El Chapo: the drug dealing hero

Everybody loves an underdog, it doesn't really matter wether they are right or wrong, it's just fun to watch someone beat all the odds. El Chapo is by no means a good person, he is responsible for thousands of death (either directly or indirectly) and he is responsible for the drug addictions of even more people. He was (or is) the head of the largest drug cartel in the world, and the very same things that make him a criminal also make him an underdog. He goes against society, he does what he wants. Moral issues aside, anyone would love to be a respected drug dealer; they have huge houses on tropical islands, drive expensive cars and live a life (as short as it might be) in the greatest luxury. That's not even considering the adventure, if you happen to be into smuggling drugs across borders through secret tunnels. Well perhaps it's not something people would love to do, but it's definitely fun to read and imagine oneself in that situation.
The article is very straightforward when presenting El Chapo as a drug dealer, it doesn't try to justify the things he has done or lessen their importance, but it doesn't demonize him either. It just shows him as what he is, a human being, arguably a very bad one, but none the less human. The title, "The Hunt for El Chapo" would suggest that the storyline follows the marines who took him down, the heroes who finally managed to capture the world's most wanted fugitive, but it doesn't. Instead it follows him, where he lived and his clever devices, it's not as much the hunt as it was his escape. Only the fact that the narrative focuses on him turns him into an antihero.
It's exciting to read about, how he ran the jail from which he escaped, his secret tunnels and interconnected houses, it seems almost fake that one person could come up with all of this and manage to go so long without getting caught. It's impossible not to like him at least a bit, his elusiveness and inventiveness are appealing and even though he didn't use them for good, it's still impressive to read about him. It's definitely good to know that he has been captured, but oddly disappointing that he didn't get the chance to continue to play tricks and fool the people chasing him. Reading about him and forgetting that he is a real person can even be funny, an irreverent character who defies the institution and manages to outsmart them every time, or at least most of it.

In Patagonia

Patagonia, as evidenced by the protests regarding hydroaysen, is one of Chile's dearest national landmarks. Over the years it has become an important turistic attraction, particularly for foreigners looking for adventures and often times solitude (what could be lonelier than the end of the world?). This exotic sense usually also extends to the people living there, as can be seen in Chatwin's book, where the people he encounters seem to be just as important (if not more) as the landscapes. This is why it's easy to forget that for them it is also the year 2015.
It's easy to understand that someone reading In Patagonia would expect to travel there and encounter barren lands with little or no civilization, after all, that's the way it was when Chatwin travelled there. This is not the way it is now; which is not something to be considered good or bad but rather a simple observation. If traveling a couple weeks in Patagonia is hard and expensive, one can only imagine the difficulties of living there permanently, which is why technological advances (especially regarding communication) are always welcome.
While it is expected that wildlife parks should remain more or less intact, it's irrational to expect the people living in their vicinities to remain isolated. They are not part of the natural attraction and have as much of a right to be able to communicate and live like the rest of the civilization as the tourists traveling to the Patagonia. Chile is a developing country with and overpopulated capital, it's obvious that other cities will gradually begin to grow, along with people's needs.
The point is: Chatwin's book may be a a faithful description of what Patagonia was like thirty years ago  and an inspiring read for anyone wishing to travel there today, but to do so expecting to find the exact same abandoned landscapes and isolated inhabitants is foolish and borders bigotry. The world has gone through big changes over the last three decades, and the Patagonia, with all its wilderness and adventures, has been no exception.

Daniel Zamudio- the "wake up call"

In 2013, Daniel Zamudio was brutally beaten and murdered in a park because of his sexual preferences. He was 24 years old. Obviously, there was widespread shock in Chile, even those who weren't particularly accepting of homosexuality where shaken by the cruelty of the murder. Daniel was found in between some bushes with a broken leg, swastikas carved into his skin, and covered in urine. This event triggered many responses, resulting even in the passing of an anti-discrimination law to prevent something similar from happening ever again. 

It has now been two years, and although it's a reduced amount of time, it has allowed for at least some objectivity when looking back. A book called Perdidos en la noche (which translates to Lost in the night) analyzes the context within which the crime took place and reaches some very interesting conclusions. Although Daniel is evidently the victim, he is not the only one. All of those involved where also victims (yes, including the murderers) of miserable social conditions, of abusive families and extreme poverty, of denied opportunities. Had these young men been given the same opportunities as a high class kid attending a private school, it would've been very unlikely for them to commit that murder. Upon a first glance there is no doubt that they are the ones responsible, but upon further inspection, there is a whole society to be blamed for not handing this youth the necessary tools for life and condemning them to a cycle of poverty.

Although, to what extent does social injustice justify the horrendous crime? In my opinion, it does not justify it at all, but rather brings to attention other problems more deeply ingrained in society. What's done is done and those responsible must be held accountable for their actions (which they were, the main aggressor was sentenced to life in prison). The main point of jail is to protect society from dangerous people, if they happened not to know any better they should be taught better, but also do their time and learn that grave actions have grave consequences. Of course this calls to a whole process of reforming Chile's judiciary system and society in general. Prisons should provide an opportunity for learning and repenting, not for corruption, and an ideal society should provide it's members with enough opportunities and education so that they are able to distinguish between wrong and right. Of course all of this is wildly out of reach and probably won't happen within the lifespan of the vast majority of Chile.

Let the murder of Daniel Zamudio serve as a reminder not only of discrimination against minorities, but also of the deeper problems in our society that push people into a cycle of theft and poverty by robbing them opportunities that should be granted to them as a right by birth. This is not a problem that can be solved by creating a few laws, this is a matter of creating a profound and widespread change in the way our community works and thinks. 

The 25th Hour

Whenever something happens that disrupts the regular order or routine, it always comes along with a very intense existential questioning, sometimes working as a wake up call, reassuring or disproving previous values. When Monty is convicted, he triggers this questioning in all the people that are close to him, similar to the effect caused by the attack on the twin towers.
In the case of Monty, the most evident reaction is his wondering what could've been had he stopped drug dealing earlier, the life he could've had, all of this evidenced in his conversation with Frank at the club. Parallel to this illusion, there is a much more practical aspect to his personality and the need to have everything settled by the time he goes to jail. He gets Doyle a new home, settles (and ends) his business with the russian drug dealers, tries to convince Naturelle to live her life, basically, he puts an end to all the things belonging to his previous life in preparation for his time in jail. Monty's character shows an interesting dichotomy between dreaming for a life he can't have anymore and at the same time facing what needs to be done by separating himself from his feelings.
Meanwhile, Jacob, one of his best friends, seems to face important moral decisions regarding one of his students. He particularly questions what it is he stands for and the things he is willing to do, the bulk of moral questioning in the movie resides in this character. While at the club, he has trouble standing up to his student, which leads him to do things he normally wouldn't ever have done. Regardless, his moral crisis eventually leads him to reaffirm his values, staying true to what he portrays throughout the movie despite getting lost in the way.
Finally, there is Frank, who, compared to the other two, is the one who changed the most, or at least revealed the most about himself. He starts out as a cold character, someone who's full of himself and therefore doesn't really consider other people and their feelings, which can be seen especially when he goes out with Jacob. Although, as the movie goes on his outer shell begins to crumble beginning to show a much more fragile side to him, and also showing how much he cares about the people around him. The peak moment of this fragility is when Monty asks him to "make him ugly." At that point, all of the feelings that had previously been bottled up rush out, ending in frustrated tears and Monty getting beaten up. What's most important, though, is that Frank only starts beating Monty when he punches Jacob, which shows a significant change from the beginning, where Frank would bully and ridicule him in front of others, making it seem as if he didn't really care that much for Jacob.

Final Reflection: 9/11

I find that until know I had underestimated the real impact september 11, 2001 had on the world, perhaps because I was four years old when it happened and honestly all my memories are vague, and I'm not sure if I dreamed them up based on what I learned later or if I genuinely remember something. I was raised in a world the way it is today, I can't say I have felt a great change in the world during my lifespan. I know that the reason they take even your nail clippers at the airport is because of that horrible day, but for me it has always been this way. This doesn't mean that I don't care, but unlike people who shared their stories on the internet, I can only remember watching images of towers in my grandparent's TV, and again, this might've been only a dream.
Investigating about the topic has shed light on how 9/11 actually impacted the world I live in and therefore my life. Somehow, most of the things I have written about in this blog boil down to two airplanes flying into the world trade center. ISIS has grown and spread from the hate people feel towards the United States for invading their countries and bombing their territory. This is the reason why it was so important to capture Osama bin Laden, and why he was captured and killed with no trial, despite the fact that he is technically still human. This is the reason why there was a movie made about his capture, to rub it in the faces of all those who posed a threat to the United States (and I know there is a series of reasons why killing him was much easier, but the US is allegedly founded on a set of values which I personally find where transgressed when Osama bin Laden was killed and dumped in the sea).
Most of the wars going on today, if not all of them, stem from this sole act of terrorism. The worst part is that this is just what al Qaeda intended, they knew that one act of strategically placed violence could trigger years of violence, practically ensuring that there would be many wars and untimely deaths for the years to come. If it's not al Qaeda, it's ISIS, and it seems as if trying to stop these groups were like trying to clear a flooding house with a plastic cup. The disappearance of one group does not ensure that another will not rise even more powerful and with more hatred. In the end, violence can only provoke more violence and, although it's idyllic and perhaps even utopic, 14 years later might be enough to start looking for new solutions.

Psychology of the widespread reaction

The psychological damage caused by 9/11 had a profound impact on politics and foreign affairs in the United States, no doubt about it, and al Qaeda knew this better than anyone. After the Cold War there was an overall sense of relief, the Soviet Union disintegrated and it seemed as if there was no one big enough to take on the United States, but there was, and they weren't even that big, especially when compared to the Soviet Union. All it took was 19 men to cause horror, confusion, and fear even greater than what was felt during the Cold War, because the war was now going on in american soil. The fact that it was only 19 men is, to say the least, humiliating. How can the world's biggest superpower fail to stop less than 20 men from creating havoc and massive destruction?
This feeling triggered the beginning of the world as we know it today, everyone agrees that the horrific events of that day should never happen again. From the United States' particular point of view, it's also the humiliation that must be avoided, which also explains the vengeance streak that followed September 11, 2001. This was just what al Qaeda wanted, the US was forced into the middle east after receiving an attack where it hurts the most: national pride.

9/11 from the eyes of foreigners

After looking at reactions of the US, I decided to go even broader and look for reactions across the globe, which proved to be much more interesting and varied. Of course most posts show sympathy towards the United States and the tragic events that happened that day, but there was one from a palestinian woman who at the time was 11 who described how people went out to the streets to celebrate. She clearly states that she has since grown up and realized what a horrible even it really was, but she also explains the reasoning behind the celebrations. The United States had been aiding Israel for years with weapons that hurt (and continue to hurt) many palestinians. What happened in New York was something that palestinians lived everyday, they too had seen their friends and family die and suffer from injuries.
This serves as a reminder that violence and extreme acts of violence happen all over the world, and a lot more often than the media reveals. As horrible as it may sound, I can understand people celebrating in Palestine, it must be gratifying to watch your bullies being bullied, but this is not a solution. Tension in the middle east only increased in the following years and reassured the United States in their mission to target any country or terrorist group that they felt posed even a minor threat to the country.    

9/11 from a US citizen's eye

The David Foster Wallace piece we originally read inspired me to look into how people in different parts of the US lived that day, rather than simply reading survival stories. That way, I could have a broader view of how an entire country faced tragedy and the general reaction towards it. It's almost as if time slowed down when the first tower was struck and by the time the second crash was broadcasted, time had stopped altogether. An entire country found itself glued to the news channel, waiting fearfully for new attacks, as the Pentagon caught fire and the towers collapsed.
Only people whose jobs consist of tracking terrorist groups would ever have really considered a direct attack to the United States. This, I find, goes a long way in explaining the disbelief, aside from the fact that planes were flying into buildings which is already hard to believe. Confusion is the most recurrent theme in all of the 9/11 memories, after all, when the Cold War ended there was literally no one who could really pose a threat to the United States, or at least that's what it seemed. All of the stories I read reflected this, the disbelief, the hidden humiliation behind the fear. September 11th reminded the United States that the end of the Cold War didn't mean world peace had been achieved, in fact, it began a whole new cycle of wars.

9/11- sources

US citizens remember 9/11
This article from Federal News Radio consists of  a compilation of stories from 9/11 from people living in New York and other cities of the United States explaining where they where and what they felt at that time. It was linked to another article when searching for 9/11 reactions on google.

Widespread reactions in the US and the world
The History Channel website presents an interesting piece of writing which first details into the United States' general social reaction to the attack, especially the weeks and months that followed. Then it details how other countries' governments aided the United States and sent messages of sympathy. I came across this article when searching for international reactions.

Reactions from foreign countries
The presentation here is very similar to the first item in the sense that it too details what people where doing when the towers were attacked, the difference being that the stories come from various nationalities and therefore show more variety when it came to how involved people felt. I also found these while looking for international reactions.

Psychology of the US reaction
Psychology Today explores the psychological reasoning behind the United States' reaction to the terrorist attack along with the psychological repercussions across the country and in the government. I got to it by searching for "9/11 repercussions."

Deterring terrorism through resilience
This recorded conference features a panel of psychiatrists, sociologists and other experts who discuss how terrorism can be deterred through psychology by creating more united and resilient communities, in order to make them less appealing targets. This video was linked to the psychology today page.

9/11 footage reaction

Undoubtedly, watching any kind of footage of 9/11 results terrifying and watching what was live footage of it only adds to the feeling. Seeing the second airplane crash into the tower while on air seems surreal, like watching a trailer for a movie, except its real. Putting myself in the position of those who were actually watching the news that day, I understand the panic, the confusion and the hysteria. I imagine a feeling similar to the one after the earthquake in 2010, not really understanding what was going on until it was probably too late, staring at the falling builings on the television in disbelief. There is one important difference, though, when the earthquake happened, there was no one to blame. That to me is the scariest part, thinking that there are people with that much evil in their hearts. It's hard to imagine and even harder to believe that there are people like that in this world, which is probably why it took a while for people to realize that it wasn't a mere accident but rather a planned terrorist attack. After all, who could ever imagine that a group of men would literally fly themselves into a building? If knowing that there are people who feel this magnitude of hate towards other, one would have to be crazy not feel afraid, especially after 9/11 proved that someone with enough hatred is capable of literally anything.

9/11 reaction

It's interesting to me how disasters (of any kind) spark not only fear, but also a strong feeling of national pride, facing whatever may come as a challenge despite of the widespread terror. It's like Foster Wallace says, what is the purpose of all these flags? Unity, of course, knowing that you are not alone in your grief and fear, that an entire country weeps at the feet of the fallen towers. The flag becomes an image of hope and strength, that WE can hold our heads high again and face whatever may come with dignity.
As pretty and noble as this picture may seem, it rises a rather unsettling question: who, exactly, is considered within "WE"?  Who can join us in our mourning and who can we trust? Who is the enemy? Eventually, from the mixture of fear and a heightened sense of pride and unity comes the opposite: segregation and paranoia. Anyone that looks even slightly middle-eastern must hate the United States, if you do not look like us you are not with us. How does anyone dare wear a hijab in the land of the free? The vast majority chooses to hide behind what is familiar, forgetting that extremist views do not represent entire religions or countries. Like Suheir Hammad says, not all white caucasian americans are held accountable for the KKK, why then should all muslims be held accountable for acts of terrorism? The foreign policy adopted by the Bush administration seems just as frightening to me as the prospect of having two airplanes crash into a building, especially considering that some people think women in veils are a threat.
The assault to the twin towers shocked the entire world and changed the lives of many people, if the US felt invincible after the fall of the Soviet Union this feeling did not last. After 9/11 people came to know fear once again, a fear that can still be felt 14 years later and it's not only the average american. The worldwide muslim community also lives in fear, knowing that the name of their religion has been tarred by violent, extremist groups even though (as Don DeLillo clearly exemplifies) they were just as horrified by the image of the collapsing twin towers.

Ecosurf trip

"We all come from the sea, but we are not all of the sea. Those of us who are, we children of the tides, must return to it again and again, until the day we don't come back leaving only that which was touched along the way."

-Chasing Mavericks

As cheesy as the previous quote may seem I continue to find it true, there must be a biological factor that makes the ocean so incredibly attractive despite its many dangers. That's probably the reason why I returned to the ecosurf trip (I went for the first time on sophomore year), and even though it was the same trip with the same guides, the experience was different. I returned with a much more serious vision of surf. The first time I was there to have fun with my friends but this time I decided to really put an effort into the sport, and it payed off. I definitely improved my skills and even won the surf competition at the end of the trip. 

Although, the most important thing I learned is the importance of taking a break. Despite the fact that half of the trip I was in physical pain (be it muscular pain, sunburns or bruises), I was relaxed the whole time; I didn't mind getting up at 8 in the morning, I would've woken up earlier if it had been necessary. There was no stress, my only worry was not falling of the board and trying to avoid waves crashing on me. Senior year is a stressful year, there's college applications, IB exams, and in general loads of life-changing decisions to be made. This trip helped me come back with a refreshed outlook and renewed priorities. Sure, getting into a good college is still important to me, but I realize that I want to have a good time while doing it. I plan to continue surfing and hopefully continue to improve, I'm glad to have found a sport that allows me to stray from my day to day routine and have some time off to relax. 

What it means to be "latin"

Growing up, ethnicity was never something I thought about, at least not my own ethnicity. I knew that some people where white and some people were black, and most people fell within a range. This didn't really matter though, spending all my life in an international school made me look past skin color or even accents, I became a third culture kid despite the fact I've spent my whole life in the country I was born in. The first time I was confronted with my own ethnicity was during a standardized test; I had to fill in a bubble according to which group I belonged to, as if being born in the southern hemisphere could somehow lower my abilities. Until then, I had never considered myself a "Latina," I was just a person. I didn't identify with the mental image I had of latin people. That was when I realized that my own ethnicity had been so stereotyped I could no longer see myself in it.
I am not mexican, I have never been to Mexico, and having tacos to me is as foreign as having sushi. I have lived a privileged life; I go to an expensive private school, I traveled to Europe on my fifteenth birthday and have an apple computer. Honestly, I identify much more with a rich white kid than I do with the typical latin woman stereotype. I am no where near close to the characters J Lo represents in her movies, I am not a struggling tan skinned woman who happens to meet a wealthy white man who will introduce me to a world of luxury, I do not suddenly switch to spanish rants when I get angry; I'm just as capable of being mad in english.

It's true that my life is very different from that of the majority, there is devastating poverty all over the continent and I am blessed to have been given so many opportunities, but ethnicity has become a matter of economic status rather than the color of my skin or even the culture I belong to. I take pride of my roots, of the mapuches who fought against the spaniards and then the mestizos who fought for their independence. All of them have shaped the way I see myself and the lens through which I view the world, but this runs far deeper than what is shown in TV. In that sense I suppose I do consider myself a latin woman, but the word has lost its original meaning and become the image of a victimized culture, the image of poverty and illegal immigrants. I am not a victim, like media tends to represent me, I am strong and independent despite the fact my country and continent have often been abused by others. I am resilient, and this is the Latin America I identify with.

Biodiversity in Punta de Choros

Chile's national reserve "Pingüino de Humboldt" is composed of three islands located in the regions of Atacama and Coquimbo: Isla Chañaral, Isla Choros, and Isla Dama. From the aforementioned, only Isla Damas is open for tourists to explore, and only with a restricted set of rules. This reserve is the home to approximately 80% of the world's Humboldt penguin population, along with other species such as the bottle-nosed dolphin, sea lions, and the occasional whale, or "cachalote". In other words, Punta de Choros is a national treasure when it comes to biodiversity. This is were I will be traveling for week without walls.
The ecosurf trip goes beyond teaching the basics of surfing, it allows us to learn about the environment while actually exploring it, rather than sitting in a classroom and having someone show pictures in a powerpoint. Aside from this, the trip also has a cultural focus, since we will also be sharing with the local people. Punta de Choros definitely presents a completely different reality than the one at school. Being able to share with the few people living in the town will surely be a humbling experience and a an opportunity to give something back to society.

Publicity and Revolution

A revolution by definition is a violent political and social change, often times accompanied by propaganda in order to incite the people to join the cause. Because of its inherent social qualities, it makes sense that nowadays, in the era of information, social media is used to promote revolutionary ideals. This was true both in the case of the student movement in Chile and ISIS in the middle east, as extreme as both examples may seem.

Two years ago, in the New York Times, an article talking about Camila Vallejo (the leader of the mobilization in Chile) was published, highlighting mostly how good-looking she is and even calling her  "the world's most glamorous revolutionary." As indignant as it may seem that a intelligent woman is once again reduced to her appearance, it is true that her good looks have helped Camila popularize the student mobilization. Her charisma, green eyes, and characteristic nose ring managed to awaken an entire country's revolutionary feelings, not only with regards to education, but also in other pressing matters such as Hydroaysén, a hydroelectric plant that was supposed to be installed in the south of Chile.
Social media was crucial when spreading the image of the young revolutionary, marches and "cacerolazos" were organized through Facebook, her opinion along with that of hundreds of others were spread through platforms like twitter, until there was no one in Chile who could say they hadn't heard about a girl named Camila Vallejo.
Even though in comparison to ISIS these protests were pacific, the presence of violence particularly towards the end of the marches was undeniable. Fourteen year-olds where gassed with tear gas and arrested, often just because they didn't leave before the "encapuchados" came out and started causing havoc.
Meanwhile, in the Middle East, jihadists from ISIS are also taking advantage of the widespread of social media. So far, four journalists have been murdered on tape. Anyone  with an internet connection can search ISIS on google, and a beheading is sure to be one of the first thing to show up. The way the Islamic State has managed its public affairs and spread their message is the proof that no publicity is bad publicity. And this negative public image is not all of it.
Vice news, in their documentary about the Islamic State, walk around the Syrian border with a sort of "public manager" who was in charge of handling the external image that is given of the IS. This appearance is the one that attracts new members, especially young children, nine year olds who vow to kill infidels and establish a muslim caliphate because they have been brainwashed by an incessant flow of media supporting those ideals.
Clearly the student mobilization has made a much more positive use of social media in order to spread their ideals, but there is no doubt that in both revolutions this form of communication has had a decisive role in the successful diffusion of revolutionary ideals.

Reflection: Obama's speech referring to ISIS

Previously I wrote about the United States’ obligation to intervene in the matters of the Middle East, seeing as they had direct involvement in the creation of these terrorists groups. President Obama, in his speech, has declared war on the Islamic State (which apparently is neither Islamic or a state), and has done this with the alleged support of the Iraqi government. This point, at least, coincides with what to me appeared to be one of the most important factors to be considered: that the countries where ISIS is actually spreading have an active participation when it comes to planning and deciding on when it's appropriate to use airstrikes. This is the case in Iraq, but the US' relationship with Syria is drastically different. 

This is what stood out to me the most. Obama's words make sense, why give weaponry to a government you do not trust? It is logical that the US government would refuse to work with Assad's regime, but financing the opposition while at the same time trying to tackle a terrorist group that's quickly spreading makes the chore even harder, not to add slightly reminiscent of the latin american dictatorships. Clearly there is no easy way to deal with ISIS, particularly in Syria, and it would appear that the government of the United States has chosen to tackle to problematic situations at the same time rather than choosing to ally with the lesser of two evils. 
Obama explicitly says that he will not hesitate to take action in Syria, but any attack should be considered carefully and in depth, since bombing Syrian land without their consent could mean creating new enemies for the United States. Unmeasured violence can only lead to more violence, which is why those involved in the conflicts of the Middle East should perhaps consider looking past their country's personal interests and think about what is best for everyone.

Responsibilities of having children

Children, whenever there seems to be trouble, turn to their parents for help. A hug from Mommy can scare away any nightmares, can assure hat everything will be alright and nothing is really worth worrying. Although, this need for safety burdens the parents, it is up to them to protect their child, to answer questions they might not always have an answer for, but above all stay calm, because when a problem is big enough to worry Daddy, things are really going wrong. This is presented in "Incarnations of Burned Children" by David Foster Wallace. A toddler is accidentally burned with boiling water and the Daddy moves around frantically trying to help its child while the Mommy is useless and only manages to pray. In the end it is unsure whether the baby dies or not, but one thing is clear, the parents failed their most important chore: assuring their child's wellbeing. It's not that they were completely reckless parents, it was a mere distraction, a few seconds looking away. The real responsibility comes in after the accident, when the Daddy have to be brave, ignore the screams and act efficiently, because Daddy's here and nothing truly bad can happen if he is, right? Regardless of how responsible Daddy could've been, sometimes things happen that just can't be handled or understood. This is why the Daddy would later be mad at himself for wanting to smoke a cigarette.
Perhaps his momentary distraction while trying to help his child is the only explanation he can offer for the death of his child, and having someone or something to blame makes dealing with the guilt easier.

"Hills Like White Elephants" written by Ernest Hemingway, presents another type of responsibility: choosing whether or not to bring a child into the world. The "American" and a girl sit at a train station in Spain, sipping on cold beer and awkwardly commenting the setting, the hills, according to the girl, look like white elephants. The American says that if she simply goes through with the operation, things will go back to the way they were before, they would be happy and unworried, they would have no responsibilities. The girl, though, is unsure, choosing to abort a baby is a huge decision to make, not to be taken lightly. In a way, both characters present opposite poles, the American rushes the decision and takes the easy way out while the girl ponders on the idea a lot more, maybe the course to take is to assume responsibility for her actions and keep the child, despite the fact that the American argues that an abortion would be the wisest choice. Nevertheless, there seems to be a certain submissiveness in the girl that overpowers her sense of responsibility and it would appear that the final decision won't be made by her. Clearly there are other factors to be taken into consideration, judging by the relationship the characters have it's safe to assume that they are close, but probably not socially accepted and maybe even an affair, which would add a sense of social responsibility (what is proper) and explain why the American is so anxious to have the operation done.

Both stories present two types of responsibility, in the first it's about taking care of a child and ensuring its safety, while in the second it's about deciding wether or not it is a good idea to have a child at all, taking into consideration all the economic and social implications. What's also interesting is the way women are portrayed in both stories. In both, women are shown as submissive and slightly less competent than their male counterparts, even though they share the same responsibilities. Parenthood is a complex matter, starting from the moment the baby is conceived to actually taking care of the child, and, in a way, these two stories show different kinds of responsibilities and conflicts that may appear through the different stages.

The Islamic State

The Islamic State is a Muslim extremist group that has rapidly spread through Iraq and Syria taking over a series of cities and imposing a law system called Sharia, characterized by its violent and somewhat archaic punishments. This, for obvious reasons, has raised international alarm because of ISIS' extremist views and violent ways. It is a highly complex problem, with varied causes such as religion, politics, and others. The countries fighting this attempt to re-establish a muslim caliphate are far from having a stable government and are already busy struggling with other internal quarrels. What should be done if those under attack do not have the means to defend themselves properly? It seems logical that someone needs to help.
The United States have had a history of getting involved in foreign politics, there was the dictatorships set up in Latin America, and more recently another series of interventions in the Middle East. Of course these interventions have also caused a whole new series of problems, one of which is the rise and spread of the Islamic State (Brumfield, Ben). For this reason, as reluctant as everyone is to see the US once again meddling in external affairs, it is their responsibility to at the very least help eliminate the threat that ISIS represents.
Of course, this help doesn't have to (and shouldn't be) carried out in the same way it has before. Syria has already warned Obama's government that any drone attacks performed without previous consent from Damascus will be taken as an aggression to the state, rather than directed to the jihadists (Lucas, Ryan). This exemplifies the attitude that the United States has adopted when dealing with potential threats to their own country, the attitude of an overprotective parent. While it is clear that governments in the middle east are currently undergoing a lot of conflict, it is not up to the US government to impose its views and practices on another country. After the cuban missile crisis in 1962, a series of democratically elected socialists governments in Latin America where thrown down (helped by the US) and replaced by dictatorships, which more often than not resulted in long years of suffering and fear for those living in said countries. Clearly this is not the way to follow in the Middle East. There is already enough suffering and it would only help the US' interests to continue this suffering but with a cooperating government.
Any kind of aid, coming from the United States or any other countries, should be coordinated beforehand with the countries being helped, even if these have opposing ideologies and a history of conflict, like in the case of Syria (Hearst, David). These differences can be dealt with later on, once the pressing problem (expansion of the Islamic State) is solved. It is unacceptable that any country launches any sort of military aid attack in another country without first communicating with the authorities of the land being bombed, even if the intention is to eradicate  an extremist group such as the Islamic State. 
It seems impossible at these moments to think of peace when journalists are being murdered on tape and nine year olds dream about killing "infidels" and establishing a caliphate all over the Middle East and possibly the world. Ideally, western countries, aside from contributing with military aid, will serve as guides for countries just coming out of decades of constant war. Hopefully, they will be more like an older sibling rather than an imposing father. In the end, the final goal is to help create functional governments, governments with religious tolerance, where minorities are respected and represented so that there is no need for extremist movements. History has proved that poor governments inevitably will lead to violence, and the only way to safeguard against the rise of new groups similar to the Islamic State is to have efficient authorities who work for the people, not for themselves.

Sources:
Brumfield, Ben. Why does the U.S. intervene militarily in Iraq but not in Syria?
Hearst, David. Islamic State: the monster Western intervention created
Lucas, Ryan. Syria warns Obama against intervention over Islamic State

"Primitive" tribes uncontacted in Brazil

Primitive: Anthropology. A person belonging to a nonindustrial, often tribal society, especially a society characterized by a low level of economic complexity.


According to the definition above, the previously uncontacted tribe found in the Amazon is, by all means, primitive. After all, it was a small tribe of hunters and gatherers and any agriculture present was probably not very developed. But the negative connotation of the word primitive is far from being the biggest issue. What do we do with these people? Protect them? Leave them on their own yet exposed to violent farmers who crave for their land?
Both in the documentary clips and in articles regarding the topic, it is mentioned that initial contact with modern society often results catastrophic for the native tribes, be it either because of new diseases or because the "white man" shot the whole tribe down. Obviously when hearing about half of a population dying from a cold a normal person's first though would be that they need some sort of protection. Yet this protection would mean continuing to isolate said tribes and take measures so that no one encounters them, similar to the way one would protect an endangered species. This to me raises another question, what is it that gives us our humanity? Could it be our level of development? Would this mean that these tribes are infrahuman?
These questions to me, as absurd as they may sound, are vital to deciding a course of action regarding these people. Protecting them the way you would protect an endangered species would at a first glimpse seem reasonable, allow them to continue living the way they do and enclose them in a circle where no one will bother them, something like zoo. Except after looking at it in more depth it seems wrong, as well as impossible to do this. Perhaps development has reached a point where it is unstoppable and farms and industry will continue to grow and inevitably reach this tribes and probably exterminate them through diseases and gunfire. Perhaps it is better for the first contact to be relatively pacific, be in good terms with these people, and prepare them for what's in their future.

Pitch Letter

Mr. Editor,

    A couple of months ago Santiago hosted for the first time ever the ODESUR games (Olympic games of the south), and I personally was fortunate enough to watch the swimming competition in the new aquatic center that was built in Estadio Nacional. For the first time in all of my life, and I say this as someone who has spent half of it swimming laps, I saw a pool filled to the brim with people cheering for their team, or at least the particularly famous member of the team. Even though, I was shocked by the ignorance of the people when it came to the sport, even in the news several mistakes were made by people who were supposedly well informed about it and were paid to share useful insight with those who maybe didn’t know as much.  

    This is the reason why I want to write this article, so that people learn about a sport other than football. At the same time, I want to show the hardships of the life of a high competition athlete, it is never easy to choose this path. I plan on showing this mostly through interviews with members of the new generation of chilean swimmers, those who are just beginning their journey into professional sports and can still hope for greatness, focusing particularly on the members in the national team for the past ODESUR and those who were forced to leave the country in search of better conditions. In the end, what I wish to do is to set an example through this particular sport and open the door for a more open and varied coverage of sports in Chile.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Josefina Sandoval