As I have mentioned before, globalisation can affect human rights. And thus in the face of negative effects, women and children become human sacrifices to globalisation. Another meaning that I have read into the cartoon is that when globalisation comes, man wants to reap all its benifits and women and children are overlooked.
From my intepretation, I feel that globalisation can bring many advantages to man through for example, improvements in technology and telecommunications. The Internet for example, connects the whole world together and one can learn about some far off country or communicate with a relative who is staying on a different continent just by a click of a button. As such, man has become the 'diner'. And as there are so many benefits, the 'diner' is seen 'sucking' up all the benefits like a vacuum cleaner. It can mean that man wants all these benefits so badly that he is just lapping it up and wants and strives to get more like a hungry diner.
Although globalisation can bring about the notion of free trade among countries and states, it does not always happen. Some states and countries (for example the USA and members of the European Union) still hold on to some law (like subsidies for example) which do not equal to the promised free trade. As such, the cartoonist is expressing his disgust and irritation about these empty promises by giving the cartoon the title "FREE TRADE my ass!" and by drawing, well, an ass. Furthermore, the words free trade are in capitals, this shows that he is pretty angry about this issue and wants to bring the readers attention to free trade, therefore he emphasizes the words.
From the article, "Globalisation, a political and not simply an economic question", the writer feels that globalisation is a product of human society and that it is motivated by specific ideologies, interests and institutions and that it has no a prior or inevitable existence independent of the structures humankind has put in place. The writer also states that globalisation could affect human and political rights of someone, as well as economic, social and cultural rights. By this statement, it can be seen that the countries affected by this have lost some of their state sovereignty as the people within their borders are not protected as they should have been. The countries have allowed globalisation to 'change' and 'control' the rights of their people! As these countries have no control over globalisation, they have lost some of their state sovereignty.
Two people seem to have challenged some International Organisations (IO) about their laws about globalisation which affects human rights. Mr Joseph Oloka-Onyango stated various issues of concern, some of which are, "the abuse of IPRs to violate human rights, and pressures applied and negative impacts on developing countries, as well as balancing individual rights with communal rights, questions about IPRs and monopoly control, and its implications for farmers, for persons and right to health and access to life-saving drugs, pricing drugs out of range of access for persons in developing countries". Also, these two people have questioned the WTO's lack of transparency and its New Poverty Agenda. As it can be seen, because of globalisation, people have started to challenge the laws (whether imperfect or not) of IOs when it seems that human rights (among other rights) can be threatened. This will lead to deteriorating relations between the IOs and the people who challenge them, or rather, the country from where ever the 'challenger' comes from. As such, discord will be sown between the countries and IOs. This may result in disputes and disharmony all over the world!
Therefore, the writer believes that globalisation requires "continuing scrutiny and attention by the international community, and the main concern must be with the dichotomies that globalization has produced or enhanced, and the way they relate to the overall promotion and protection of human rights". Ergo, only when IOs are more transparent about their 'dealings' (e.g. finance and policies) and when these policies do not implicate anyone (human rights!) then the world will be able to live more harmoniously during the 'onslaught' of globalisation!
The Tale of てんぷら.@ Friday, May 18, 2007 - 11:44:00 AM
こにちは、私はてんぷらです！ (Translation: "Greetings, my horizontally-challenged friends! My name is Tem-pu-ra!")
Fig 1a. My old family portrait; I'm the little Shiitake mushroom over there. Hello.
I am a slightly unhealthy meal, being deep fried in a egg and flour batter until crispy and golden (trans fat alert!), but satiating to the tummy and one's appetite nonetheless. Eat me! Eat me! Eat me!
One might be familiar with me and my kindred: you may have noticed the statuettes made in our honor (and to our likeness), which are often placed in the display sets outside Japanese restaurants. Indeed, many of you may very well have eaten some of my comrades too. Yay.
Fig 1b. Statuettes made in our honor on display at the front of a restaurant.
Many of you may have thought that my kindred and I are natives of Japan. And to that, we all say: "Não, você protuberância grande da wobbly carne!" (Translation: "No!").
Few care to know, but it is in fact a fact that our ancestors were Portuguese. Yes, my ancestors did not frolic with the Hello Kitties of yore, but instead reveled in the glorious presence of the Cristiano Ronaldos and José Mourinhos of yore.
Fig 1c. My fellow Portuguese! Olá!
So yes, how indeed did my kindred and I end up in the Land of the Rising Sun,日本, Nippon, aka Japan?
Apparently, we were introduced to the Japanese by Portuguese missionaries some time in the 17th century, more or less 400 years ago. Naturally the Japanese fell in love with our satisfying crunch and subtle oiliness, and thus lovingly adopted us into their menus, though not without some 'Japanization'.
And yet the journey of my kindred did not end there. Instead, my people were further exported to far off lands in recent years as an influx of Japanese culture flooded the globe. Now, you can see some of my distant relatives in relatively near proximity to kangaroos, terracotta warriors, cowboys, merlions etcetera.
Fig 1c. Now we tempuras are found all over the world, fulfilling our dreams!
Globalization is not a recent event at all. Just as the history of tempuras has exhibited, globalization was well underway 400 years ago, and indeed has been ever since trade was established. We are, in fact, living in the 21th century and are consequentially well-steeped in the progress of globalization: We are thus incapable of truly knowing life without the effects of globalization. Yet we do occasionally marvel at the amazing diversity of our green-blue globe, and generally fail to understand that this diversity is in part a direct ramification of globalization.
There is a certain beauty in the way individual cultures have brushed against each other, in the process each leaving a part of itself with the other, but yet ultimately remaining incongruous and distinct from each other. The history of the tempura is but one example well illustrating this phenomena - the reason why cultures ultimately remain unique is due to the fact that they are fond of altering, or bastardizing, in a sense, imported elements to suit their own likes and dislikes. The tempura was modified by the Japanese to suit their Oriental tastebuds after they took it from the Portuguese, and everyone else who took it from the Japanese more or less bastardized the tempura. The tempura's ubiquity, and the existence of the various forms in the world is a testament to how globalization breeds heterogeneity in our culture.
Politics in Globalisation of Pollution@ Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 11:50:00 PM
As I have mentioned before, the state has no control over the pollutants it or another country produces due to the globalisation of ecology. It is thus so, therefore state sovereignty is compromised. However, the country or countries can try to do something about it. But there is even politics about that!
From the article, "The United States and global warming: a tale of two countries", it states that the US president has made it clear that the US will not engage in negotiations about compulsory emissions limits. In my opinion, although the country does not have any control over the pollutants it produces, it can attempt to control it. By doing so, at least some state sovereignty can be salvaged. But the US president chooses to just sit by and not do anything about it.
In the article, it says that Japan, Europe and other industrailised countries have committed to start making modest cuts in their emissions and have acknowledged the need for much deeper cuts in the years ahead. This already shows how these countries are attempting to 'control' what goes in and out of their countries- the amount of pollutants. These pollutants can cause global warming and result in global climate change. It is not only about the changes in a particular country's climate and temperature, it is on a larger scale, on a global scale! The impact of the increased amount of pollutants in the atmosphere can and will be felt in global climate change and countries should do something to at least slow it down!
But the US president just simply refuses to believe that the pollutants will result in climate change and refuses to implement any law or policy that will make industries reduce their pollutant output. Because of this, the US may have less than friendly ties with countries who are trying to reduce their emissions or countries that are applying pressure on the US to also start cutting its emissions down.
In fact, due to the US inaction about global warming, it can do harm to its own economy. According to the article, "companies in Europe, Japan, and other countries that are moving ahead to cut global warming emissions are grabbing market share from US companies in renewable energy systems, fuel-efficient vehicles, and other clean technologies, not only in their own markets but also in explosively growing new markets in China, India, and other developing countries". This can also result in deteriorating relations of the US with other countries. As such, maybe the US should finally wake up from its self-denial and start doing something about its emissions.
Globalization: Not a big gobbling monster afterall?@
Ah. Dancing Bush. In this age of globalization, social and political commentary, and indeed random bits and fluffs of self-expression, passes through public consciousness like a wild flame, a phenomenon largely due to recent innovations in technology; technology has given a voice to just about anyone and everyone to air their views, regardless of status, credentials etcetera. Crude flash animations (i.e. the one you just saw above), blog rants, cheesy homemade videos are just the tip of the iceberg. All of these commentary, covering from the most mundane of all topics (i.e. celebrities and their unsuccessful endeavors into plastic surgery here) to the most imperative, which provide a relief to the more often than not staid and hackneyed perspectives of traditional media outlets.
Why is it that some fear that globalization threatens our current diverse portfolio of cultures with one common and pervasive all-encompassing culture? It is reasonable to think that, despite the apparent ubiquity of certain elements in the increasingly monotonous cultures across the globe, globalization, in fashioning extensive connections between individuals across the globe, and facilitating the dissemination of individual thoughts, viewpoints, ideas etcetera, would result in an even more multifarious culture scene in the world. This is as by providing a common space (whether virtual or not is of no consequence) for people across the globe with common beliefs and thoughts, or providing a melting pot where different cultures could meet, could breathe life into new subcultures, movements etcetera. The ability of one to infuse in the flood of ideas and thoughts by individuals across the globe, a ramification of globalization, rather than being limited to the traditional forms of media, would also diversify our cultures.
Take for example the semi-famous "Dancing Bush" above, which spawned many clones, such as "Dancing Hillary", "Dancing Blair", and other flash games which paint a less than flattering portrait of Mister Bush (i.e. the Anti-Bush game here) etcetera. This is, arguably, an augmentation of the heterogeneity of our cultures: such a admittedly crude conception makes waves in our society, spawns clones, provides entertainment, serves as political commentary etcetera.
Anti-Globalisation@ Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 1:41:00 AM
What does Anti-Globalisation really mean?
Image from: http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/directory/a/anti-globalisation.asp Anti-globalisation is a term most commonly ascribed to the political stance of people and groups who oppose certain aspects of globalization in its current form. Anti-globalisation is considered by many to be a social movement, while others consider it to be an umbrella term that encompasses a number of separate social movements. In either case, participants are united in opposition to the political power of large corporations, as exercised in trade agreements and elsewhere, which they say undermines the environment, labor rights, national sovereignty, the third world, and other concerns.
However, I will say that the Anti-Globalists are also destroying the peaceful world themselves. Here are some photos that will illustrate my point:
All these images show what the anti-globalists have done: disrupting the peace and order of the world today.
In my opinion, there is no way globalisation can be destroyed. Our world has advanced to such a state whereby globalisation is a part and parcel of life. It is a part of us and can no longer by taken away. If it is taken away, we die.
Referring back to my first picture, the Anti-globalisation cartoon, it shows Earth is about to get hammered. That's right. Anti-globalisation will mean killing everything on Earth, including us. There is no way for us humans to still survive if globalisation is to be taken away.
Humans will cease to exist and Earth will be left alone for years. Only after years, will humans reform again. But the time will come where the humans of that time will learn technology and advance themselves, which will lead to what we are facing now. It is a cycle, a cycle in which humans can never run from.
Right now, globalisation cannot be stopped, it never can be unless there is no tomorrow. However, we can try to slow down globalisation. This is the least that humans can do if we still want to live longer. We have to globalise as little as possible to save our environment...
I think globalisation brings about more negative impacts on the environment than positive ones. All of us know about the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is an example of globalisation that is good for the environment, but it was not successful. Why is this so? I feel that it is mainly due to the fact that US did not participate in this Protocol.
On the other hand, globalisation is devastating for the environment in many other ways. To briefly mention a few events, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) generally discourages environmental policies, considering them to be unfair barriers to free trade. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB) have funded roads, dams, and other massive projects that continue to destroy the environment. Rainforests are disappearing largely because of globalization. Export-oriented agriculture is one of the most harmful industries in the world, and it continues to grow because of world trade policies. Environmental problems are becoming concentrated in poorer and less powerful nations. Wealthy countries are exporting their worst industries and toxic waste.
So in a sense, globalisation seems to be discriminating the not so wealthy and less developed countries. On top of that, some of the less developed countries are industrializing at a faster rate, and in that sense, creating their own environmental problems, in addition to the problems being sent from the North. For example, globalisation has allowed China to grow their economy at a phenomenal rate, but this is having a terrible impact on the environment.
I agree with this article, which states that the process of globalisation is playing a more and more crucial role in the determination of the effects of trade, other external economic relations, national development strategies, and human rights fulfillments. Because of globalisation, the richer and more developed countries tend to shine more than the less developed. And with this, I do not mean just globalisation in technology, but in all aspects such as political and cultural. Being more advanced and more all-embracing towards all cultures, the more developed countries are stronger in all sense than less developed countries.
As these more developed countries ‘gain control’ of the world market, the less developed countries will have to succumb to them. This leads to a case whereby it seems that the less developed countries are the puppets of the more developed countries. This brings about my argument of discrimination. I would say that the more developed countries control the fate of the less developed countries. For example, a company in a more developed country prices their goods at a very high price, not allowing the less developed countries to purchase their goods. If say these goods are very important source of food, being unable to afford them, the people in the less developed countries will starve! However, if the goods are priced at reasonable prices, the people of the less developed countries will still be able to afford, and so will not starve. This is exactly why I say the more developed countries are in control of the life and death of the people in less developed countries. Hence, this definitely is discrimination, discrimination to the poorer people.
IMF & WB held responsible for health crisis in Africa
I am quite aghast when I read this article. I cannot believe that WB has actually increased the health funding. I think that they should not do that. When they do that, the poor people of Africa will not be able to afford the medical help that they need!
The report states that in the 42 poorest countries in Africa, for example, spending on healthcare fell by 50% during the 1980s, by the end of which public-health experts were beginning to recognize the potentially devastating impact of the HIV-AIDS pandemic in Africa. This shows the overwhelming effect of what WB & IMF had done. People in Africa are facing major health crisis.
This again reiterates my point about discrimination. Africa is obviously the party being discriminated. WB & IMF left Africa no chance of survival. In addition, as the Africa Action report states, the amounts of money paid by African governments to foreign creditors, including the Bank and the IMF themselves, continued to increase. By the 1990s, most African countries were spending more repaying foreign debts than on health or education for their people, according to the Africa Action report.
What I do not understand is why Africa’s debts are on the rise. It seems as if the creditors are pushing Africa to the end, forcing them to pay up even when they know that Africa is in a bad condition right now. This is why I feel that Africa is being discriminated.
Globalisation does bring about discrimination in some parts of the world, especially to the Third World countries. I really hope that the more developed countries will stop discriminating the less developed countries.
Saviour or Murderer?@ Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 11:55:00 PM
What is agriculture?
In simple terms, agriculture refers to the science, art, and business of cultivating soil, producing crops, and raising livestock; in other words, farming. In its broadest sense, agriculture comprises the entire range of technologies associated with the production of useful products from plants and animals, including soil cultivation, crop and livestock management, and the activities of processing and marketing.
Agribusiness
Agriculture obviously leads to agribusiness. The term agribusiness, as stated in http://www.answers.com, has been coined to include all the technologies that mesh in the total inputs and outputs of the farming sector. In this light, agriculture encompasses the whole range of economic activities involved in manufacturing and distributing the industrial inputs used in farming; the farm production of crops, animals, and animal products; the processing of these materials into finished products; and the provision of products at a time and place demanded by consumers.
I would say, agribusiness is a globalised form of agriculture, and agriculture is a globalised need for the survival of humans. To explain agribusiness simply, it means that farming is engaged in large-scale business operation embracing the production, processing and distribution of agricultural products around the whole world.
Above given is a website about agribusiness and globalisation (refer to the section “Plan of Approach”). I believe agribusiness is actually part of globalisation in economy. It states that agribusiness is the key player in the arena of international forces that is the subject of this study. Mainly the website proves that agribusiness is part of globalisation. My main point is that we survive because of the existence of agribusiness. The distribution of food by the companies allows us not to starve. This basically means that agribusiness is a “saviour” of us humans.
However, agriculture is also a main source of pollution. Referring to my previous post, pollution brings about ‘disasters’ to mankind. And agribusiness is the globalisation of agriculture. Thus agribusiness globalizes pollution. So in this case, I feel that agribusiness is seen as a “murderer” of us humans.
So how does agriculture pollute the environment? Significant changes in farming began to occur at the beginning of the 19th century. Between the American Revolution and the Civil War, tens of thousands of farmers surged westward to settle on the rich lands of the Ohio and Mississippi valleys. There a grain-livestock empire gradually took shape that was unequaled anywhere in the world. In the South farmers and planters pushed into Alabama and Mississippi and as far west as Texas, establishing a vast cotton kingdom and backcountry of mainly self-sufficient farmers. By 1860 the nation had 2,044,077 farms. Agricultural expansion was encouraged by removal of Indians from choice farmlands, liberal public land policies, development of canal and rail transportation, demand for food and fiber in the growing towns and cities, increasing exports, and especially improved farm machinery.
It was these improvements in farm machinery that brought about pollution. These machines indeed helped in saving human and animal labour. Iron and steel plows, reapers, threshing machines, grain drills, corn and cotton planters, and iron harrows and cultivators became common. For example, plows consist of a heavy blade at the end of a beam, hitched to a draft team or motor vehicle and the motor vehicle actually contributes to air pollution. So this is how these globalised machineries destroy and pollute our environment.
Besides, with our increasing world population, we need more food or crops. In order to acquire maximum yields, farms use pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers to keep the pests away and keep the crops healthy. This heavy usage of pesticides and herbicides pollute our environment as well. Nitrogenous fertilizers, an important part of the increased yield, result in nitrite contamination of drinking water, to which infants are particularly vulnerable. Nitrogenous fertilizers contribute to oxygen problems in water bodies and to greenhouse gas emissions. Phosphate fertilizers are of concern because of trace amounts of cadmium and other heavy metals that sometimes are part of natural phosphates. Cadmium can be taken up into certain crops, can cause renal toxicity, and is a potential carcinogen.
This is exactly why the title of my post is “Saviour or Murderer?” Without agriculture, we will not be able to produce our own food which is essential for our survival. But with agriculture, there will be pollution which will harm both humans and the environment. I feel that this question can never be answered, not ever.
Picture our more luminous counterparts ambling down the red carpet, smiling, smiling, smiling - and click, click, click- the flashes go off, the film is developed, and prints of smiling celebrities is pasted all over the globe, to be collectively fawned over by fans all over the globe. Their faces are familiar to everyone, their names perpetually on the very edge of our tongues - yes, perhaps Hollywood should be credited for contributing to the common culture of our little blue-green globe.
Sure, Hollywood has given rise to numerous memes well known and well-loved through out the world, i.e. most people are familiar with the "screeching-violins" sound effect, which first originated from Alfred Hitchcock's movie "Psycho", and the references to Gollum in Lord of the Rings with "My preciousssss!".
1. Sound sample of "shrieking-violins" theme from "Psycho":
2. Sound sample of Gollum's "My precioussss!":
So we can more or less be sure that Hollywood has given much output to the cause of globalization. But how about the opposite: how much input has Hollywood gained from globalization? One would assume that it is a system where the interaction goes both ways, or, to use an analogy, a two-way street; that Hollywood both contributes and receives from globalization. Yet the evidence more often than not proves the contrary.
Take for instance the portrayal of Asians in Hollywood. One might think that the diverse backgrounds of actors in the movies is a healthy sign of the ever increasing influence of globalization. However, more often than not these Asian characters are simply rehashed stereotypes: simply just think of Bruce Lee, the archetypal Asian martial arts stereotype, and them remember Jackie Chan and Chow Yun Fat. Recurrent stereotypes in Hollywood movies in fact show how resistant Hollywood is to the influence of globalization: despite the fact that the world gets to know more about Asia through culture diffusion, Hollywood is seemingly still unable to get pass the fact that there is more to Asia than Kung Fu.
And this is in fact detrimental to the cause of globalization. This is as globalization entails the exchange of cultures through out the globe. However, in the case of Hollywood, the exchange is one-sided, meaning that Hollywood influences, but is not influenced. Thus Hollywood in a sense does not really contribute to globalization at all, since the cultural content its movies reflect a purely static Hollywood view on the world. So instead of promoting the cause of globalization, Hollywood is in fact just promoting "Hollywoodization".
In the above picture, it shows the Earth being ill. One may ask: why is the Earth ill? I think globalisation is the cause of it. I have two views to this picture: the first being that nature itself is depleting and the other, humans are being endangered.
Nature depleting
As mentioned in previous posts, due to our advanced technology, nature is depleting. The technology that man has invented, expanded and used is causing much pollution to Earth. These pollutions destroy nature.
Pollution here refers to contaminating nature. To briefly mention the types of pollution: Factories produce many toxics such as poisonous gas and thus contribute to air pollution. Our daily products always make use of plastic, a non-biodegradable substance, contributing to land pollution. Big cargo ships or even small ships may have accidents and have oil leaks which in turn contribute to water pollution. Not to mention common activities like drilling holes, can contribute to sound pollution.
I have to say, with the marked increase in human population and the industrialization of much of the globe, in other words globalisation, has come a whole new set of pollutants.
Scientific advances based upon understanding the chemical and physical forces underlying nature have led to new processes and new products that have transformed society and have had a major positive impact on human health. But these industrial activities also result in air and water emissions and contamination of the soil and of food as by-products of the processes involved in manufacture. The products themselves may be the means by which pollutants are distributed to the general population, such as lead poisoning through the use of lead in house paints.
There are basically three types of energy sources: the burning of fossil fuels and biomass; nuclear power; and energy derived from natural processes (sun, wind, water). Energy from fossil fuels results from the conversion of carbon to carbon dioxide, with the least efficient and most polluting fossil fuels reflecting the extent of components other than carbon and hydrogen in the fuel source. The most plentiful fossil fuel is coal, which is also among the most polluting. Coal contains mineral ashes, nitrogen, and sulphur, which produce particulates, nitrogen oxides and sulphur oxides, when coal is burned.
Did you know? The use of high-sulphur coal for electric power generation and for home heating was a dominant cause of major air pollution episodes in London in 1952, Donora, Pennsylvania, in 1948, and the Meuse Valley in Belgium in 1930. The combustion of all fossil fuels produces nitrogen oxides, which are a major precursor of ozone and particulates. One form of nitrogen oxide, nitrogen dioxide, is itself a pollutant of concern. Carbon dioxide, the end product of efficient fossil fuel energy production, is a major contributor to global climate change. Basically, the burning of fossil fuels contributes to global warming.
In addition, the usage of fossil fuels means that humans are taking from nature. Nature needs a lot of time to replenish itself. Humans’ constant taking from nature do not allow nature to replenish. This, in time, will end up with us humans with no more fossil fuels. When that time comes, humans will not be able to survive with these needed fuel sources. And thus lead to human extinction. This brings about my next point: Endangered Humans.
Endangered Humans
As I have said above, humans will face extinction sooner or later if we keep on using nature without letting nature replenish itself. However, a more important issue is pollution. I have already explained how pollution comes about above. Besides polluting nature, man’s activities pollute us too.
I believe the type of pollution we should take note of the most is air pollution. Air pollution is made up of many kinds of gases, droplets and particles that reduce the quality of the air. We breathe through this air, so it is important for us that the air is pure and clean.
However, cars, buses and airplanes, as well as industry and construction in major cities may cause air pollution. Also in the country, dust from tractors plowing fields, trucks and cars driving on dirt or gravel roads, rock quarries and smoke from wood and crop fires may cause air pollution. Air pollution is everywhere. There is no way we will be able to achieve the ideal pure and clean air.
This is why humans’ health gets into the picture. Air pollution can irritate the eyes, throat and lungs. Burning eyes, cough and chest tightness are common with exposure to high levels of air pollution. Different people can react very differently to air pollution. Some people may notice chest tightness or cough, while others may not notice any effects. Because exercise requires faster, deeper breathing, it may increase the symptoms. People with heart disease, such as angina (chest pain), or with lung disease, such as asthma or emphysema, may be very sensitive to air pollution exposure, and may notice symptoms when others do not.
California Case Study
Air pollution continues to be an important public health concern. A number of air pollutants, coming out of a variety of industrial processes, impact the health of California residents. Air-monitoring shows that over 90% of Californians breathe unhealthy levels of one or more air pollutants during some part of the year. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) establishes health-based ambient air quality standards to identify outdoor pollutant levels that are considered safe for the public – including those individuals most sensitive to the effects of air pollution, such as children and the elderly.
The ARB has set standards for eight "traditional" pollutants, such as ozone and particulate matter. In addition to setting standards, the ARB identifies other air pollutants as toxic air contaminants (TACs) – pollutants that may cause serious, long-term effects, such as cancer, even at low levels. Most air toxics have no known safe levels, and some may accumulate in the body from repeated exposures. The Board has identified about 200 pollutants as air toxics, and measures continue to be adopted to reduce emissions of air toxics. Both traditional pollutants and toxic air contaminants are measured statewide to assess programs for cleaning the air. The ARB works with local air pollution control districts to reduce air pollution from all sources.
So we can see, due to globalisation in technology, nature and human health have been adversely affected.
Avril Lavigne takes on the world with bad lyrics now comprehendible to almost half of the world’s population.
Canadian rocker chick/pop princess Avril Lavigne recorded her single “Girlfriend”, which was released sometime early in March this year, in 8 different languages – that is, including English – in an apparent attempt to deafen nearly half of the world’s population with lousy teenybopper music set to bad lyrics now – shock and horror! – comprehendible.
That’s right. One of the many languages Avril Lavigne butchered is Mandarin, the native language of nearly one sixth of the world population at 1.1 billion native speakers (most of them in China, understandably). Of course, singing in one foreign language, not to say seven, can be considered to be quite a feat for Lavigne, who, even though born to parents with French origins, does not speak one word of any foreign language.
I shan’t keep you waiting, so here is the Mandarin version of “Girlfriend”. The Mandarin portions of the song are, rather naturally, limited only to the very short and very mindless utterances of the chorus.
(If you are trying to limit the amount of cranial hemorrhage you’d suffer from after subjecting your ears to the viciously girly melodies, you could stop the video when it reaches the 03:13 mark – that’s the end of the chorus, and pretty much all the Mandarin Lavigne would say.)
NOTE: LISTENER’S DISCRETION ADVISED
If you are finished with snickering, let’s continue.
In case you were wondering what other languages “Girlfriend” was sung in, here’s the list:
Mandarin
English
Spanish
French
Portuguese
Japanese
German
Italian
And if you think this list looks a tad familiar, take a look at this list (courtesy of http://www2.ignatius.edu):
Mandarin Chinese(1.12 billion)
English (480 million)
Spanish (320 million)
Russian (285 million)
French (265 million)
Hindi/Urdu(250 million)
Arabic (221 million)
Portuguese (188 million)
Bengali (185 million)
Japanese (133 million)
German(109 million)
And what is the name of this list, you wonder? This is, in fact, the list of the top 11 most spoken languages in the world (both native and secondary speakers). And if you notice the bolded languages, yes, those are the very languages Lavigne sung her single in.
Good god. Lavigne is looking forward to WORLD DOMINATION (cover you ears and run!). And if you were wondering why Russian and Hindi was left out of the list, apparently the words just couldn’t fit in: according to one of the members of her entourage, "We tried Hindi twice but the diction and the meter of how you sing Hindi versus the western rhythms just didn't match and we just couldn't pull it off," (quoted from http://www.cbc.ca).
So it is. This is a rather clever little marketing ploy cooked up by Lavigne’s entourage, to say the truth: this makes her songs even more accessible to almost 2.6 billion or so people on the globe, a far deal more than what she would conventionally been able to reach – the half a billion or so English-speaking population, which is really, if you think about it, peanuts in comparison. And so Avril Lavigne rides the wave of globalization into the consciousness of millions of people many millions of miles away from her home country of Canada.
Like it or not, Avril Lavigne is contributing to the somewhat nascent global culture which more or less permeates every single human being on earth. Her ubiquity around the globe is a testament to that: even if you attempt to escape from all the madness in, say, a little town by the Alps, there are substantial chances that, if a radio is on, one of her songs would come on. Her song “Girlfriend” alone topped billboard charts all around the world: it hit the number one spot in U.S., Ireland, Italy, Sweden, Australia, Austria, New Zealand, Japan, and of course, Canada; number two in U.K. and Brazil; and number three in France and Germany.
What does this spell out for us? Well, it probably points towards a certain homogenization of the world’s cultures, meaning that the cultural differences between any two people on earth is effectively diminished, since now the so-called global culture has provided common elements in which both could identify with. The world grows less fragmented as the tendrils of the global culture pervade the globe, and everyone on earth, in return, pulses to the same beat (hopefully not teenybopper music). Could this be a panacea to all the world’s troubles, a way to achieve world peace?
It’s a long shot, surely. Instead, we can be sure that the ramifications of Lavigne’s little ploy are:
Avril Lavigne would get richer, and therefore, somewhere out there…
Someone is getting poorer, and
Of course, someone’s ears must be bleeding too.
More seriously, however, is that the global culture threatens the older, more exclusive, elusive, esoteric cultures of the world. For example, as this generation’s Balinese kids fuss over their iPods and Creative Zens, Avril Lavignes and Hillary Duffs, their Gamelan sets at home rusts and collects dust etcetera. You can gasp in horror if you want, but this phenomenon has occurred, is occurring, and would definitely occur.
Heidi Klum & Co.: Precursors to a generic race?@ Monday, May 14, 2007 - 5:30:00 AM
Happy family photo of Heidi Klum, with her son Henry, and husband Seal with daughter Leni.
Former Victoria's Secret model Heidi Klum's family unit is famously colorful: her daughter, Helene "Leni" Klum, was a product of an affair with the notorious Italian Flavio Briatore, currently the managing director of the Renault F1 Team; her husband, Seal, is a Brit with African roots, and with whom she has two sons: Henry and Johan. Klum herself is a native of Germany.
Klum and Co. is representative of the rising trend of intermarriages between individuals of different races, which is symptomatic of globalization. Within the last hundred years or so, a flurry of movement of groups of people across the globe for various reasons, voluntarily or not, let to a certain amalgamation of different races. For example, the African slave trade, which led to the displacement of millions across the globe, brought many North Africans to U.S. etc. The mixing of races, while bringing forth much vitriol in the form of racism and prejudice, also brought along happiness, in the form of unions, matrimonial or otherwise.
The products of the abovementioned matrimonial unions, like Klum’s offspring, were and always will be oddities. Being a melting pot where two or more cultures meet and fuse, the offspring of such unions are an epitome of globalization: the haphazard putting together of cultures, races etcetera would form exciting and novel possibilities, as we see in the world today, such as in New Orleans, U.S., where Jazz was born from the fusion of African and European musical influences.
Indeed, such unions fructifying in such possibilities can be expected to increase in frequency as time progresses, due to the ever increasing mobility of the world population made possible by technology. Heidi Klum herself was transplanted from Germany to U.S, and Seal was transplanted from U.K. to U.S. If anything, the world should expect a lot more offspring of mixed origins.
Which of course brings a very interesting question to mind: what if the whole population of the world mated with someone else across the globe, and brought forth offspring so genetically and culturally mixed that the formation of a homogenized race and culture is born? Would globalization result in a generic race of people?
An utterly homogenized race of people would effectively wipe out racism, for one. Everyone would be truly equal in a sense that there would be no more ethnocentrism, no more delusions of supremacy based on race, ethnicity or culture, since everyone is effectively identical in that aspect. Furthermore, the mixture of the variety of cultures present in the world today would give rise to even more fresh, unusual and exciting possibilities in the “global culture”. And of course, everyone would like to see how the offspring of such a social engineering project turn out.
It sounds too good to be true, really. Of course, even if racism is effectively wiped out, there would always be other aspects for bigots to pick on, i.e. age, gender etc. In addition, the ideal of a generic race and culture of people would mean that individualism would be compromised, and, in our current culture of individualistic expression, it may very well mean that this ideal would never be realized.
The Political Hopes and FEARS@ Sunday, May 13, 2007 - 11:52:00 PM
According to the article, "The Politics of Globalisation", written by Mark Penn and Thomas Freedman, there are two sides of the Globalisation coin for the people living in the United States of America (USA). Though Americans basically support globalisation, they have their fears about their own individual lives and hope for political leaders who will shape globalisation so that all of society can benefit from it.
Although many Americans support globalisation, few support it strongly. They would rather limit changes than to adapt to changes that globalisation brings. However, voters do see globalisation as having both positive and negative effects.
Many agree that "the Internet lets billions of people all over the world communicate, do business and learn about other cultures cheaply and conveniently". This shows that America has lost some of its state sovereignty as people here feel that the Internet helps them in their lives and the state cannot control what the Internet users do nor can they control what information goes out of or comes into their 'national borders'. But they also feel that the Internet can also "allow people to trade in child pornography internationally, and it is difficult to enforce the law across international borders." This shows that the state has not much control over what 'goes on' in the cyberspace and has not much control over what is exchanged in cyberspace internationally. Thus crimes can take place internationally via the use of the Internet through, for example, hacking, the trade of pornography or illegal downloading. International relations maybe strained due to these crimes and yet, if countries work amicably together to solve the crimes, international relations can be strengthened. As such, there are two sides to every problem.
At the individual level, many Americans felt that there would be "job creation, lower prices for consumers, and increases in investment and economic growth stemming from international trade" due to gloabalisation. This shows that the economy can and will grow but as the indiviual state's economy also depends on those of other countries, America's state sovereignty wil be compromised as they cannot control nor influence the prices of stocks for example. However, voters also felt that they did not like jobs which they would have to move overseas for and for the closure of factories. This shows that the national identity is strong and that America should not be afraid of losing its national identity as many peopel still care for the nation and are proud of it. But it may also show that Americans do not want to be taken out of their familiar surroundings and would still want to be protected by the borders. As such, Americas state soveriegnty can be strengthened.
Many feel that globalisation can increase the "interchange and exchange between the U.S. and other countries, which helps create new alliances and makes us more secure". This shows that international relationships can be strengthened due to globalisation as some positive effects of globalisation in the economy is the creation of jobs and more trade can be made and negotiated. However, Americans also feel that globalisation can have a negative impact on security as this might mean that "terrorists can use cheap travel, international finance, and the Internet to recruit and plan terrorist attacks thousands of miles away." This is not within the control of the state as they cannot really monitor around the clock who are the users of the Internet and what information is passed between IP addresses. As such, state sovereignty is compromised.
In conclusion, globalisation has many positive and negative political effects. But this also depends on how the people receive globalisation and whether they want to change or adapt to it. If the people are against globalisation, they tend to see more negative effects and refuse to adapt to changes or see changes. However, if they do not mind adapting to it or trying 'new' things, then political leaders would have an easier job of making globalisation work for everyone.
What exactly is Globalisation? To Globalize means to make global or worldwide in scope or application. Globalisation is about more connections between nations, countries, corporations and individuals all over the world! It can also refer to the increased independence in economical, social, technological, cultural, environmental and political spheres.
and What exactly is Politics? Politics is the process by which groups make decisions. This term is generally applied to governments and in its most basic form, it consists of "social relations involving authority or power".
but How does Globalisation affect Politics? Due to the different spheres mentioned above, state sovereignty is or can be compromised. Through the globalisation of technology, information and ideas, finance, ecology and diseases, national boundaries (for example, geographical boundaries) are destroyed and become meaningless.
and What is State Sovereignty? State Sovereignty means that the state holds the supreme authority over the state, the state is politically independent and can make its own decisions without interference from other countries.
For example:
Via Technology: The individual has become empowered by inventions, advancements and developments in technology. This has resulted in increased and improved ways of communication in the world. Developments such as the Internet and telecommunications has 'broken' national boundaries and has rendered the boundaries meaningless. It can be said that the state has lost its sovereignty. Why is this so? The Internet (or rather technology) allows the freedom of information and the people 'connected' to the Internet have the freedom to decide whether or not they want to receive or give information. The state does not have the power to control and restrict what information its people receive unless they block access to websites or do not let people connect to the Internet. But in this Information Age, more and more people are informed and 'wired', the state has less and less control over its people. And as its people gather more information, there would be an 'influx' of ideas and values that may threaten its 'national identity'. This can even be seen in Singapore. Do you remember, just a few years back, Singapore was facing the issue of whether Singaporeans were 'stayers' or 'quitters'? This is due to the fact that information can be so readily got from the Internet or the media. As more people learn about how much 'better' life can be in other countries, they would want to go there or even live there so that they can also enjoy the 'benefits' or just to live a better life! Ergo, it can be seen that the state cannot control what its people think and cannot 'provide direction for its people'. Thus, Singapore had lost some of its state sovereignty.
Via Finance: As globalisation results in the integration of world markets, what happens in one country affects the other. The state has no control over its economy and thus state sovereignty is compromised. One example is the Wall Street Crash which affected the stock markets over the world. Another example is the Great Depression which resulted in widespread unemployment and thousands of dollars lost due to the loss in business.
Via Ecology: The state has no control over the pollutants it or another country produces and emits into the atmosphere. The state also has no control over natural disasters. Ergo, state sovereignty is compromised. This can be seen in the haze Singapore has experienced over the years due to forest fires in Indonesia and Malaysia. Singapore cannot control the haze from crossing its boundaries! Another example is the 2004 Indonesian Tsunami which struck Aceh. Similarly, Indonesia had no control over the sea surrounding its island!
Via Diseases: Diseases like SARS, AIDS and bird flu cannot be controlled by the state. The world cannot control the flight pattern of the birds for example, nor can they control the viruses that cause these diseases. As such, the state has lost much of its ability to control movements across its borders. The people within these borders are no longer protected and national boundaries have lost much of its meaning.
Changes One's Identity@ Monday, May 7, 2007 - 9:45:00 PM
Plastic surgery is an example of globalization. People who are unsatisfied with their looks will be able to change it with one condition, having enough money. This is a kind of device that is well known to everyone. After the operation, you will turn into another person with a different look. This allows you to change your appearance, enabling you not to be recognized by other people. There are many successful operations that had been done, and more and more people are making use of this. People go for the operation is either because they are unhappy over their appearance or they want to change their looks to prevent from being recognized. People who do not want to be recognized can be because they do not have a good reputation either being wanted by law or they do not have a good reputation in their hometown. As this device is so well-known to everyone, people will tend to think of plastic surgery. This is why it is an example of globalization.
This following website shows the procedure of the plastic surgery, the ideal image of before and after and some of the stories of the patients who went through plastic surgery. There are different news regarding plastic surgery and information of it.
Another way to change one person personality through technology is making online friends. This is another example of globalization as it is common for people to make friends online in any part of world. We have heard of cases in almost everywhere that people make false identity online. People chatting online will not be able to see the other party therefore it is easy to create an identity for themselves. A person who is timid and less-spoken in class may turn into a sociable person online. He or She may spend hours online just to make new friends. There are many cases happening all around the world that people get cheated through these. A girl age 15 may be told by the other party that she is also a 15 year old girl but after the two person meet, she realize that that was a false image. “She” is actually a 35 year old uncle and as the girl is not aware, she may be either raped or robbed. These are happening almost everywhere and many countries are trying to educate young people to be aware of these.
Quoted from website: “There are no real rules regarding whom can chat here, as far as im concerned everyone is welcome. I only ask that you behave respectfully towards each other and of course me.” This is from the website of http://www.geocities.com/dark_blond_angel/chat.html where you can just log into the website and start your chatting. If you want to change your own identity, you can just press on this website!
The last device which is also an example of globalization is bluetooth. This is a kind of tool found in phones that allow people to send documents phone to phone. People can also make friends through it by sending documents regarding themselves. This is another example of how people can again create another identity in front of strangers. However, people may also use it wrongly by sending documents that should not be sent. They can either send r rated documents or send virus. Even though there are disadvantages of this device, it is still commonly used by people.
From the first picture, you can see that Bluetooth enables documents to be sent with wireless connection. The second picture will be the logo you see on phones or any devices when your Bluetooth is on and ready to receive documents from anyone.
In conclusion, technology changes ones identity and it is applicable for everyone. This is commonly used worldwide and therefore is an example of globalization.
More than just Positive Economic Globalisation@ Saturday, May 5, 2007 - 12:51:00 PM
It is made very clear, that globalisation has affected the economies of countries of the world. With the impact on economy, comes along other effects that are inseparable with the word " globalisation. " I have found a few cartoons to support this stand.
This first cartoon is very closely related to my previous post on Multinational Coporations ( MNCs ). It shows what is behind the fame and glamour behind the Nike brand. The irony reveals as the big poster of the Nike advertisement is compared to the tired workers in the forground. They make the shoes to be exported to the world, yet they are expected to "just do it" and not say anything. In this cartoon, Nike is not just a worldwide famous brand, it shows how the brand has globalised and brought about vast changes and improvements in the economies of countries involved. The workers of the factory, if we look closely enough, are Chinese and Indian. They represent the countries like China and India where these MNCs set their factory up in. The workers for this two countires usually provide cheaper labour.
Therefore we can conclude that although globalisation created chances of employment, the workers of the factory, representing the countries where MNC's factories are set up, work to manufacter goods for the MNCs to export. They are actually unwilling as it is these MNCs who earn the most, yet for their own livelihood, they have no choice but to work for the MNCs. This is the downside of globalisation in the economic aspect as workers provide cheap labour and earn just enough to pass their everyday lives, while MNCs earn alot just by creating these brands. The rich countries get richer, while the poor countries gets relatively poorer, and the gap between the rich and the poor is widened.
This cartoon depicts that the effect of globalisation on the environment and culture comes closely along with the impact of it on economies. It shows how investors from different countries, different ethnicity come together to invest. Firstly, globalisation brings investors from all over the world, crossing national boundaries to invest. It affect economies of many countries in the world. Also, the mixture of businessmen of different ethnicity, races and languages will also definitely result in homogenisation or at least a mixture of culture.
Another main aspect of this cartoon is that the businessmen are attracted by the factories that are causing the environment so much pollution, portraying that they, in the real world, are very interested in just economical gains by dominating the global economy and do not care about the environmental harm it is causing. Globalisation has caused people to desire domination over the material world, to monopolise global economy and forget about the harm they have caused to the environment.
In conclusion, globalisation has its downside. In the economical aspect, the above cartoons have shown that the gap between the rich and poor has vastly enlarged and people are concentrating only on global economic dictation. At the same time, it proves my point that globalisation do not only cause changes on economies, it also adversely affects the culture and environment. Therefore, it is more than just economic globalisation, it is more than just positive economic globalisation.
More, more and more!@ Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - 11:04:00 AM
Technology is now so advanced that we can easier can more production of plants simply by cloning. This is as easy as photocopying a data. This recombinant of DNA is commonly used everywhere as this allows people to be able to have sufficient food for the increase amount of population. To be useful, the recombinant molecule must be replicated many times to provide material for analysis, sequence etc. Producing many identical copies of the same recombinant molecule is called cloning. However, we must think if this is beneficial to us or worst.
As known, after this recombinant of DNA is used worldwide, it significantly reduces the number of people who die of hunger. As technology is getting more advance, more food is produced and the food are distributed more efficiently over countries that are less accessible. Cloning can not only increase the amount of food produced, it can also have benefits to the medicine industry. As the recombinant of DNA changes the sequences of DNA, it can also change the genes. This is useful as medicines like anti-biotic can be produced. As we can alter the characteristic of the DNA, by altering it to anti-biotic resistance can help to resist against some kinds of diseases, bacteria and virus. This is the good side of technology and it is being used almost everywhere. This is whereby people benefit from it and make use of it to ensure that everyone will be able to have one less worry.
Everything has two sides, so does recombinant of DNA. The bad side of recombinant of DNA is that the process may cause unknown virus that no medicine can cure. Like for GM food, there maybe unknown allergens produced in the process. The characteristic of plant A is transferred to plant B therefore plant B will naturally have the characteristic of plant A. If a person is allergic to plant A, the person will suffer from allergy reaction when consuming on GM plant B. As men are not sure of the consequences of this procedure, it is a big worry to everyone in anywhere about the incurable reaction. These plants also have anti-biotic resistance genes in them therefore there may be a possibility for a person to have the anti-biotic resistance gene into their body and therefore, medicines cannot cure the bacteria in the person that have these genes.
This website tells you about the effects of GM food that have happened at any country. This is a example of globalization as GM food is used worldwide and the effects are published on web for everyone to know.
To conclude, technology gives benefits and brings worries to everyone. Everyone will be affected by the slight change as everyone is making use of this scientific experiment.
Technology Beautifies Everyone@ Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - 11:20:00 PM
Have you ever wondered how people in the past straighten or perm their hair? Without having devices to do so, they have to heat up the tools to straighten or perm their hair over the fire and immediately use it on their hair, posing the risk to burn their hair. But as time passes, and as tools get more advanced, people start to invent equipments for the same purpose, using the same concept but in a better and more convenient way for people to use. These machines are now sold and used worldwide.
A hair iron is a device being used to change your present hair to your desire hair with the help of heat in the past. Straightening irons and the curling irons are the two kinds of a hair iron. Straightening irons are used to straighten the hair, and curling irons are used to make the hair curly.
As technology advances, people everywhere are able to change their hairstyle eaily and quickly. Straightening irons have been improved into electrical straighteners, allowing for adjustment of heat settings and straightener size and also causes less damage and dryness to hair compared to the past. Presently the perm device use are improvements on the original method having very strong alkali solution, tight wrapping, long developing times and reduces the amount of hair damage and scalp burns.
As technology has made it possible, almost everyone is able to change their hairstyle frequently. It is very common to see people with different hairstyle, and seeing people having different hairstyle everyday. In the past, only the rich can afford for the use of straighteners and curls but presently, almost everyone can make use of it. People will not have to worry about their natural ugly hair as technology has helped them to solve this problem.
Mentioning from the previous post, internet is a kind of technology tool that helps people to communicate with one another. This device has also allowed people to share their opinions on their latest hairstyle, either being satisfied or being unhappy. This following website shows how people post up their thoughts of their new hairstyle after visiting a beauty salon. This website is open to everyone, and people get advice from others.
As technology enables people to change till their satisfied hairstyle, people will gradually be more confident and more self-esteem. This is a good start for people who are unhappy with their looks as it boasts up their confidence and the way they look at things.
Effects of globalisation on state sovereignty@ Friday, April 20, 2007 - 10:22:00 PM
We have been discussing about how globalisation can affect state sovereignty. Here are some examples how :)
A very interesting cartoon with a hint of sacarsm. Okay, not a hint. The whole tone is sacarstic.
Globalisation, made the crossing of national boundaries possible. Physically, it allowed wars between nations and states. The war between the US and Iraq has reflected that the US overruled Iraq as they are more developed, richer and has a stronger military force. When the US reigns Iraq, terrorising and threatening it, Iraq has no choice but to follow the US's say. Even its own national political decisions has to be controlled by other countries. Iraq's state sovereignty is badly jeopardised. It no longer has the ability and absolute control over its own nation's decisions.
However on the surface, the US seem to be declaring Iraq "democracy." No other countries dare to defy the US as it is a very strong, rich and dominating country.
Funny how hypocritical and ironic it is, isn't it.
Everyone is about patent nowadays. Ever wondered why?
Globalisation has caused an overabundance of the accessibility to information. It has allowed almost everything to be made available to everyone in any country possible. For example, blatantly, we can listen to songs online from youtube, imeem etc. We can even download these songs. Also, people do not use books for information. We can easily access to information overload over the internet. We no longer have to pay money to buy them.
This upsets economies. One company can come up with a brilliant genius idea that can inflict major economical gains and market it. Without patent, another company can easily get access to this information and reproduce this idea for their own benefits. This will result in economical losses on the first company. Therefore, a patent is needed to claim a particular information.
Patent indirectly affects a country's state sovereignty as patent is a global thing, not soley on a national basis. The ownership of that information is announced to the world. Countries have to impose laws to make sure that the patent is not infringed upon by companies or individual in their respective countries. One example is that it is illegal to sell pirated CDs, VCDs and DVDs in Singapore. It is too against the law to download songs from the internet. Patent has affected Singapore's state sovereignty, and of course, many other countries.
On a sidenote, ironically patent is a product of globalisation, created to suppress globalisation, trying not to let information cross boundaries without economical exchange.
These are only a few economic examples of how economic globalisation challenged the national and state boundaries of countries in the world. Is challenging the state sovereignty a bad thing? Is globalisation beneficial to human development? This controversy has yet to have a conclusion. I guess it will always be a paradox, with pros and cons coexisting as one.
THE GLOBALISERS FIVE
of Temasek Academy.
Political Expert
Chuang Ying Xuan
Economic Expert
Lin Xiaowei
Technological Expert
Michelle Ng
Environmental & Health Expert
Ong Wei Xi Elysia
Cultural Expert
Tan Eelyn 2A/06, Group 5.
AWARDS;
7th April 2007:
Globalisation & the Environment
This cartoon is called FREE TRADE my ass!
It was these improvements in farm machinery that brought about pollution. These machines indeed helped in saving human and animal labour. Iron and steel plows, reapers, threshing machines, grain drills, corn and cotton planters, and iron harrows and cultivators became common. For example, plows consist of a heavy blade at the end of a beam, hitched to a draft team or motor vehicle and the motor vehicle actually contributes to air pollution. So this is how these globalised machineries destroy and pollute our environment.
Image from: http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/issues/roberts000.htm
This first cartoon is very closely related to my previous post on Multinational Coporations ( MNCs ). It shows what is behind the fame and glamour behind the Nike brand. The irony reveals as the big poster of the Nike advertisement is compared to the tired workers in the forground. They make the shoes to be exported to the world, yet they are expected to "just do it" and not say anything. In this cartoon, Nike is not just a worldwide famous brand, it shows how the brand has globalised and brought about vast changes and improvements in the economies of countries involved. The workers of the factory, if we look closely enough, are Chinese and Indian. They represent the countries like China and India where these MNCs set their factory up in. The workers for this two countires usually provide cheaper labour. 
A hair iron is a device being used to change your present hair to your desire hair with the help of heat in the past. Straightening irons and the curling irons are the two kinds of a hair iron. Straightening irons are used to straighten the hair, and curling irons are used to make the hair curly.
As technology advances, people everywhere are able to change their hairstyle eaily and quickly. Straightening irons have been improved into electrical straighteners, allowing for adjustment of heat settings and straightener size and also causes less damage and dryness to hair compared to the past. Presently the perm device use are improvements on the original method having very strong alkali solution, tight wrapping, long developing times and reduces the amount of hair damage and scalp burns.
A very interesting cartoon with a hint of sacarsm. Okay, not a hint. The whole tone is sacarstic.
