Globalization?

Globalization and Global Citizenship!

 

My response to:

To Be Great, America Needs More Global Citizens

Published on June 8, 2017

By Abby Falik

Founder and CEO Global Citizen Year

Abby Falik has an MBA, M.Ed. in International and Comparative Education and a BA in International Development?

The BA is made up by herself. I mean I guess that she had a lot of choices to choose from, to make up her degree plan. No much wrong with it except it is kind of hard to know her by the courses she took, because they are not necessarily standard. I try to do get to know most of the authors I critique that way.

Abby Falik stated, “With shocking speed, [President Trump] has wreaked havoc: hobbling our core alliances, jettisoning American values and abdicating United States leadership of the world.” So writes Susan Rice, the second former US National Security Advisor to speak out forcefully about the danger and short-sightedness of the White House’s run of foreign policy decisions in the past four and a half months. Withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, deprecating NATO, and pulling us from the Paris climate agreement, has put America “at odds with virtually the entire world.”

Susan Rice was under Obama, so I can understand why she’d say that. Liberals tend to be globalists. So, any philosophy that goes against this, like individualism, will be ridiculed. In fact, I’d be surprised if she had praised Trump. Liberals have not let up on Trump for the past two years, including the MSM. He has been proven right most of the time.

Who said that we need to lead the world in anything? Globalists I guess. We have so many domestic problems that Obama never addressed in his 8 years in office. We do not have the time or the money to be telling anyone else how to run their countries. We also do not have the authority to do so.

Abby Falik relayed, “Rice describes how these so-called “America First” policies are alienating our friends and jeopardizing our national security. And the stakes couldn’t be higher. Will our allies heed our call in the face of a future global pandemic? The next domestic terror attack?”

I am guessing that would be yes. These things are mutually beneficial. So, I do not think that they will cut of their nose to spite their face—the face being the world.

Susan Rice says that, “The president’s budget would slash funding for the United States Agency for International Development and the State Department by nearly 30 percent, rendering our embassies vulnerable to attack and shuttering vital programs that advance our interests. The budget would also starve the United Nations and its peacekeeping operations of essential support. This will condemn the United States to pariah status at this important, if flawed, institution, where our leadership has been unrivaled.”

This paragraph talks about three things. The first one is the United States Agency for International Development. This was started by; you guessed it, a Democrat, named JFK. Democrats are excellent about spending money we do not have and giving it to foreigners. Our National Debt is approaching $20 Trillion. Obama has spent about the same amount of money that we do not have as much as every other president combined. We have major problems here at home. We need to get our priorities as a country straight! We need to come to some consensus.

The other thing mentioned was funding the United Nations. We should not be in the UN let alone fund it. Some of this peace keeping has been going on for almost 20 years (in some spots). Point is the UN must fund itself. There are almost another 150 countries in the world, many are in the UN. They should be paying their fair share.

NATO must pay its fair share too. I see nothing wrong with it. Actually, our Founding Fathers warned us against having foreign entanglements.

What is really kind of strange is we have treaties with Great Britain but also with countries in our hemisphere. Yet we helped the British to fight on the Falkland Islands. It had to violate the treaty about protecting our hemisphere from war. We are so snarled in foreign entanglements that the treaties are even contradictory.

We should not be the peacekeepers/policemen of the world.

For the third thing, embassies at risk, like Benghazi? I would not mention embassies at risk from anyone from the Obama Administration. So far as I now the only time that an Embassy of ours was overrun was in Iran when Carter, another Democrat, was POTUS.

She also mentions to advance our interests. This is somewhat vague. All Trump is doing is to advance our interests. I think that he is not advancing globalist’s interests.

Abby Falik wrote, “Faced with the potential dismantling of diplomacy as we know it, what can be done to protect and reaffirm America’s moral and political leadership in the world? Rice argues the answer lies in the hands of our citizens:

In the absence of leadership from the White House, the American people should act as informal ambassadors through tourism, study abroad and cultural exchange.”

In short, she calls on everyday citizens to protect and defend our commitment to democratic values and global cooperation by spending time abroad.”

The author in essence is using this as an excuse to leverage what she does to solve a problem that Susan Rice says exists. But Rice is talking about more than just some college students. Even at that it might seem like an invasion to the populace (and their government) if Americans went overseas en masse, or at least any more than we do now.

Abby Falik declared, “I could not agree more. Investing in the spread of goodwill through “citizen ambassadors” is not a new concept, but I can’t think of a moment in history when it has been more imperative. We need our citizens, and especially our emerging leaders, to engage in our global community instead of withdrawing from it.”

You mean behave like some US Olympic swimmers did in Rio recently? Yes that should put us in good stead with the rest of the world, especially using our young as model US citizens.

As if the leaders of the various countries would even notice American or any other tourists, for that matter. The handful of the populace that might notice a tourist will have neither the power to influence their rulers nor the inclination to do so. But as I said above they might react the other way if too many go overseas.

Abby Falik submitted, “Sending our young people out in the world to live, learn and serve is more than a “nice to have”. Global Citizen Year, the organization I founded and lead, exists to ensure that an immersive global experience between high school and college is not a luxury, but a defining part of a 21st century American education.

Are you trying to reignite the Peace Corps? Again, they’d and we’d be better off if they helped out around here, at home. America First!!!

Actually, what we need are good paying jobs, in this country. We do not need a handout but a hand-up to raise our standard of living for the poor in this country. Again, we need good paying jobs for all or a lot more anyway.

Abby Falik put forth, “Each year we recruit and train a diverse corps of high school graduates, and support them through a school-year long immersion in communities across the developing world. Our “Fellows” live with host families and apprentice to projects in education, health, and the environment. The length and depth of their immersion is transformative: they learn to speak to people in their own language and to see the world through new eyes.”

Try doing this at home first, let’s say in Rural America!!!

Abby Falik stated, “In a recent Op Ed published by USA Today, Maria Morava, a Global Citizen Year alumna, writes: “It is more important now than ever before for young people to travel. In the midst of this national xenophobia, it may seem paradoxical, but the most patriotic thing we can do is leave….

If Trump had taken a year abroad like mine, he would have different ideas about what we should actually fear. He’d also realize that there is no ‘other,’ there is only ‘we.’””

Do you seriously believe that a few teenagers can make any difference in the politics of another country? The young and Liberals fail to see danger staring them in the face. It is there and it is real. It is not xenophobia when it is a fact! When you’ve seen their hatred of us you’d be a fool to ignore it.

A short travel ban to a handful of countries while we get a vetting process better is not too much to ask. It is not a Muslim ban. If it was then Muslims from Indonesia would be banned. It is the largest Muslim nation on Earth. Mindanao in the Philippines is also Muslim. They are not subject to the ban!

It is all other. We are all unique therefore different! There are differing ideologies out there, as well as, even here. I am sure that Trump has been all over the world. If travel broadens the mind then he has to have a pretty broad mind but one that knows the dangers that do exist. Trump sees dangers that do exist at the highest levels of their governments even if the danger is small in the populous at large. The populace at large is what one sees on a visit.

Abby Falik wrote, “Maria is hardly alone in feeling alarmed by the fear-mongering and surge of isolationism. Anyone who has served or represented our country overseas – whether in a diplomatic, military, or private sector capacity – is likely to share her view.”

Trump has said that he is not for isolationism but to put us first instead of the rest of the world. He is, after all, the President of the United States. His only concern should be the United States. I just wish all other presidents had been that way.

Sometimes our service men and women act up overseas. The MSM will not usually tell us about it when it does happen and it does happen!

Abby Falik posited, “Today, those of us in positions of power must come together and redouble our work to counter these dangerous trends. It’s time to coordinate our efforts, and dramatically scale up global travel, learning and service opportunities for young Americans from all backgrounds.”

Instead of just passing on knowledge you must try to make our students to be political activists. Why? Schools should just try to teach facts and not any particular political stand. I do realize that students tend to copy their professors’ political beliefs and the greater majority of the professors are liberal. You cannot just let student learn and then chose their political beliefs after graduation?

Abby Falik continued, “What unites global citizens is a shared understanding that the only chance of addressing our planet’s greatest challenges – climate change, pandemics, terrorism, extreme poverty – lies in our ability to find common ground across national and cultural divides. And if the future is to look any different than the present, we need our next generation leaders to have the types of formative, global experiences that will help them find common ground with their counterparts around the world.”

You list 4 problems:

Climate change

Pandemics

Terrorism

Extreme poverty.

Climate change is NOT a settled science. All research money is going into research on man-made causes of CO2 emissions. So, that is all you’re going to get. But the fact of the matter is CO2 emissions from natural sources are far larger than man-made.

The Sun heats up the oceans and the ocean in turn releases more CO2 than man does. Volcanoes release more CO2 than man does. So, even if we reduced human CO2 generation done to zero it would not make a dent in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere nor temperature of the planet.

So, fretting over man-made CO2 emissions is big waste of time.

Number two is pandemics. Do you think that countries will not warn us of a pandemic heading our way? Pandemics are generally passed on by doctors and not by governments anyway.

Number three is Terrorism. Again, fighting terrorism is to every one’s mutual advantage. I do not see failure to communicate a threat based on the fact that we want other countries to pay their way in the UN and NATO, etc.

Number four was Extreme Poverty. We should get our own ducks in a row before we help out others. We have about 50 million people in poverty and about 61 million on social security, so near poverty. About 75% (or 66%) of American adults make less than $30k per year. So, we have over 100 million in or near poverty. This is more than the population of all but 38 other countries (or more than 100 countries). In 1965, or so, LBJ declared a War on Poverty and we actually have more in poverty now compared to then. Until we can take care of ourselves we need not worry about others so much.

We also have 100 million adults, age 18-64, unemployed with about a maximum of 5 million open jobs.

Abby Falik stated, “Failure to act will have dire consequences. But if we do it right, we can build a counter-force that turns the tide, and bends the arc of history toward global peace and prosperity.”

Again, just a few tourists will not generate global peace. When have we ever had global peace? I am beginning to believe that progressives truly have no sense of history and could not care less about it! Hence they are doomed to repeat it and not know what is possible (or probable). The Peace Corps has been around for over 50 years or so and yet we do not have world peace. So, you think that this will work?

Abby Falik stated, “Given the stakes, we can’t afford not to.”

Given the stakes we cannot afford to play games with diplomacy. We cannot afford to leave it up amateurs. Not all, especially young Americans, will behave in ways acceptable to the local populous. So, I do not want to trust them with this. I am not even agreeing that we need to undermine Trump.

This next portion of this essay is an effort to be critical of certain academic disciplines and their conclusions. These are the ones that push education reform and are not educators or do not have an undergraduate degree in education, generally.

I will use the author’s own academic degrees as an example.

From the Stanford Center for International Development:

<< http://scid.stanford.edu/about >>

They promote–

  • catalyze, support, and disseminate cutting-edge research on international economic development and public policy
  • promote exchange and collaboration between Stanford’s faculty and students and foreign academics, policymakers, and international development professionals

So, they want to use their research (cutting edge in their own words) to advise people and governmental officials on what policies to pursue. Cutting edge is defined how?

More specifically, a BA in International Development was the first degree. So a typical BA International Development in draws from the study of:

Business

Theology

Philosophy

Sociology

Anthropology

And economics.

These last two in particular. Sociology is related to economics. The former is more qualitative and the latter more quantitative. These are, for the most part, social sciences. Social Sciences and especially sociology has flawed research methods, so that any conclusions that they come to are bogus. Here are the problems, as I see them.

By the way Sociology is considered a STEM discipline. I guess because it applies statistics (Mathematics) to their findings. But it is the qualitative part while Economics is the quantitative part. I am sure the Economics must also be considered a STEM discipline. Sociology is a social science but that is stretching the meaning of science.

They use surveys and then perform statistical analysis on that data. Surveys can be very biased toward the researcher. The way a question is formulated and possible answers (even the order of the answers and questions) can be biased and may tend to lead the subject to what the researcher is trying to prove. Surveys are oft times research done on personal opinion. This is hardly scientific and it is subjective.

Mortimer Adler, a 20th Century American philosopher, also believed that Sociology had flawed research methods. So far I cannot determine why.

The next degree is a M.Ed. in International and Comparative Education typically compares either educational outcomes between nations or the history of one nation’s educational outcomes. They use the TIMSS and the PISA tests, as example tests to compare.

The PISA test is suspect in my book. It is designed to test 15 year olds ability at the Application Level (level 3 of 6) of the Bloom’s Taxonomy pyramid (triangle).

First of all, what a 15 year old knows is irrelevant. They still have 3 years of high school left. Why are you testing at that level when K-14 should be mostly for the first two levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Knowledge and Understanding)? Without these two levels subsequent levels are meaningless and produce wrong or incomplete answers due to lack of knowledge and understanding! We have these levels because we are meant to build on earlier levels as foundations for the next level in the pyramid.

So, I feel that it is too early to test them. Any time spent exploring level three is time not spent on levels one and two. It is called tradeoffs or opportunity costs.

If education is meant to impart knowledge then level three truly is not needed this early in life.

We just had the 6th PISA test so we had all three tests given twice. This is not much a track record. The tests repeat once every 9 years. Again, to put that much time and effort into taking this test seems to me to be a big waste of time and money and effort.

The countries that do well on the PISA test tend to be small and homogeneous populations. No large country does very well. Less than a handful of large cities in China do excel.

The TIMSS has been around 5 years longer but it concentrates on math and science more than anything else. It stands for Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. I think that it measures what it should and that is levels one and two of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Knowledge and Understanding).

Since 1995 and every 4 years for 4th and 8th graders. So, actually there is no more of a track record here either. Both just had their 6th iterations, in 2015. Again, for the PISA it is only one test out of three every three years. Of course if what a 15 year old knows is irrelevant then so is what a 4th and an 8th graders know, is too! These are 10 and 14 year olds respectively!

These are the most used tests. The NAEP test may also be used. It has been around since 1964, although the first test was given in 1969. I guess it began nationally in 1990 and every two thereafter. It is somewhat more thorough.

But my main objections are that these tests are generally meaningless and do not very much of a track record. The Iowa Basic Skills Test has been around since 1935 as an example of a track record. Most of these tests test to see how well the teachers taught to the test.

Yet, we put so many resources in an attempt to improvement our results and it does not work. The US is still in middle of the pack so to speak in PISA test results rankings. But nearly every test mentioned has been since globalization started.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: