Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. at Stanford - "The Other America" 1967

Martin Luther King's "The Other America" was addressed at Stanford University.  What Dr. King explains is the division of the US by race and class. The US is a racially segregated society that divides African Americans and Whites. Even when de jure segregation was dismantled, de facto segregation remained. American racism did not only target African Americans, but Mexicans, Native Americans, and South East Asians. Martin Luther King exposes this in his speech.  As Dr. King explains that the ultimate end of racism will be genocide. When one group sees itself as superior, it will being to dehumanize groups it views as inferior. The other America is the groups that are oppressed : the poor, African Americans,  South Americans, Asians, and women. However, Whites live in a society that favors them and gives them privilege. The only equality that exists is equality for Whites only. White liberals abandoned Dr. King in the late 1960s, because they believed most of the problems had been solved. They were also vexed that he opposed the Vietnam War. If racial equality is to be a realized, Whites must change. They will always hate, but laws can change behavior.  

Women In Combat: Social, Political, and Qualification Considerations

The recent graduation of two women from the US Army Ranger training course has once again ignited debate. Women have been banned from combat in the US military. This ban was lifted by the Department of Defense in 2013. Leon Pennetta who was secretary of defense was certain that women could perform well enough to serve in ground combat. While it is clear prohibiting participation is discrimination, there are particular considerations that should be examined. There are social, political , and qualification aspects that cannot be ignored. If this integration process is going to happen certain steps must be taken. Some commentators hailed this as "historic" and a demonstration of women's advancement. Upon further investigation, there are ulterior motives. 

          The political impact of women in combat presents challenges. The first problem is with the selective service. Young men are required to register with the selective service. Now that the ban on women in combat is lifted, there is no reason not to extend this to women. The unusual amount of silence on this from feminist groups is more revealing. Women have a choice, but men do not. Allowing this unequal burden to remain is a clear double standard. A reverse scenario would result in numerous protests by feminist organizations.Besides that issue, there remains political opposition to the decision. This comes from American conservatives and people in the army themselves. Conservatives who are extremely militaristic do not support women in the armed forces. This seems almost contradictory considering their willingness to use military might against other nations. They still believe that a woman's pace in in the home and out of the public sphere. American liberals do support US military aggression, but disguise it in the form of humanitarian intervention. They are only supportive of women in the army when it presents them as "progressive." Although the debate on women in combat has been present for several decades, this could gradually become a major wedge issue. Abortion, gun control, same-sex marriage, and immigration are just a few examples of wedge issues that divide the American public.The reason the ban was lifted was not because of some revelation of wrong doing, but necessity. The US has been losing wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan and it makes no sense that able bodied people not be allowed to fight.

 Women account for at least 14% of the armed forces and in a way already have been fighting. There are no front lines, but wars of attrition and insurgents resisting occupation with guerrilla warfare tactics. The reality is this has nothing to do with women's empowerment, but the continuation of never ending wars. It will not be just poor men who will fight, but poor women. The elite upper class will then gain the rewards from the deaths of  the socioeconomically disadvantaged. 

         Another dynamic that needs examination is the social transformation of the military institution. The US Army has been for a longtime viewed as a male only affair. Women who go into male dominated fields often face discrimination, prejudice, and harassment. The US military tends to view women as a liability rather than an asset. There is some form of institutional sexism that exists in the army. The evidence is clear when revealing the high level of sexual assault in the US military. So far little has been done to stop the thousands incidents of rape. Detractors of women serving in combat positions often claim that women would be more vulnerable to rape in the battlefield. Statistics prove that women soldiers are more likely to raped by their peers, rather than by enemy combatants. Women who attempt to expose such crimes are either bullied into silence or removed. These criminal acts must be punished and attitudes must change. Men must learn to work with women as a cohesive unit.

 This means a level of integration in training and other tasks. Another problem is that some myths must be discredited. The idea that women disturb unit functionality seems ludicrous. Detractors state that men would do dangerous actions in order to protect women. Chivalry they believe is instinctual. When an extremely precarious situation arises it is dubious if you can depend on your fellow soldier. The fictionalized Hollywood version of a soldier is a man bravely going into bullet fire, with no sense of fear. He safes his comrades drags them off to safety and is a hero. Real warfare is less glamorous. Nearly 6,600 soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that the casualties are high and the chances people being saved are diminutive. The first priority of people in danger is self- preservation and no amount of  training can unravel that.Many men still believe that women are beneath them. They look at their female peers as inferiors. There is also the conviction that women soldiers are less competent. Even if this is proven false, their presence is unwanted. The social structure formed in the army is modeled like a college fraternity organization. A machismo culture combined with misogynist  beliefs. This seems unfitting for an institution that considers itself professional.

         Qualifications are pivotal. When discussing qualifications the argument shifts to physical fitness . Women have less upper body strength compared to men on average. Seeing as women produce more estrogen their total body composition would consist mostly fat. Men produce more testosterone allowing for a higher amount of muscle mass. This means men would be on average stronger than women. Hormones also influence total bone mass. Women have less bone density as compared to a male. Endocrinology and sexual dimorphism explain the differences in physical fitness levels between males and females. However, it is not impossible for women to build up their physical strength. There was a controversy in 2013 about the three pull-ups requirement. There was talk of lowering the standard for women recruits when a large number failed. This was a mistake. Lowering standards would only create resentment among male recruits and give cogency to detractors. The another problem is it reinforces the notion of female physical inferiority.Women need extra training and improved nutrition if they are going to be successful on the Army Physical Fitness Test. Weight training can improve women's physical strength. Any woman would not be able to these training courses. That is why the army should seek to recruit  women with athletic skills. A woman who is exceptional is the only one capable of passing. 

Kristen Greist  carries soldier in US Army Ranger School 

Certain health considerations need to be addressed. Women can suffer stress fractures higher than their male counter parts. Women must build up bone mass to avoid such hazards. While exercise can build up strength and endurance, nutrition can also help. Protein is essential for the muscles, just like fruits and vegetables are for overall health. For both men and women, there is the issue of obesity. A majority of the US population would not be able to combat ready due to weight management issues.Fitness programs for women should designed specifically to increase upper body strength. 

        Through out history, there have been women who fought in war. Women during the American Civil War incognito as males fought  for the Union or Confederacy. The Soviet Union allowed women to engaged in combat mostly as snipers and bombers. Women have seen combat, so this is nothing new. The amount of backlash seems like a new phenomenon. Men's and some women's objections to women serving seems reactionary. If a woman is qualified to perform all tasks, there is no legitimate reason to ban her from combat. Gender biases are not a reasonable excuse to exclude women from the military. There is an urgent concern. Women's inclusion could be part of an agenda for greater military expansion.Seeing as women can apply for combat positions this would mean an increase in troops. The US realizes that if its empire is to continue, every able bodied person has to fight. What ever the true motives are for a reverse in a long term policy will only reveal itself decades later.      

            

RIP Julian Bond

Qaddafi's Address To The United Nations (2009)

When Libya was no longer considered an international pariah, it was allowed to express itself  on the international stage. Qaddafi addressed the UN in 2009. His speech was a significant one. Muammar Qaddafi eloquently exposes the contradictions of the supranational organization. The United Nations has not prevented conflict, but increased it. The DRC, Yugoslavia, the African Central Republic, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, and Haiti have been victims of intervention. Qaddafi states in his address " that there should be equality among nations." There has never been equality among nations in the organization. The West dominates the UN. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has used the UN to justify military aggression. Qaddafi proposed that the Security Council be open to all nations. The African Union, Arab League, ASEAN, and other regional supranational organizations should have representation. The only way some form of peace can be sustained is if the superpower monopoly is dismantled in the UN. No nation has the right to dominate other countries. Yet, the US, UK, France, Italy, and Germany do this to African, Asian, and South American nations. The global south has been constantly attacked by sanctions, warfare, and neocolonialism. Weak and poor nations are at the mercy of the ICC, US, and the IAEA. This address exposes the brutality of the trusteeship system after World War II and past colonization. The UN is not humanitarian, but seeks to advance imperialist agendas.It is up to the people of the global south to resist the West and have the vision of freedom continue.    

Pluto

Pluto once considered a planet, has now been classified as a trans-Neptunian object. Since 2006 astronomers have referred to Pluto as this. It has generated wonder, with recent discoveries about its composition. When Eris was discovered the definition of planet had to be adjusted. These discoveries resulted in the development of a new term: dwarf planet. Pluto lost its status as the ninth planet of the solar system. It was discovered in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh. Pluto and Eris are located in the Kuiper Belt. They are not the only trans-Neptunian objects present in the area. Other objects include Orcus, Quaor, Haumea, Makemake, and Sedna. The universe is much larger than previously thought. There is still much to learn about dwarf planets in our solar system.  

      The International Astronomical Union developed the term dwarf planet. The definition of this term is "a body that orbits the Sun and is massive enough for its gravity to have pulled it into a spherical shape, but not so massive that it has cleared the region around its orbit of smaller bodies." This has generated controversy within the scientific community. Some astronomers felt that the new term was simply created without enough understanding about the nature of Pluto. Classification can be difficult when there may be other objects so radically different. This change demonstrates that science does need constant revision. It is constantly evolving and experimenting. Another term has emerged for objects beyond Neptune. Plutoids are dwarf planets past the planet Neptune and the term officially came into use in 2008 by the IAU. Eventually, classification systems will have to be expanded to accommodate new objects discovered.

         

       
        The atmosphere of  Pluto differs from that of the Jovian planets. The atmosphere could methane and nitrogen. The dwarf  planet contains possibly contains a rock core. Considering it is far from the sun, temperatures are low. This atmosphere may not always be in a constant state. There are shifts. When Pluto gets close to the sun the planet only forms a thin atmosphere. where there is water there could be life. However, this may not be higher order life forms, but microorganisms. Assuming evolution functions in the same manner, the possibilities are endless. It has been confirmed by NASA that the atmosphere does contain immense amounts of nitrogen gas. The mystery is why there is so much. Only further investigation can allow for complete answers.
           Pluto's orbit is extremely elliptical. It has a far distance to go when revolving around the sun. It takes approximately 248.54 years for Pluto to circle the Sun. This means that one Earth day would be the equivalent of  6 days and 9 hours.Pluto actually does cross the orbit path of Neptune. This only happens every 20 years. Pluto is unusual in the sense that its axial tilt is only 17 degrees. Charon a satellite of Pluto follows a circular path around the Kuiper Belt object. The plane is inclined at 118 degrees in the Pluto-Charon system. Gravity also effects both Pluto and Charon. Being so close results in tidal bulge activity on both objects. This could serve an important purpose. The force acts as a control on the rotational velocity of both objects. Pluto has three moons besides Charon.These moons include Nix, Hydra, and P4. They are fairly recent discoveries which occurred in the 2000s.

      

Seeing as Pluto and Charon are so inseparable they are classified as one system. Other moons are not as vitally linked. The Hubble Space Telescope was helpful at gathering information in regards to Pluto and Charon. The information gathered allowed for a more accurate estimation of the mass of Pluto. It has been recorded as 0.0021 Earth masses. Closes examination of orbits can reveal much about this object. 

        So far, there are general basic units of information that astronomers have found on Pluto. The dwarf planet's perihelion is 4.1 light hours. The aphelion is 6.8 light hours. Pluto size is smaller than the Earth's moon. The diameter is 2,325 km to 2,274 km. The mean surface temperature is about -230 degrees Celsius. This is a very cold place covered in ice. The cloudtop gravity is about 0.06 g. More will be revealed in the future as astronomers explore deeper into space. 

References 

Mcmillan, Steve and Chaisson, Eric. Astronomy. New York : Pearson Education INC, 2007. 

Fressin, Francois.  30 Second Astronomy. New York: Metro Books, 2014.

Couper, Heather and Henbest Nigel. The Space Atlas. Milan: Gulliver Books, 1992.

     

President Obama's Visit to Kenya and Ethiopia

President Obama has visited Kenya and Ethiopia to establish greater economic and diplomatic ties in the East African region. This was presented as a historic move, because President Obama was the first president to visit Ethiopia. The president has articulated that Africa is rising economically. It is true that the African continent will be a major player in international affairs in the 21st century. However, this is not a mission of good will. Geopolitically it is an attempt for the US to reassert its self in East Africa. The wider objective is to counter Chinese influence, expand the so called War on Terror, and procure natural  resources. The nature of these diplomatic contacts appear to be imperialist in nature. Kenya and  Ethiopia may possibly be transformed into US client states. President Obama's foreign policy in regards to African nations has not been successful. The overthrow of Qaddafi, inaction in Nigeria, and strained relations with Uganda prove that the US is not viewed favorably. Africom serves as an unpleasant reminder of  how African sovereignty can be easily violated.Celebration was a mask for ulterior political motives.
      The major reason for Obama's visit was to repair damaged relations. During the Bush administration, African sates objected to the invasion of Iraq.That war evoked memories of a colonial past and ruined the image of the United States internationally. The War on Terror was extended to East Africa. Somalia would be targeted by drone strikes. The objective was to remove the Islamic Union of Courts.

They were imposing order in the southern part of Somalia. The problem was that they were imposing Sharia Law and a strict interpretation of Islam. The country had been unstable since the fall of Said Barre. Civil war and famine were now a common part of life. This instability also attracted Kenya and Ethiopia to get involved. Obama took another approach by increasing drone strikes. The US has become more unpopular, because of these actions. President Obama now realizes that East Africa is strategic. This attempt at revival of cordial ties may not be successful. The financial aid programs of the Bush administration  failed to persuade African leaders. Meles  Zenawi  the former prime minister of Ethiopia got the country more involved in military action. According to Wikileaks, the US encouraged this as a counter-terrorism strategy. Mwai Kibaki who ruled Kenya for a decade followed a similar policy. Troops were sent into Somalia for "stabilization." The AU Mission in Somalia has had soldiers come not only from Kenya and Ethiopia, but Uganda,  Burundi, as well as Djibouti. This is not about a peacekeeping mission, but occupation. States involved wanted to increase their power and Somalia was the key to that. The change in leadership in Ethiopia and Kenya seemed like a new opportunity for  the US. It was already too late, because of China's efforts.  

       Around 2007, Hu Jintao conducted a diplomatic tour of at least eight African countries. China's president was on a mission to establish stronger economic and diplomatic ties. These actions in retrospect were nothing new. During the Mao era, China was very supportive of anti-colonial freedom struggles. Relations do go back decades with various African states. Critics claim this is an attempt at colonization, but this is not the case. China does not make demands to African states in regards to laws or other practices. President Hu Jintao never attempted to impose Chinese political values on Ethiopia  or Kenya. 

When Hu Jintao met with President Kibaki there was the discussion of oil exploration in Kenya.There is a  possibility that more could present on Kenyan territory.Bilateral relations with Ethiopia focused on infrastructure and commerce between the two countries. It is apparent that these countries need each other. They face similar challenges of development and pressure from  the West. Human rights which are an important issue, are used to justify the US-EU blocks interference in the internal affairs of nations. A more extreme element of this is the use of military force. Other African states have taken notice and realized they needed some from of protection against western aggression . China had elevated  its power on the global stage and could provide at level of security to African states. 

China's enormous population needs certain resources to keep its society functional. Xi Jinping  continues  the policies of his predecessor. He may possibly expand them. The approach is different from US diplomatic efforts. The United States wants to remain the global hegemon , instead of have a multipolar world order. China is viewed as a military threat that must be countered. The US is making Africa an indirect battle ground against China. Such belligerence continues to turn global public opinion against the US. China could in the future be more favorable in the future. President Obama continues a China containment policy that is now extending to every continent. This allows for more aggression overseas. 

       Obama's visit to Kenya and Ethiopia was not just about revitalizing damaged relations, but expanding the War on Terror. East Africa has become another front. The United States is attempting to make Kenya and Ethiopia more compliant in regional interests. Al-Shabab's acts of violence has been used as a justification for the US to have a military presence. If Somalia were to become stable, the US could establish large bases there. This capability would allow for greater control of the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea. The United States intervention in Somalia in 1993 was disastrous. It was a major foreign policy failure of the Clinton administration and demonstrated the dangers of humanitarian intervention. President Obama's strategy is to have Kenya and Ethiopia do most of the fighting, while drone strikes  intensify of the US. Seeing as the US cannot fight every battle at once, it requires regional enforcers. Client states will be armed and will fight on the behalf of US foreign policy goals. This may not work as intended. Ever since the Westgate Mall attack in Kenya, the country wants to expand its power. This is not just for national security purposes, but for dominance in the East African region. Kenya another East African regional power is also competing for that goal .  The only binding consensus between these two countries is that Al-Shabab must be defeated. The terrorist group emerged from the collapse of the Union of Islamic Courts. The Westgate Mall attack was blowback  from Kenyan and US interference in Somalia. Attempts to make Kenya and Ethiopia partners in the War on Terror will have precarious results. 

           During Obama's visit to Kenya and Ethiopia human rights were discussed. His generally condescending tone was not uncommon for most US leaders. President Obama lectured Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn about the importance of press freedom. He also discussed further security and economic matters. The inappropriate lecturing about press freedom seems contradictory. US media is owned by five entertainment corporations. The American public is given the same message in a format that appears to be "unbiased."  The difference with Ethiopia is that the media falls under more state control. 

The United States has many contradictory policies in regards to the African continent. Ethiopia and Kenya receive criticism, but countries such as Algeria, Morocco, and Egypt are absolved of wrong doing.  This double standard is present, because of their willingness to submit to US objectives. Before traveling to Ethiopia, President Obama sated Kenya needed to address gay rights. President Kenyatta responded "this is a non-issue." While discriminating against someone based on their sexual orientation is unethical, the US has not right to criticize any country. It took the power of the US Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage in America. Southern states are still trying to challenge the Supreme Court ruling and Republicans as well. It seems the US needs a lecture on human rights. The behavior of the Kenyan security services has been questionable, but the conduct of US police is comparable. US police continue to get away with murder and nothing has been done to curtail this by the Obama administration. If the US wants to lecture countries about human rights it should improve its own image. 

       President Obama's  visits to Kenya and Ethiopia have represented a unclear and contradictory foreign policy. The first African American president invaded an African country when agreeing to bomb Libya as part of the NATO mission. The assassination of Muammar Qaddafi resulted in the destabilization of North Africa and the Sahel. Islamist militias now overrun the country, which has induced the migration crisis across  the Mediterranean Sea. The United States, France, and the United Kingdom refuse to take responsibility for their actions. While the response to Libya was violent, the policy toward Nigeria has been passive. The Bring Back Our Girls Campaign was a movement that emerged when Boko Haram abducted girls from school. This was not the first time this occurred, but the administration quickly supported it. There is more support given to the war against ISIS than the fight against Boko Haram. Nigeria is considered low priority for the Obama administration. Relations with other African countries are not favorable either. There is tension between Uganda and the US over South Sudan. Uganda has been involved in South Sudan for a number of years. The US condemns Ugandan interference, even though the US is actively working against Sudan. At one point the president preaches the values of human rights, but supports some of the most oppressive regimes across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The NATO invasion of Libya caused much concern and trepidation in African leaders. This unprovoked aggression left many wondering of a revival direct colonial conquest. The African Union wanted a peaceful solution to the crisis in Libya. NATO ignored proposals for a diplomatic solution and intensified bombing. Now that Robert Mugabe is chairperson of the African Union, it seems matters will be run differently. The US will not be viewed favorably if it continues sanctions against Zimbabwe. As long as those sanctions are in place and military strikes continue President Obama's African foreign policy  will go no where.

         President Obama's visit to Kenya and Ethiopia could hardly be called a success. There still is a level of suspicion that Kenya and Ethiopia hold against the United States. This is understandable considering America's past actions of supporting colonial powers such as the UK and France. The only valuable prize from this was that it could cement Obama's foreign policy legacy. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is in a undetermined state. ISIS has taken both Syrian and Iraqi territory. Afghanistan continues to be unstable battling both corrupt government and the Taliban. It would seem as if there were limited successes for the Obama administration. The state visit to Kenya and Ethiopia was a way to present himself as an able and competent leader. As his approval ratings go down, this hinders what he accomplish in his second term. His government has very little time to waste. Depending who will be elected, the foreign policy calculus could be altered drastically.If this visit is perceived as positive it could give the Democratic Party a boost. The reality is obviously different. There has been an effort to rebuild the image of the US in international public opinion. This has been thwarted by the role of international policemen that many US presidents do not want to relinquish. If it is not, the US will find itself more isolated from African states.