The Venezuelan Consulate & Other Model UN Tidings

Depending on how frequently you read my blog, you may or may not know that I went to a Model United Nations conference a week or so ago. I hope the topic isn't stale, but there are a few things I needed to take a moment to reflect on before blogging for 'the world' to see.

The logistics you need to know:
I represented a delegate from Venezuela. During the conference, which was downtown at the Palmer House, we attended committee where I discussed the ins &outs of cyberlaw.

Although my initial attempts at passing my own resolution failed miserably, I was able to pass an amendment to another's. Instead of a government having the right to regulate internet content that "facilitates conflict", I convinced the majority that a government must reserve that right for anything that "threatens to facilitate conflict." One word. One word that completely changes the meaning of the entire clause. All I can say is seeing the delegates from North Korea, China, Egypt & Venezuela high five probably should have tipped off more nations of our shenanigans.

Amidst this tomfoolery, my class was fortunate enough to meet with the Venezuelan consulate based in Chicago. The consul official opened with a powerpoint (or rather, he was supposed to open with a powerpoint but waited ten minutes instead because of technical issues). He dispelled interesting information I didn't know - such as the three tiered health care system in Venezuela. What was most interesting, was his different take on the information I did 'know.' My perception of Venezuela's views on cyberlaw were less than democratic with a pretty heavy pro-regulation stance. The Venezuelan consul official, however, was very adamant about distinguishing Venezuela's government from Egypt's. He highlighted how many elections each country has had in the past ten or so years. Egypt's one to Venezuela's ten. Venezuela even had an opposing party in the last election.

That sounds a lot better than how the U.S. media portrays Chavez's presidency. But, does it change anything? How much can the way you frame information change how it's weighed?

I was able to pass my amendment because I controlled how it was viewed. I said there was a flaw in the previous wording because having to wait until conflict actually broke out would be inhuman. If you knew something was dangerous to your citizens' well being, why must you wait for it to hurt them before you can act out against it? Adding just one word rectified this problem. Heck, that sounded much better than: we need more power to be able to control any and all content we think may go against the interests of our nation.

By comparing Venezuela to Egypt, the consular official controlled the scenario; he established a line in the sand of what was an agreed upon dictatorship and why Chavez is far from that threshold. He made his job easier rather than if he had to defend why Venezuela is as pro- free speech, rainbows, and hugs as the United States.

I will admit, the consular official got me thinking, and that is something I can always respect. He also encouraged questions because Venezuela loves to get to the heart of debate (as he put it). This rings true with Venezuela's involvement in the World Bank - where they don't sign much of anything, but they make enough noise to get to deeper issues and concerns.

With the Venezuelan consulate as inspiration - fire away with the questions. If you're feeling adventurous and want to ask something not related to this particular post, comment away and I might write my next blog post for you!

(Also - check out my friend Whimsy's blog. Here is a related post on the Model UN conference if I sparked your interest.)

Movie Recommendations; Part 1

I wasn't sure I was going to write this post at first, but after noticing a comment by Navya & a few other events, it was pretty much fate (dramatic? but of course).

I was sitting in my hotel room this weekend, I was downtown for a Model UN conference in Chicago, when The Dark Knight came on the t.v. Can you believe two/three of my roommates haven't seen it? Shame on them (I even hope they're reading this right now to be able to fully appreciate the shame). Well, this caused me some concern as I considered who else might not have seen the film.

The twist is I chose two movies that are all fairly well known. What you might not have considered though, is the philosophical allusions in them. (So keep reading even if you have seen these movies before!)

Friedrich Nietzsche is the particular French philosopher I had in mind. In the most simplified terms, he argues one should embrace the status quo. Don't try to change your life because you're afraid of pain. You will only continue to cut out from your life the things you love, and then what is the point of living? You may be more familiar with the phrase 'What doesn't kill you makes you stronger?'

Fight Club is one of my favorite movies (hopefully this doesn't mean I'm breaking the first rule of Fight Club!) Every time I re-watch it there's something I didn't notice the first time. It most obviously includes the Nitzschean philosophy in my opinion, with not only the embracing of pain, but the actually search for it. My favorite scene included one of the main protagonists holding a gun to a stranger's head. He did it, because for that stranger, breakfast the next morning will never taste better.

The Dark Knight's plot line was all based on descending into chaos.
You are on a boat with an explosive. The only way for you to survive is to blow up another boat with passengers who have the remote to your bomb.
Do you do it?