4/10
http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/03/24/why-south-korea-matters/
This article was published March 24, 2010 by time magazine. This article discusses the positive effects of globalization on South Korea and how it differs today from how it was 50 years ago. In 1960, Korea was poorer on a per capita basis than Iraq, Liberia and Zimbabwe, because it had almost no natural resources or industry. Yet today, Korea is a member of the G20 and a leading manufacture of microchips, LCD panels and cars. Out of all Asia's economies it has experienced the greatest growth since the mid-1960s. Many accredit this growth to globalization. Korean's realized they could increase their incomes in their country by using the low cost labor to export cheap goods to the industrialized world. As their wealth increased, they could later invest in newer technologies. In the late 1990s however, there was a fear that the economy was going to be overrun by China, yet Korea has maintained its edge because it has gone from a developing economy based on manufacturing stuff into a more advanced one increasingly based on innovation. In 1996, the country was in the early stages of democratization and the financial sector was maintained by the bureaucracy. Big businesses were protected by the government and foreigners were generally unwelcome. For a country so dependent on the world for its growth it remained isolated. Today the economy is much more market-based after the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98 broke the links between government, finance and business. The companies are more independent and transparent, welcoming many non-koreans. Hyundai, Samsung and LG have been investors in India and China and are now top brands in local car and electronics markets. This has made them leaders in the global economy, able to direct where they are headed. Korea is a model for innovation for the worlds poor countries. The U.S. was its source of custumers, yet todays developing nations can now rely on each other to drive and offer opportunities. This example shows how a nation like Korea, who was overlooked amongs all other rising Asian econmies has grown because of globalization and its more liberal policies to one of great prominence in the world.

4/03
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/13/ghaemi.iran.un.rights/index.html?iref=allsearch
This article is about the question of the effectiveness of the Human Rights Council as well as who should be let on it, depending on the situation of their country. This article was published March 13, 2010. The Iranian citizens who support peaceful change towards human rights, expect the UN and international community to take them into account.However, there was a failure to deal with the abuses of the governments brutal policies, since many peaceful demonstrators have been kidded since the 2009 election. Some have been killed for throwing rocks at a demonstration and more than a thousand are in prison, for expressing their views. The U.N. has expressed concern over torture, execution of juvenile delinquents and the treatment of women , while also praising the advances in social welfare. Iran rejected U.N. recommendations. The international community also wishes to persuade Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. In May, they hope go gain a place in the HRC by being elected by the general assembly. The failure of the Council to take action to condemn the human rights abuses could destroy the faith in the human rights system. What this shows, is a case where the U.N. is being tested on its capacity to protect human rights. If the abuses are ignored and Iran gains a place on the council, it will be weakend since others will see they can oppress people without consequence. This brings forth the question on whether we should select and exclude certain countries from the U.N. Human rights council and how much action the council can take.

2/27
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1975824,00.html
This article talks about Obama's new foreclosure plan, unveiled Friday March 26th. Under the plan, banks will be asked to lower the principal loan balance for certain homeowners whose mortgages exceed the value of their homes. The Federal Housing Administration will refinance the loans as mortgages, backed by the government. Before, only interest rates were reduced or the term of the mortgage payment was lengthened. $14 billion will also be used to provide subsidies to lenders who agree to write down 10% of the first mortgage, combined with the value of the second mortgage no greater than 115% and not having a monthly payment exceeding 31%. The FHA has high standards for the loan modification, showing the hope to head another wave of foreclosures by helping earlier on. Unemployed homeowners would also have their monthly payments eliminated or reduced from 3-6 months while they look for work. This principal-reduction program is voluntary. It won’t save every homeowner but 2/3 of the people in the present government program fulfill these requirements. As Bob Curran said, I think this is a “step in the right direction”, being more effective in modifying loans than in the past, yet I also think it’s not helping all of the American public. The other benefit it brings, as Rick Sharga, vice president of marketing for RealtyTrac says it will resolve the principal-balance problem, since many people aren’t able to refinance since their mortgage is worth more than their home. Although I do think this will help the real-estate crisis, this measure is not the only thing we must do to solve this problem. This shows how his national policy is being taken by analysts around the world, whether cynics and supporters, so he can better create his foreign policy.
2/01
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/09/danish.draft.climate.text/index.html?iref=storysearch
This article is about a controversy in the U.N. that shows the tensions between the countries of the global north and the global south. Lumumba Stanislaus Dia Ping, the Sudanese ambassador said that the climate draft agreement was a way for the West to gain more power and supremacy over the poorer countries. He says they wish to "seek to secure 60 percent of the global atmospheric space for 20 percent of the world's wealthiest nations". He complains that when the countries of the West come in they exploit the people and take away their natural resources. "The Copenhagen Agreement" or the "Danish text" proposes to keep average global temperature rises to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The text has not yet been discussed in a formal way, yet Al Gore even said it should all be kept into perspective. Denmark proposed this legislation and the Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen was accused of putting his own political ambitions ahead of a global deal. It suggests that wealthy nations put in a great deal of money that should be controlled via the Climate board with balanced representation. Oxfam says the Danish text risked sidelining poorer countries as the world seeks to reduce global carbon emissions.This article shows how because of imperialism and decolonization, some countries voice is limited in solving the climate change issue, because they need to build internally first before they can help internationally. They are mad because their underdeveloped countries have less of a voice than the wealthier nations mainly caused by imperialism. There is also a great resentment towards the imperial powers since they exploited and weakened their countries back then and now. The idea of imperialism is a remote cause over what this whole issue is.

1/11
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/05/emerson.profiling.smart.screening/index.html#cnnSTCText
This article is about the consideration of ethnicity and religion when screening people at an airport. I chose this article since it has a lot to do with schematic reasoning, specifically racial profiling. In this article, the author talks about how our approach to tightening security in the U.S. airports has been ineffective.He proposes a form of smart screening where behavior, travel history, watch lists, ethnicity and religion are taken into consideration. The random searches have made security guards search people who would obviously have no link to terrorism. The author also says that if we base security screenings partly on ethnicity and religion, we would not only have a greater chance of catching a terrorist before they strike, but we would also force terrorists to involve new operatives, who may be less well-trained and therefore less deadly. We can't ignore the fact that Islamic radicals have carried out the majority of terror attacks over the past decade and because of this, maybe we should take a different approach in protecting our nation. A case study shows that the intended 20th hijacker from the September 11 attacks, Mohammad al-Qatani, was stopped in Orlando, Florida, in 2001 because of profiling. The Transportation Safety Administration has already taken a step toward implementing a revised screening process for airline passenger and it will mandate that "every individual flying into the U.S. from anywhere in the world traveling from or through nations that are state sponsors of terrorism or other countries of interest will be required to go through enhanced screening." I personally think we need to reform our security system since our system right now is somewhat ineffective.I do believe that because of the war between the U.S. and the Middle East, we should run extra checks on them since at a time of war, the people on the opposing side will be the least trusted and most likely to attach. I also think we have to be really careful since there is a fine line between the efforts to keep our country safe and plain racism
Nice, Cristina. Can you explain the connection to the concept more? It's a good example..


This relates to the idea of racial profiling and schematic reasoning, since people are now thinking of using racial profiling as a tool to find terrorists when going through airport security.