The book Islam and Peacebuilding edited by John Esposito and Ihsan Yilmaz takes an intensive look at the positive aspects of the Gullen Movement in Turkey. Although Islam is usually associated with extremism and violence, the Gullen approach seems to be a useful method to employ in the Asian region. The movement has built hundreds of schools in Turkey and Central Asia. Part 1 of the book introduces the Gulen Movement. It dives into issues that concern the "Islamic World": secularism, the state, civil society, and most importantly democracy. The issues of contention come up right at the beginning. The second chapter of Part 1 addresses the resources Islam has for the achievement of peacebuilding and gives a brief outline of some of those achievmenets thus far. Part 2 of the book discusses the movement in terms of globalization: the effects it is having on the countries around us and even in the United States! Part 3 discusses the importance of theological and interfaith dialogue. The last chapter finishes off with peacebuilding and Global Action. What it means to be a global citizen and how the movement expands through this lens
All in all, I thought the book was great. There is a lot of leaning towards the movement that comes through because of the positive effects on the nation and outside. It also evaluates aspects of the movement that are non-political while giving an objective view of the areas that are. Although, it is less critical of the movement's movement into politics, it certainly points out some conflicting issues within the state. As a first book, it is a good introduction to the Movement and Gulen himself (much of what he has actually said is quoted and used to explain it in context.)
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Summation of research on the Anglo-American health Care Policy
The Anglo-American welfare state--I have learned from researching for this seminar paper, and later writing it-- has traditionally provided aid to those in legimitate aid. It is the contention between the 'deserving poor' and the 'undeserving poor.' This is distinction that has been made since the Poor Laws of the Elizabethan era. It was thought that helping those who chose not to help themselves did not, but perpetuate idleness. Charity is best left in the hands of local authorities, or private institutions. The United States and the United Kingdom, in regards to welfare, have operated historically on the aforementioned premises.
However, the US and the UK diverge radically on health care policy. The US-- thanks in part to federalism as well the conflict between limited and positive government--is not able to construct one national policy. At best, the American people have an organizational patchwork to rely upon for health care. Working men and women can access health care through job-related benefits, e.g. health care. The elderly, the unemployed, the under aged, the disable, and those that simply cannot provide for themselves are serviced by Medicare and Medicaid. American servicemen and women are covered by the Veteran's Health Administration. Health care is, ultimately, a private enterprise in the United States. The repeated calls for reform have often falled on deaf eyes because of the fear of a big, all powerful government; an almost paradoxically fear as Americans since the Great Depression have turned to government when societal woes and calamities needed redress.
The UK--thanks to unitary statism--possesses a national health policy. The retention of power in the center, has allowed the British government historically to implement welfare policy, especially in the past century. A change in popular mentality was needed to endear Britons to universal health care. 'Social citizenship' was the underpinning of one government commission which called for an expansion of the British welfare state. Government ought to yield a benevolent hand in ensuring that all its stakeholders have the means to provide a minimum standard of living for themselves and their dependents, in addition, the government must respect their stakeholders when they find other ways to improve their lot in life. The National Health Service finds its origin in social citizenship. All Britons--through general taxation and national health insurance--have access to quality health care.
There is a divergence between the US and the UK on the matter of health care. While Americans will argue that all ought to have access to quality medicine, whether government is the solution or the problem halts any consensus on a the matter. Britons on the other hand have come to believe health care should not be tied to one's ability to pay for it, but one's need or right to it. Health care in the greater context of the Anglo-American welfare state is the exception rather than the norm.
However, the US and the UK diverge radically on health care policy. The US-- thanks in part to federalism as well the conflict between limited and positive government--is not able to construct one national policy. At best, the American people have an organizational patchwork to rely upon for health care. Working men and women can access health care through job-related benefits, e.g. health care. The elderly, the unemployed, the under aged, the disable, and those that simply cannot provide for themselves are serviced by Medicare and Medicaid. American servicemen and women are covered by the Veteran's Health Administration. Health care is, ultimately, a private enterprise in the United States. The repeated calls for reform have often falled on deaf eyes because of the fear of a big, all powerful government; an almost paradoxically fear as Americans since the Great Depression have turned to government when societal woes and calamities needed redress.
The UK--thanks to unitary statism--possesses a national health policy. The retention of power in the center, has allowed the British government historically to implement welfare policy, especially in the past century. A change in popular mentality was needed to endear Britons to universal health care. 'Social citizenship' was the underpinning of one government commission which called for an expansion of the British welfare state. Government ought to yield a benevolent hand in ensuring that all its stakeholders have the means to provide a minimum standard of living for themselves and their dependents, in addition, the government must respect their stakeholders when they find other ways to improve their lot in life. The National Health Service finds its origin in social citizenship. All Britons--through general taxation and national health insurance--have access to quality health care.
There is a divergence between the US and the UK on the matter of health care. While Americans will argue that all ought to have access to quality medicine, whether government is the solution or the problem halts any consensus on a the matter. Britons on the other hand have come to believe health care should not be tied to one's ability to pay for it, but one's need or right to it. Health care in the greater context of the Anglo-American welfare state is the exception rather than the norm.
Reflection on My Seminar Paper--the Anglo-American welfare state and health care
Professor Cocozzelli, at the beginning of the semester, told me that the welfare state is a very broad topic to approach. All I knew then was that I wanted to write about the welfare state and its implications. I figured I could do a history and analysis of the three welfare state models--Anglo-American, corporatist, and social democratic--, enough to write a twenty page thesis. The good professor instructed to me to narrow down my topic, what in particular about the welfare state did I what to cover, and furthermore in the context of comparative politics.
I toyed with various other topics as the semester progressed, doing so in light of what I was doing in my other politics courses. At one point, I considered writing a paper exclusively on the Japanese welfare state and the challenges it faced with a declining population. It was not too far off from working I was doing in the Gov't and Politics of the Far East course I took with Professor Metzler. I avoided that topic because it struck as a monster of project to tackle, and frankly I did not know where to begin.
Ultimately, I chose to work with the health care policy of the Anglo-American welfare state. I understood that the Anglo-American welfare state--thanks to a project in Gov't and Politics of Western Europe--is the least generous of all the welfare models. I had the preconceived notion that rightfully so the welfare systems of the US and the UK were restrictive. Government should only provide to those who have demonstrated a great need. Universal health care, I thought, would be something rejected by both Britons and Americans. Not so, as Britons have a national health care system. Thus, in explaining the health care policy of the Anglo-American model I would have to explain the differing political cultures and institutions that divide the US from the UK.
I toyed with various other topics as the semester progressed, doing so in light of what I was doing in my other politics courses. At one point, I considered writing a paper exclusively on the Japanese welfare state and the challenges it faced with a declining population. It was not too far off from working I was doing in the Gov't and Politics of the Far East course I took with Professor Metzler. I avoided that topic because it struck as a monster of project to tackle, and frankly I did not know where to begin.
Ultimately, I chose to work with the health care policy of the Anglo-American welfare state. I understood that the Anglo-American welfare state--thanks to a project in Gov't and Politics of Western Europe--is the least generous of all the welfare models. I had the preconceived notion that rightfully so the welfare systems of the US and the UK were restrictive. Government should only provide to those who have demonstrated a great need. Universal health care, I thought, would be something rejected by both Britons and Americans. Not so, as Britons have a national health care system. Thus, in explaining the health care policy of the Anglo-American model I would have to explain the differing political cultures and institutions that divide the US from the UK.
Review of Health Care and Reform in Industrialized Countries
Health Care and Reform in Industrialized Countries, edited by Marshall W. Raffel, is another reader for anyone interested in health care policy. Raffel did not write the entirety of the book; rather, the book is a collection of essays written by different economists, political theorists, and public health offiicials. Each author covered a particular industrized nation--the book covers much of the West, including Australia, Japan, and New Zealand--and its health care policies and infrastructure. Each section covers a nation's political system, medical practice, health costs, and the like. Thus, the book provides one with the opprotunity to compare and contrast the systems of any two countries listed in the book.
Peter R. Hatcher, a senior hospital manager from Canada, wrote the text concerning the UK's National Health Service (NHS). He described. rather briefly, how England's unitary state permitted the establishment of government-funded health care. The aforementioned, the author contended, has been a near impossibility in the United States because of the sharing of power between federal and local authorities , as well as the division of power between the executive and legislative branches.
The NHS, Hatcher wrote, is funded by the central government from general tax revenue, as well as contribution to a national health insurance plan. This arrangement came about after the release of the 1942 Beveridge Report which advocated "a comprehensive, universally avaliable, publicly financed system of health care to improve the living standards of the population." The National Health Service Act of 1948 made the aforementioned a reality. Britons enjoy a system in which many services are provided 'free at the point of use.' Additional services, if needed, are provided at little to no cost to the stakeholder. This arrangement is guaranteed thanks in part that many hospitals and their doctors are operated and paid by the NHS, thus keeping medical costs down. In addition, English law requires that NHS avoid deficts whenever possible. General practicioners and medical specialists, though not employed by the NHS, the government set terms through contracts. There has been a tendency in British health care to provide long term care in either stakeholders' home or in nursing homes.
The NHS, in Hatcher's estimation, is not a matter of the government extending its hand to those in need, but rather the government ensuring what is a societal right, the access to quality and affordable health care.
Overall, Raffel's text, in this writer's opinion, is a must-read resource if one wants to educate themselves or have a better understanding of health care benefits throughout the industrialized world.
Peter R. Hatcher, a senior hospital manager from Canada, wrote the text concerning the UK's National Health Service (NHS). He described. rather briefly, how England's unitary state permitted the establishment of government-funded health care. The aforementioned, the author contended, has been a near impossibility in the United States because of the sharing of power between federal and local authorities , as well as the division of power between the executive and legislative branches.
The NHS, Hatcher wrote, is funded by the central government from general tax revenue, as well as contribution to a national health insurance plan. This arrangement came about after the release of the 1942 Beveridge Report which advocated "a comprehensive, universally avaliable, publicly financed system of health care to improve the living standards of the population." The National Health Service Act of 1948 made the aforementioned a reality. Britons enjoy a system in which many services are provided 'free at the point of use.' Additional services, if needed, are provided at little to no cost to the stakeholder. This arrangement is guaranteed thanks in part that many hospitals and their doctors are operated and paid by the NHS, thus keeping medical costs down. In addition, English law requires that NHS avoid deficts whenever possible. General practicioners and medical specialists, though not employed by the NHS, the government set terms through contracts. There has been a tendency in British health care to provide long term care in either stakeholders' home or in nursing homes.
The NHS, in Hatcher's estimation, is not a matter of the government extending its hand to those in need, but rather the government ensuring what is a societal right, the access to quality and affordable health care.
Overall, Raffel's text, in this writer's opinion, is a must-read resource if one wants to educate themselves or have a better understanding of health care benefits throughout the industrialized world.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Review of "Health Cate Politics and Policy in America"
Health Care Politics and Policy in America, written by Kant Patel and Mark E. Rushefsky is a lengthy tome. Nonetheless, it is a must read for any one wanting to learn about the American health care system. The two authors wrote in 1999 predating President Obama's recent reform initiative. However, they chart the development of health care as Americans know it today. It is in eleven chapters--and some three hundred pages--that the two authors chart American health care, beginning in an overview of governmental health care policy.
They described the situation in the nineteenth century how limited government--on the federal level--- prevailed and that the public turned to local and state authorities, as well charitable organizations to ensure access to health care. The medical profession suffered in this environment as they were no set standards in educating doctors and pharmacists, and they were compensation for their services were sparse. In addition, medical infrastructure--hospital and clinics--were numerous in and around metropolitan areas, but few and far between in rural areas. Limited government gave way to positive government as Americans demanded that Washington intervene in the crisis of the Great Depression. FDR originally proposed a national health insurance program, but it fell to the wayside lest it jeopardize the entirety of his New Deal initiatives.
In lieu of national health insurance, the federal government encouraged state and local authorities to build hospitals and expand health coverage. Federalism, the authors contended, as well as reliance on the private sector, have thwarted definitive national solutions to health care. Medicare and Medicaid only provide health coverage for a fraction of society, while private workplace based benefits cover a majority. Unfortunately, there is a sizable segment of society that has slipped through the metaphorical cracks.
Katel and Rushefsky, in their text, also discuss the shortcomings of American health care. The rising cost of health care has forced the federal and state government to curtail Medicare and Medicaid expenditures. Medical malpractice, and the ensuring litigation, have also made the practice of medicine very expensive. Medicare and Medicaid, in the opinion of the authors, have shifted from an entitlement of need to the entitlement of the middle class. Again, reforms to health care have fallen on deaf ears as as American stakeholders fear that an overhaul will disadvantage many.
If one wants to educate themselves on the development of American health care policy, then Patel and Rushefsky's text would be a great starting point.
They described the situation in the nineteenth century how limited government--on the federal level--- prevailed and that the public turned to local and state authorities, as well charitable organizations to ensure access to health care. The medical profession suffered in this environment as they were no set standards in educating doctors and pharmacists, and they were compensation for their services were sparse. In addition, medical infrastructure--hospital and clinics--were numerous in and around metropolitan areas, but few and far between in rural areas. Limited government gave way to positive government as Americans demanded that Washington intervene in the crisis of the Great Depression. FDR originally proposed a national health insurance program, but it fell to the wayside lest it jeopardize the entirety of his New Deal initiatives.
In lieu of national health insurance, the federal government encouraged state and local authorities to build hospitals and expand health coverage. Federalism, the authors contended, as well as reliance on the private sector, have thwarted definitive national solutions to health care. Medicare and Medicaid only provide health coverage for a fraction of society, while private workplace based benefits cover a majority. Unfortunately, there is a sizable segment of society that has slipped through the metaphorical cracks.
Katel and Rushefsky, in their text, also discuss the shortcomings of American health care. The rising cost of health care has forced the federal and state government to curtail Medicare and Medicaid expenditures. Medical malpractice, and the ensuring litigation, have also made the practice of medicine very expensive. Medicare and Medicaid, in the opinion of the authors, have shifted from an entitlement of need to the entitlement of the middle class. Again, reforms to health care have fallen on deaf ears as as American stakeholders fear that an overhaul will disadvantage many.
If one wants to educate themselves on the development of American health care policy, then Patel and Rushefsky's text would be a great starting point.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
A Summary of my research about corruption and Mexico
There were about six or seven articles that proved to be priceless in writing, better understanding and shaping my topic. Certain resources defining corruption, democratization in Mexico, detailing the history and violence were my vital documents in writing this paper.
My documents that assisted me in understand the scope of corruption in Mexico were J. Bailey's 2006 article, Corruption and Democratic Governability in Latin America: Issues of Types, Arenas, Perceptions and Linkages, Botello and Lopez-Rivera's study, "Everything in This Job is Money": Inside the Mexican Police Force, L.E Nagle's article, "Corruption of politicians, law enforcement and the judiciary in Mexico complicity across the border" and J.S. Nye's, Corruption and Political Development: A Cost-Benefit Analysis. Nye and Bailey assisted in my understanding of corruption. Notably Bailey provided an in depth analysis into different types of corruption and its causes. Botello and Lopez-Rivera and L.E Nagle provided information on the depth of corruption in certain public institutions in Mexico and the mentality of corruption in the Mexican society. Notably, Nagle's article provided a comparative and theoretical understand of corruption in three different spheres that without which, my paper and thesis would have suffered greatly. Nagle's article allowed me to understand the structural issue of corruption in various Mexican institutions.
In terms to the democratization and violence and centralizing of power in Mexico, again Nagel's article assisted in my understanding of this approach through clearly defining the issue of corruption and the history of PRI. However, S. O'Neil's article, " The Real War in Mexico," emphasised the importance of democratization of Mexico in combating the structure that the cartels have thrived under. Finally, M.G. Manwaring's article, " A Contemporary Challenge to State Sovereignty: Gangs and Other Illicit Transnational Criminal Organization in Central America, El Salvador, Mexico, Jamaica and Brazil," provided an in depth and comparative analysis of the history, violence, corruption and threats to democracy and stability that the cartels and corruption have in Mexico.
Through my research, my understanding of the issue of corruption has greatly increased as well as the importance that democracy plays in this issue. Additionally, I had the perception that prior to President Calderon, there were very little efforts to combat the cartels. This is not true. Even more so, the way in which the cartels were combated against in the past proved to be ineffective and yet, those violent measures that were previously attempted are still being executed by Calderon. My research has showed me that the issue of the cartels to some degree, lies in part with the structure of corruption and history of public institutions in Mexico. This is where I reason, that only through changing the structure that has made corruption so permissible, can there be a possibility of eliminating it and checking the power of the cartels. I argue that through democratization and centralization of this democratic power, the structure is potentially able to change and combat corruption and cartels.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Mexico Seeks to Unify Police to Fight Drugs
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/world/americas/02mexico.html
This article simply discusses how Calderon is seeking to unify the police force. The significance of this article for my research is that this a major move of Calderon to centralize power away from the localities in order to combat corruption that many feel has institutionalized among the local police force.
This article simply discusses how Calderon is seeking to unify the police force. The significance of this article for my research is that this a major move of Calderon to centralize power away from the localities in order to combat corruption that many feel has institutionalized among the local police force.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Wolff on the economic crisis
Rick Wolff is one of the predominant analysts on the current financial crisis and is a Marxist Economist. I have personally met Wolff on a number of occasions and seen him speak in many venues. I thought some of you might appreciate this and I will post the link to his site which has much more content:
http://www.rdwolff.com/
The Fed and the Great Recession That Won't Go Away
Related Terms :
by Richard Wolff.Published on November 8, 2010
In the shadow cast by mass media coverage of elections in which under 40 % of eligible citizens voted, the Federal Reserve recognized what the candidates could or would not. The capitalist crisis is still upon us, shows few signs of fading soon, and provides strong hints that it might get worse. So despite record cash on banks’ and non-financial corporations’ balance sheets, the Federal Reserve decided to buy another $600 billion worth of Treasury bonds in the open market. Once again the hope is that this extra printed cash distributed to those willing to sell Treasury Bonds will not end up merely adding to their existing cash hoards. This time, so the story goes, it may end up being lent to business and individuals who will spend the money and thereby goose the economy out of deep recession.
http://www.rdwolff.com/
The Fed and the Great Recession That Won't Go Away
Related Terms :
by Richard Wolff.Published on November 8, 2010
In the shadow cast by mass media coverage of elections in which under 40 % of eligible citizens voted, the Federal Reserve recognized what the candidates could or would not. The capitalist crisis is still upon us, shows few signs of fading soon, and provides strong hints that it might get worse. So despite record cash on banks’ and non-financial corporations’ balance sheets, the Federal Reserve decided to buy another $600 billion worth of Treasury bonds in the open market. Once again the hope is that this extra printed cash distributed to those willing to sell Treasury Bonds will not end up merely adding to their existing cash hoards. This time, so the story goes, it may end up being lent to business and individuals who will spend the money and thereby goose the economy out of deep recession.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)