Negating the Resolution

*note: this post is a response to the first blog post (which affirms the resolution with two scenarios)

Why would removing troops from South Korea or Afghanistan be bad?


There's one very obvious answer: deterrence. What helps keep the peace we have right now?


In South Korea, deterrence works in a couple of ways.
Many authors claim that a withdrawal causes a North Korean invasion into the South for reunification purposes. One author who agrees with this claim is Peter Huessey. He is the senior Defense Associate at National Defense University Foundation who specializes in nuclear weapons, missile defense, terrorism and rogue states. The reason the troops in South Korea were implemented at first was to stop the North Korean spread and attempt at violent reunification with the South. Right now, we can tell the troops in the South are working very well since there hasn't been an invasion since the Korean War.
Any deterrent scenario is proliferation of nuclear weapons. An author named Christopher Hughes says South Korea would try to proliferate in self defense if the US troops abandon them. They had tried to proliferate in the past, but were forced to return to the US' security mechanisms. The US troops there are the only thing stopping South Korea from proliferating right now. Also, many other nations also under the US' security blanket, such as Japan, might see a US withdrawal out of South Korea a declining commitment and might start proliferating themselves as well. A New York Times article says other countries might start as well as South Korea should our troops be withdrawn.


In Afghanistan, specifically withdrawing counter-insurgency presence, one major scenario is present. The stability and turmoil of the Middle East region.
I think this one is self-explanatory. Without counter-insurgency troops, the insurgencies in Afghanistan and Pakistan could potentially take over, which might lead to a corrupt regime. The US counter-insurgency troops stationed there now are the determining factor that help keep the relative peace in that area.






~ Amber


Sources cited:
- http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=18560 (this is a qualified source because the author is an expert in the field - see the blog)
- http://www.nbr.org/publications/asia_policy/AP3/AP3Hughes.pdf (read blog about qualifications of the author)
- http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/weekinreview/05JDAO.html (this is a good source because it's from the New York Times, a source with breaking news and good authors)

Overall Review of The Adoration of Jenna Fox

MY REVIEW/ASSESSMENT OF THE BOOK

The Concept/Story
Firstly, I believe Pearson's concept in the book is very well thought out and intriguing. I have never read a book with a concept concerning "BioGel" and the illegality and ethics of "bringing one back". It was very well played. All the other books I have read were about concepts currently present in society whereas the BioGel and neurochips factor was very new and cool. I would give her idea in the book a 5 out of 5.
The story was also a very good story. It included lots of things that could spark interest in any reader including ethics, law, and biology.


Ongoing Mystery
I also appreciated her focus on getting all the readers to want to read the book. There are many many times where she mentions "the accident" when she never tells us what it is until about the last pages. It keeps the reader's interest and make the reader want to find out fast.


Critique
If there was something I would change about this book is the beginning to beginning-middle section. The first 130 pages or so were not so hooking. In fact, they seemed a little boring since Jenna's period of not knowing and not interacting was over 100 pages. Only after that, the reader is able to really get into the book and learn more about Jenna.


Influence on Society
I think the main influence Pearson is reflecting on society is ethical obligations to people. The reason to strive for another to live is very complex and can vary. The thoughts of Jenna displayed in the book influence the reader to think for themselves: what would you do/feel if you were in Jenna's situation; being illegal, not supposed to be living, not human?


--


OTHER SOURCE REVIEWS


“…what will hold readers most are the moral issues of betrayal, loyalty, sacrifice, and survival.” —Booklist
^ I agree with this. The book certainly DOES hold readers to find out/test their morals.



“This novel is truly unlike any other I have ever read and is a breath of fresh air in the often predictable world of teen literature.” —ELLEgirl
^ I agree, the book is definitely a new and refreshing. I actually did not expect a story like Jenna's. It was quite surprising and well written.

“This is an amazingly powerful, thought-provoking, just brilliant novel.” —Teen Book Review

^ This book does send a surge through the reader about the brilliance of technology... but also it's morality effects and issues.

--

So, overall, I would rate the book a 4.5 stars out of 5 stars. The novel itself is extraordinary, it's just a little hard to get into for the first 100 pages. Other than that, it's brilliant.

~ Amber

Sources used:

- http://www.whoisjennafox.com/reviews.html (this is the best source because the site and reviews were all compiled and collected by the author herself, Mary E. Pearson (see my 2nd blog post about her too!)

"Recovering" from an Irrevocable Wreck - ethical?

*spoilers*

An accident. Tumbling 140 feet off the highway in high speed, BMW blowing up from tri-energy in the car, there was "Jenna Fox". On the way to the hospital, all her major organs were failing, her skin burning off, heart stopping nearly 6 times, brain damage. Next to her, Kara and Locke, the two of "Jenna Fox"'s best of friends - each severe head trauma. Kara dies 3 weeks after the accident; Locke dies 2 weeks after without regaining consciousness. Then, there's Jenna Fox. Why is she still alive?

BioGel - fluid containing billions of neurochips acting as the cells, technology, and complexity of the mind; BioGel developed from the founder - Matthew Fox, Jenna's dad. All of the fluid and organs had been replaced with billions of neurochips and donated skin. Technically, only a little more than 10% of the new Jenna Fox is from the old Jenna Fox. 10% of the original brain remains, as well as a small percentage of her original skin. In the BioGel, vital memories and information is uploading into the neurochips, functionally working as somatic cells. 

However, the main overarching theme throughout the book is ethics. What is ethical and what is not in comparison to what the person personally believes. For about half of the book, this Jenna is learning and trying to recover memories, without knowing anything about "the accident". There is a locked door in her house, though.  Jenna discovers critical information about herself: she was not supposed to live. Her parents had technologically engineered her and uploaded information into her brain. Jenna's mentality after that is all about being a "real" human, or a freak/monster. Of course Jenna is not pleased by hearing she is not 100% human, more so technology. She does not take this well, especially when they discover that she has a "back up memory file" just in case (as she says, enclosing a mind into technology"). Furthermore, she discovers that SHE is basically illegal because she has tons of BioGel in her (which is supposed to be regulated by federal policy). The cost of restoring Jenna also encompasses making the family move. The family moves South as to avoid federal trials, suspicion (of her survival), and to regulate the BioGel neurochips with temperature. The shelf life of those neurochips could last longer than any normal human is supposed to live. Is it worth it?

Personally, I think what Jenna's parents did was understandable, however it is still unethical. Any parent would want to save their child at any costs, but at the point in which the child does not like their stance in life AND the process being illegal, I think the BioGel process should not have been done.

Did you think what Jenna's parents did was ethical? Is it moral to create a "human" out of technology because of their own feelings, or to let nature be, losing a child? Comment on what you think :)

Pick up this book the next time you head somewhere, it's definitely interesting and a spin on the mind.

~ Amber

Sources consulted:
- the book, of course!

Mary E. Pearson

Mary E. Pearson, the author of various books including The Adoration of Jenna Fox obviously displays the level and intrigue of her writing. However, as much as she is an author, her life is just like those of yours or mine.
Pearson was a person who loved to play and act as different characters everyday in her childhood. One time, she trailed off in a store "exploring her own aisles". When a store clerk had asked for her name, she persisted and only gave them the name "Little Red Riding Hood". Also, Pearson loves to do to things we all do. Pearson enjoys gardening and doing things around the house with her two daughters and son-in-law. When she got the call telling her the first book she wrote will be "in", celebrating by jumping and screaming with them was enough of a celebration for her. Pearson also loves getting out and adventuring to new places with her family.

Pearson's first serious attempt at an "author post" at 3 years of age - cute!

Interestingly, Pearson received her a BFA in art from Long Beach State University. She originally worked as an artist and later went on to get a teacher credential at San Diego State University (she currently lives in San Diego). After starting to teach writing, she grew to love writing once again and worked as a writer.


Finally, what makes her different in her successes? An easy answer is "Little Red Riding Hood". Her persistence and determination got her on the right track. An author faces a lot of rejections in the path to getting a first book published. Also, she takes in all her surroundings, creating little pieces of inspiration for her writings. Everything, from observing and participating in activities sparks inspiration in her everyday life.


To learn more about this author, click go to her personal website! (consulted source - it's the most credible because the author herself made it)


By the way, I recommend the book The Adoration of Jenna Fox. It's a very interesting read, especially to those who enjoy novels with a fictional-biological basis

Pearson's Novel, The Adoration of Jenna Fox

~ Amber

A Literary Beginning: Debate

Hi, my name is Amber! I was born in Atlanta, Georgia, but moved to Texas during elementary school. I enrolled in Kinkaid in 6th grade and am currently a freshman. My brother is also a senior a Kinkaid now. Actually, my brother sparked my interest in my current and most intense literature base; debate.


I've been exposed to a lot of literature and reading, but I think this is the peak. One of my hobbies is debating policy debate competitively. Since the 7th grade, each and every one of the topics struck interest in me which then led me to read more literature on the topic and explore each resolution in depth.


This year, the resolution for high school policy debate is
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following countries: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, or Kuwait.

In my experience with this resolution, I have come to the conclusion that when affirming the resolution, the scenarios with South Korea and Afghanistan are the strongest, although many have many different opinions (feel free to share them here!).

Firstly, there is a ton of literature out on the internet and in books about North Korean threats and that there is an increased chance of more conflict in the area, considering the fact that in the past month, North Korea has already fired artillery shells at a South Korean island, Yeongpyong island. Also, a lot of credible sources support the fact that if the US military forces stay there, they could cause escalation with the US being involved. With US military building up on the border of North Korea, what ration leader would not want to build up their own forces for at least self defense? This is only one of the complex parts of the topic (1/6 of the topic, specifially).

The other scenario that I particularly think has a strong literature base and has decent arguments is affirming with the scenario of Afghanistan. Currently, there are two types of forces in Afghanistan: counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency. However similar these two types of forces sound, there is seemingly a distinct difference that produces success or failure. Counter-terrorism operations do not work with Karzai, the "corrupt" leader as compared to counter-insurgency which does and tries to overthrow Karzai. What is apparent in the literature, especially from D'Souza and Boyle is that staying in close contact with Karzai only increases the corrupt-ness by allowing him to have leverage over the US military since he know Obama is committed to the war; all in all meaning Karzai can do whatever he wants and knows the US cannot do much about it without revoking and damaging its own credibility. The key argument is that the counter-insurgency currently works as a counter against any counter-terrorism operations which lead the affirmative to advocate withdrawing counter-insurgency presence.


This literature just interests me and apparently many authors out there. However, I am not saying what these authors are saying might necessarily be true, it just makes a very debatable argument. Keep in mind, I have only posted a way to affirm the resolution. What do YOU think are possible negations of the resolution?


Questions? Do you all have any opinions or input? I'm interested in what you all think. :)


Sources Consulted:
- Michael J. Boyle's article, "Do counterinsurgency and counterterrorism belong together?"
He is a very credible author because he is a lecturer in international relations and is an expert at studying terrorism and political violence at a University. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2010.00885.x/abstract)
- Shanthie Mariet D'Souza's article, "Talking to the Taliban: Will It Ensure "Peace" in Afghanistan?" D'Souza is also a reliable source because she is the associate at IDSA.
(http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909698115~db=all~order=page)
- Khaleej Times' article, "Easing Tensions". This is also another reliable source because it provides new and insight into the situation
(http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/editorial/2011/January/editorial_January21.xml&section=editorial&col=)


~Amber


UPDATE: a secret airbase (suspected/basically confirmed torture base in Afghanistan is revealed: Bagram Airbase