Education and Poverty

It's almost a hallmark of modern liberal democracies to cry out that the answer to poverty is a functioning and all inclusive education system. Why I agree with this idea on the whole, I think it's often treated like a silver bullet when it could more accurately be described as something that generally gives people more opportunities. However, we can see that nations with better education systems have higher earning workers and have better standards of living, although some might argue its just a consequence of industrialization. However, Carolina's accounts in "Child of the Dark," do very little to reinforce this often cited "fact." She talks of how a boy who, when brought to the favela was educated and polite and smart, quickly degenerated into a layabout, a drunk, and a womanizer as he aged in such such poverty. One could argue that an education without opportunity can do little but make one aware of how horrible their situation is. However, Carolina, also in the same hopeless situation, was only able to write the very book we're reading because of her education and it would ultimately lift out of the hell of the favela. In my opinion, education itself is just a tool, and how it is used and to what end is in the hands of the owner.

C.S. Lewis once said that “education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.”  Seeing as education in and of itself is but a tool, this is hard to disagree with. A callous and clever individual may used their education to further themselves by any means while another may use it to try and help his peers. In a sense, this is what education out to be, something that empowers an individual to make their own decisions and judgement and to operate in the world as they see fit. Many education systems try and reproduce the value system of a particular society in the youth. This in and of itself could be considered a kind of oppression, as hat is considered to be right and wrong according to the curriculum is decided by those in control of the education system. In this sense, knowledge is literally power, if I may quote Foucault, as it allows  people to shape the views of those much younger than themselves. However, this does not completely remove one's agency in their own thoughts, although it does restrict it.  None the less, an education ought to empower someone to choose or create their own values, rather than have values forced upon them. 

Poverty and Child of the Dark

Poverty is the state of being unable to consistently provide the most basic necessities for oneself. If you're going to bed hungry and its not by choice then you'd qualify as impoverished. When your housing is barely standing and unelectrified or when you have no housing, you're impoverished. However, the generally accepted definition of poverty in the first world has steadily changed as both wealth and the general standard of living in such nations has dramatically increased over time This is mainly due to industrialization, the major technological advances that it afforded, and development of consumer based economies. As it is, even the poorest first worlders are far wealthier than your average third worlder and are  living lives far more comfortable than those of 50 years ago. Poverty in the first world has been greatly alleviated both by their industrialized and consumerist economies, but also by the fact most poverty has been exported to the third world, so to speak. This has also been affected by both public school systems and by more effective economies. Welfare systems have done little to actually eradicate poverty in the first world so much as it has done well to alleviate the stresses of poverty. As to whether its a place for government is hard to say, considering its a case of taking other people's money to give to other people.

Carolian in Child of Darkness is a very good example of someone struggling in poverty with some dignity. She's  living hand to mouth in a glorified urban shanty town and she clearly works hard finding whatever work she can (such as collecting all that discarded paper) to try and feed herself and her children the best she can. She is a person completely at the mercy of the prices of essential commodities like food and petrol, as a simple price change can mean the difference between eating tonight or not eating. She is a person living in true poverty, unlike those living in American poverty. The various Ghettos of America today do not compare to the soul crushing poverty of the favelas. The closest any part of America gets to the level of poverty seen in favelas would be rural parts of Mississippi and the city of Detroit. The very fact that almost every American can directly benefit from the fruits of industrialization and consumerism in the form of extremely cheap food and energy is proof of this.

News Agencies of the World on Syria

For my news assignment I chose to follow the burgeoning Syrian civil war and the three news sources I used were CNN (I tend to have it on the television for background noise), Al Jazeera (probably the source of news I trust the most) and Russia Today (because it's like Fox if it had a Russian bias).

As the week went on, the violence in Syria only escalated, as pretty much all news sources covered. The most interesting thing was the increase of activity by the Free Syrian Army, especially on January 27th when the Free Syrian Army seized some suburbs in Damascus. CNN actually had reporters there and interviewed some of the soldiers and protesters. This was considered a pretty big deal and while RT played it down a little, a lot of the western news agencies, ala CNN, talked about the "beginning of the end of Al-Assad." However, by the 30th the Syrian army cracked down and retook the suburbs. All the while, large portions of the population continued to protest in the streets when they could. Soon after the UN security council brought up resolutions to place sanctions on Syria and to call for Bashar Al-Assad to step down. On February 5th, the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China vetoed both resolutions, causing an uproar in the international community. So as it currently stands there is still a great uncertainty in Syria, and it's unclear how much longer the violence will last and who will ultimately succeed.

I find the situation itself absolutely fascinating myself. It doesn't directly affect me, but it most certainly does indirectly and I have a feeling that the result of this situation and the international reaction will have very, very large ripples. Syria is absolutely key in Iran's Levant strategy, and their lose would leave them in a much weaker position that could only further agitate them. At the same time, Syria is a part of a trend of further global, and regional, destabilization that will have interesting consequences for Turkey and Israel. Also, this is only furthering divisions in the UN Security Council between China and Russia and the Western powers. It's unclear how this will play out, but it will have far reaching consequences for both the region and the larger international community.

As for coverage, Al-Jazeera probably had the most and the most in depth coverage of the event, having both a life blog and an entire part of their website devoted to it, while CNN's coverage was average with a few segments everyday and even some live coverage while Russia Today played it down somewhat. the reasons for this are multiple. Al-Jazeera, being based in Qatar, probably had the best coverage as they could more readily access sources of information as well as interview many experts. Also, Qatar as emirate has increased its involvement in the affairs of the region, and has being seeing itself more as a power broker (as can be seen with the decision to place the Taliban embassy in Qatar.) CNN is typical of American news, and has covered the situation decently but without a great deal of depth and has fallen into the Western wishful thinking that it's only a matter of time that Al-Assad will fall. The reasons for this is because they, as most westerners, would like to see the regime go, especially because of its ties to Iran. Russia Today is, well, the Putin News Network. They have downplayed the violence to a degree, but they are perhaps one of the few news agencies other than Al-Jazeera talking about the deep divisions inside the opposition. the reasons for this is because Russia Today is a reflection of Russian policy. Russia, much like China, has chosen a path of both non-intervention, but also upholding national sovereignty. The reasons are for trying to further stability, as they don't want to further destabilize the region with intervention while Iran is already agitated, but also for reasons of Real Politik. Russia doesn't want more American influence in the region,. but they also don't want to set the precedent of international involvement in nations to install liberal democratic institutions, mostly because Russia doesn't have a great track record with liberal democratic institutions.