Tori Mills
State: Kentucky
What could I do to help preserve national parks and wildlife? Many things. But the one thing I could do that would have the greatest effect would be (get ready for this) to write a song. You know how, when you hear a catchy song on the radio, it gets caught in your head? How it keeps going on over and over and over, making you think about it over and over and over? Well, I had the song “Unwritten” caught in my head the other day, and I did just that. I thought about it and thought about it until I thought, “Hey, what if someone wrote and composed a song about preserving wildlife and national parks and actually played it to the public! That way, it could get caught in many other different people’s heads, and maybe they’d end up doing something to help!” Then I thought, “What if I was that someone!” I don’t want to boast, but I am an exceptionally grand writer. I would call the song “Help Each Other”. Its chorus would go something like this:
Na-ture was put here to he-lp the peo-ple.
Peo-ple were put here to help na-ture too.
It’s already been said and done.
The work we’ve got has already begun.
If people will do, then nature should too.
Help the other, help each other!
Not only that, but I play drums, my great aunt plays piano, and my cousin plays guitar. Also, singing runs in my family (even if it passed me by). So I probably could compose the song when it’s written. After I’m done composing the song, I could send the song to a radio station that I listen to. This idea might sound completely far- fetched, but the radio station I know played a song written and composed by a twelve year old girl for Christmas. If my song is good enough, and since they played her song, they would probably play my song too! Thank you for listening, and stay tuned in the future for my song!
20100326
20100322
Waiting to Exhale: Filipino Nationalism in the Age of Globalization
by Leah Victoria T. Carada
At the end of the Cold War, a new phenomenon arose characterized by massive intensification of economic, political, social and cultural linkages across borders and continents. People call it many different names to the confusion of the common men and women. Some spoke of liberalization, while others started a discourse on internationalization-all these refer to rapid and large-scale changes in global trends that have significantly altered traditional views, standards and even practices. The good news is that somebody has finally coined a term to describe this phenomenon. The bad news is, up to this day, many still remain unable to understand it, much less cope with it. But whether we like it or not, the advent of globalization has come.
Globalization, they say, has eroded many of the significant foundations of what were then popularly known as the nation-states. The term nation-state means a state whose inhabitants consider themselves to be a nation, geographically and legally bounded under one legitimate government; the population of which submits to a subjective perception of belonging to the same historical, linguistic, racial or any other common relationships. Over the last decades, many of these nation-states have experienced serious inability to cope with global problems that require global solutions. A case in point is terrorism where states are opting to ally with other states in the international community if only to respond to the terrorist threat within their own borders. Some states have even practically surrendered their sovereignty to those who have the might to melt away terrorism.
Kenichi Ohmae, author of The End of the Nation State, also opines that the need for a nation-state has largely waned as the information age revolutionized business and international politics. His provocative thesis draws logic from the observation that the Cold War is over and that the financial flows around the world are no longer controlled by governments.
Christopher Cocker of the London School of Economics, however, aptly argues that globalization can only go as far as challenging institutions such as the state, but it cannot cause the latter to dissolve. This essay takes the same line of argument, postulating that states remain relevant and nationalism is still very much alive in the age of globalization.
The view that predicts the irrelevance of the nation-state in the era of globalization clearly drives a point. But it overlooks the fact that the nation-state may well be needed as we seek to mitigate the ills of globalization. This means that nation-states can always find a role even in a highly interdependent and virtually borderless world.
As globalization moves forward, its agents will gradually realize that it cannot afford to take on some of the problems it has created along the way. Globalization will certainly find benefit from states that can efficiently deal with the disturbances that magnify globalization's own waterloos. As former Philippine President Fidel V. Ramos puts it, "no authority can deal with the harmful impact of the spread of market values-the breaking up of families, destruction of traditional cultures, and provocation of the rise of radical and fanatic localisms-than the state." When things go sour in a highly globalized system, the world will still turn to states that have the sovereign right to regulate money flows, control the movement of people across national frontiers, and regulate people's activities within their areas of responsibility. In other words, cooperation among like-minded states remains to be the best line of defense against the c!
ritical offenses of globalization.
Amid all the changes created by globalization, therefore, nationalism will always find a way to manifest itself. It is likely to adapt to the age of globalization by reinventing itself, perhaps by cultivating a larger sense of national self-interest, or by any other fashion so long as it finds a way to cope. The persistence of nationalism, for instance, may well emerge out of massive perception of inequality as a result of the visibly widening gap between the developed and the developing countries. These perceptions can be easily fueled by what the disadvantaged sectors hear, see or read from a host of sources. The alienating forces of the global market could prick a nerve and suddenly awaken nationalist sentiments that might be difficult to contain without the moderation of states.
In the Philippines today, it cannot be denied that nationalism remains very much ingrained in the nation's fertile soil. The expulsion of thousands of Filipinos from Malaysia and the alleged harsh treatment of Filipinos in Sabah threaten to engulf the whole nation anew with a nationalist fury that could result in a major conflict between Malaysia and the Philippines, if left unabated. As the national media continues to highlight the issue, the state-in this case the Philippine government-is torn between appeasing its own people on the one hand, and managing its relations with its neighbor on the other. Regardless of how the situation will unfold hereafter, it is at least clear that nationalism is still very much alive and that nation-states remain relevant in the age of globalization.
At any rate, the situation confronting both the Philippines and Malaysia is but an indication of the downside of globalization. As globalization encourages and allows greater movement of people, the problem of displacement will always be there. Given the difficult economic situation in the Philippines, it is only understandable that the Philippine government is left without much choice but to protect its roughly 8 million nationals in different parts of the world. Away from their families, these Filipinos often seek refuge in Philippine embassies and consulates in case of emergencies abroad, again a manifestation of the people's continued recognition of the role of the state. After all, without the state, whom else could they turn to?
It is also interesting to note how the Filipino nation seeks to oppose forces of globalization that attempt to transcend the power of the state in responding to security threats. While certain sectors of the population might be willing to open Philippine territories to foreign troops, the bigger part of the population is there to caution the liberals, forcing the state to set limits to the movements and operations of non-Filipino troops within the country. This was practically why the Philippine government had to handle carefully the conduct of Balikatan Exercises in the country between Philippine and American troops recently. The state was clearly aware of the possible repercussions of allowing greater foreign intervention to unfold in a territory over which the Filipino nation maintains domestic jurisdiction and exercises sovereignty.
In the multilateral arena, Philippine nationalism exudes with its utmost intent to protect its national interest. Left with little voice and power to advance its own position, the Philippines gathers added strength from its neighbors and allies abroad if only to defend its own interest in various concerns. The country's membership in ASEAN, APEC, and the United Nations, among others, is but a result of the Philippines' nationalistic tendency that regards frameworks of integration as a means to pool and increase its own national strength abroad.
Ultimately, however, it is in the Filipino people where one can see the magnitude of the nation's sense of nationalism. Unfortunately, a controversial survey conducted by Pulse Asia Inc. recently showed that "one of every five Filipinos wants to leave the country for good and live in another country due to feeling of despair." Analysts say that "the situation is alarming because many of those who are leaving and those who want to leave the country now come from the upper and middle classes-educated, trained and financially able." This goes beyond the usual findings where many of those who want to leave the Philippines come from the vulnerable class of the society.
The Social Weather Stations Inc., on the other hand, argued that the question in the survey was double-barreled, as it posed queries that are inclined to cause ambiguity in interpretation. With a statement that says "There is no hope for the country. If possible, I would migrate to another country," one might be agreeing or disagreeing to either of the statements but not necessarily to both.
Whatever is the case, it can always be argued that such findings cannot measure the depth of the Filipinos' sense of nationalism. One's wanting to migrate does not equate with one's surrender of nationalism. Consider that many of the Filipinos overseas still strongly identify themselves with the Filipino nation. Filipino communities in different parts of the world watch closely the events in the country, at times even seeking to take part in some national endeavors in spite of their physical isolation. Their clamor for the immediate passage of the Absentee Voting Law illustrates the point clearly.
In closing, the Filipino nation is faced with the difficult task of breathing normally in the age of globalization. The challenge is for us to redefine Filipino nationalism in a way that will not fight, but manage globalization.
At the end of the Cold War, a new phenomenon arose characterized by massive intensification of economic, political, social and cultural linkages across borders and continents. People call it many different names to the confusion of the common men and women. Some spoke of liberalization, while others started a discourse on internationalization-all these refer to rapid and large-scale changes in global trends that have significantly altered traditional views, standards and even practices. The good news is that somebody has finally coined a term to describe this phenomenon. The bad news is, up to this day, many still remain unable to understand it, much less cope with it. But whether we like it or not, the advent of globalization has come.
Globalization, they say, has eroded many of the significant foundations of what were then popularly known as the nation-states. The term nation-state means a state whose inhabitants consider themselves to be a nation, geographically and legally bounded under one legitimate government; the population of which submits to a subjective perception of belonging to the same historical, linguistic, racial or any other common relationships. Over the last decades, many of these nation-states have experienced serious inability to cope with global problems that require global solutions. A case in point is terrorism where states are opting to ally with other states in the international community if only to respond to the terrorist threat within their own borders. Some states have even practically surrendered their sovereignty to those who have the might to melt away terrorism.
Kenichi Ohmae, author of The End of the Nation State, also opines that the need for a nation-state has largely waned as the information age revolutionized business and international politics. His provocative thesis draws logic from the observation that the Cold War is over and that the financial flows around the world are no longer controlled by governments.
Christopher Cocker of the London School of Economics, however, aptly argues that globalization can only go as far as challenging institutions such as the state, but it cannot cause the latter to dissolve. This essay takes the same line of argument, postulating that states remain relevant and nationalism is still very much alive in the age of globalization.
The view that predicts the irrelevance of the nation-state in the era of globalization clearly drives a point. But it overlooks the fact that the nation-state may well be needed as we seek to mitigate the ills of globalization. This means that nation-states can always find a role even in a highly interdependent and virtually borderless world.
As globalization moves forward, its agents will gradually realize that it cannot afford to take on some of the problems it has created along the way. Globalization will certainly find benefit from states that can efficiently deal with the disturbances that magnify globalization's own waterloos. As former Philippine President Fidel V. Ramos puts it, "no authority can deal with the harmful impact of the spread of market values-the breaking up of families, destruction of traditional cultures, and provocation of the rise of radical and fanatic localisms-than the state." When things go sour in a highly globalized system, the world will still turn to states that have the sovereign right to regulate money flows, control the movement of people across national frontiers, and regulate people's activities within their areas of responsibility. In other words, cooperation among like-minded states remains to be the best line of defense against the c!
ritical offenses of globalization.
Amid all the changes created by globalization, therefore, nationalism will always find a way to manifest itself. It is likely to adapt to the age of globalization by reinventing itself, perhaps by cultivating a larger sense of national self-interest, or by any other fashion so long as it finds a way to cope. The persistence of nationalism, for instance, may well emerge out of massive perception of inequality as a result of the visibly widening gap between the developed and the developing countries. These perceptions can be easily fueled by what the disadvantaged sectors hear, see or read from a host of sources. The alienating forces of the global market could prick a nerve and suddenly awaken nationalist sentiments that might be difficult to contain without the moderation of states.
In the Philippines today, it cannot be denied that nationalism remains very much ingrained in the nation's fertile soil. The expulsion of thousands of Filipinos from Malaysia and the alleged harsh treatment of Filipinos in Sabah threaten to engulf the whole nation anew with a nationalist fury that could result in a major conflict between Malaysia and the Philippines, if left unabated. As the national media continues to highlight the issue, the state-in this case the Philippine government-is torn between appeasing its own people on the one hand, and managing its relations with its neighbor on the other. Regardless of how the situation will unfold hereafter, it is at least clear that nationalism is still very much alive and that nation-states remain relevant in the age of globalization.
At any rate, the situation confronting both the Philippines and Malaysia is but an indication of the downside of globalization. As globalization encourages and allows greater movement of people, the problem of displacement will always be there. Given the difficult economic situation in the Philippines, it is only understandable that the Philippine government is left without much choice but to protect its roughly 8 million nationals in different parts of the world. Away from their families, these Filipinos often seek refuge in Philippine embassies and consulates in case of emergencies abroad, again a manifestation of the people's continued recognition of the role of the state. After all, without the state, whom else could they turn to?
It is also interesting to note how the Filipino nation seeks to oppose forces of globalization that attempt to transcend the power of the state in responding to security threats. While certain sectors of the population might be willing to open Philippine territories to foreign troops, the bigger part of the population is there to caution the liberals, forcing the state to set limits to the movements and operations of non-Filipino troops within the country. This was practically why the Philippine government had to handle carefully the conduct of Balikatan Exercises in the country between Philippine and American troops recently. The state was clearly aware of the possible repercussions of allowing greater foreign intervention to unfold in a territory over which the Filipino nation maintains domestic jurisdiction and exercises sovereignty.
In the multilateral arena, Philippine nationalism exudes with its utmost intent to protect its national interest. Left with little voice and power to advance its own position, the Philippines gathers added strength from its neighbors and allies abroad if only to defend its own interest in various concerns. The country's membership in ASEAN, APEC, and the United Nations, among others, is but a result of the Philippines' nationalistic tendency that regards frameworks of integration as a means to pool and increase its own national strength abroad.
Ultimately, however, it is in the Filipino people where one can see the magnitude of the nation's sense of nationalism. Unfortunately, a controversial survey conducted by Pulse Asia Inc. recently showed that "one of every five Filipinos wants to leave the country for good and live in another country due to feeling of despair." Analysts say that "the situation is alarming because many of those who are leaving and those who want to leave the country now come from the upper and middle classes-educated, trained and financially able." This goes beyond the usual findings where many of those who want to leave the Philippines come from the vulnerable class of the society.
The Social Weather Stations Inc., on the other hand, argued that the question in the survey was double-barreled, as it posed queries that are inclined to cause ambiguity in interpretation. With a statement that says "There is no hope for the country. If possible, I would migrate to another country," one might be agreeing or disagreeing to either of the statements but not necessarily to both.
Whatever is the case, it can always be argued that such findings cannot measure the depth of the Filipinos' sense of nationalism. One's wanting to migrate does not equate with one's surrender of nationalism. Consider that many of the Filipinos overseas still strongly identify themselves with the Filipino nation. Filipino communities in different parts of the world watch closely the events in the country, at times even seeking to take part in some national endeavors in spite of their physical isolation. Their clamor for the immediate passage of the Absentee Voting Law illustrates the point clearly.
In closing, the Filipino nation is faced with the difficult task of breathing normally in the age of globalization. The challenge is for us to redefine Filipino nationalism in a way that will not fight, but manage globalization.
20100319
Being an American
David Baker, First Place Winner in the East North Central
Cornerstone High School (homeschool); Bexley, Ohio; Teacher: Shannon Baker
Without a tremendous amount of ingenuity the United States of America would not exist as we know it today. Ingenuity means trying new ways of doing things, new uses for past ideas and developing them until you find a better way. The Founders had to use creativity and ingenuity to develop a system of government for such a diverse people. They were also able to balance the government so that it would treat all citizens and all States equally. The writing of the United States Constitution required our Founders to take their many ideas and form them into a better government. When the Constitutional Convention first met there were many opposing ideas on
government; some Founders called for the British system, however, others wanted a weak government with no leader. Many colonists wanted to crown George Washington as their king, but he said that he would not be the king or support a monarchy in America. There were some that wanted no connection between the States making them just a group of sovereign colonies. They would form alliances in time of war, like they had done during the American Revolution under the Articles of Confederation, when the federal government could only make suggestions not any real laws. There were other Founders who pushed for a central federal power with almost no States rights. If the Founders had chosen any one of those systems our country would have had civil wars constantly, with some States going back to Great Britain or becoming French colonies, a dictatorship (and most likely other revolutions), anarchy or a police state. Instead the Founders created a system with checks and balances and a rather limited federal government, but strong enough to prevent inter-state strife while still allowing State and personal freedoms. They also found ways to balance the amount of power between a small State and a large State so that the small State was not powerless or disproportionately powerful to a larger State.
The Founders had to use much ingenuity to create our Constitution so that it would allow the federal government to function well and not become an Orwellian big brother figure or lead to anarchy. Our Constitution took the best of each idea and created an entirely new republic.
Our country has shown an amazing amount of ingenuity throughout its history. Benjamin Franklin, at age 81, was the oldest member of the Constitutional Convention. He had many other ingenious ideas that still influence everyday life today such as bifocals, the "Franklin Stove", the first police and fire departments, as well as the public library. Another great American who embodied this same type of ingenuity was Henry Ford. Among other things, he gave the world the first assembly line and an affordable car. Many of the things we use every day and take for granted are manufactured in the assembly line. Without all these ideas and many other
innovations throughout our history, American culture would not be what it is today. Mr. Ford said, “To do more for the world than the world does for you—that is success.” Without the willingness to take ideas and inventions of the past and change or remold them, neither Mr. Ford nor our Founders could have been successful in their enterprises. I have used my own ingenuity by designing inventions to help make life easier or better and also while programming my FIRST robotics team's robot. A couple of my inventions are the Twister Resister, a device that
protects people from flying debris during a tornado; and the Stuffed Crutch, an add-on to your crutch so you are able to carry things with you while you crutch. In programming, ingenuity is very important. There are many problems in programming that do not have easy solutions and you must try many different ideas to find the best one. Without being able to "think outside the box" when looking at a problem in order to find unique ways to solve it, or looking at an item to find a new use for it, you will never create anything. I enjoy trying to solve problems as well as finding better ways to do things. In conclusion, without ingenuity, the United States of America might not be 232 years old and counting. I believe that ingenuity, past, present and future, is the most important American value. Without ingenuity, America would not have led the world in science and technology these many years.
Cornerstone High School (homeschool); Bexley, Ohio; Teacher: Shannon Baker
Without a tremendous amount of ingenuity the United States of America would not exist as we know it today. Ingenuity means trying new ways of doing things, new uses for past ideas and developing them until you find a better way. The Founders had to use creativity and ingenuity to develop a system of government for such a diverse people. They were also able to balance the government so that it would treat all citizens and all States equally. The writing of the United States Constitution required our Founders to take their many ideas and form them into a better government. When the Constitutional Convention first met there were many opposing ideas on
government; some Founders called for the British system, however, others wanted a weak government with no leader. Many colonists wanted to crown George Washington as their king, but he said that he would not be the king or support a monarchy in America. There were some that wanted no connection between the States making them just a group of sovereign colonies. They would form alliances in time of war, like they had done during the American Revolution under the Articles of Confederation, when the federal government could only make suggestions not any real laws. There were other Founders who pushed for a central federal power with almost no States rights. If the Founders had chosen any one of those systems our country would have had civil wars constantly, with some States going back to Great Britain or becoming French colonies, a dictatorship (and most likely other revolutions), anarchy or a police state. Instead the Founders created a system with checks and balances and a rather limited federal government, but strong enough to prevent inter-state strife while still allowing State and personal freedoms. They also found ways to balance the amount of power between a small State and a large State so that the small State was not powerless or disproportionately powerful to a larger State.
The Founders had to use much ingenuity to create our Constitution so that it would allow the federal government to function well and not become an Orwellian big brother figure or lead to anarchy. Our Constitution took the best of each idea and created an entirely new republic.
Our country has shown an amazing amount of ingenuity throughout its history. Benjamin Franklin, at age 81, was the oldest member of the Constitutional Convention. He had many other ingenious ideas that still influence everyday life today such as bifocals, the "Franklin Stove", the first police and fire departments, as well as the public library. Another great American who embodied this same type of ingenuity was Henry Ford. Among other things, he gave the world the first assembly line and an affordable car. Many of the things we use every day and take for granted are manufactured in the assembly line. Without all these ideas and many other
innovations throughout our history, American culture would not be what it is today. Mr. Ford said, “To do more for the world than the world does for you—that is success.” Without the willingness to take ideas and inventions of the past and change or remold them, neither Mr. Ford nor our Founders could have been successful in their enterprises. I have used my own ingenuity by designing inventions to help make life easier or better and also while programming my FIRST robotics team's robot. A couple of my inventions are the Twister Resister, a device that
protects people from flying debris during a tornado; and the Stuffed Crutch, an add-on to your crutch so you are able to carry things with you while you crutch. In programming, ingenuity is very important. There are many problems in programming that do not have easy solutions and you must try many different ideas to find the best one. Without being able to "think outside the box" when looking at a problem in order to find unique ways to solve it, or looking at an item to find a new use for it, you will never create anything. I enjoy trying to solve problems as well as finding better ways to do things. In conclusion, without ingenuity, the United States of America might not be 232 years old and counting. I believe that ingenuity, past, present and future, is the most important American value. Without ingenuity, America would not have led the world in science and technology these many years.
20100318
A Plant in Hand
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
by George Benedict M. Ferrer
Tandang Sora National High School, Philippines
20100317
Take Care of Nature
1st Place: "A Plant in Hand"
by George Benedict M. Ferrer
Tandang Sora National High School
by George Benedict M. Ferrer
Tandang Sora National High School
"Kalikasan Pangalagaan"
by Ma. Leody B. Jasmin
San Francisco High School
20100315
Ang Taong may Pangangalaga sa Kalikasan ay may Kinabukasan (A person who cares for nature have a future )
1st Place: "A Plant in Hand"
by George Benedict M. Ferrer
Tandang Sora National High School
by George Benedict M. Ferrer
Tandang Sora National High School
2nd Place: "Kalikasan Pangalagaan"
by Ma. Leody B. Jasmin
San Francisco High School
"by Ma. Leody B. Jasmin
San Francisco High School
by Mary Denise R. Dator
St. Bridget School, Philippines
20100314
Eating Healthy
Emily Clements, Age 13, Australia
As soon as we had access to the Internet, I was on it like a flash. Millions of sites from around the world on every different subject you could imagine-it was expensive, but I was on it every day! My main interests were kids' sites, chatlines, competitions, and, of course, animal websites.I have always loved animals from the moment I was born! My two sisters and I grew up with pets, and we continue to love them as a family. As a young child, I loved most of all to go to zoos and animal parks, even though now I realize that they can be cruel to the animals. I still want to be a vet when I "grow up." The thing that strikes me about ALL creatures is that they're so beautiful and intelligent--especially companion animals such as dogs, cats and horses. So naturally, because of my love of animals, I looked up animal websites, perhaps in the hope of finding some pictures and interesting facts. Oh, I found them all right, but they weren't at all what I expected.
I almost regret that I found animal cruelty websites now because they continue to haunt me for a long time after I read them. However, there is the aspect that they help me to take action. The first and most horrible one I have read was a page on "factory farming." It was unlike anything I had ever heard of before.
Up till then, I had been naive in thinking that farms were picturesque landscapes where animals roamed in paddocks and grazed in sunny meadows. Of course, reality is never so good. I wonder how many people realize that the pork chops they ate last night came from a pig that had lived its short life in a cramped, dark pen, cruelly dosed with steroids, hormones and antibiotics? The things that people will do to save money in the farming business are shocking. What sort of world do we live in? Then the merciless slaughter ... it was all too much. I was sure I could not eat another piece of meat without feeling an overwhelming sense of guilt.
In the next few weeks, I hoped the feeling would go away, but it didn't. I continued to see evidence of animal abuse. At least twice a month we would pass a sheep truck on the road: it would be cramped full of terrified animals, some with their limbs hanging out the side of the truck. I learned they were headed for a long tough sea journey to the Middle East for slaughter; apparently as many as 5% would die on the way. I hoped others, especially my parents, would have the same views as me. They didn't.
When I told my parents I wanted to stop eating meat I was surprised at their laid-back reaction. After about a week of me leaving my meat on the side of the plate, the conflict began. They couldn't seem to understand that I actually meant what I said: I was now a vegetarian. You can't blame them really, with the scarce amounts of vegetarians around when they were my age, they found it hard to believe it was different now. Mum and I would argue and argue. Were humans meant to eat meat? Were animals meant to be eaten? Was there such a thing as a healthy vegetarian? Was this some sort of weight-loss diet I was attempting? Of course, I was very angry, furious even. Dad told me to write out a list of things that I would need to eat instead, which I had already done. Like any parents, Mum and Dad were worried about my health. I didn't appreciate it!
One day I came home to find the fridge well stocked with a million soy products and every sort of tofu you could possibly imagine! Finally my parents were accepting that I would eat differently from them, and maybe they would even try some of my new foods!
It's still hard for my parents to come to terms with vegetarianism, especially when so many of their friends have very twisted views about this subject. I'm lucky--in my generation, vegetarians are mostly accepted and different foods are widely available. So far, I have found my diet interesting, healthy, AND cruelty free, and I'm determined to make it last!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
