Giving a voice to the voiceless

 This week, President Biden decided to do something that was very much in breaking with presidential tradition, but sets an important precedent moving forward.

Genocide

Previous US administrations have failed to recognize the Armenian genocide for fears of offending Turkey,  one of our greatest allies.

This is interesting in particular for two reasons.  One, it shows that the relationship between the US and Turkey is becoming more strained.  Turkey has been one of the States' greatest allies in the reigion for decades, helping to anchor US presence in the middle east.

Additionally, it sets the precedent that the home country doesn't get to set the narrative anymore, something I always personally found disconcerting.  Why does China get to say whether Taiwan is a state when it is clear to the majority of people looking in that it is?  This is a big step in that direction.

Finally, it is important for historical reasons.  The Armenian genocide is long something that has been accepted(as a strong theory in the scholarship) so it being recognized is important for the scholarship as well.

The Iraq War

 One thing I found particularly interesting in this week's reading was the focus on the Iraq War.

This is something I find particularly salient because I lived through it, I was old enough to remember the news stories about WMD's, and even though I was a little young, I still had opinions on it.

I found it interesting that public sentiment was so influenced by the mass media coverage of the "hunt" and subsequent "nothing burger" that resulted from the search for those WMDs.  

This, to me, was a perfect example of mass media done right.  Politician tells a lie.  Media reports that lie.  Media goes on to reserch the issue.  Media finds out it is false and informs the public.  The public reacts, which is in turn reported by the media.  Politician has to undo that policy that was fraudulent.

However.  
The Iraq war wasn't very long in comparison to the Afghanistan war, and scores of people died.  The country was thrown into instability for decades, and we achieved...not very much.  So even though the system "worked" the way it should(meaning the relationship between mass media and politics), the consequences in the meantime were disastrous.

So I guess it didn't really work at all then did it?  

No policy solutions from me this time.  Just train of thought.

Corporate Push Back

 One of the things I've always considered rather dystopic about the time that we live in is the ineffectual nature of boycotts in a global economy.

Boycotting and protesting is one of the oldest American institutions, being used and emphasized by the founding fathers even before the creation of the nation.

But it seems like when you are dealing with numbers as large as the consumer base of many of these corporations have(how do you effectively boycott Amazon?) 

But the power of these corporations has given rise to a different kind of boycott, that of politicians and political positions. 

This phenomenon isn't new, corporations tried to stymie Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting agenda by relegating him to the Vice Presidency, which was seen as a position where one couldn't influence much.  However, it has gained a lot of steam in recent years.

The biggest example I can think of recently was when Governor Kemp in Georgia passed a controversial abortion law which caused many film studios to either consider or fully pull out of the state.

Well, our state is back in the news again with the same problems.  

Recently, Kemp passed a law that many consider draconian, and it has caused a lot of backlash.

As a result the MLB all star game has decided to move to Colorado.  

That is the result of negative media coverage, affecting politics.