Reflection on the Past Week

Our trip to PEPFAR showed me that the US certainly is committed to distributing aid to those infected with the disease around the world, but we cannot continue to act alone on this matter.  As was said in the meeting, the US can't be the only contributor to this effort.  PEPFAR was said to contribute 67% of overall HIV funding.  The US should not be the creditor of two-thirds of a budget for what is truthfully a global issue.  The strain that is being placed on the faith-based organizations and local groups should be relieved by help of other industrialized nations.  Even Eastern European countries have been ignored as the spread of HIV has increased throughout the years.  The management goal of PEPFAR should be to get nations on board to commit funding for this epidemic.  However, the corrupt governments in Africa and elsewhere are an appropriate fear for those reluctant governments, as aid for HIV does not always get to where it needs to be.  It's hard to see how those governments move into a more open light without significant hand-holding by the Western world (which, due to reluctance on the part of other nations, means the US), committing ourselves to an entire continent as the public are weary of foreign involvement.

Also, in regards to the discussion on soccer and globalization, I feel that the book adequately portrayed, particularly in the closing chapter, the true reflection of America in a globalized world.  Mr. Foerr seemed to illustrate that Americans have a phobia for globalization, and to be honest, he's right.  Americans have always been weary of foreign influences, just look at the public's reaction to the immigration waves of the 19th and 20th century.  He also said that the US does not have many transgenerational traditions, except baseball.  Baseball, however, as shown by Foerr's statistics, has been a loser in globalization, as it has not attracted the same amount of press across the world as it has here in the US, and is increasingly becoming a white sport.  Foerr also seemed to argue that those who are more liberal would support globalization more, seeing that they like soccer more.  Conservatives, however, seem to him to be more opposed to globalization, as they feel that soccer becoming a popular sport in the US is a symbol of the US "submitting itself to the rest of the world."  It's an interesting notion, seeing that conventional wisdom tells us that those who are economically liberal and economically conservative would be more opposed to globalization, and would be more supportive of it, respectively.