By: Sanna Mustonen

Lagom: not too little, not to much. Just right.

Westernized countries such as Sweden are often referred to as drinking countries because alcohol is legal but most importantly it’s due to the fact that it’s a part of social norms and that the majority of all of “us” adults use alcohol time to time. Therefore, the idea to experiment with alcohol between teenage moving to grown up life is very common to seek social acceptance.

In this blog post I am going to discuss how a membership in the European union have negatively affected alcohol attitudes and policies in Scandinavia. I will particularly focus on how it has affected my home country Sweden, that might be easier to recognize for you guys as the only country where every single household own a IKEA furniture. Sweden joined the European Union on January 1, 1995. Within the membership package different regulations has been made. Around Europe alcohol is available to teenager through purchase and pubs. However, in Norway and Sweden laws are way stricter. The legal drinking age on pubs is 18 years old and in order to purchase alcohol you have to be 21 years old.

Earlier today I came across a buzzfeed discussing, 20 things to know before moving to Sweden where number 15 states: “While you can purchase alcoholic drinks in restaurants and bars, if you want to take a sip from the bottle in the privacy of your own home, you’ve got only one legal option of buying stronger alcohol, and that’s from one of the roughly 400 state-run liquor stores” (Sweden, 2014). So in order to purchase alcohol in Sweden you need to go to a store called “systembolaget” which is essentially a liquor store owned and operated by the government. Systembolaget’s opening hours are limited to the weekdays. But recently Systembolaget offers a few hours of alcohol shopping on Saturdays. With a membership in the European Union, Sweden has been forced to raise the travel allowances for alcohol being brought into the country. Therefore, it is obviously impossible to keep prices high when the combined effect of cheap important and smuggling lead to a drop in domestic sales.

The entry into Europe has certainly had an effect on Swedes. For example, National policies have been eroded. Sweden had to abandon low traveller’s allowances and gradually adopt the considerably higher European levels (Örnberg & Cisneros, 2010)

Both Sweden and Norway (not a member of the EU, but entered into an agreement with the EEA in 1994) was forced to dissolve its monopoly on important,export,wholesale and production of alcoholic beverages, and also to allow alcopops to be sold in ordinary grocery stores. Indirect influences arise from the travellers import quotas within the EU. These features together, puts a constant pressure on the relatively high prices in the Nordic EU countries and forcing them to be reduced in order to stimulate border trade(Nordlund,2007).

The main effect is that from 1994 to 2004, drinking has increased by 31 % in Sweden. However, here I am going to be somewhat reasonable because we can’t just blame the membership in the EU for this. What we can blame the membership for is the changes of alcohol avaibilty. For example, the sale of Alco pops has doubled compared to when it was only sold in “systembolaget”, and of course it will when you can just walk into a normal grocery store and buy it. This has lead to large increase in the number of monopoly shop during the first years of this century. Most importantly, the biggest effect of the membership is that home made alcohol has been decreasing while illegal alcohol has increased within Scandinavia, basically due to the new regulations of the how much alcohol you are allowed to bring in to a country. This makes it beneficial for people to drive down to middle Europe to buy cheap alcohol and bring it in to the Scandinavia where they make profit but prices they sell it for is still way lower than the state-owned liquor stores. The sum of this is of course that it becomes easier for teenagers to get a hold of alcohol, because if they are willing to pay for the imported alcohol they are most likely to get it. The importers will assumingly not care about the their costumers age. They simply just want to make money.

What I think come to the main issue here is that we can expect to see a large increase in alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harm. Which is partly due to EU regulations, and is that what we want? Isn’t that why countries like Sweden and Norway established these regulations of monopolized contribution of alcohol in the first place. Does EU really have interest in national identities and core values? No, and I think this proves that a membership in the EU is not endorsing a countries national identity and doesn’t it seem kind of boring if we all are just going to end up being exactly alike and what will happened with the Swedes idea of ‘just right’ – not too much and not too little – the way of thinking in Sweden? Will that be able to exist in the future, that is something I am wondering about.

20 things to know before moving to Sweden: https://sweden.se/society/20-things-to-know-before-moving-to-sweden

Glossary:

Systembolaget: A state-owned store in Sweden that sells(the only one) alchol beverages with a alchol percentage of 4.7 % and over.

Lagom: not too little,not too much. Just right.

References:

Nordlund, S. (2007). The influence of EU on alcohol policy in a non-EU country. Journal Of Substance Use,12(6), 405-418. doi:10.1080/14659890701262205

Örnberg, J. (2010). Sweden, the EU and the alcohol traveller’s allowances. Contemporary Drug Problems,37(1), 3-38.

11 Things You Didn’t Know About Sweatshops

each1teach1

Breaking Down Obama’s ISIL Strategy

During Obama’s latest speech, he addressed the issues surrounding the crisis with ISIS and explained his counter-terrorism strategy to degrade and destroy the extremist group. Here is a breakdown of his four key steps.

By Erin Von Hoetzendorff

A word cloud of Obama’s 9/10/14 speech

The Islamic State, ISIL, or ISIS. No matter what name you know, you know that it is not good. A fairly mysterious terrorist group that began as a splinter of al Qaeda, this group has had its fair share of media coverage in recent months. With an aim to create a caliphate, an Islamic state, across Sunni areas of Iraq and Syria (and arguably even more areas), this group is infamously known for public executions. But they are creating more havoc than just the public executions; blowing up holy sites, taking control of major Syrian oil fields, and kidnapping innocent children, among other things. This is no longer an issue for the nations of Iraq and Syria, but rather, it has transformed into a global issue.
On September 10th, 2014 President Barak Obama spoke to the world about what needs to be done. He came up with a four-pieced strategy (explained below) and he is asking the world to help.

1. Air Strikes

Via Dan Lamothe and the Washington Post’s Checkpoint Blog

This is no longer a defensive game of protection of American people and humanitarians abroad. We will now actively be seeking out ISIL targets and going on the offense by taking an even more extreme and active stance. What is perhaps the important takeaway to note about this strategy is that Obama has vowed to keep our troops out of
combat on the ground. America’s attacks will be from the air, and the air alone.
Since August 8th, the United States has produced almost 100 air strikes in Iraq. Here is a handy dandy list of all of them, including what they hit.

2. Increasing support for forces on the ground (while avoiding combat)

Several hundred American service members have been in Iraq since June, figuring out how America could best support Iraqi Security forces. Now that an Iraqi government is in place, 475 more service members are headed there to continue to support the Iraqi troops through the means of intelligence, training, and equipment. Again, Obama has made it a very specific point to remind the American population that American troops will not be involved in any sort of ground conflict during this mission. Obama also remarked that assistance in Syria will be amplified, and asked for Congress to support this mission.

3. Working to prevent ISIL attacks

To give a few examples, this means getting a better understanding of the group, attempting to cut off any monetary support they are getting from across the globe, and spreading the word across the Middle East about the horrors of ISIS, especially in Egypt and Turkey.

4. Providing humanitarian assistance to the innocent civilians who have been affected

Despite the greatest efforts of America and the entire world, innocent people, such as James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and most recently, David Haines, are going to be terrorized, displaced, harmed, and killed by ISIL until ISIL is destroyed. Therefore, Obama is saying that his plan is to not only try to end ISIS, but to clean up the mess that they have made, making sure those that have been affected are given proper care, and also attempting to protect the religious minorities and various other people that are still currently being targeted by the terrorist group.

So what does it all mean?

This is all much easier said than done, and it seems pretty apparent that Obama realizes that. Throughout the entirety of his speech, he asked for assistance from other countries, admitting that America cannot tackle this issue on its own. If this strategy is going to work, it will require collaboration between countries from all around the globe. Because Obama refuses to allow American troops to take part in ground combat, a big part that other countries will play is filling that hole by stepping up and making that sacrifice, allowing their troops to fight on the ground. In fact,several countries have already pledged to help the United States put an end to ISIL.

Of course, ISIL has not been silent. After Obama gave his speech, they released a graphic video titled “A Message to the Allies of America” in which they brutally behead David Haines, a British Aid worker, and threaten for more to come for whichever countries agree to assist America in the fight against ISIL.

Is this the right strategy?

Should ISIL be stopped? Yes. Absolutely.
Is this the right way to stop it? I guess we’ll find out.
Attempting to be civil with ISIL is probably the wrong strategy.
Keeping US troops away from ground conflict is a nice idea, but there is a fear about if that can actually happen. And there is more fear that other countries will have to get involved in ground conflict, because America asked for their help, while America then sits far far away from the conflict and watches.
Nevertheless, it is encouraging to see so much support from countries across the globe that are vowing to help.
What will unfold with this situation will be interesting to say the very least.

Link to the actual buzzfeed article

The Misconception of Foreign Aid

By: Mitchell Goldman

Americans believe that about 30% of the U.S. federal budget is spent on foreign aid when in reality it is only 1% of the federal budget. Upon hearing this people often feel that the U.S. should give more money to more countries, yet foreign aid is what people wish to be cut from the budget the most. The top recipients of foreign aid are often in the Middle East and the majority of money goes towards “peace and security”. Many people disagree with aid being sent to Israel, yet they are our only ally in the Middle East. The question you have to ask is what happens if we were to stop sending aid to these countries?

ISIS: The Rise Of A Threat That Can’t Be Ignored

In 2003 the U.S. invaded Iraq because of alleged ties to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was governed by brutal Sunni dictator, Saddam Hussein, who suppressed the Shia majority. The U.S. took over and replaced the government with a Shiite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. The new prime minister monopolized power and suppressed Sunnis with violence and the incarceration of Sunni politicians.

The new government was regarded as corrupt, incapable and hated by a large part of its citizens. This led to a Sunni rebel uprising and the emergence of terrorist groups like al Qaeda.

Lesson: replacing one corrupt, oppressive government with another doesn’t solve any problems.

In 2011 the Syrian Uprising began with protests against President Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorial government. Al Qaeda got involved in the Syrian civil war, trying to overthrow the Shiite Assad regime.

The UN estimates 2 million people have fled Syria to neighboring countries.

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is an al Qaeda splinter group. ISIS’s goal is to create an Islamic State called a caliphate across Iraq and Syria. They gained a lot of support from Iraq’s Sunni population oppressed by the Shiite Iraqi government the U.S. had put into place.

ISIS is the richest terrorist organization in the world.

With the start of the Syrian civil war ISIS expanded their goals to include Syria as well. ISIS used extortion and robbery to get money at first but gaining control of hundreds of square miles, as well as Syria’s largest oil refinery, now allows them to generate resources and continue capturing more territory.

ISIS has been known to exhibit violent acts of brutality like civilian massacres, suicide bombings, beheadings, enslaving women, killing children, and executing prisoners. They have issued many threats against the western world. ISIS exhibited such brutal tactics in Syria and had such great ambitions that al Qaeda renounced all ties to ISIS in February of 2014.

In September 2014 a new prime minister of Iraq took office, Haider al-Abadi. Although he is a Shiite he has pledged to govern with inclusivity, incorporating new government officials from all Iraqi communities.

This new Iraqi government is going to be the key to ending the control of terrorist organizations like ISIS. It is through the suppression, violence and ultimate rebellion that these groups are created and supported.

August 2013: Obama authorizes targeted airstrikes to protect US personnel from ISIS

February 2014: al Qaeda renounces ties to ISIS

June 2014: ISIS takes control of Mosul, Iraqs second largest city

June 2014: UN estimates 1.2 million Iraqi refugees due to ISIS

June 2014: 300 additional US troops to Iraq, total nearly 800

July 2014: ISIS takes control of major Syrian oil field, al-Omar

August 19, 2014: video released of ISIS decapitating US journalist James Foley

September 2, 2014: video released of ISIS decapitating US journalist Steven Sotloff

“Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy.”

On September 10^th Obama announced his plan for a extensive campaign against ISIS. He expanded the U.S. airstrikes in Iraq to now target ISIS in Syria also. He shifted another $25 million to military aid for Iraqi forces. This could include supplies like ammunition, arms and vehicles as well as education and training.

Obama asked congress for authority to train Syrian rebels to fight ISIS.

He also announced that 475 U.S. military advisors will go to Iraq, bringing the total number to about 1,700. He said “It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil,” but the U.S. will lead an international coalition to fight ISIS.

This is a huge change from Obama’s previous policy; he has refused to arm Syrian rebels for the past 2 years and would not authorize any airstrikes in Syria.

Syria has said that it would consider any U.S. military action inside its borders to be a hostile act.

Although this is a counter-terrorism operation against ISIS, the U.S. will be inserting itself into the middle of yet another conflict. Obama is committing U.S. involvement in a conflict that has no end point and the success of it is going to rely on the international coalition which includes forces that in the past have proven unreliable: the Iraqi government, Syrian opposition and regional partners like Saudi Arabia.

Now that the U.S. is involved we won’t be able to leave without a resolution.

By: Laura Mills

Marx’s Theory & Media Studies

By: Danielle Villanueva

MARX THEORY & MEDIA STUDIES

As a business major, I wanted to take a closer look into automated systems and how it is affected by globalization. My research concluded Marx’s Theory on alienated workers still holds true to our society. We may have better labor regulations, but company’s may not have to worry too much about the employees benefits once they trade in human labor for automated services.

Automation has been conducive way for businesses to trade information and organize their data. We have all benefited from technology in one way or another, but there is a downside to this technology boom.

Click on the caption for an overview into what Marx’s theory is, Media studies as defined by business automation, and some statistics they may surprise you about the job market!

The Costs of Globalization from an Evolutionary Perspective

By: Destinee Salaiz

A First World and Third World Gap

By: Christine Nguyen

For the full infographic, click here.
5 REASONS WHY THE WEALTH GAP BETWEEN THE US AND VIETNAM REMAINS
The idea that Third World countries could reach the potential of economic wealth and development as First World countries do is failing because of the different social, political, and initial economic positions countries are in. The underlying reasons for the failure of the development project is reiterated with the Third World countries dependence on the trade market, specifically Vietnam in my infographic, the power of the global elite, the value of time and the ability to innovate quickly and efficiently, the misconception of power parity purchasing, and the different country regulations. It is difficult for countries like Vietnam to reach the standard of US living and create new production and advance in technology because the wealth in their country is at a different position, where business growth and economic growth is heavily influenced by social factors and even geographically. Vietnam’s depends on the trade between the US and other major countries in order to make profit and economic growth which reflect a difficulty of moving up in the world. In some aspects, it seems that the economy is egocentric, with having First World countries in the center controlling other countries that do not have the same power and privilege. SOC391