Semester in Washington, DC

Post on May 2 2008

Josh Ryden — Fri, 02 May 2008 14:32:09 GMT

Josh Ryden

Final Reflection on Washington, D.C. semester

May 2nd, 2008

Thinking back over the Paul Henry semester in Washington, D.C. gives one much to ponder. In the space of three months our group was exposed to a very diverse cross-section of Christianity in American politics. We encountered Christians from a variety of theological backgrounds all working out what they viewed as the proper balance between citizenship in the Earthly and Heavenly kingdoms. Based on these experiences, I believe I have gained (among others less coherent) a certain three insights about Christianity in the political sphere: a) Christians across the spectrum of political persuasion all seek a broadly similar conception of the common good, though their commitments emphasize different aspects of Christ’s nature b) people’s ideological commitments have a drastic effect on how they synthesize their religious convictions and political philosophy, and c) a central commitment differentiating conservatives and liberals is the level of confidence in human reason.

After hearing from organizations ranging from Sojourners to the Family Research Council, I became convinced that anyone believing only one side was truly concerned about helping “the least of these” and showing Christ’s love was simply mistaken. Such a belief is refusing to understand the concerns and underlying assumptions that organizations make on both sides, which then translate into the organizations’ approaches to faith and policy. I was saddened when classmates would snicker at either organizations, thinking that the “other” people were clearly crazy and totally out of touch with the proper priorities of a Christian approach to the problems at hand. Rather, I saw in both left and right leaning groups emphasis on different elements of the Christian worldview, each reflecting different aspects of Christ’s nature.

I found that the broadly conservative approach emphasizes the just aspect of Christ’s nature, where he was bold in speaking against the evil and suffering resulting from sin in people’s lives that in turn affects those closest to them, and the importance of personal renewal. In such a focus, the conservative also places a central emphasis on human relationships and the foundational role that relationships (family, church, local community) play in the life of the state. On the other hand, the broadly liberal approach emphasizes the mercy and compassionate aspects of Christ’s nature. This perspective views the most effective way of bringing about the common good as seeking to directly assist “the least of these,” often involving the whole populace in the effort willingly or otherwise. They are most concerned about inequality in systems, and view its eradication as a central objective of the Christian political perspective.

Therefore, while these two groups have different approaches at how to best bring about the common good (emphasizing different aspects of Christ’s nature) it is importance to realize that they both in fact are seeking the common good.

Over the semester I have also come to see the extent to which people’s ideological commitments affect the way that they integrate their religious commitments into their political perspective. This particularly became apparent when comparing the political positions of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and those of my boss Michael Novak. During my internship I was for a time tasked with copying and cataloging from various journals he had been involved in throughout the eighties, the largest of which being a journal of Catholic lay opinion whose central purpose had been to provide a forum for lay Catholics who felt that the USCCB did not represent their views on economics and foreign policy. From within the same religious community here were two vastly different conceptions of the role of the state, and also of the nature of the international system that in turn affected how each integrated the same set of religious convictions into public policy issues. I also saw this displayed in the strikingly similar theological commitments among organizations like Sojourners and the Family Research Council. Both are broadly evangelical, and would assent to much of the same body of belief concerning the person of Christ, the scriptures, and the task of the great commission. In spite of such theological agreement, these two organizations had vastly different political priorities and affiliations.

An additional insight I feel I have gained arose from reading Sowell’s The Conflict of Visions, where he discusses the extent to which conservatives and liberals place confidence in the abilities of human reason, and the far-reaching effects of this commitment. I saw this largely displayed in the extent to which certain organizations endorsed federal or state-supported solutions rather than ones arising from the “free associations” in society. Sojourners in particular seemed to favor federal programs and policies instituted via a “top-down” approach, as they saw this as the most effective way to combat the rising inequality and injustices in the American system. Such a tendency reflects a level of confidence in the abilities of people in government to plan policies that reflect and will effectively influence the realities of the problems in America. Other organizations such as the Cato Institute would not put nearly as much confidence in the abilities of government officials to be able to grasp or reconcile the vast complexities of the current American reality enough to be able to produce effective policy. Rather, Cato would endorse a more “bottom-up” approach to solving policy issues, where the people on the ground determine the best possible decisions by interacting in the process themselves, such as through market models.

In conclusion, I believe the semester in Washington, D.C. has both left me with a number of answers, and perhaps an even greater number of questions. I feel I have walked away with a clearer sense of the complexities involved in trying to navigate what constitutes a properly Christian approach to matters of the state. I also have developed a healthy appreciation for those in who work in public policy, having seen the complexity of the issues and the challenging aspects of implementing the solutions.

An Analysis of my Organization CNN Justice Unit

Heather Smilde — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:57:56 GMT

Heather Smilde

STDC

Professor Koopman

Organizational Analysis

The purpose of CNN is to deliver unbiased and accurate news to the public. CNN is among the world’s leaders in news and information delivery. It is staffed 24 hours, seven days a week. The headquarters of CNN is in Atlanta, Georgia. World wide CNN employs almost 4,000 news professionals. CNN is the world’s most trusted name in news today. CNN provides to its audience in-depth, live coverage and analysis of breaking news events from around the world. Also, CNN offers a plethora of other programs covering the latest in business, weather, sports, entertainment, health and science news, as well as topical, in depth interviews. CNN exists to inform, entertain, and innovate its viewers.

Within CNN there are many different units, each which operates independently. The unit which I work in is the Justice Unit. The mission statement for this unit in my own words is; the mission of the Justice Unit is to provide intelligent and accurate accounts of and information about crime, terrorism, justice, and legal issues to the public in a timely manner. The unit has one correspondent, Kelli Arena, and two producers Kevin Bohn and Carol Cratty. Essentially I am all three of their interns. The situation in which I am in is very unique, possibly one of a kind. The communication between the three of them and me is lacking. The way the work breaks down within our unit is essentially this, Kevin and Carol research stories, make phone calls, find contacts and investigate possible story leads. Once they find a story that they believe is interesting and will be picked up by the network they present it to Kelli. After that, if Kelli agrees to the story they will start compiling it together. Sometimes this means flying all over the United States and interviewing people, other times it’s just a phone call away.

Once they have compiled interviews and enough information to do a segment on it, they have to pitch the story to one of its shows; America Morning, Anderson Cooper 360, Lou Dobbs, Larry King Live, or the Situation Room. If one of the shows does not pick up the segment, it will never air, it is considered dead. So essentially they could have spent weeks researching, flying all over doing interviews, and the piece will never get aired. This happens all the time. For every minute of air time someone watches, an hour of editing goes into it. Not to mention the time spent interviewing the person and all the traveling involved in that piece. A lot of politics goes on.

The vast arrays of personalities in my unit are apparent; which seems odd since there are only three people in my specific unit. The difference of personalities essentially makes it work, but at times conflicts arise. Normally it is just over a matter of opinion and judgment. Everyone always seems to think that their opinion is superior to those of others, ah the joys of human nature. The majority of the time the conflict arises between Kelli and Kevin. The reason for this is because many times Carol is out in the field and Kevin and Kelli both have strong opinions and know that a lot is on the line if they air something that is inaccurate, biased, or offensive. I have gotten used to yelling, cursing, and arguing in the workplace.

It is difficult to explicitly describe the organization and superiority of people, because unlike most other businesses superiority does not come with age, years worked, or even hard work. Or at least this is what I have perceived. There is no way to essentially work your way up the latter at CNN; I believe that it almost comes down to pure luck. My rationale for this is that your success is going to be measured on how the viewer perceives you, if your story gets good ratings, and if in general you a likable by mass amounts of people. In my judgment there is no way to prepare yourself for such a thing, and in no way are you able to predict it. It is very evident to me that the hardest working and smartest people are not at the top. This however is not relevant always.

A great virtue I have perceived through my time here is that people treat each other with great respect no matter how superior their job maybe. The reporters, cameramen, producers, and anchors all seem to get along and are very friendly to each other. They share family stories and have a general sense of emotion towards one another. Essentially they have to, they spend numerous hours traveling together, if not days.

Throughout my internship in the Justice Unit at CNN, I have been able to go out on shoots and interviews. By doing this I have learned how to conduct interviews effectively and the essential key to doing so; showing compassion and interest in whoever it might be. People are more prone to open up to you if they think you can relate to them. No one wants to be open and frank to someone who is cold hearted and aloof. They want you to show emotion towards them, they want it to seem as if they compel you. Even if they do not move you and in no way can you relate, you must show them that you care. Also it is key to make them feel important, so you can establish a relationship with them in case in the future you need to interview them again. It is imperative to make it seem like the interview you are conducting with them is vital to providing the truth and justice to the public. Not only have I been able to attain a great interviewing style, but also I have found a strong point in myself. Never before did I recognize my apparent strength, speaking.

The pace of work at which people work at here at CNN, depends greatly on the day. Everyday is different considering news in not known in advance. If someone is working on a story that has a deadline then their pace will be extremely fast and their mood will be irritated. I would say that the majority of the time at CNN people are running around all over the place, sometimes hap-hazardly. It is very clear when someone is on deadline.

CNN has a vast array of people who work for them. People range from young to old, pretty to ugly, athletic to obese, well dressed to sloppy. The reason for such a multifaceted work force is because of the array jobs offered at CNN. Some people have to be dressed to the nines because they will be appearing on TV all day; others have to be wearing parkas because they will be standing in the snow outside the court all morning waiting for a decision to be announced. I have been shocked to meet some of the people who work here; many of them are quite interesting characters.

What I cannot figure out at CNN is how certain people get so much airtime and others don’t. It will always remain a mystery to me. No one seems to be able to answer my question. Some reporters you will see on television all day and they are not very attractive, assertive, or educated but they’re airing.

CNN is faced with risks everyday. They must prepare for the ever changing environment in which they are in. In order to face this challenge they look to their opportunities. “The business environment we operate in is constantly changing. New issues, new approaches and new technology all combine to create a world of opportunity and an atmosphere of risk. A standardized approach to Risk Management allows the company to seek growth opportunities and expand existing lines of business while maintaining an acceptable balance between retaining and transferring risk.”[1] It is difficult to always assess their risks, because many times they are unforeseeable.

Throughout the past few months at CNN, I have been able to observe many of its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Below is my analysis of them (This is my personal opinion and in no way does it reflect the company’s).

Strengths- Has a large portion of the news segment. World’s leader in news. It has various locations throughout the world and is seen as reputable.
Weaknesses- Very thinly spread out, could easily lose ground if a competitor were to enter the market. Can at times be very concentrated and not covering a variety of news. Can be seen as very biased by many viewers, which in turn could cause poor ratings.
Opportunities- The possibility to expand and encompass each state. They should consider their options when it comes to cable TV. See if there are any opportunities in the radio industry.
Threats- The entrance of new media sources. The downturn of the cable industry.

The organizational culture at CNN is very broad. Many jobs are flexible yet some are very fixed. There is not an exact flow of power within CNN; it varies depending on the situation and subject matter. The personal culture of CNN is very friendly. CNN is a subsidiary group of Turner Broadcasting Sytem, INC. Along with CNN there are many subsidiaries.

CNN informs the world through their signature news coverage, entertains its viewers through a wide range of programming and is innovative as an industry leader in the media business. Even though the environment in which CNN is in is competitive and at times very intrusive to the community it still finds it very important to give back to the community which has given so much to them. They are committed to using their reach and their resources as a positive influence in their communities. They work to meet this responsibility in four distinct yet integrated ways: through programming, through technology, through their financial and resource investments and through hands on involvement. It is important to CNN that it invests in the future. “Through our drive to Inform, Entertain and Innovate, Turner Broadcasting's community investment is focused in specific areas. In education, we invest in causes that foster communication and media literacy, with primary emphasis in K-12 public schools. We foster the arts and culture in our communities as a means for expression, enrichment and communication. We support causes focused on quality of life and environmental issues where our employees live and work.”[2] It has been very reassuring to me to witness such a great commitment to the community. It is very difficult to compare CNN with any other company within or outside its scope of interest. However, one of the site visits we visited was National Public Radio (NPR), and I recognized some very similar aspects. Both of them are media businesses, and broadcast news all over the world. It was very clear to me that in the media industry the pace of work is never steady; it is either feast or famine. CNN has offered me an array of experiences. Through these experiences I have been able to attain a multitude of knowledge that has benefited me and my career. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity they have given me. I have been able to meet many highly respected officials and travel all over the city visiting government offices. The most valuable thing I have attained from my internship was the advice my boss Kelli Arena told me as we departed a cab after interviewing FBI Director Robert Mueller and then a survivor from Virginia Tech. She looked at me and said, “Wow you treat and respect everyone the same, no matter what position they have, I admire that about you because that shows you look inward towards the soul.” She went on to say the most profound statement, “Heather,” she said “listen to me as I tell you the key to success, always treat and talk to those whom you encounter with respect and gratitude, no matter their position because you never know where your path may lead you and someday you may need that persons help.” This statement hit my soul deeply. I thought to myself, WOW, my boss Kelli Arena could be rude and arrogant and people would still aspire to be her, but instead she shows humility and respect to all. This situation reminded me of the story I had read about when I was setting out upon my journey to Washington D.C. “Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,And that has made all the difference."I hope that through my life I will choose the road less traveled, I think I already have.

[1] Turner Broadcasting Sytem, INC Corporate Responsibility

[2] Turner Broadcasting Sytem, INC Corporate Responsibility Philosophy

UPEACE/US; an internship reflection

Amos Garcia — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:22:25 GMT

You can't really gauge what to expect in an internship until you are immersed in its professional environment. You may read the internship description over and over again, but like most internships, responsibilities might change depending on the organization's needs. As an intern with a smaller organization, I do have my primary responsibilities, but as the semester has progressed, I have taken on responsibilities that were not part of my primary responsibilities to begin with. However, even with the ebb and flow of various responsibilities, the opportunity to be involved in the different aspects of the organization has been a tremendous learning experience in the operation of the organization as a whole.

I am one of two Executive Interns for the US Association for the University for Peace (UPEACE/US), a relatively new non-profit organization. The organization's mission is to promote and support the programs of the United Nations' mandated University of Peace (UPEACE) and to promote the cause of higher education for peace in the United States. My internship at UPEACE/US has been tailored to my skills and past experience in foundation research and grant writing. Because the majority of our funding comes from individual donors, it is the goal of our Executive Director to diversify our funding sources, especially in the foundation realm. As such, my early responsibilities were to research foundations based on funding focus, pairing up foundations with the various programs of our organization. I developed a database of foundations that we could possibly apply for funding in the near future, entering that data into a spreadsheet based on funding focus, funding amounts, and deadlines. This information has since been shared to the rector and various administration officials of UPEACE. In the past several weeks, my responsibilities have also shifted to assisting with program development. This involves helping to write the specific programs that our organization will be executing this upcoming year, editing and formatting them for our Director of Communications to take to potential funders. This experience has been a tremendous opportunity for professional development and a definite plus on my resume.

But the most exciting aspect of my internship is the meetings with other organizations to seek possible program collaboration. There are many organizations with similar missions and goals and our visits were aimed at finding those areas of intersection. This semester, I have met with individuals from Global Majority, the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy, the US Institute for Peace, the United Nations Association for the US, and the Initiative for Inclusive Security to name just a few. Each meeting has been an eye opener to the variety of high-quality programs aimed at bettering societies plagued with conflict, while at the same time been a humbling learning experience of the hardships that non-profit and non-governmental organizations face from regional and government authorities. However, the learning and professional experiences by participating in these meetings have been an excellent look into the many possible areas of interaction between the many organizations all focused on the larger goal of conflict resolution around the world. In all, my integration into UPEACE/US has been invaluable in helping me focus my future career, applying the theories of International Relations to the concrete programs developed and disseminated on a national and international level.

Post on April 8 2008

Brette Davis — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 01:11:10 GMT

Journal 11

Brette Davis

Senator Levin

Today, April 8, our group met with Senator Levin and some of his staff members. Having experience on the Hill but on the House side, it was interesting to see how different it is on the Senate side. In Senator Levin’s personal office there are around 25 staff members. He also has an armed services office and a permanent subcommittee on investigations office, both also in the same building as his personal office. He has seven state offices, each with around 2 people. In total, Senator Levin has about 60 people working for him.

In his personal office, half of the office is administration. This is also where his Chief of Staff, scheduler, and executive assistant work. The other half of the office is legislative and this is where his Legislative Director, Legislative Assistants, and Legislative Correspondents work.

The LA’s described to us what it is like to be in the majority party now instead of the minority. Basically, what it comes down to is that being in the majority party you have the power of the pen; you are the one coming up with ideas and plans. For example, each year there is a Defense Authorization Bill. As the majority party, it is your responsibility to draft this bill rather than sit back, comment, and react to it after it is drafted.

I really enjoyed when Senator Levin joined in our discussion. He is a very lively and energetic man, clearly passionate about what he does. I appreciated the way he answered questions as directly as possible without sugar coating anything. When asked about today’s hearing with General Petraeus, Senator Levin began stating as background information that he never thought we should have gone in to Iraq but since we are there we need to maximize our chances of success. This means that the Iraqi’s need to work out their political differences. He believes that this will only be settled through political means, (something he believes General Petraeus agrees with). However, General Pertaeus believes this needs to be done at a calm time of peace without force but Senator Levin told us that political ends can only be met with outside pressure. We are giving them hope that we can save them when they can only save themselves. Senator Levin said he was very disappointed with General Patraeus would not say that if conditions were good in Iraq he would recommend further reductions in troops.

Senator Levin also discussed the current situation with the election and Michigan delegates. He believes that MI and FL will be seated in some way. He told us that over the last few elections a number of people have been trying to change the way the election takes places so that the first few states do not have all of the power. This year is a little bit different because the race is so close so every state counts. Senator Levin’s proposal would be to have rotating regions or clusters of states; something so that every state has the opportunity to be one of the early states.

He explained to us what happened in the last election that led to Michigan’s rule-breaking this election. In the 2004 election, people challenged the rules. Because nobody wanted controversy, what happened was that a commission was created. They said that Iowa would be the first state, then two states would go before New Hampshire. What actually happened was that Iowa was first, followed by Nevada, and then New Hampshire, (only one state in between). New Hampshire would not accept this and got a waiver from the DNC and went second. Michigan had said that they would only abide by the rules if New Hampshire did and since that did not happen we find ourselves in the mess we are in today.

I really enjoyed meeting with the Senator and despite being from different parties I really enjoyed listening to him. I’m sure if we were able to talk more we would find much to disagree on but his sense of humor and intelligence won me over today. I feel like if I was in a place of power in the political world, he is someone from the “other side of the aisle” that I would want to partner with as much as possible.

Post on April 8 2008

Brette Davis — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 00:35:04 GMT

Supreme Court

When we went to the Supreme Court we were able to sit in on a case as well as talk to the Clerk of the Court, Bill Shooter. Having law school a future goal of mine, this was such a surreal thing for me to get to do. Walking into the courtroom I was in awe. The room was incredibly majestic. I looked up at the nine chairs in front of me and I could not wait to see the Justices walk in. When they did, I could not believe that I was even in the same room with them. It truly was a special and unforgettable experience.

The case that I was able to watch was about sentence time on felony charges. Honestly, it was a lot of jargon and not always interesting, but watching the proceedings was fascinating. Some of the Justices were feisty and challenged the lawyers, others simply asked clarifying questions, and still others sat back, (literally), and just took it all in. I felt the lawyers held their own and I was especially impressed with how well the prosecuting attorney did considering it was her first trial in front of the Supreme court; although it was to her advantage that she has pretty much won the case before arguments even began. I will never forget the experience I had in that courtroom; maybe someday I’ll be lucky enough to get to argue my own case there in front of the Justices.

Afterwards it was a really interesting experience to be able to talk to the Clerk of the Court. We were hosted in the dining room named after Chief Justice Rehnquist’s wife. One of the principals he taught us was that if you put your nation first, it has been a good life. He was talking to us about Justice O’Connor and how she put her duty to her country ahead of herself and her family. The cases that she listened to and heard while waiting for Alito she could not write an opinion on so the cases that came down to four to four had to be retried anyway. But O’Connor stayed and did what she knew she has to do, something very admirable in my eyes as well as in Bill’s.

He also told us about some of the logistics of the court. Each Justice has four clerks from the best law schools in the country. Their job is to not be ideological. When they are reading over cases to give to their boss’s they cannot choose based off of their own political opinions. Also, when someone is appealing, you cannot change horses. For example, if you claim insufficient council, a violation of the 6^th amendment, that is what you plead when appealing at every level. The Supreme Court does not retry cases, they just hear the previous arguments and decide if the previous ruling is correct. We also discussed how there are about 9,000 petitions per year, (2,000 from states/lawyers and 7,000 from poorer people). Once a petition, brief, and opposition is docketed, it is put in nine stacks. The Justices have a week to read them. They create a list of the ones that they wish to discuss and the others get thrown out and then they vote on the ones they will hear. The cases they decide on answer important federal questions that have not been open or federal questions where the lower courts have splits. The Court takes about 20 appeals per year.

At the Supreme Court, I learned a lot about how the Court actually works but I was also very inspired by what I experienced and observed. If I could someday be a part in what happens in that building I do not think I could ever give up that opportunity. I am so grateful for the chance we received to really observe what happens at the Supreme Court. I was able to watch some of the most powerful and intelligent people in the nation for an hour and it is something I will never be able to forget.

Baptist Joint Committee

Marie Alinsao — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:27:06 GMT

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty is upholding a very long tradition among Baptists of working for religious freedom and for the separation of church and state. Such work is even more crucial today with the full frontal assault on both that has been emanating from the White House, the Religious Right, and others grubbing for political power and/or a tap on the federal treasury. The First Amendment — with its guarantee of religious freedom and freedom of the press — is a crowning jewel of American liberty. Our host, Holly, in fact based almost all her arguments using the First Amendment. These “first freedoms” enshrined in the Bill of Rights have long been understood by traditional Christians as crucial to the practice of unfettered faith. Baptists can claim an important role in preserving and advancing these historic traditions. Yet, some Baptists believe that today these freedoms are under threat — even in America, even among some fellow Baptists. These twin foundation stones for the practice of authentic faith have been reinterpreted or misapplied by some, ignored or taken for granted by others. As a result, true religious liberty is often Baptist Joint Committee is a manifestation of the value Baptists place on religious freedom and the eternal vigilance needed to preserve it. During the session, I have learnt that the standard position of Joint Baptist Committee had always been, as I would graciously put it, "absolute separation of church and state," within an understanding that the normative and nearly monolithic Baptist position on church and state had always been separationist. However, this viewed had been compromised by the end of the nineteenth century on issues of government enforcement of morality and at times in the area of religion in schools as well. Such perspective is something that I would consider as a classic example of Koyzis definition of conservatism in his Political Visions and Illusions. According to Koyzis, conservatism is the attempt to hold to the past. Even though not all conservatives will agree on their tenets, the heart of conservatism—whether manifested in Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, or Ronald Reagan—is skepticism about novelty. I have noticed and heard Holly kept referring to the history of the Baptists or the standards of the past all throughout her talk. She kept returning to the history of the church and to the Constitution to defend her arguments which I find truly impressive.[1] One thing that strikes me the most about the whole session is our discussion about United States as a Christian nation. I agree with her when she paraphrased it by saying that it is okay for United States to have a Christian culture but not as a Christian nation. I don’t think our laws should enforce the doctrines of Christianity because this would only result to alienation of other faiths. Besides the US can not afford to isolate other faiths because the country is a melting pot of different ethnicities, culture, and faiths. Moreover, I think that the U.S. Constitution is a wholly secular document. It contains no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ. Also, the danger about this is that people might confuse patriotism or nationalism with deification of one God.

[1] She is extremely intelligent too. Her vast knowledge about religion, faith, and governance is truly remarkable.

Internship Experience

Marie Alinsao — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:09:37 GMT

Prior to starting my internship, I had a pessimistic view of working at the Philippine Embassy. Considering the very low-key and dormant reputation of Philippines in the diplomatic world, I expected long and arduous days of waiting for my workday to end. I thought that I would end up with the least exciting experience among my fellow DC group.

However, after my initial meeting with the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM), I was pleased to know that they are taking Calvin’s internship manual seriously. I was quite relieved when the DCM insisted that I won’t be doing any “grunt work” such as making coffee, copying documents, and running errands. Instead, all throughout the internship program, I will be assigned to different offices to get a feel of what diplomacy is really all about.

I was first assigned at the Press Office where I wrote drafts for press releases and wrote letters in behalf of the Ambassador. It was an incredible opportunity for me to hone my writing skills, to learn the proper way of diplomatic writing, and to refresh myself with Philippine history, politics, and current events. It is in this office that I learnt my first lesson in diplomacy, which is to choose your words wisely and eloquently. It is indeed true that knowledge in international relations and international law come in handy. However, I have surmised that a thesaurus and a collection of Shakespeare’s works can also get you a long way in this business. After the Press Office I was transferred to the Administrative section where I assist with the activities of guest officials from the Philippines. During that time, I also coordinated with other offices such as the political and the economic.

Moreover, the people I work with are exceptional. The embassy has sixty staff members. The Foreign Service Officers (FSO) are friendly, helpful, and encouraging. I have such reverence to these individuals considering the fact that most of them are considered as the crème de la crème of the intelligentsia community back home. Being under their mentorship is certainly something that I consider as an excellent opportunity. Furthermore, my frequent conversations with these diplomats always challenge me intellectually and rhetorically (any conversation with a diplomat is always challenging to begin with. The environment of constant tact and hyperbole can be exhausting to the ears). Moreover, the staff always makes me feel at home and part of the team. The FSOs and the staff are also looking after my social network by informing me and inviting me to events in the Filipino community and the international community as well. They are always stressing the importance of an expansive social network.

Currently, I am working at the Office of the Ambassador. Most of my time here is spent burying my face under Mary Jane McCaffre’s Protocol book. I write drafts for the Ambassador, I attend ASEAN wives club events with the Madame, and I help plan for dinner receptions at the Official Residence. At the same time, I also do a sideline job for the Office of the Veterans Affairs. I coordinate with the office to legislate for the Veterans Equity Act. The bill aims at restoring full and equal veteran status for Filipino Veterans of WWII, by amending the Rescission Act of 1946, which stripped Filipino soldiers of U.S. veterans’ status. If it was passed, Filipino WWII veterans would finally be recognized as equal to U.S. veterans, entitled to equal recognition and benefits. I personally took up this task because it was something that my late grandfather was so passionate about. It is such a great honour to continue his advocacy for his fellow servicemen.

Overall, my internship at the Philippine Embassy has shown me glimpses of diplomatic life and I like what I have seen so far. In fact, my experiences here have aroused my pride for my motherland and my determination to shed light on the plight of Filipinos and the Philippine issues to the international community. Hearing the life stories of some of the FSOs inspire me to pursue a life in Foreign Service. So far, I can say that this is the kind of life/ work that I want.

Post on April 7 2008

Josh Ryden — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 04:11:14 GMT

Thinking about this semester, one of the best perks of the semester in D.C. program (beyond seeing the political process up close) is the less demanding academic load. As someone who is prone to stress-out over studying during the course of a normal semester, only having two academic classes has been a welcome reprieve. While less demanding than a typical semester, we have had to write a number of papers focusing on the course texts, site visits, and internship organizations. Through writing one of these papers, we were expected to incorporate the course text Applied Economics by Thomas Sowell to a contemporary policy area.

Below, I've posted an excerpt from the paper I wrote incorporating elements of Sowell's chapter on health policy to the proposed platform of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Sowell on Obama: Applying Prices, Constraining Controls

Drawing from considerations discussed by Sowell in both Applied Economics and Conflict of Visions, I will argue in this paper that significant aspects of Barack Obama’s health plan involving pharmaceutical price controls fall subject to criticisms of short-term thinking and misunderstandings of healthcare markets. In doing so, I will also seek to trace the development of this misunderstanding through examining the extent to which they are influenced by more foundational views on prices, markets, and the capabilities of human reason as Sowell discusses throughout his work.

With our nation currently knee-deep in a highly contested presidential primary, discussing a topic as controversial as pharmaceutical drug pricing is sure to involve rhetoric, promises, and little regard for dry research that does not reinforce the current wave of support for drastic change. As Thomas Sowell discusses in Applied Economics, politicians are prone to build their proposed policies around what is achievable and viable in the short-run, with political costs being a significant determinant, rather than considering why drug prices are currently as high as they are; “Rather than focusing on what happens before and after a new drug is created, they essentially treat new drugs as having been created somehow… and how these prices can be brought down.” [1] As a result, politicians are apt to commit the mistake of what Sowell calls “stage one thinking.” According to Sowell, this thinking is the result of constructing policies without considering the ramifications that will result two and three steps down the line as the policies interact with other less visible forces already at work in the market. In doing so, policies that may seem both economically and politically advantageous end up pleasing in the short term while being counter-productive in the long-term.

As his campaign website lays out in a series of pages on healthcare, a central part of Barack Obama’s health plan involves the instituting of re-importation of pharmaceutical drugs from other nations back into the Unites States after having been originally sold to the countries at discounted rates.[2]

“But some companies are exploiting Americans by dramatically overcharging U.S. consumers. These companies are selling the exact same drugs in Europe and Canada but charging Americans a 67 percent premium. Obama will allow Americans to buy their medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are lower outside the U.S.”[3]

On the surface, such a policy seems laudable, if not morally imperative. American citizens it would appear are being unfairly charged prices that are not even close to being competitive in the world economy, due only to the fact that American pharmaceutical companies have a monopoly on the domestic market. Not being able to buy drugs that are sold right across the border for half price or less seems ludicrous, an obvious instance of “abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases."[4] Such an explanation may seem quite plausible to the average American citizen with no prior knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry, as the majority of citizens have no pressing incentive to investigate the workings of such an industry. The position also functions conveniently in stump speeches addressing the outrageous costs of US healthcare, clearly pitting the consumer struggling to obtain affordable medication against the “profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies.”

However, as Sowell points out in Applied Economics, the situation is not nearly that simple. When such arguments are given, only the production costs required to manufacture the drug are considered, which is often a relatively inexpensive total resulting from the physical ingredients used to manufacture the pill. However, in doing so the majority of the cost facing the pharmaceutical company is completely overlooked, since the bulk of the fixed costs come in the form of research and development and the lengthy trial process that drugs go through for FDA approval.[5] These costs on average reach around $800 million per drug, and take between 12 to 15 years from the time an initial chemical compound is created until the drugs are certified and sent to market.[6]

As Sowell explains, the profits gained from selling the drugs in American markets serve a vital function in the continuation of pharmaceutical advancements, as they are then the only way to both repay the investors (individuals, firms, pension funds) who invested in the research in the first place. Since the Canadian government negotiates their own national price for the drugs based on the drugs' incremental production costs, any plan that would open the Canadian market to Americans would result in significant profit loss for the pharmaceutical companies.[7] Further, while the re-importation of drugs into the US would not take the form of a statutory limit on prices, it would have the practical effect of controlling price in the US market resulting from the drop in demand of US sold drugs. In this sense, it makes sense to refer to such deregulatory policies as price controls.[8]This profit loss would then translate into a major reduction in research and development on the part of the pharmaceutical companies, who would no longer be able to attract their former levels of investment.[9] Drawing from this analysis of pharmaceutical price controls and re-importation, one can see that Barack Obama’s plan to lower domestic drug prices is highly problematic for the long term viability of life-saving advancements in the pharmaceutical field, an outcome that Obama obviously does not desire...

--Excerpt--

                [1] Sowell, Thomas. Applied Economics. New York: Basic Books, 2004. p84.
                         [2] "Plan for a Healthy America." Barack Obama '08. 2007. Obama for America. 12 Mar. 2008 <www.barackobama.com>.
                   [3] Ibid.
                         [4] Ibid.
                         [5] Sowell, Thomas. Applied Economics. New York: Basic Books, 2004. p. 82
                   [6] Antle III, W. James. "Pharma Follies." American Spectator 13 Feb. 2008. 11 Mar. 2008 <http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12720>.
                   [7] Sowell, Thomas. Applied Economics. New York: Basic Books, 2004. p. 83
                   [8] Stossel, John. "No Drug Price Controls." Capitalist Magazine 23 Feb. 2007. 10 Mar. 2008 <http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4928>.
                   [9] Sowell, Thomas. Applied Economics. New York: Basic Books, 2004. p. 82

Post on April 7 2008

Tim Graff — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 02:30:43 GMT

Organizational Analysis IGE

By Tim Graff

The Institute of Global Engagement is one of the most important organizations that exist in the Washington D.C. area. The main objective of Institute of Global Engagement is to expand religious freedom around the world though relational diplomacy. The particular countries IGE is involved in a significant is Pakistan, Laos, and Vietnam. These countries tend to have authoritarian governments that have a lot of cronyism, nepotism and be a favor driven society. It is more important in Vietnamese society who you know, more then what you know, this is even more then in the United States. Relational diplomacy involves over time developing trust with the group that you wish to have change their ways, find allies and cultivate relationships. Only in a comfortable relationship where both parties trust each other can change occur, without coercion. This is the ultimate goal of Institute of Global Engagement is to help countries changes their laws and policies themselves because they trust IGE’s analysis that their country would benefit from a more religiously free society. The problem with a lot of American non profit organizations is that they tell other actors what they are going to do without ever building up the ethos to get the trust of those they are trying to persuade.

Relational diplomacy leading to the growth of religious freedom abroad is the goal there are many things that we as a company do well to achieve the objective of religious freedom abroad and there are many things that we could do better. Things that affect how we work involve our structure; the inter office relationships and communication; and the quality of our staff. The structural set up of IGE is not very hierarchical. There is at least one person that is in charge. Chris Steiple is the unquestioned head of The Institute for Global Engagement. All people in the organization ultimately work for his gain, but under Chris Steiple the power structure becomes much more fluid. For one thing there are now five full time staff that do the work of at least fifteen normal employees. This can happen because of the level of communication abilities and availability of everyone on staff to everyone else. The way that communication is maintained throughout the office at such a high level is through the use of Email, company wide master calendar and numerous meetings. Email is probably the most used form of communication used in the office. Email is most often used when someone needs to ask a quick question. This saves a lot of time because if you were to run to the person’s office that you have a question for every time you would interrupt them a lot, as I did at first in my first few weeks there. Other reasons that one sends emails is to detail to do lists worked out in meetings; keep track of documents and forward them along easily around the office, and have long running dialog with employees that happen to be away from the office. Company wide master calendar is a wonderful scheduling device that helps all members of the IGE team knows what everyone else has going on in their job. This helps us actively plan out our weeks, mindful of the fact other personnel schedule. So if Chris Steiple is going to be out of the office from Wednesday threw Friday if you need Chris for any reason you need to ask him before he lives, and if he need something from you there is a known inborn deadline to get that information into him before he leaves. Since the schedule keeps us all up to date about the happenings in other workers schedules we can plan what is highest priority.The third communication technique that is used is face to face communication. The most regular way that we do this in the office is though devotions every morning to start the work day. After we have discussed the biblical passages to start the day we move on to talking about what each of us has to accomplish for the day. If after the larger group meeting there are complex issues that have to be talked out further then the members involved can set up a meeting later at this early group meeting. These are all great advantages of having a small office. With the high quantity and quality of the communication that goes on certainly saves us a lot of time and makes all of our work of higher quality. A work place is at its best when the parts of the office can work together for the good of all. If the office was to be too individualistic and self focused we would lose the efficiency that comes through specialization. If the COO has to make all his own appointments and travel arrangements then he will never accomplished the high tasks of his job. The disadvantages of having such a small office is that will so few people it is very hard to get through all the work that we are expected to do with a company that has such lofty goals as the Institute for Global Engagement. The biggest flaw that a small office is that the workers are over worked bringing down the quality of their work because they just have to produce as much as possible. Another flaw is that the workers get burnt out and simply start to produce less because you can’t stay at the highest possible rate of work for long. The third flaw is worker resentment which makes the workers less motivated to give it their all at work and go above and beyond for their employer.

For these reasons the use of relational diplomacy as used by the Institute for Global Engagement can not be utilized to its fullest potential. Relational diplomacy takes a lot of time and manpower to keep up those relationships that are fostered in country visits. If one just thinks how hard it is to say close to friends from high school, and then to apply it to fostering relationships that hope to affect the policies of countries this is a very big goal and takes a lot of energy. The problem is of course the people that we at IGE are not our friends from high school but are in fact frequently from countries and are in positions that are suspicious of Americans and their intentions. In this atmosphere it is of the greatest important to place high value on their friendship and also to tread carefully so that they don’t miss read anything you say or do. So under the understanding that there is great time and energy spent taking care of country partners all around the world including donors, business contacts, government officials, church leaders, and other non-governmental organizations it is of little wonder that our staff with all its other responsibilities is so over stretched in terms of work load and hours spent on the job.

Even with the burdens and structural inadequacies, the staff at the Institute of Global Engagement rise above and beyond all of this to accomplish all that is asked of them and more. The team work that takes place in the office is amazing. Most of the staff has at least a Masters degree or if they only have a Bachelors degree it will have come from a top year school and the person will have other marketable skills such as a foreign language. All the members of the staff that go over seas have significant international experience even before coming to IGE. The other telling thing about the IGE staff is that for all but one of the in office staff has been in the office for less then a year. This one may attribute to the high burnout rate at such a high volume, high stress job. It also talks to the fact that the system can integrate new people and get them to produce high results quickly.

In the next year the disadvantages in IGE will be address head on with the addition of a graduate level paid internship program that demands forty hours of work a week from each member so they will be in a sense be getting a number of more full time staff. Also there has been a confirmation of a new hire that is coming to start in the office in the middle of May. With the structural and staffing needs addressed the responsibilities of the existing staff should be some what shouldered by the incoming employees. This will improve the quality of their work and make them happier employees. One might also notice that this is beneficial as well to the employer. A happy employee is a more productive employee. If a salaried employee thinks that they have to much work and feels underappreciated then they will be less inclined to work harder when the situation demands it. Such is a nine to five mentality, which you are just there the required number of hours and it doesn’t matter how much work gets done.

The Institute for Global Engagement has recognized a problem existed within the structure and staffing of the company. The impressive part of this is that change occurred before a problem presented itself. This takes tremendous incite and forward thinking of the management. Tackling problems like this early separates a well run and productive company from a company that will eventually faultier. This shows great leadership and I suspect that IGE will have a bright future. Religious freedom is an important thing to work for, and IGE is a company that will advance the idea of religious freedom as a basic human right.

Post on April 7 2008

Brette Davis — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 02:25:08 GMT

NPR

We went to NPR on March 17th where we met with Barbara Haggerty from the religion beat. She worked for 11 years for the Monitor and then three years in Asia for the World Monitor. From there she began working for NPR where she has been for 12 ½ years. While there, Barbara spent most of the time discussing with our group her views of religion and politics.

She discussed first President Bush and John Kerry. Bush’s story is of a man who was mildly broken with a redemption story and it was easy for him to talk about. Kerry, on the other hand, had it a little bit harder. Faith used to be the third rail for the democrats because they have such a huge variety in their religious constituency. In the past, talking about religion has backfired for democrats and they had to rethink their whole idea of faith, which Barbara thinks they did.

Today’s presidential race has a completely different feel. McCain does not preach but just pretends to be a conservative Christian; this is a change from the typical Republican candidate. On the other hand, the two democratic candidates seem to have serious faiths that they talk about openly. Senator Clinton has a social gospel but not a personal morality that she shares with the public. Senator Obama’s testimony is that he has a gradual drawing to the person of Jesus Christ. He has both a social gospel and a personal morality which is sometimes hard to find in a Democratic candidate.

Barbara Haggerty is by far one of my favorite people that we have met with on this trip. She was a very opinionated woman in a subtle way; she was not pushy or offensive in any way. I appreciated how she just said things as she felt them. She made some very pro-right comments and some very pro-left comments. For her, she reported things that were fact, not fabrications. I was simply fascinated with our conversation.

After NPR, I got into some really good discussions with some of the other students. Again, I seemed to find myself in the minority, but there was a lot that Barbara said about the candidates that I did not agree with. In my opinion, it is very easy to look at how a person acts and how they talk to see if they have a genuine faith or not. I am not saying that I judge people or that I know what someone’s actual heart is, but there is definitely a language and a personality that people of faith portray. In my opinion, the candidates do not portray that. Barbara kept talking about how genuine their faiths are and while I do not know them personally, I’m not sure I’ve felt that from the candidates. For example, despite the fact that Clinton and Bush are from the same church, I do not feel that they share a similar faith.

After our conversation with Barbara we went on a tour of the facility. I thought that they were very nice and I would not mind working in that environment. It was a little bit exciting to see the studios that they broadcasted from. I do not listen to NPR all the time, but I have heard some shows and it was neat to see where they work instead of just hearing it over the radio. I also thought it was neat to see how they work with people across the country to coordinate their shows. I have never really seen behind the scenes of a broadcasting company to see how it works and it was something that really intrigued me. I think my favorite part of the tour was when they took us into the room and showed us the library of all the broadcasts over the years. It was almost like the Congressional Record in the Library of Congress because every word spoken is kept on file. I also thought it was interesting that they have obituaries of famous and noteworthy people who are alive incase of their sudden death. Overall, I think this was a really worth-while site visit and I’m glad I had the opportunity to go to NPR.

Sojourners

Lerae Kroon — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 01:36:25 GMT

Sojourners is an organization that grew out of gathering of seminary students in the early 1970s, bringing anti-war sentiments and discontent with society’s treatment of the marginalized, who believed that they way their faith connected with their role in the world was different than the stance the church usually took. In the introductory video we watched when visiting Sojourners, it said their goal was “to keep the voice of radical religion alive.” This group of people believed that if religion is to influence public discourse, it should make it more civil, be unifying and be a voice for the voiceless instead of being divisive and self-interested.

While Sojourners has changed structure since its earliest days, the heart of the organization is still there. Its mission now is: “to articulate the biblical call to social justice, inspiring hope and building a movement to transform individuals, communities, the church, and the world.” They do this through their magazine, email updates, speaking events, books by their president Jim Wallis and training sessions.

Sojourners operates on the assumption that there is more to Christians’ involvement in politics than partisan politics, and more to Christian morals than abortion and gay marriage. They don’t believe that we can sit back and watch all the injustices that are taking place in the world and wait for someone to come along and do something about it, but that “we are the ones that we are waiting for.”

How does Sojourners create that change? According to them, by pushing from both the outside– choosing government and other initiatives and either fighting or supporting them, and reacting to bills that relate to Sojourner’s mission – and the inside by articulating the biblical call for justice to the church. In this way, Sojourners tends to be a lot like International Justice Mission, which has both a Governmental Relations branch and a Education branch that focuses more on mobilizing the church and students.

Sojourners was criticized by another organization our class visited for focusing too much on issues of social justice and poverty and not on some of the other issues Christians have traditionally advocated for like the family and right to life. It was also criticized for not having very fully developed solutions for the problems it is fighting for. While I fully agree that it does not good to be a voice for something if you’re not saying anything worthwhile, I don’t think Sojourners is an unintelligent town crier. There are very intelligent people writing and thinking for them, people who articulate well God’s call for justice to be done in the world through his people.

However, I’m more concerned about the first criticism, that Sojourners have forgotten some of the more traditional concerns in lieu of social justice issues. I think that as the “social justice wave” (as someone at IJM called it) sweeps through the conversation about evangelicals there are academics, thinkers, politicians and especially Calvin students who tend to overestimate the movement. Although admittedly I wasn’t around in the early 1970s, I don’t think that the conversation in evangelical circles mentioned poverty, hunger and injustice very often – the very reason Sojourners formed.

Yes, the conversation is more widespread now, but where? I think of my church at home as a picture of the limits of the movement. I would bet that most members of my congregation have donated money to and organization Right to Life or Focus on the Family at some point in their lives. However, I’ve tried to engage some of them in conversations about hunger, poverty and similar issues and they had no clue what I’m talking about. The extent of my congregation’s involvement in issues of social justice is the annual Christmas drive for toys for the local food pantry.

Maybe my church is an anomaly. However, I still think there are many Christian voices out there – loud voices – speaking for the rights of unborn babies and about the importance of marriage. Sojourners and organizations like them are still in the minority, and I think that their alternate voice needs to be heard. Yes, Christians need to care about life and marriage and traditional values (although what those are is debatable – another topic for another day) but they also need to care about people suffering from AIDS, dying of hunger and suffering in slavery. Maybe some day all Christian organizations will talk about all of these issues, but for now I think it’s ok that Sojourners has the focus that it does. After all, no on is asking Right to Life to start advocating for green buildings, are they?

Post on April 7 2008

Brette Davis — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 01:25:52 GMT

Baptist Joint Committee

Holly Home spoke to us on behalf of the Baptist Joint Committee on March 10. The BJC itself is composed of eight or nine people on staff as well as a few interns. They are an education and advocacy office which was started around 70 years ago by different groups of Baptists.
Holly first gave us some background information on the Baptist denomination then discussed the BJC itself. In their opinion, religion must be freely chosen rather than chosen for the people; real faith can not be forced upon anybody. They believe that the First Amendment protects religious freedom. They do not claim to be partisan, but rather a centrist organization, believing that there should be no establishment of religion and there should be free exercise. The mission of the BJC is to defend and extend religious freedom to all. Based on history, they feel that this is a good way to approach religion and politics.

For them, education is key, even the education of Baptists. One way the BJC educates is to publish a monthly publication. They also involve themselves in legislation by acting as a “watch dog” through lobbying and attending briefings. They also have a litigation aspect by getting involved in coalitions of other groups that have similar interests.

The biggest thing I came away with at this meeting was their emphasis on separation of church and state. They always take the side of separation rather than integration. One of their reasons for this is because there are so many different factions of Christianity that if the government were to promote one denomination is leaves out so many other factions of Christianity. However, I do not necessarily believe that religion plays no role in government because as a Christian, I believe that my faith should play out in all that I do, even if I have a public position. A political figure should be driven by their faith if it is a fundamental aspect of who they are. I do not see a problem in candidates talking about their faith because in my opinion a candidate of a certain faith probably has certain fundamental morals that I want in a candidate. But, the BJC would say that if a political candidate talks about their faith they are alienating a large portion of the population. I liked Holly’s description of civil religion. Some of us began to ask specific questions about where we find religion in society, like on our money and in our Pledge. I do no believe that these should be removed from society but Holly made great arguments about the dangers she sees in promoting religion through political means. Does it truly represent good faith if we need to put In God We Trust on a political building just to make a statement? She made convincing arguments about the dangers of civil religion. I could start to see where there might be a lot of truth in her arguments and opinions.

Despite the fact that I disagreed with much of what Holly said, I appreciated her passion and her intelligence. She knew exactly what she believes and why she believes it. Rather than taking the defensive when responding to some difficult questions and attacking whoever asked the question, she answered to the best of her ability and in a very intelligent way. To me, this legitimized the organization and I fully appreciate what they have to say. While I cannot say I will ever become a member of the BJC, I definitely feel that I would take anything they have to say into serious consideration.

Post on April 7 2008

Brette Davis — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 01:24:57 GMT

International Justice Mission

Started in 1997 after the genocide in Rwanda, the purpose of IJM is to rescue victims of violent oppression around the world. They have a four-fold purpose which incorporates victim relief, perpetrator accountability, victim aftercare, and structural prevention. There are fourteen offices worldwide.

The organization defines injustice as the abuse of power to take from others. They believe that there are two factors that play into this, coercion and deception. IJM finds out the truth through investigation and takes their findings to those with the power to fin and stop it. This often means working directly with governments overseas in order to ensure that they are helping the victims in their country.

IJM looks at four things when taking on a case. These are rescue to the victims, aftercare to the victims, justice to the perpetrators, and transformation to communities. Examples of the casework that the group chooses falls under the categories of slavery, police abuse, illegal detention, forced child prostitution, sexual violence, and widow land seizures.

Each day IJM has a time of prayer which all the employees are required to participate in. I appreciated the fact that the organization made it a point to keep faith an important part of the lives of all the employees. IJM invited us to participate in the prayer time and it was very encouraging to see how the organization celebrated and lamented together. Everyone shared their praises and their prayer requests before the actual prayer. My only complaint about this quite time every day is that it seems to alienate those of a different faith. It appears to me, an outsider, that if you do not share the Christian beliefs of IJM you cannot participate in the organization and help those in need. At the same time, I understand that their faith shapes their organization so why should it not be fundamental to all employees. At the same time, I did not see any real evidence that IJM does any sort of evangelizing towards the people they are rescuing. While their actions say so much, I feel that an important element is missing since Christianity is so fundamental to their organization. I wish it would go one step further in an attempt to bring people to Christ.

Another complaint often posed towards the organization is how much money they spend on things besides their work. For example, every employee is required to dress extremely professional. Also, they spend a lot of money on electronics to keep in touch all across the world. They are very professionally, organized, and high-tech. However, I do not see this as a legitimate argument against the group. Often times for an organization to be taken seriously, acting in the most professional way is necessary. Also, for such an international organization to be successful they have to have the best forms of communication between nations across the world.

The work that IJM really touched my heart in a way I was not expecting. The videos they showed us of their people going undercover and rescuing girls in other nations from a life of prostitution really made me feel that their work must be done and they are doing it the best way they know how. The personal stories they told us showed how they are reaching out to individuals, not just trying to better themselves in the eyes of others. They like to say that they are trying to work themselves out of a job; or in other words, do such good work and really fix the government and infrastructure that they no longer to be present over seas to oppose oppression. Overall, I was incredibly impressed with IJM and would not have a problem supporting the work that they do.

CATO: The Voice of the Libertarians

Nathaniel Valk — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 00:36:08 GMT

CATO institute is a think tank that pursues libertarian goals. They advocate “traditional American values” of limited government, individual liberty, and free market. Another goal is to educate the public on the correct role of the government in society. Through the brief lecture we were given, what exactly comprised of the correct role of government in society was not specified although government intervention is various situations were not encouraged.

While our site visits have tended to be with religiously based, politically active organizations, CATO differed greatly as they strictly advocated a separation of religion and state. In our lecture John Samples, the director for representative government, stated that CATO strongly supported this belief, because of religion fused with politics has led to violence in the past, citing the wars in Middle Age Europe between Protestants and Catholics. Separation of Church and state, according to Samples, is also beneficial because the government does not have to make commitments on religion, which can cause tensions between various people groups, but rather has to agree that there are disagreements on views of religion.

In the lecture, Samples presented three types of ways in which religion can function in the political system. The first model presented was the Piety model, a Theo-centric system where the moral order is sanctioned by a divine power and authorities are given the obligation to enforce the order. Politics in this system is religiously based and is concerned about morality. This type of government fits in with Bernard Zylstra’s belief that the state functions to promote God’s rule for the universe. Samples mentioned that this model presents challenges as different views of the universe and the divine order can produce tensions.

The second model, which CATO views as the proper model, was neutrality where there is a separation of church and state. This view emerges from the religious wars which occurred in the middle ages. Samples mentioned Hobbes who stated that the government is required to allow people the right to religion but can not force religion. Madison was also mentioned as he argued that religion was a private matter and not a public matter. Two problems which were raised that affect this system are that a democracy functions best with a religious citizenry and neutrality makes a scenario where democracy is hard to implement.

The third model proposed dealt with a substitution of politics with religion. Samples explained this model as religion replacing government while the desires and needs related to religion are dealt with in a secular, communal way giving them meaning and importance. He cited American progressivism as an example, where there is a collective notion on how the government should act. This view has tended to be adopted by Neo-conservatives who critique neutrality and focus on collective efforts.

In Samples’ discussion of CATO’s view on limited government, the issue of the sub-prime/housing crisis arouse. He stated that in the interest of the public good, the government should not get involved in the situation as it could lead to a moral hazard. Government assistance could lead to the belief that the government will always come to the rescue and therefore those partaking in risky economic behaviour may not change their strategies. I am not sure I agree with this “tough love” policy as though it may deter risky behaviour, it does not help the citizens experiencing foreclosures on their homes. Is it in the public interest to deny help to those who are experiencing bankruptcy and foreclosure? I believe that assisting companies and citizens better serves the public good in the long run, as they are able to become functional and productive sooner. I disagree with the CATO institute in their strong support of limited government, because I believe the government has a moral obligation to become involved in certain situations to work toward the benefit of the citizens.

The visit to CATO was very interesting as it provided a different viewpoint than the other organizations we had visited. Their worldview is different than the Christian background that I am familiar with, which is not so quick to eliminate ties between religion and politics. Although the limited government policy does have its strong points, I believe the state must stand idly by when its citizens are suffering. Overall I enjoyed the site visit as it allowed me to see the reason behind the separation of church and state, and limited government.

A city of networks.

Catie Kawchak — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 23:22:37 GMT

There is no place in America where the old adage, "it's not what you know but who you know," matters more. From the Capitol Hill, I have watched jobs go to the better friend rather than the better qualified individual. I have seen the recommendation of a former colleague determine a Congressman's decision to co-sponsor a bill. In this city, you want to keep your friends close-- and not have any enemies. Careers rise and fall based on how many people are rallying behind them. The conclusion meet as many new faces as you can and try to genuinely impress them.

I may only be a Capitol Hill intern, but I am working within the heart of the City, greeting rich and powerful lobbyists as they wait in the office, and listening to experts brief congressional staffers. I am constantly meeting potential employers. This is the opportunity of a lifetime. As an intern, you'd think these big shots wouldn't even spare me a glance let alone be willing to sit down and talk about what they do for a living. Wrong. People are more than willing to talk about their careers and send you in the direction of a job, housing opportunity, or friend. In DC and especially on the Hill, most career start at the bottom of the food chain. Everyone in my office started their career as a staff assistant or scheduler. No one jumps into the position of Chief of Staff or Legislative Director. They worked their way to these top position, but they also remember the favors other people did for them- getting interviews, passing names along for job opportunities, providing direction in a new position. Because most people started at the bottom and received a helping hand on the way up the chain of command, they are more willing to throw you bone. The strategy in DC consists of doing as many little favors for as many people as possible in order to create a group of people indebted to you--owing you a favor in return. As an intern, these people are willing to give you a business and card and tell you what they do. Maybe you'll be able to help them out one day.

Moral of the story. Collect those business cards. I have had five minute conversations that resulted in suggestions for summer internships. Following those meetings with a quick email saying that it was good to meet you and thanks for the really great idea is one way to start building that network. However as an intern you are already placed in the middle of a highly developed support network. During my internship, I donated my time to help my office run smoother. I have done tours for constituents so that our staff wouldn't be bothered with that. I have written letters for constituents, answered phone calls, sorted mail, cleaned a coffee machine, and the list continues. If I had not interned in my office, my bosses would have had to add my list of tasks their workloads. In short, if you're hardworking and reliable, your office will appreciate you and seriously help you in the future. I told my Chief of Staff that I was considering staying in DC for the summer and he immediately gave me a list of places where I should apply. Stay in touch with these people because the office looks out for their own.