Investment in educational technology equals efficiency and productiveness

Obama Announces Pledges of $750 Million for Student Technology

Luz Yareni Aceves Martínez

Sociedad y política de Estados Unidos

4 de Febrero, 2014

As part of a program called the ConnectED initiative created by the White House last year, it is expected that over 90% of American students would get beneficiated with technology with educational purposes in the next five years. According to president Obama investment in technology for the American students will allow them to be competitive in the global economy.

What recalls for attention is the announcement of President Obama about the interest of a few American companies that have pledged to invest over $750 millions in this initiative.

A day before the Federal Communications Commission announced that the budget to increase wireless Internet access in public schools and libraries would be over $2 billions, beneficiating 20 million students.

Companies like Microsoft have promised to give software copies to schools (12 million copies of Microsoft Office), computer equipment and even guide teachers so that they can use the tools provided.

Microsoft and Verizon have pledge to provide high-speed Internet to schools; Sprint has compromised to provide free Internet services to “50,000 underprivileged students” over the next years; and AT&T will provide Internet access to middle school students with and investment of $10 million. Another important American company involved is Apple that would give away equipment valued in $10 million to schools.

In a recall for the statistics the director of the White House’s Domestic Policy Council, Cecilia Muñoz said that less that 30 percent of American schools are equipped to use Internet tools properly.

Obama made a statement that this year would be “year of action” in his administration. That he would use his connections, and move without expecting congressional support.

I AGREE with the way the U.S. government is willing to support technology for their students because I believe that education is an essential point for any country; all of this is consistent with the “information society” that the United States proposes in their values ​​in order to generate efficiency and productivity in a capitalistic economy, and generate opportunities for Americans to compete in a global economy.

I also agree that in other hand the statement by President Obama to work without the approval of Congress in not essential subjects like this is a sign of the lobbying that the President is doing with a view to the elections in the Cameras, in order to favor his next two years in the office.

In conclusion from my point of view I noticed in this article the importance for the government of the United States and American companies (even if they are the competition) to work together to create a highly skilled society in technology from the very educational sector to enable them to maintain competitive standards with the rest of the global economy.

Paul is to benefit from independent voters

por Joseph Dickens-Gavito

Relaciones Internacionales - Universidad de las Américas Puebla

According to the latest New York Times/CBS News joint poll, independent voters who were crucial in Barack Obama’s victory in 2008 are now doubtful about his performance so far. This might be extremely important for the Republican candidate, who could benefit from the vote of unpleased independent voters.

I have been following Republican candidate Ron Paul ever since his intentions of becoming the Republican candidate back in 2008 and I strongly believe that in the possible scenario where independent voters do decide to vote Republican, “Dr. No” would be the candidate to gather the most independent votes and here’s why.

Ron Paul is the Republican’s awkward old uncle who is straightforward and just won’t back down. Paul’s consistent rants about how the government’s role, as prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, is to protect its citizens’ liberties and how making personal choices without interference from the federal government is primordial to a healthy and developed society, are both the headache of the Republican party and a very seductive speech to independents and Democrats alike.

Four years ago, the United States was in desperate need for a radical change. Bush’s disastrous foreign policy combined with Obama’s unquestionable charisma convinced independent voters that it was time to vote Democrat. This recent poll shows how independent voters are not too pleased with Obama’s performance, but I also believe independents are not ready to return to the arrogant, trigger-happy foreign policy most Republicans are willing to endorse. This might be another reason why independents, and some Democrat dissidents, would vote for Paul. His intentions to bring troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq and from American military bases around the world coexist with Democrat and independent anti-war stances. Paul believes foreign countries should seek to solve their problems on their own and that intervening in unnecessary conflicts will only bring unwanted consequences to the United States and will diminish one of America’s greatest attributes; Soft Power. Some of Paul’s remarks do sound much like a 2008 Obama, but independent voters may have faith that Paul will go through with his promises and end America’s catastrophic campaign around the world.

Another very appealing aspect of Paul’s campaign is that, unlike other Republican hopefuls, he is not blaming President Obama for America’s current illnesses. Paul is quick to disagree with Obama’s current policies, but he has never put blame on the current president and he has even gone ahead and defended the Democrat leader whenever he is in the crosshairs of his fellow Republicans. This most certainly will be very attractive to independent voters, who can imagine a president open to bipartisanship and perhaps even lure some Democrat “traitors”.

Paul’s current position in the polls has him a long way from becoming the next president of the United States. Republicans themselves seem to agree on something, they all hate Paul and they all concentrate their efforts on putting him out of the race. Nevertheless, a scenario where independent voters decide to vote Republican would certainly benefit someone with the libertarian policies of Ron Paul.

The Second Cold War?

Por: Mallory Kate Huntley 144517

Relaciones Internacionales

Universidad de las Americas Pueblas

For the younger generation in today's society the Cold War brings up vague ideas of a non-event that we've heard our parents, grandparents and history teachers discuss. However, could a second Cold War be on the horizon? And be a very realistic threat at that?

Because of the United States and NATO's new missile defense shield system, the Russians are all up in arms...literally. The missile defense shield is a system of advanced radar systems and interceptor missiles placed on both land and sea throughout Europe that is set to be released in 2020. The Russians however, are not in accordance with this agreement and are threatening serious action if the United States does not include Russia more in the planning process. 

Today, November 23, the Russian President Medvedev threatened to not only deploy missiles in order to destroy NATO and United States missile defense stations, but also hinted at a withdrawal from the START treaty. The START treaty was set up as a nuclear disarmament agreement that President Obama has said is vital to Russian/American relations. Medvedev stated that if his demands were not respected, more drastic measures would be implemented. 

The Russians primarily want a written contract stating the specifics of how the defense system would work and details such as how close missiles may come to Russia and her waters. Russia essentially wants to know if this is in her best interest. 

All the while, the United States is claiming that Russia's demands are baseless and that the U.S. has been very open with Russia throughout the entire process.

But what does this mean for us in the long run? One of the giant red flags is Medvedev's threat to pull out from the START treaty. As history has shown us, Russia + United States + Nuclear Weaponry = No Good.

Medvedev has already threatened missile attacks, which would be incentive enough for the United States to strike back because we know that they never take a hit laying down. However, were Medvedev to up the ante with nuclear weaponry we would be in the same spot that we were in many years ago. 

The question this time is though, would both countries hesitate to strike this time around? Or is this the breaking point of threats?

Feminism & "Occupy Wall Street"

 Por : Mallory Kate Huntley
144517 - International Relations UDLAP


Chances are that you've heard about the Occupy Wall Street movement occurring all over the United States. These protesters are representing the so-called "99%"... the poor and middle class who are separated vastly from the big dogs, the "1%".


This movement has been supported by unions, anarchists and the such... but where do women stand in this movement? There is no doubt that Occupy Wall Street host a variety of colorful characters and envelops the voices of many, though not all are there for the same reasons. The main idea is to end oppression, no matter what your initial motivation was for being there. And what is feminism if not the banding together of minorities in order to end oppression? 


Overall, Occupy Wall Street has given off the aura of being very feminist, anti-patriarchal and anti-racist. The economic aspects that OWS are tackling greatly affect the idea of feminism, specifically when it come to abortion. OWS has begun to discuss reproductive rights, but from an economic viewpoint. With the recent wave of family planning service reduction and the always rising price of birth control options, many young women cannot afford what it takes to prevent a pregnancy, much less a costly abortion.


Because of this correlation, the OWS movement could certainly be utilized as a sort of soap box for (if not feminism directly) reproduction rights of women.


However, although Occupy Wall Street certainly seems woman friendly at first glance, there are many negating circumstances as well... such as the string of violent sexual crimes, rape, and molestation that is occurring in different OWS "camps" all over the USA. This leads me to wonder, even if women are offered the best circumstances to express their concerns, needs and beliefs, does it affect the primal dominating nature of man in the end? 


How many revolutions do we need to change that?

Is the Merida Initiative Really Working?

Nicholas Allwell

Relaciones Internacionales – UDLAP

400356

Universidad de las Américas Puebla

            The Drug War in Mexico has created a lot of controversy in the United States about border security. And it’s understandable. Mexico has lost over 40,000 people as result of the violence brought about by the mafias who control the drug routes throughout the country. Not only that, but certain cartels have also begun to interest themselves in other illegal activities, such as human trafficking, gambling, and money laundering. Most recently, in 2007, the United States started the ‘Merida Initiative’, which was a way for the US to show its full support towards Mexico while it fights the Drug War President Calderón declared after he took office in 2006. The Merida Initiative’s effectiveness though has been criticized and the United States approach to curb the illegal transnational activities that occur over the border has been seen as preemptive, or even a little rash. The United States’ position towards the drug war in Mexico is a classic example of a world power trying to curb the threat of a clandestine organization. Though if you were one of the most powerful countries in the world threatened by a group of drug trafficking mafias at a border that stretches over 2,000 kilometers, one should ask how they would act differently.

            The Merida Initiative has been the largest plan by the United States government to prevent the flow of drugs into the United States in recent years. Between 2007 and 2010, the United States Department of State has pledged $1.4 billion to Mexico, Central America, and to the island of Hispaniola (Haiti and the Dominican Republic), with most funds being sent to Mexico. The four main goals of the Merida Initiative are: (1) break the power and impunity of criminal organizations; (2) strengthen border, air, and maritime controls; (3) improve the capacity of justice systems in the region; and (4) curtail gang activity and diminish the demand for drugs in the region (GAO-10-253R Mérida Initiative Funding, 5). Much of the aid has been given through training to improve intelligence and drug trafficking enforcement, along with training and support for technology and new equipment given through US funding.

            Although it is nice to see that the funding given by the Merida Initiative has gone past just sending millions of dollars to foreign governments, the results haven’t been as successful as originally hoped. One could say that the problem is that the United States government is handling the current drug war situation in Mexico like President Reagan handled the drug problem in the US in the 1980’s. The technology and intelligence sent from the US government to the Mexican government is used for the goal of incarcerating those who traffic drugs. The US State Department has said that in order to end the Mexican Drug War, one must go straight to the source and cut off the drug trade from its roots. Although this may be true, is it really effective and efficient to simply arrest as many people involved with the drug trade as possible, and then put them in prison where they able to collude with other members of drug cartels? Along with that, can the United States be confident in the Mexican judicial system? Since the point when President Felipe Calderón declared his war against the Mexican drug cartels, hundreds, and possibly even thousands of people have escaped from Mexican prisons, including the head of the Sinaloa Cartel, Joaquín Guzmán Loera (el Chapo, or ‘Shorty’ in English).

            The point being made is not to discredit the United States government’s attempts to curb the drug trade in Mexico and protect its border, nor the Mexican government’s attempts to end the violence in its country. Though the inefficiency brought by corruption in Mexico and the American government’s inability to change its policy towards the problem of drugs trafficked through Mexico is not helping. Until both countries change certain policies domestically and externally, the Merida initiative will be a waste of funds that will be considered a noble, but futile attempt on the part of the US State Department to win the drug war and protect its southern border.

Works Cited

Brands, Hal. United States. US Army War of College Strategic Studies Institute.

            MEXICO'S NARCO-INSURGENCY AND U.S. COUNTERDRUG POLICY. 2009.

"Mérida Initiative." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 6, Oct 2011. Web.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merida_initiative>.

Millete, James L. United States. Government Accountability Office.

Status of Funds for the Mérida Initiative. Washington D.C.. 2009.