, make connections, and have fun while they’re here.

However, near the conclusion of his talk, Schwartz mentioned his “three R’s:” resilience, resourcefulness, and resolve. Although I’ve heard and understood the importance of these traits to being successful before, these words started to take on a new role for me upon further reflection. I am currently at the point in my college career where I am thinking about grad school and my future career goals. Personally, I would prefer to go straight into grad school without taking a gap year. However, I understand that it is becoming more and more common for grad schools to desire prospective students to have work experience prior to enrolling. That being the case, I recognize that next year I may not be accepted to the grad programs that I am interested in. Although that would be disappointing, that wouldn’t prevent me from achieving my goals. It would admittedly be a set back, but nothing insurmountable. In the event that I don’t get into grad school next year, I will have to be mindful of Schwartz’s three R’s in order to continue striving for my goals rather than simply settling.