July 20, 2014

July 20, 2014


John Fillburka

During the wake of the MH17 tragedy, attention has been thrust back onto to Russia and its influence on the rebels seeking secession from the Ukraine. While Putin has claimed the role of an benign player, his position was made clear in his unwavering support of the secession of Crimea from the Ukraine. The irony of course is the degree to which Putin exercises a sense authority in Europe, by way of a “Soviet Exceptionalism,” while attempting to criticize the prospect of American intervention in Syria as a form of American Exceptionalism. (It goes without saying that this was merely a ploy, to play on war-weary American  sentiments, of which public opinion sadly crumbled to.)

The question this raises is how, even after the fall of the Soviet Union, does Russia still retain this “Soviet Exceptionalism”? Neither their GDP, nor their infrastructure, nor their social policies exemplify a bustling prosperous first-world nation. Nevertheless, they find their way to the table of many of the most important global conversations in the Euro-Asia continent.

It very may well be a case of quantity over quality. It occupies a landmass of 17 million sq km, reaching into both Europe and Asia. But for all of its size, there is very little substance. it has just enough to assume some level of importance. Perhaps it is time for the Soviet Block to get the true deconstruction it was suppose to have 25 years ago. So, their size can reflect the reality of their geopolitical irrelevance.

Filed under: russia MH17 
July 13, 2014

July 13, 2014

Poem found written on the North Koren Wall next to the DMZ line:

Today is time turning on its head, it lies

But when it lies, talking is pleasant as air

Your voice is a gentle twitch 

And today it is most needed

July 6, 2014

July 6, 2014

Op-Ed Column


Christianity has been the source of the Western moral foundation for many centuries. The result has been an endless conflict between the act of social progression and religious conservation. Continually, attempts at adjusting our moral framework have been halted by the specter of a religion that has itself seen so many alterations that its current incarnation is unrecognizable to its early.

The question is simple, how can so many Christians proclaim the universality of their faith and the permanence of their teaching, if so much of it has been discordant since its inception?

Christianity, like all other religions, is simply a moral and metaphysical ideological framework. It is changeable, fickle, but presented as unchanging and universally true.  It is ultimately this rigidity that halts progress and prolongs ignorance, because it propagates the myth of religious truth.

Other religions are guilty of this same quality, but as Christian moral constructs are so deeply embedded in our social framework it is important to address it directly.

The call for reformation is simply to say that the next reformation should be one in which religious identity is held in the same regard as other ideologies. Remove it from the kingdom of moral and righteous authority and dissect the areas that function to provide the greatest good to humanity, and scrap the rest of it.

June 29, 2014

June 29, 2014

The President of the United States announced on Saturday that he would begin talks with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on the crisis unfolding in Iraq. Internal sources report that these talks will include outlining a bilateral course of action to combat ISIS rebels, currently gaining strongholds in both Iraq and Syria. 

"This is clearly one of the rare instances when Iranian and American agendas align. Therefore,  there is no better time to take it as an opportunity to build on the bonds that form in the conflict and struggle of battle." The President said in his Saturday Address.

Most experts expect this is be a muddy route to pursue in the short-term, but should help improve US - MENA relations in the long-term. As noted by many scholars, a unilateral approach rarely develops the best outcomes for any nation.

June 15, 2014

June 15, 2014

The United States’ foreign policy, particularly as it relates to the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region, has been the root of much agitation in the global community. As identified in our article on Afghanistan, the fallout of the United States’ intervention has been a surge in reactionary militant activity in the MENA region. Among several sources of this conflict, is the distinctly unilateral approach to conflicts. The president now seeks to end this approach.

The president, last Monday:

In the past our attempts at diplomacy have been shallow opportunities to posture international consensus. What goes on behind closed doors is far more contentious than what appears on camera and in the press room.  The fact is our behavior has not been in the favor of global opinion. This is not because we are forcing conversations people are not willing to have, but because we leave the table after we’re done talking. This cannot be the course of action for the future. As conflict continues to swell in Iraq, and groups like ISIS gain more influence, it is our responsibility to maintain our goal of preserving freedom, but we must do so with a greater cognizes of our neighbors. One voice can only change the world if people are listening. Until now the world has not been listening and neither have we. To share in the responsibility of cementing peace in the world, we must be the ones listening, so we can be the ones heard, and together, as a people, as a nation, as neighbors, and as allies, we can change the world.

Filed under: obama iraq isis