| |
|
Just as I make a “commitment” to being positive about life and school in general, CC (my school) asks me of all people to “share my opinion on the school”. Me?! Have they missed my endless emails to administration over the past few years complaining about the place? Or maybe they forgot about all of the meetings we had “to improve my experience” after I let them know I had desires to transfer schools. Has someone let them in on my new optimistic self? Is this a trick to ruin my optimism before it even gets under way?
Of course, being me, I ask, ‘and do you require a prepared statement of what I would actually say?” I just want to know that I can be honest with the interviewer, if I decide to pursue this. Surprise surprise they do not require a 'pre-statement'. With the caveat, “just don’t say it’s been the worst experience of your life.” Dang, that is exactly what I was going to say. Shoot. Now what to do? How about if I say, “it was just one of the most awful experiences in my life. However, whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger and I am now Teflon.” To be followed by my big cheesy smile of course. :D <—just like that.
I'm kidding of course. With only 60 days left I can know reflect from a more objective standpoint. While this hasn't been the most ideal experience (is anything really?) it has not been the total Hell that I often make it out to be. I've had the opportunity to experience a region of the country that I've always wanted to live in, meet a few very interesting people, and I've discovered what I am really interested in Psychological/Medical Anthropology. And while I've often wished to have more diversity on campus, better psych courses, more activities that I enjoy. I can honestly say that I know when I get back to the city I will have plenty of this. So this short time of deprivation, in the long run is very insignificant. I can honestly say this was a good experience.
Yet, the question still remains.... do I go all over national television saying this?
| |
|
| OK , so I'm not an econ major, I'm not a government major. I don't care much for politics unless I have a vested interest. But dang it this issue is really getting to me. Now maybe I am understanding things all wrong from my limited exposure to the topic but I think I just may be on to something here...
Free Trade is NOT Fair Trade! I am soooooo incredibly sick and tired of people confusing the two terms. I attended a lecture tonight wherein the guest speaker decided to use the terms interchangeably. As well, all of the "take home" material used the terms interchangeably. Now, this lecture was sponsored by the economics and government departments, I expect them (of all people) to know better. Leave it to an anthropologist to get it straight.
So what's the difference?
“Fair Trade”—contends that the economic benefits of freer trade are overstated and that the U.S. government should slow or even halt efforts to lower trade barriers in order to promote goals such as community stability and income security.
- lower trade barriers and purchase goods at higher costs to benefit worker/producers
Fair Trade products are loosely defined as those that are manufactured or raised by companies that practice environmental and social responsibility and pay a fair wage. Fair Trade goods usually are those produced in developing countries where we, in the First World, have had a bad habit of exploiting natural resources, inhabitants and cultures for at least a few centuries.
While in many cases, Fair Trade goods tend to be more expensive, there are a few ways to look at this. When large corporations, such as Wal-Mart which, in a radical change of heart and under the suspicious eye of consumer advocates, is doing all sorts of socially responsible things these days, offers Fairtrade certified goods, you can be pretty sure, you’re paying a little extra but, it’s worth it to salve your conscience. Goods produced by companies using The International Fair Trade Organization mark also are perhaps a bit more expensive but more ethical.
“Free Trade”—argues that American prosperity and security are best served by aggressively seeking to lower trade barriers, even if it means that some industries lose out.
- limit / tax foreign goods coming into the country
info taken from: council on foreign relations and the not quite crunchy parent
The big thing in the news and on the presidential campaign trails is NAFTA (The North American Free Trade Agreement) When politicians talk about easing trade barriers, they mean so the USA can benefit. No harm in that right? Wrong. How many countries have lowered trade barriers helped in the long run? hmmmmm.... In the short-term sure the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and maybe you open a few social service programs. That is, until foreign exploiters have sucked the life out of your country's ability to independently maintain its economic status. Examples? Mexico, Jamaica (and most of the Caribbean and any other place you can think of that produces bananas), Zimbabwe, Nicaragua, Colombia (and any other place you can think of that produces coffee).
Ok, sorry to end in the middle of a rant. I just needed to get some of that off my mind. I'll expand on these ideas later | |
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
mariisoul's journal