A Future Chaotic

I’ve never been on Second Life. Online virtual reality simulators don’t interest me much, most likely because I find my own life to be thrilling/challenging/stressful/ glamorous enough. Well, ok, maybe not glamorous. The point is that I have enough going on without taking on an avatar, even if her (a while ago, I decided if I ever had an avatar, it would be female) life was more interesting than mine.

 

I must say, the katana is a nice touch. Hiro really knows how to roll. For some strange reason, I find the idea of a sword-wielding, motorcycle riding, multi-ethnic, new wave hacker intriguing. What have I done with my life?

 

The difference between our reality and this fiction, between the present and Stephenson’s future, is that Stephenson anticipates dramatic shifts in economic policy and a high propensity for radical changes within the social framework of America. My attention is first drawn to the privatization of the entities in Stephenson’s novel. With even the US government being a private corporation, the power of non-state actors becomes dominant to the point that people fail to recognize the President of the nation.

 

Stephenson is also quick to draw on the extremes. He envisions a society in which people are either illiterate and uneducated or wired and information-rich. The correlation has little to do with fiscal standing-neither Hiro nor YT would be considered wealthy. Elitism therefore is tied to the ease of access one has to the metaverse, as well as his or her level of technological savvy.

 

The bureaucracy of Stephenson’s government was a nightmare. Speaking as one who believes in the abilities of a strong, central authority, the idea of such conformity, rigidity, and senselessness made me yearn for the unconventional, say, a skateboarding kourier wrecking havoc, equipped with an attitude to boot.

 

Hiro’s society is based on extremes. It is one colossal hyperbole of the worst aspects of American society combined to form one giant mess of conglomerates. L Bob Rife, power hungry to the core, is very much the product of William Randolph Hearst combined with the reincarnation of L Ron Hubbard. Viewing a society in which such characters are among the most powerful individuals was terrifying, but also fascinating.

 

I highly doubt that Stephenson’s portrayal of society will be realized. America has already made a substantial amount of progress in upholding the central authority, and privatization is almost a foreign concept as banking giants are nationalized to keep the market afloat. In a way, I’m almost sad. I sort of wonder what it would be like to meet the greatest sword fighter in the world.

World Views

From an early age, American students at the primary level of education are taught to recite the pledge of allegiance. Granted, this generally only applies to public schools, and as the students mature they exercise greater freedom in their decision to recite or abstain from reciting the pledge, but regardless of their later actions they are trained to think of America as a country worthy of their service. The phrase “One nation, under God,” is one that I personally find somewhat appalling, but that is a digression from my intended point.

 

A man concerned only with the affairs of his own country is a man limited and ignorant of other cultures and societies. In a sense, that man is the same as the student who faithfully pledges his allegiance to the stars and strips, never pausing to consider what it is he is actually promising. He holds only a shallow understanding of the world around him, because his world is in reality but one nation.

 

The second man, one who is familiar with all nations, is a model that all who are concerned with world politics should strive to emulate. It is through this understanding that one gains appreciation and ultimately respect for the diverse ways of other human beings. My belief is that this is the type of man that best understands the world, and therefore is the man who is consciously in the best position to engage in diplomacy and interactions on an international level.

 

Of course, it is not that simple. Todorov gives us the curveball when he considers the “man to whom the whole world is as a foreign country.” I don’t get it. A man who lacks understanding of the entire world is an indication of ignorance, not of knowledge. If Todorov’s point was that one demonstrates wisdom by exhibiting humility, I regard that perspective as out of context with one’s worldview. Todorov was on to something in his first two assertions, but his third point failed to exhibit any rationale. 

Objection, Your Honor

I hate to sound like a sore loser.

 

Nevertheless, I will say that although I did enjoy the simulated trial of Cortes, I maintain my assertion of the invalidity of the trial, as I feel the jury was biased and therefore inherently subjective against my perspective: that of supporting Cortes. I of course do not believe that Cortes was a good man, and being forced to debate on his behalf was an enlightening exercise that gave me another viewpoint on a man who I considered and still consider to have been a ruthless conquistador. What may have changed, however, is the morality (or lack thereof) of his actions, and whether or not Cortes was simply the extension of his superiors.

 

Expeditions to the New World were unprecedented, and so there was nothing on which to base interactions between the Spanish and the indigenous peoples. Consequently, Columbus’s treatment of the natives eventually became harsh and unequal; he ceased to view them as human beings and instead viewed them as a utility. Cortes was no different, though his actions were drastically more violent.

 

Because Cortes operated without precedence and without the modern rules of engagement, there were no moral standards for him to consider. His dealings with the Aztecs were that of military strategy and diplomatic savvy. Though today it is considered genocide and a crime against humanity, such notions would have been foreign to Cortes, who was simply acting to secure specific interests under dire circumstances.

 

I must admit, I feel that my group argued more capably and more consistently with the point of debate. Ben did, however, own in his closing statement, which was far more eloquent, logical, and coherent than mine. As we determined in class, it was an effective exercise, though not without flaws. In the future, may I suggest a clear set of rules, a set point of debate, and an emphasis on the text. As it was, I felt the trial was rather broad.  

Columbus's Folly

Christopher Columbus was a product of the society in which he lived. In 1492, at the height of Spanish imperialism, his world views would have been influenced by a deeply pious character, a belief in European superiority in culture and religious views, and the desire for fame and fortune. In these respects, his knowledge was obscured by the selfish motives of himself and his society in that he was incapable of objectively viewing his world-changing discoveries.

 

The religious orientation of European culture also placed greater emphasis on doctrinal and spiritual considerations of the world. Consequently, science and rationality did not carry the same weight, and were not as significant a factor in forming knowledge. As knowledge was obscured partially by preconceived notions founded on traditional religious beliefs and practices, knowledge during Columbus’s time did not have the same validity as it does in the modern context.

 

Our system of knowledge today depends on standardized methods designed to fulfill a scientific approach to human understanding. Assertions are analyzed, tested, and reformulated according to a uniform system of gathering empirical evidence. A claim must be proven, often with statistical data demonstrating the credibility and accuracy of the claim. Although Columbus may have believed that he knew much about the world, his knowledge was nothing more than doctrine-based, preconceived notions that he sought to affirm. 

Floods, Diseases, Coke Bottles, etc

As much as I would rather write about the Prop 8 protest, the genius of Dick Cavett, or how beautiful life would be if Amanda’s comic strip came true, I’d like to bring things back to Friday’s exercise. What we set up was designed as an experiment in prioritization. We intended to give each group a limited supply of resources, forcing them to decide which services or areas were more important to uphold. By doing so, they would essentially be placing a comparative value on each of the given areas.

 

Prioritization is not popular, and I suppose it’s also not politically correct. But nevertheless, prioritization is an integral aspect of governmental policy, whether we choose to admit it or not. With the advent of the Obama presidency only two months away, I’m guessing we will be seeing major shifts in our priorities. How this will play out remains to be seen.

 

Back to the exercise. The second component of our exercise involved us assigning some sort of game changer to each group, causing them to re-evaluate their priorities. In some cases it only had a minor effect (we sent a famine to Rwenzururu, which had already prioritized malnutrition as their concern numero uno.

 

In other cases, however, these events (floods, diseases, and yes, coke bottles) disrupted the policy of the group, and they had to re-order their priorities to accommodate the change.

 

Many third world nations reflect this lack of resources. Combined with political or humanitarian crisis, it is no surprise that governments of such nations as Somalia have lost any power to maintain stability.  Being in an already constrained position to deal with existing problems such as corruption, mismanagement, crime, or war, the additional issue of poverty is enough to overwhelm the struggling governments. 

Giving the mouse a cookie-maker

A wise Chinese proverb states: “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.” In presenting the poorest members of society with the product, their need for the necessity is fulfilled. In presenting the poorest members of society with the means to achieving that product, those individuals will have a way to bring themselves out of poverty and into a better existence as a contributing member of society.

 

Non-profit NGOs such as Bread For the City are both useful and necessary, but they alone will not lift those less fortunate out of poverty. What is needed, then, is a system in which the opportunities presented to the youth of the wealthy are the same as the opportunities presented to the youth of the impoverished. It is not enough to simply donate basic necessities; we must focus on improving our economic system so that those from the lowest levels of society are given a means of escaping their environment.

 

It is much more important for the federal government to focus on both structural and political aspects of this matter. Aside from the fact that the government is the only institution with the capacity to induce a reformatting of the bureaucracy, the government already has the means of greatly reducing poverty on a global level. Catherine mentioned Professor Jeffrey D. Sachs in class yesterday. Sachs, in addition to founding the Earth Institute at Columbia University, is the director of the UN Millennium Project, which has publicized its goal to decrease global poverty by 50% by 2015.

 

I remember Adam had an excellent point in class. His assertion that infrastructure is essential to wealth production is a point that Sachs makes in dealing with poverty. Sachs wrote about boosting agriculture, and improving basic health, but he also championed investment in education and the provision of electricity, clean water, and sanitation to severely impoverished areas.

 

Such initiatives must be compelled by shifts in US foreign and domestic policy. By relying on non-profit NGOs during the transition phase, new policies can be instituted to make poverty reduction initiatives more accessible. From there, non-profits will see the number of clients drop, as there will be federally sponsored programs that will enable individuals to find the means of success. By addressing the broader structural issues, the emphasis on eliminating poverty on a micro level would be transferred to the federal government. As stated the Treasurer of Bread For the City: “I would love to work myself out of a job.”

Philanthropy and Bureaucracy

Our class trip to Bread For the City was a very worthwhile endeavor. What most impressed me was the professionalism of the staff. Although a non profit program such as BFC is not the most glamorous choice of occupation, I got the impression that these people were there because they wanted to be. It is certainly refreshing to see such a successful program in operation with such a direct effect. 

Programs like BFC are ones that the government should be funding more heavily. Although this program alone cannot end poverty, it nevertheless is a step in the right direction. It is through the idealism of hardworking activists and the compassion of volunteers that impoverished members of society may find the chance for a better life. 

The governmental procedure of requesting grants, as stated by one of the staff members, is overly bureaucratic. Our challenge, therefore, is to find a way to make this process more efficient. By doing so, such organizations will be able to secure funds faster, enabling them to more fully attend to the needs of their clients. Until greater emphasis is placed on assisting these philanthropic entities, inefficiencies within the federal system will continue to delay appropriations to fund these organizations. 

Liberal women, Barack Obama, and Starbucks Coffee (Adventures in CANVASSING)

My first day of canvassing was spent in Lorton, Virginia. Lorton is a small, isolated suburb in the northwest part of the state, and liberal-minded voters were quite common. I canvassed with Planned Parenthood, a non-profit organization dedicated towards electing a pro-choice president. Consequently I found myself in the company of politically involved liberal women, all in their early to mid twenties. Had I a glass of cranberry juice with a lime, I could not have been happier.

 

Our assignment was not intended towards converting independents or conservatives. Rather, our job was to focus on the democratic base, presenting them with the means of voting on the following day. We knocked on doors, distributed campaign literature, and informed the residents on the location of their polling place. We also checked to see if any residents needed transportation to their polling locations.

 

By the middle of the day I had it down to a rhythm: Excuse me, do you know the hours when we can vote? Residents of Lorton can vote between 6 am to 7 pm, one hour before the polls close in DC. Where is my polling place? South County Secondary School, at 8501 Silverbrook Road. How do I get there? Well, coming from the south you head north on 5^th Pl. 5^th Pl turns into Windsmere Hill Drive. From there, you turn right and head east on Lorton Road until you get to Silverbrook Road. Turn left on Silverbrook, and you will come to it after about a mile.

 

It seemed to me that people were either completely clueless or prepared when we visited them. One couple was mistaken on the location of their polls. Another was planning on voting after dinner, well after the polls would close. But others had already coordinated elaborate plans to rendezvous with relatives and reach their location by 5 am, an hour before the polls were even open.  

 

Most of the people we visited were polite and receptive. I was even invited into a woman’s apartment, leaving only after she showed off her Obama T-shirt and her husband’s Obama hat. Throughout the course of the day, few people were less than polite; none were hostile. The only minor incident that I experienced was an error in the information given to me by Planned Parenthood: one of the houses I visited belonged to supporters of McCain.

 

After four hours of canvassing we returned to the home base, a home of one of the Planned Parenthood organizers. Hungry and exhausted, my main concern was what we would do for dinner. We ended up going out, courtesy of Planned Parenthood. Then it was time for the rally.

 

Senator Obama was scheduled for a final rally at the Prince William Fairgrounds in Manassas. The doors opened at 5, but the rally was not scheduled to start until 9. As a show of gratitude, Planned Parenthood had hooked us up with VIP status, giving us access to the press box. Unfortunately, due to an error at the will call check in, we were unable to access the box. We did, however, circumvent the wait in line, which would have taken a substantial amount of time.

 

Inside the rally grounds we continued to distribute our literature. We were not the only campaign: groups representing environmental conservation interests and GOTV were also there. I was given a clipboard and told to get as many people to sign on with Planned Parenthood’s campaign as possible. I ended with 21 people signing on, eight less than my seasoned counterpart, Travis.

 

When Senator Obama walked onstage, everyone went insane. Initially expecting forty thousand people, the Obama campaign was surprised by seeing the number of attendees rise to double their initial projection. C-Span later stated that there were one hundred thousand people in attendance that night. The majority of those people waited over five hours to hear Obama speak.

 

This was the first time in my life that I have seen a prominent political figure in person. On TV, Obama is a composed, confident, and professional individual. In person, he is all of those, but also charismatic. His tone yesterday was commanding, powerful, inspiring. Seeing him in person reminded me of why America needs a president of his caliber. Obama spoke of his campaign, of what he had seen along the ride, and how his experience has humbled him.

 

Jordan, one of the organizers, volunteered to take Travis and me back to AU. We got to her car at 11:40 pm. I was very tired at that point, so I took a one hour nap. When I woke up we had not moved. The parking lot was gridlocked, as there were only two exits to the main roads to accommodate 100,000 people. It would be another forty minutes before we finally reached the exit. Prince William Fairgrounds, though capable of supporting a large capacity, was severely limited in accessibility, having only two roads leading out.

 

I arrived back on campus at 2:12 am. Travis intended to volunteer at the polls on Election Day, and I had already told him that I wanted to go back out. Before I went back into Leonard, he jokingly said that he wanted to get an early start to volunteering.

 

Four hours later, I realized that he hadn’t been joking. After receiving a text at 6 am, I performed an ultra fast mobilization that would have shamed one of Washington’s minutemen. We headed out to Ballston on the orange line. Right off the metro we were greeted by enthusiastic Obama supporters. They pointed us in the direction of the campaign office, only two blocks away. The office directed us to a home base a mile away, where we were to obtain literature and addresses for distribution.

 

On our arrival, Travis and I received another teammate named Pat. Pat was a local boy, so he was an expert in finding our locations. It was my second time canvassing in less than twenty-four hours, but it was already much easier. The only problem that I encountered occurred when my location was in an apartment. The desk receptionist was not permitted to allow me to enter unless one of the residents was expecting us. I gave him the literature, just in case. Before I left he told me: “Don’t worry, we’re all Obama supporters.”

 

The day continued to rock. Travis, Pat, and I wandered into a Starbucks for the free coffee, but then discovered that none of us particularly liked coffee. Thankfully, with some cinnamon, milk, and an outrageously high quantity of sugar it was bearable.

 

In the early afternoon I left my cohorts and returned to campus. Reflecting on the last twenty-four hours, my only regret was that I had not acted sooner. 

Real vs. Perceived Security

There were many interesting points raised during our session last Friday, but what was most interesting to me was our examination of airport security and the broader ramifications of such a mentality.

 

Does it matter more how effective airport security is, or is our concern more with feeling secure than actually being secure? I personally believe that the current airport security process is an effective means of ensuring the safety of all passengers; however, part of that feeling is due to air marshals aboard all flights. If it were not for the screening process, I would likely feel less safe, but I doubt that the lack of this process would prevent me from traveling. If anything, it would make things much easier by reducing the anxiety of missing a flight or having to repack items from a carry on to a checked suitcase.

 

It seems that perceived security matters more than actually security. The axiom: “Ignorance is bliss” is very appropriate, as many Americans would be distressed if they knew how ineffective our security is. The U.S./Canada border, our shipping ports, and potentially dangerous information posted on the internet are all valid security threats that cannot be effectively managed. Fortunately for many US citizens, this fact is not often brought up, and anxiety over terrorist attacks has conveniently been channeled into the War in Iraq.

 

My personal belief agrees with Mueller’s article. The reality of a terrorist attack is grossly exaggerated. The reality is that a terrorist attack on the US would be easier than the unsuspecting American would naturally assume, and, additionally, that terrorists are less likely to attack the US than is generally thought. This may not be reassuring, but the tendency of the American media to exaggerate a threat is less due to its seriousness and more due to the media’s need to generate interest and profit.

 

 

 

What you don't know could kill you...

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

So states the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a decree that has become the subject of intensifying controversy in a violence prone society.  The tragic misinterpretation of this document has enabled citizens to justify their purchasing of firearms at the expense of the rest of society. Citing self-defense or security as a way of legitimizing gun ownership, this widespread misconception has lead to horrific deaths and dark spectacles in American history. Columbine, Virginia Tech, and NIU all serve as examples of what gun ownership does to society. Until the Second Amendment is seriously reexamined, such unfortunate incidents will continue to plague the citizenry of the US.

 

In looking at the Second Amendment, it becomes evident that the right of the people to own firearms is conditional on their participation in a militia. The US military and its branches have replaced such an entity, which is no longer a part of America’s system of governance. The Second Amendment is therefore an invalid claim to justify the ownership of any firearm.

 

As I stated before in class, gun violence is not limited to impoverished areas; it can occur anywhere. That does not imply that people should have access to guns to protect themselves, as that would only promote escalation of arms. Firearms do not provide safety; rather they endanger the community by increasing the propensity for violence. Additionally, the presence of a firearm endangers its owner. According to the Brady Campaign, a non-profit and non-partisan center that advocates the prevention of gun violence, the likelihood of homicide and suicide increases by three times and five times respectively. With around 34.5% of all US households containing a firearm, the danger to society is a reality to a frighteningly high portion of America.

 

Websites such as East Coast Firearms fulfill a need for certain members of society who seek to obtain such weapons, but it does so at the expense of the American people. East Coast Firearms, to my dismay, was not content to sell handguns; the arsenal in their inventory could supply militant groups in the Middle East or Africa. I cannot understand any reason for which such weapons could be justified in the US.

 

Andrew stated that it would be impossible to eliminate the ownership and use of such weapons in the US, as people will always feel a need to defend themselves. Regardless of whether he is right or wrong, there are drastic reforms that must be initiated. A very simple solution would be to raise the cost of ammunition to exorbitantly high prices, as well as extending the waiting period between when firearms are requested and delivered. More extensive background checks could also mitigate the current situation.

 

I fundamentally believe that firearms present an undeniable danger to society. As cynical as this may sound, I will only have to wait for another Coumbine-style event to be proven right.

All About the Benjamins

Is the current global financial crisis a threat to our security?

 

The failure of America’s large financial institutions has caused disturbance in foreign markets as well. A recession in the US economy will limit American ability to respond quickly and effectively to other threats, whether economic, political, or social. Looking at this issue on a global level, the practice of interdependence becomes important. The US economy is interconnected to the markets of much of Europe and the other developed nations of the world. Nonpolarity has increased the size and activity of the global economy, as non state actors have begun to consume more resources or share in their production. Such interdependence leaves states vulnerable in the event that a close trading partner collapses, making a situation such as the current crisis a problem with international repercussions.

 

Economic instability throughout much of the developed world would be a grave threat to security. In addition to decreasing the economic stability in all involved nations, economic recession would severely limit the ability of the US and its allies to look after their interests. Markets that were not as close to that of the US would be in a much stronger position, as their currency would increase in value relative to the dollar. Such a state would not be an ally of the US, as the US is generally allied with states with similar economic interests. Countries such as Iran or North Korea would be less affected by the US economy in recession, as their separation from the US market would eliminate any of the ripple effect of economic collapse. As stated Bovice:

 

Random Congolese farmer #3,407 won't be worried about his heavily divested stock portfolio. Rather, his concern will be whether or not he can eat regularly. As a result, these conflict zones are not hurting from the global crisis.

 

 

With both the US’s capabilities becoming smaller and non allies becoming stronger, the global financial crisis is certainly a threat to security of both domestic and international markets. Additionally, the loss of faith in US currency could make the rejuvenation of the economy more difficult. The US, being an economy build on service rather than manufacturing, would not be able to revive its economy by waging another war, as was the solution to the Great Depression. The US presence in Afghanistan and Iraq prove the extent to which American forces have been constrained. Two costly wars have contributed substantially to this crisis. To open a third would be economically suicidal.

 

Lastly, capitalism in America, being all about the benjamins, would not exude an inspiring image if labeled a failure. In such a scenario, it would appear that the free market would not be the best system of economics, thus giving support to economic theories such as communism or socialism, terms that typically are associated with US enemies.

 

I disagree with my colleague Bubb Rubb when he argues against the alleged security risks posed by such a scenario. He later points out that such a crisis would in fact lead to multinational instability, which could potentially compel a Darwinist free for all, possibly at the mercy of extreme fanatic organizations.

 

The threats posed by the current crisis are inclusive of ability and competition. The US has enjoyed being the superpower for two decades-it may be this crisis that ends this shortsighted honeymoon. Though not a risk to US interests in the same way that is a terrorist organization with a dirty bomb in a highly urbanized geographical area, economic instability can ruin a nation, leaving it for the most aggressive suitor to take the government’s place.

 

REPRESENT! A Minority Report

Any country as diverse as the US will inevitably contain minority groups that are marginalized. Such groups may be divided along economic, ethnic, ideological or moral lines, all of which have an ability to provoke controversy and hostility. The Bill of Rights gives US citizens the right to free speech, implying a freedom of expression and practice. Though there is a limit on the extent of this freedom, the limit exists to ensure the well being of the citizenry. Free speech is therefore a freedom that can be fully enjoyed and exercised as long as it does not threaten the safety of other individuals.

In the landmark ruling of Schenck v. United States, it was determined that free speech could be abridged if it presented a “clear and present danger” to the government or private individuals. The classic example of shouting fire in a crowded theater exhibits the seriousness of abusing this right. Such an inappropriate act would endanger other occupants of the theater, as the rush to exit would cause injuries and possible fatalities.

The mission of the government is to serve the people and to provide for the common welfare. This cannot always be possible when a community of individuals participates in a belief that contradicts conventional standards of society.  To cite an example in the modern context, I will consider the YFZ ranch founded by Warren Jeffs, which caused controversy over perceived sexual abuse of young girls by older males.

The Yearning For Zion ranch was a community that operated in complete isolation from the rest of the United States. Members practiced societal customs that would seem both unacceptable and disturbing through the lens of mainstream America. Jeffs was guilty of arranging a marriage between a fourteen year old girl and her nineteen year old cousin.

 A phone call from a female minor prompted a federal raid on the YFZ compound, which resulted in the removal of the girls on the grounds that underage marriage was the cause of abuse. Critics argued that the raid infringed on the beliefs of the community, and that the government had acted unjustly. Eventually the minors were returned to the ranch.

The government acted to protect these girls from a perceived threat. That in actuality the claim was exaggerated is relevant, but my focus is on the reason why the government acted, not on whether it was morally right or wrong. Child abuse is a practice that is universally condemned. Agencies of the federal government have been created to prevent child abuse from continuing. The YFZ ranch, perceived as a community that took part in such a practice, was targeted by the government because it contradicted societal norms and threatened the well being of individuals. On the opposing perspective, the practices of the YFZ community seemed perfectly acceptable to its members. Their beliefs were legitimized by their religious views, but to mainstream society it was appalling. It is no surprise that such a community would feel marginalized.

The abridgement of any right can cause an individual or group to feel marginalized. But such a constraint is necessary to protect the rest of society. In the US, people are free to believe what they will, but only so long as it does not harm others. The government must act in the interest of as many individuals and groups as it can, but it is virtually impossible to serve the entirety of the political and moral organizations in America. The only option is to do the best they can, representing the majority views and marginalizing minorities that conflict with societal customs.

 

From Columnist to Hero: TK is the man

As stated before, I thought that our simulation was a success. Debating the point was more effective than reading about it, as we had to anticipate counter-arguments and be prepared to respond. I was not that enlightened on the automotive industry before this simulation, so I found it very useful as well.

Looking over Seamus's post gave me some inspiration to highlight another bit of information not covered in class. I am on page 78 of Friedman's From Beirut to Jerusalem,  a nonfiction book depicting Friedman's experiences as a journalist in the late 1980's in Lebanon. In the first 78 pages I've learned more about the Middle East than I did in any of my high school courses. Friedman's account of what happened during those turbulent years is at times informative, hilarious, depressing, and surreal. 

The point that struck me was the way journalists operate in such dangerous and uncertain scenarios. He wrote about how it was easy to be sane in the midst of chaos-insanity would come once the country became more stable. He also highlighted instances where journalists were kidnapped or killed after guerilla groups found an article to be displeasing. 

Friedman wrote that the most important ability for a journalist was to be familiar enough with the actors to talk with them, but disinterested enough not to sympathize with them. There were certainly many willing to give their opinion, but anyone truly involved in the militias would not be one to volunteer information. If an individual was giving up information, it wasn't worth having. Wrote Friedman: "It's the people who won't talk to me whom I really want to meet."

Its unfortunate that many people in America do not read the news; some of the most inspiring stories are found in everyday life. Journalists like Thomas Friedman willingly face inconceivable risks just to deliver the news as best they can. It is beyond amazing that they do their jobs so well. It is a shame that their work still remains largely ignored. 

I now have a new appreciation for journalism and the media as a whole. An individual who I once thought of as simply a columnist is now a hero. 493 more pages to go.

Team America Strikes Again!

After our in class simulation it is difficult to establish the victor of our debate. Since I feel that the groups should be judged for the work they put into the simulation, and not the final outcome, it seems that it would be more fair to select a group over a team, with a team being the cooperative of groups arguing for a common outcome. 

The American Auto Manufacturers probably performed best during the simulation. My reason for highlighting their effort, however, is not entirely due to their skillful rhetoric but more so the inability of other groups to support their respective positions as strongly. Certain groups seemed to contradict their own stances after attempting a counter-argument, while others adequately defined their position but then produced no compelling reasons for it. 

The domestic manufacturers favored the elimination of domestic content regulation, arguing that the removal of this non tariff barrier would lead to lower production costs for their companies, as they could outsource to countries where labor was less expensive. The decrease in labor costs would have a direct relationship to the cost of the vehicle for the consumer. I credit the group for acknowledging that such regulation is actually somewhat of a disadvantage to domestic auto manufacturers, as it prevents them from attaining lower production costs. 

Domestic content regulations would also prevent the manufacturer from building plants abroad, as they could not legally be used to their full potential. The group cited this as a constraint on free trade, re-enforcing the idea that such measures would be counterproductive to the American automotive industry. 

The economic savvy of this group was not exhibited in the arguments of other groups, all of whom failed to recognize such regulations as a two way impact. The United Auto Workers, in one case, even appeared to advocate protectionism, alleging that the elimination of these regulations would result in an increase in American job losses. 

The UAW response is critical to the debate, as they too were among the contenders in the simulation. But their arguments exposed several incorrect beliefs that largely invalidated their argument. The first of these was protectionism. Citing the current economic crisis, their immediate reaction was to cut off foreign imports and tighten regulations on trade, including the enactment of stronger trade barriers. Such a tactic is irrational in that the world is now in an interdependent economy, so such isolationism is no longer a feasible practice. Additionally, the manufacturing of foreign autos by foreign companies in the U.S. is responsible for approximately 700,000 jobs, a yield that disproves the notion that ending content regulation will end American jobs. 

Despite these inaccuracies, the UAW presented a decent argument. But because their position contained flaws that the American Auto Manufacturer’s position did not, victory must go to the domestic manufacturers. 

With regard to the other groups, I felt that the Sierra Club focused too much on an aspect of their policy that was of a lesser significance. Their dismissal of addressing the Kyoto Pact was an absence that could not be ignored. The consumers played the part, but though they defended their position they did not advance beyond it, giving no reason to why they would have the best argument. As for my group, the foreign auto manufacturers, it doesn’t matter how well they did; they’re foreign. Well done American Auto Manufacturers! Our rice hats/turbans/yamakas off to you!

Why We Need Miss Bad Media Karma

It is unfortunate that I did not retain more of what was said last Friday. The information that we received on fair use will undoubtedly be of great assistance in the future. But my being rather exhausted prevented me from absorbing much more than Brittney Spears and her impressive and hateful status as an icon of the American celebrity identity. 

I never thought I would write a serious blog on Brittney Spears. But to say that I dismiss her as another manufactured pop princess is untrue; Brittney is a symbol of individualism, that rebel spirit, and of course, sex. 

Personally, I admire Ms. (is it Mrs now?) Spears. Regardless of whether one finds her talented, it is undeniable that she has captivated the music scene longer than any of her peers. Conceded, there are bands that have existed longer than she has been alive, but they are of a different genre, a genre that intrinsically lasts longer than do the fifteen-minute-of-fame pop stars. 

Let me say that Brittney is a goddess. She has created a dynasty for herself. Certainly, she does not always seem to think in a way that by any means exhibits rational thought, but her ability to resurrect herself, and even do so in a way that further enhances her image, is totally amazing. The lyrics of her song turn her downfall into a rise that flaunts her social agility; she has climbed the ladder and fallen all the way back down, only to fly even faster back up.

There is no political equivalent to Brittney. Obama may seem like a rockstar, but when one’s peers consist largely of elderly white males, such a feat is not so difficult to achieve. Plus, in politics, one fall from grace takes years of compensation. There is no resurrection for the politician. A Brittney-esque rise is not possible without the help of someone else, or someone else’s campaign. And though Sarah Palin may be perceived by some to be another glamorous figure, the faster they rise, the harder they fall. 

Politicians are not celebrities. They can be glamorous, and they can be sexy. I think  Senator Obama is quite sexy myself. More importantly, they are famous and powerful. But although two characteristics might be shared by the Hollywood elite, they are still two distinctly different types of people. We need look no further than their motives to perceive the difference. 

John McCain was wrong when he accused Obama of being a celebrity. Barack and Paris have nothing in common. The tactics that McCain used failed because he failed to differentiate between the public servant and the movie star, a gulf that can seem much more broad, depending on the terminology applied. Obama may be famous, good looking, and powerful, but he is clearly not driven by money, glamour, or prestige. His career as a community organizer will attest to that. 

Bottom line, politicians and celebrities are significantly dissimilar. The sense of service to humanity is not obligatory for the stars, though I am happy to see that many of them participate anyway. If celebrities and politicians were the same, then President Bush would be a wrestling champion, the likes of President Macho Camacho in the movie Idiocracy. While such a world would be mildly entertaining, it would also be doomed. I guess its a good thing that celebrities exist after all. 

Philosophy of the Global Political Persuasion

My response to this question will be less quantitative and more philosophical. This being a discussion on the accuracy of theoretical reasoning, my answer may seem ironic; it is, however, the only manner in which I feel I can address this question.

Dating back to the time of Socrates, the idea of there being any objective knowledge was the subject of intense debate. A group of teachers, called the Sophists, opposed any such notion, claiming that knowledge differed from person to person, as every individual was prejudiced by his or her own subjectivity. The Sophists prided themselves in their gift of rhetoric, which could possibly explain their motive for embracing subjectivity (if they could make an effective argument for either side, they could convince anyone to see their perspective, changing others’ conception of reality). 

Along came Socrates, who rejected their assertions. Socrates agreed with the Sophists to the extent that an individual did not have an objective view of the universe, but he believed that there did exist some form of knowledge to which all beings could know and understand. For example, in a purely mathematical sense, 2+2=4. This equation holds true for everyone (in a mathematical context), and it cannot be argued that 2+2 is not equal to 4. To give another example, Socrates turned to geometry. A four sided figure with equilateral sides and angles is, by definition, a square. That this shape is a square is known to everyone; no one, including the Sophists, could argue that it is not a square. 

Socrates referred to these examples  as “forms.” I am not able to completely explain that which constitutes a form, but in a modern context it could be likened to “essence,” “concept,” or “idea.” A form, therefore, is that which presents a quality or essence to an object, and by such participation by the object, the form is deficiently resembled. 

Socrates’ beliefs have formed (no pun intended) a basis by which human knowledge is possible. He did so through the use of dialectical reasoning, as was later recorded and conveyed through his most famous student, Plato (and so on through his most famous student, Aristotle). 

This lesson in philosophy has a purpose; though I have not mentioned Bretton Woods, I feel that the answer to the question has been reached. The same question presented to our class this week was a question that captivated the minds of the ancient Greek philosophers. Through their own logic, they produced the position that certain knowledge can be realized, regardless of one’s subjectivity. And if certain knowledge can be realized, there must inherently exist that which is wrong. If a belief or claim can be held to be correct, there must be claims that can be held to be incorrect. 

Now, given empirical data, my man Aristotle has something to say. Aristotle, taught by Plato who in turn was taught by Socrates, held similar belief to his predecessors. He departed their line of reasoning, however, when it came to the natural world. Plato saw the natural world (and pretty much everything physical) as invalid, as sensory observations were subject to the perception of the body, which was limited. Aristotle, conversely, saw the natural world as a source on which all human knowledge was possible.  The natural world, though not the basis of knowledge itself, was a potential source of knowledge. This included human interaction. Though humans could change, human interaction, as well as changes in human behavior, follow a pattern that can be measured. Generalizations can be made, but they hold true only to a certain extent; it is not wholly accurate. 

From Aristotle’s systematic categorical approach, it is evident that any empirical practice will always have a marginal error. The same is true in any science experiment, all of which not only acknowledge but anticipate probable errors in their evaluations. Just by looking at the technology in  the daily life of an American, it is clear that science has not been discarded; it is essential to societal progress and the progress of humanity. Products that are used and, more importantly, are depended on daily. These products (i.e. cars, planes, kitchen appliances) all have malfunctioned or failed at some point. But since that occurs so rarely, it is beneficial to use them until they break, and then to simply replace them. 

With statistically proven opinions it is the same. They may not always hold true for every individual, but that they encompass such a vast majority of the collective subject validates their being “right.” While there certainly exists a degree of subjectivity (and probably always will) to any argument, a perspective can be said to be “right” if it represents the majority view to the extent that either the opposition amounts to so little in comparison that it is insignificant, or if an aspect of the dissident has been rendered invalid by established regulations of the exercise in practice. 

"None of us is an Island": Mixed reactions to the economic crisis of our time

So I’m at the gym, pumping some iron, in hopes that I will ultimately “get big.” I’m trying to show off to the pretty girl behind me, and then I pull a muscle. Workout ends prematurely; I go home.

I walk into the room and pull up my home page (The New York Times), and what is the first thing I see? 

BAILOUT FAILS; STOCKS PLUNGE

Dow Loses 777 Points After Vote

House Rejects Package, 228-205

So I’m all like, wtf? I may be naive, but I though for sure that the bailout would pass. Why? I don’t know, but it may have had something to do with how screwed we would be if it didn’t. 

Now we find ourselves in a bit of a conundrum. Many people seemed to think that the bailout was essential to the survival of our economy, myself included. But in the spirit of stoicism and all things American, lets get down to business and show the economy who’s boss, mmkay? Mmkay.

Firstly, I’d like to thank the 95 democratic representatives who opposed the bill. Way to follow party lines, people. On the plus side, people who have lost everything don’t need to worry about budgeting anymore. 

Probably one of the most disappointing parts to this scenario is that I thought it would be one vote above the partisanship and bureaucracy that normally take place. Sadly I was wrong. Until the political mentality or public opinion of our government is fundamentally altered, this vote will not bring us any closer to restoration than we are right now.

All is not lost. Democratic majority leader Steny Hoyer and Republican minority leader John Boehner saw eye to eye on this issue, an event that rarely, if ever, occurs. Commenting on the American economy, Hoyer stated that “none of us is an island.”

Lastly, lets not forget that there are strong willed, talented people running our government. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson may or may not be the white knight that saves the American economy, but people do not have to complicate his job by attacking him before he even gets started. This guy was the head of Goldman Sachs before becoming Treasury Secretary. He is an impressive and highly capable individual, one who is ideal for the job. 

It is no secret that I am one crazed, passionate, blazing idealist. I have profound faith in my government. Based on the shocking outcome of this vote, I assume that many people will lose what little faith in the government that they have. I, however, still believe in the ability of the U.S. government, but at this point I may not have a reason to do so. 

Luke's self-assessment: meh

It is not terribly difficult to lead a discussion. Given a topic and an inquisitive set of minds, it could be done without any trouble. But when one does not have prior notification that he is conducting the session, it becomes a bit more pressing. So when I received the venerated lightsabre o’ power, I was caught completely off guard. What should I say? The problem with any course of this level is that I sometimes feel that I have nothing particularly profound to contribute.  Alas, what an unhappy conundrum.

Thankfully, the subject at hand was purely theoretical. There being no right and wrong, anyone’s well reasoned opinion would be as valid as the rest. When I started the discussion, I planned to follow my own blog, as I had only read three or four others. I used what I had written as the order for our discussion; our first point to address would be the nature of the aliens, either friendly or hostile, the second would be whether they would unify humanity or polarize us. 

But our class session, like much of human life, did not proceed exactly to plan. As PTJ pointed out, the first half of class was spent on each of our respective blogs. That, of course, indicates a failure on my part to establish a concrete point. It also highlights an element of class that is missing (at least with me), that it is advantageous to read as many blogs as possible. Doing so will not only streamline discussions into actual discussions but also give each of us an insight into our peers’ perspectives. I currently do not read very many posts, but after Friday’s session I see that it is in my interest to read as many as I can. 

Also, our visit to the state department was fascinating. This is an area that many students find appealing, myself among them. The United States government has been at the receiving end of much criticism, especially since it is an election year, but I personally find it reassuring to know that many governmental officials quietly go about their work, immune to the partisanship and cynicism that is so pervasive in other parts of the citizenry. They may not have a section for aliens yet, but by speaking with a few of them, I experienced a human side of government, something that I would never get to do back home in the political machine of Chicago. To be perfectly honest, having people like that in government is very comforting indeed. 

"Do you speak English?"

The reaction of the United States government, in such an unprecedented and unexpected event, would likely vary based on the nature of the visit. If our extraterrestrials were hostile, my guess is that we would not like that so much, and we would probably have to kick their asses (or whatever they have that can be kicked). However, assuming that the alien technology is better than ours, which would be likely since they have arrived on Earth and not vice versa, it would likely be a scenario more like Independence Day, in which mankind, initially, gets totally rocked.

In viewing this hypothetical situation through a constructivist lens, we must assume that our reaction will be partially formulated by what we believe we would do in such a circumstance. Fortunately, anticipation of such an event has already presented itself through the realm of science fiction. Our response will accordingly either be one of mutual acceptance and even friendship (E.T.), or one of annihilation (Ender’s Game). 

Assuming that our alien visitors are friendly, the government may choose to take them into custody, as they would not want to disrupt the daily proceedings until a logical course of action was produced. The plan for this would hopefully be one of incorporating mankind with extraterrestrials in order to achieve peaceful coexistence. It is highly unlikely that the government would allow aliens to chill in DC, as the government would desire to keep the United States and the world relatively stable. Any business relating to the aliens would be confidential; think Area 51 style.

The fewer the number of people who initially know about it, the better. Though people have a right to know the actions of their government, the arrival of extraterrestrial beings could have catastrophic effects on how people interact. Reactions could range from evangelicals claiming the apocalypse to weirdo Star Wars fans busting out double bladed lightsabres and brandishing them in a world politics cla-...uh, I mean COOL Star Wars fans doing something AWESOME! Because they are the epitome of mankind! GEORGE LUCAS IS GOD.

Bottom line, the arrival of aliens would either be good or bad. Mankind would either get a chance to interact with other intelligent beings or have the opportunity to see what a concussion particle laser death beam looks like before it kills them. But what my man Seamus McGregor wrote is also valid: even if they were inherently peaceful, they may not even be welcome here. Xenophobia has by no means ceased to exist. And maybe America, the melting pot of the world, would be exactly the melting pot of the world. Hey, if they don’t speak English, they should just get out.

Yeah, well...well YEAH!

The most frustrating part of dissecting world politics are the multiple definitions that a term can entail. I am referring, of course, to the two meanings of “liberal,” meanings that are entirely unrelated to each other. 

Acting in one’s self interest is a far cry from acting in an altruistic manner-yet I somehow find myself confusing the two. Why? Because of the complexity of the English language. Because of my own subjective reasoning. Because of my firm ideological orientation. Being politically liberal, in the American sense, has absolutely nothing to do with acting in self-interest; it actually implies the opposite. Yet through the lens of world politics, the term takes on a very different meaning that would align more (politically) with a libertarian perspective than a liberal one. 

So when I stated that I believed that the United Nations was a liberal organization, was I looking at it through the wrong lens? The answer, sadly, is yes. By associating the term to what it represents in American politics, I was essentially misinterpreting the entire argument (thankfully I don’t think I said anything stupid in class). 

I feel a little bit like Governor Palin, after being asked if she agreed or disagreed with the Bush Doctrine: “In what respect?” Fail. Though I initially thought that her response was pathetic and hilarious, having experienced a similar feeling I am now not so amused. It is clear that in the future I will have to completely separate my personal bias from the argument. Doing so will guarantee that I do not misunderstand the argument, instead of attempting to defend a position that has no relevance to the topic at hand. On the bright side, I shall consider it a lesson learned.