A Mexican-American Emmett Till in 2009?

I recently read a shocking news article about the trial of two teens, accused of beating a Mexican immigrant to death. Despite clear evidence that the two former high school football stars, ages 17 and 19, were involved in a “physical altercation” with 25 year old Mexican Immigrant Luis Ramirez (even their lawyers did not deny this), both were found not-guilty for all charges they faced (aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, ethnic intimidation, and third-degree murder) by an all-white jury of six men and six women. The argument put forth by the defense was that while both teens were involved in the incident (which included other teens), neither of these two were responsible for the blows that led to Ramirez’s death from blunt force injuries two days later in a hospital. The defense also sought to portray Ramirez as the aggressor in the situation.

The prosecution, on the other hand, alleged that the teens, who were intoxicated, used racial epithets to bait Ramirez into a fight, a fight which ended with Ramirez “convulsing in the street, foaming from the mouth.” The 17 year old, Brandon Piekarsky, was accused of delivering the fatal kick to Ramirez’s head after he was knocked to ground.

I found the outcome of this case incredibly disturbing. The fact that two teens who were unarguably involved in a brutal beating and killing of another human being and managed to get away with it entirely unscathed is insane and horrifying. The nature of the horrific crime reminds me of the murder of Emmett Till which we studied about and discussed in class. In this case, two white men accused (and as evidence had shown were clearly guilty) of brutally beating and murdering 14 year old African American Emmett Till were also acquitted by an all white jury. The fact that these two cases share so much in common despite the fact that Emmett Till was murdered in 1955 prior to the Civil Rights Movement makes the current case increasingly disturbing. Gladys Limon, a spokeswoman for the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund stated:

"The jurors here [are] sending the message that you can brutally beat a person, without regard to their life, and get away with it, continue with your life uninterrupted... ...In this case, the message is that a person who may not be popular in society based on their national origin or certain characteristic has less value in our society.”

The extent of Ramirez's injuries, which had left his brain oozing from his skull, according to medical testimony, should have sufficed for a conviction other than simple assault, Limon said.

"The acts here were egregious in brutality and it's just outrageous and very difficult to understand how any juror could have had reasonable doubt, especially as to the aggravated assault and the reckless endangerment charges."

Limon stated that the group plans to press the Department of Justice to file federal charges against the teens.

What if Israel Attacks?

In light of our recent Iran/war simulation, I fought a recent news article I read rather intriguing. Entitled “Israel ups war training despite US discontent”, the article detailed the Israeli Air Force (IAF) and its recent training exercises against MiG-29 Fulcrum fighters, the fighter jets used by neighboring Arab nations including Iran. Israel was apparently loaned these soviet-designed fighters by an unidentified foreign country in order to simulation dog fights and other military encounters with potential enemies. This recent and specific military exercises have worried the White House, who have been seeking reassurance that Israel would not launch a surprise attack on Iran without first notifying the US. While the US and Israel remand strong allies, the new Obama Administration has changed the US’s policies in regards to Iran, attempting to engage in direct diplomatic relation with Tehran in order to address Israel and the US’s nuclear concerns. One of the worries that the article addresses is that the hawkish government of Israel’s new prime minister could potentially blindside the US government and drag the US into an undesirable war with Iran.

In this article, I noticed many parallels with our own simulation on the issue in class. Similar to the stances my classmates portrayed in the simulation, the US is desperate to solve the issue diplomatically and reserve war as a last resort, while Israel appears ready to attack Iran at first sight of a threat. I also noticed a parallel regarding the alliance between Israel and the US; namely how while the US has agreed to support Israel militarily despite the two nations’ differing approaches to solving the issue of Iran’s nuclear program. In our simulation, the danger of such an alliance was made clear as the US mobilized forces to Iran’s border along with Israel, despite the fact that the US, in the simulation UN summit a day prior, had proposed a peacefully and fairly lenient compromise on the issue. Luckily, in our simulation, Israel did not jump the gun and invade Iran at this point, as such actions would have forced the US into war which it had little intentions of entering. However, the recent military preparation detailed in this article makes the troubling suggestion that Israel could potentially invade Iran without first consulting the White House, knowing that the US would be forced to engage regardless. Thus, the US would be forced into another costly, unfavorable war, this time over an issue it had tried to solve (and perhaps made significant progress in solving) diplomatically.

We Are America, We Do Not F**king Torture!!

In light of the current situation regarding the information recently revealed detailing America’s use of waterboarding and other “advanced interrogation techniques” against detained enemy combatants and terror suspects, as well as our discussion in class on the topic and the use of torture in war in general, I was particularly struck by two interviews I saw recently on this topic.

The first, interestingly enough, is an interview by Bill O’Reilly of Cato Institute legal analyst David Rittgers — a former Army Captain. In the interview, it is clear that O’Reilly has his own agenda. As we discussed in class, the key to winning an argument is to have control over what the questions are, and thus, as O’Reilly is conducting the interview, he seeks to prove his argument, namely, that he supports the use of torture under the circumstances it was conducted, by framing the “right” questions. Nevertheless, Rittgers, who opposed the use of torture in this situation, is able to firmly stand his ground on the issue, even pointing out the ridiculousness of the false dichotomy O’Reilly creates (comparing it to the show “24”).

The second video clip in saw is also quite notable and definitely worth watching. The clip is from an interview conducted by Shepard Smith, anchor of Fox News (which, interestingly enough, has been often accused of a right-wing bias) of Fox contributor Judith Miller (of CIA leak infamy) and Cliff May, President of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, as Smith describes: “a conservative leaning think-tank.” In the interview, Smith also clearly has his own opinion on the matter, namely that torture should not be carried out by America, regardless of the circumstances, a stance Miller agrees with; while May struggles to defend his belief that these interrogation techniques fell short of the definition of torture and that even so, “saved American lives.”



This interview is full of phenomenal points. In my opinion, however, Cliff May’s arguments are entirely ungrounded. His first claim, that these “coercive techniques” fell short of torture I find completely false, especially in light of the recently revealed evidence that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003 and Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002, and the fact that waterboarding in classified as torture by practically the entire world, including every human right's organization, nearly all of our allies, and even the former Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Levin, who allowed himself to be waterboarded. As one commenter on the clip stated, waterboarding is not, and has never been, a method of obtaining information. It is a method of causing pain and suffering to an individual, either for revenge or sadistic purposes. May’s second argument that such techniques prevented another terrorist attack and saved American lives is also baseless, just as previously described by former army Captain David Rittgers in the previous clip.

However, what I believe is most notable about this exchange is Shepard Smith’s stance. I strongly agree with what he says": I doesn’t matter what the circumstances were, America should never torture, ever. I nearly exploded when I heard his reference to a “shining city on a hill.”

"They better not do it," he said. "If we are going to be Ronald Reagan's Shining City on the Hill, we don't get to torture. We don't do it."

And he’s right. The fact that we’re combating terrorists is not an excuse; as stated in the interview, Israel has outlawed waterboarding because it is defined as torture, and believe me, Israel has a much greater problem with terrorism than we do. On FoxNews.com's online show The Strategy Room Smith later reiterated his passionate opposition to torture. "We are America!" he shouted, slamming his hand on the table. "I don't give a rat's ass if it helps. We are AMERICA! We do not f**king torture!!" And I must say I whole-heartedly agree with him. Torture is a crime, and crime is conducted by criminals. If America chooses this path, it has no right to lead the free world.

Propaganda: It's All the Same

After exploring and discussion propaganda posters in class, I decided to look up some more. I looked at three sets of posters, a set from the United States during WWII, a set from the former Soviet Union, and a set from North Korea. In comparing these three sets, I noticed that while artistic style varied, they were all similar visually in that they all implemented solid bold colors, particularly red and black. The purpose for the posters in these three sets were also very varied, however, they were all similar in that they often equated fairly un-political and civilian duties and messages with drastic consequences or importance. Here are three such posters: one from each of the three sets.


“Beware of the wheels! - 1926
With a look that makes you think of the black plague rather than traffic safety, this poster was designed to inform people of the great dangers of a relatively new transportation method that was spreading in Soviet cities; the tram.”




“Prevention and more prevention. Let’s fully establish a veterinary system for the prevention of epidemics!”

I was also struck by the portrayal of the enemy in propaganda posters. While North Korea, the former Soviet Union, and the United States are very different and face very different enemies; the demonic, or at the very least, demeaning portrayal in their propaganda posters shows striking similarity. Here again are three posters, one from each set.




“Do not forget the US imperialist wolves!”


“You behave! - Unknown year
The stereotypical yankee capitalist is a common figure in propaganda posters. Here, he's trying to set fire to and bomb the Soviet Union, but a vigilant (and rather handsome) Soviet soldier is keeping watch. With the attitude of the soldier and the slogan, this poster gives a sense that the capitalists are nothing more than mischiveous little juveniles.”

A Music Industry Run By Musicians?

This past week, I read an article entitled: “Reznor Urges Musicians to Ditch Labels.” For anyone familiar with Trent Reznor, this may not come as a big surprise. Frontman for the band Nine Inch Nails, which split from their Interscope Records in 2007 and is now an independent band, Reznor in recent years has been a strong critic of the music industry and a supporter of P2P file-sharing. In the article, Reznor is quoted as saying the following about the recording industry:

Anyone who's an executive at a record label does not understand what the internet is, how it works, how people use it, how fans and consumers interact - no idea. I'm surprised they know how to use email. They have built a business around selling plastic discs, and nobody wants plastic discs any more. They're in such a state of denial it's impossible for them to understand what's happening.

One of the biggest wake-up calls of my career was when I saw a record contract. I said, 'Wait - you sell it for $18.98 and I make 80 cents? And I have to pay you back the money you lent me to make it and then you own it? Who the f**k made that rule? Oh! The record labels made it because artists are dumb and they'll sign anything' - like I did. When we found out we'd been released (from their recording contract) it was like, 'Thank God!'. But 20 minutes later it was, 'Uh-oh, now what are we going to do?' It was incredibly liberating, and it was terrifying.

Indeed, Reznor is very accurate in his statements. The structure of today’s music industry creates a massive gap between the top and the bottom. Hundreds of thousands of artists struggle to make a profit while music executives of the big 4 (Sony BMG, Universal, EMI, and Warner) makes millions each year along with a small group of predominately mainstream artists. The music industries relationship with musicians reminds me of the relationship loan shark companies have with the poor. Taking advantage of the fact that most artists do not have the money or resources to record, produce, advertise, and distribute their first album, these massive companies are able to force artists to sign contracts in which they will get a very small cut of the profit, and oftentimes, even lose the rights to their own music. As Reznor states in the article, it should be the musicians that dictate how the music industry functions, as they are, after all, the ones making the music.

I was also particularly struck by one of the comments left by readers of this article that further highlight the fundamental flaws of today’s music industry:

I fail to see what the music industry really does for artists or consumers. Example: I just tried to buy the 'Cold War Kids' album online. I live in Ireland, so I can't buy from Napster or Amazon. I use Linux so iTunes is not an option - and anyway, installing bloatware so I can download an album is ridiculous. Comparison: I google a few well-chosen words and clicked three times - the album can be mind for free. Alternative: Go into the city and buy the CD. Extra (environmental & financial) cost of packaging, transportation, store markup... but: "Oh, sorry, we don't have that in stock". So tell me, what did the music industry do for the 'Cold War Kids'? Nothing. Last FM introduced me to their music. YouTube showed me their latest video. If the band had a sell-direct website and a PayPal account, I could have paid them directly, and they'd make some money. Actually, not just 'some' money, but almost the whole amount that I paid. As it is, they get nothing until I find a record store that stocks their CD, and even then, they just get a tiny cut. Fair? I think not.

Such descriptions leave me with the unsettling connection to the wall-street workers and CEO’s that, thanks to their greed and disconnect to the rest of society, have led to the current economical crisis.

Let Them Eat Crack!

“The thing I hate the most about advertising is that it attracts all the bright, creative and ambitious young people, leaving us mainly with the slow and self-obsessed to become our artists. Modern art is a disaster area. Never in the field of human history has so much been used by so many to say so little.”

One of the few quotes from the graffitist / street artist Banksy. Banksy, originally from Bristol, UK, has sprayed his art all across the world; from London, New Orleans, Sydney, San Francisco, and Bethlehem. Banksy has refrained from revealing his true identity and creates his artwork simply for its own sake, although some of his graffiti art has been removed, wall and all, and sold at auctions for hundreds of thousands. Just as his above quote would allude to, Banksy’s art addresses many fundamental issues in today’s society: poverty, war, capitalism, materialism and government.

One notable recent Banksy piece is the one pictured above, painted in New York City as a response to the current financial crisis. The statement “Let them eat crack” is a reference to the quote often (falsely) attributed to Marie Antoinette “Let them eat cake”, her supposed arrogant response to the bread riots during the French Revolution era. Banksy paints a rat (a popular subject in his art) to represent a business executive. Banksy’s strong critique of the attitudes of business executives towards the suffering of the general public, especially the lower class, in this economical crisis reminded me of Michael Moore’s critique of GM executives in his documentary “Roger and Me.”

Here are a few more Banksy works that address issues pertaining to the economy and society:

Bailout Recipients Hosted Call To Defeat Key Labor Bill

After learning about labor unions and the struggle for workers to receive fair treatment and rights during the early 1900’s, I noticed a very strong parallel in an article I recently read regarding the recent economic bailout. The article, from the Huffington Post, entitled Bailout Recipients Hosted Call To Defeat Key Labor Bill. The article states that three days after receiving 25 billion dollars in bailout money, Bank of America had a conference call with conservative activists and other business leaders to plan an opposition against the Labor Communities crucial legislative priority, the Employers Free Choice Act (EFCA). The act, if passed, basically would allow individuals a choice whether to be a part of a union or not and give them the ability to bargain for better wages, working conditions, benefits, etc. Here is a short two-page summary of the bill.
The strong opposition to this bill really reminded me of the strong opposition labor unions and workers faced during the protests in the early 1900’s. Bernie Marcus, co-founder of Home Depot, and Rick Berman, strong opponent of the EFCA, helped lead this opposition. Audio from the actual conference call reveals a conversation so absurd and extreme it’s almost hard to believe. Here are some excerpts from the call;

Marcus - "This is the demise of a civilization. This is how a civilization disappears. I am sitting here as an elder statesman and I'm watching this happen and I don't believe it."

“Donations of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars were needed, it was argued, to prevent America from turning "into France."

"If a retailer has not gotten involved in this, if he has not spent money on this election, if he has not sent money to [former Sen.] Norm Coleman and all these other guys, they should be shot. They should be thrown out their goddamn jobs.”

“As a shareholder, if I knew the CEO of the company wasn't doing anything on [EFCA]... I would sue the son of a bitch... I'm so angry at some of these CEOs, I can't even believe the stupidity that is involved here."

The great irony with all of this is that these high-up CEO’s and political figures feel that a bill to benefit the working man would be a great blow to the economy and to their corporations; where in reality, it is largely the greed and excess of these upper-tier of executives that is largely responsible for bringing the economy to this current situation in the first place. I think the insanity of this opposition is made quite clear in this ACTUAL QUOTE from the conversation.

“This bill may be one of the worst things I have ever seen in my life," [Marcus] said, explaining that he could have been on "a 350-foot boat out in the Mediterranean," but felt it was more important to engage on this fight. "It is incredible to me that anybody could have the chutzpah to try and pass this bill in this election year, especially when we have an economy that is a disaster, a total absolute disaster."

So when these top executives and conservatives view the EFCA as a threat to American capitalism, this is perhaps because the great gap of wealth they possess above the middle-class is being threatened. And yet, it is taxpayer money that is bailing their corporations out. To allow that sort of government intervention and not allow government intervention to benefit the average American can only be viewed as corrupt and insane.

Agency, Oppression, Facebook?

Just recently I read a rather disturbing article about Facebook’s new terms of use. Facebook, with members now numbering over 175 million, used to have a pretty straight forward user agreement. If you close your account on their network, any rights they claim to the original content you upload would expire. Not anymore.

Straight from the Facebook’s new terms of use:

You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.

And the key lines at the end of the passage:

You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.
The following sections will survive any termination of your use of the Facebook Service: Prohibited Conduct, User Content, Your Privacy Practices, Gift Credits, Ownership; Proprietary Rights, Licenses, Submissions, User Disputes; Complaints, Indemnity, General Disclaimers, Limitation on Liability, Termination and Changes to the Facebook Service, Arbitration, Governing Law; Venue and Jurisdiction and Other.

So to paraphrase; if you upload anything on Facebook, it’s theirs. So if you plan on uploading pictures you will want to remove, 5, 10, 100 years later, forget it.

Now, apparently, it not quite as extreme as it may sound. At least, I hope so. Apparently all of this is subject to your user settings, so if you set that only your friends could view your pictures, they can’t really do anything with any images they archive.

Nevertheless, the announcement of the discovery of this new change has prompted a large outcry of facebook users. While drafting an official response, a Facebook representative released this statement to quell the swarm of complaints.

We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload. The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site. That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend). Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user's privacy settings. So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info "in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof." Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail. For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.

So is Facebook’s new terms of use a sign of a powerful company turning into a oppressive regime? Or was its intention in fact to clear up any possible confusion such as in the situation that the representative describes? In either case, the outcry of users was certainly a situation of agency being exercised, forcing Facebook to scramble and release a response.

Romanticism, Relapse, and the Real Slim Shady.

Recently, I encountered a very unique and fascinating example of Romanticism in an article from The Independent concerning rap star Eminem. Although generally a subject of great controversy and criticism, Eminem is gloried in this article, titled Eminem: The Fall and Rise of a Superstar. While I found this article to be incredibly interesting and informative, it made many claims that I found rather questionable. In its lead-in statement, the article states:
“In 2006, after the murder of his closest friend, hip-hop's most talented star became its most notorious recluse. As he returns with a new album, Guy Adams travels to Detroit to find the truth behind the tales of breakdown, paranoia and tortured genius.”
While Eminem is unarguably one of the most famous rappers of all time, the claim that he is “hip-hop’s most talented star” could certainly be argued. More provocative is the claim of “tortured genius,” a label that might one would apply to Beethoven and the like… but rapper Eminem?

The article goes on to illustrate Eminem’s rise to fame, as well as his unique and strong appeal, and consequential success. One topic it lingers on is Eminem’s Detroit heritage, a city the article I would argue fairly accurately describes as “ground zero of America's economic meltdown.” However, the article goes on to make the claim that Eminem was thus “the ‘other’ America, a gritty world of industrial decline and social decay rooted in his home town.” This Romantic view is not only held by the author of this article; as one paragraph states:

In one headline-grabbing endorsement, confirming him as the favourite cultural influence of the chattering classes, a white-haired Seamus Heaney declared him, in all seriousness, the savior of modern poetry. ‘There is this guy Eminem,’ said the Nobel laureate. ‘He has created a sense of what is possible. He has sent a voltage around a generation. He has done this not just through his subversive attitude, but also his verbal energy.’

Wow. I don’t think I need to do much more than highlight a few key phrases from that. “Favourite cultural influence.” “Saviour of modern poetry.” “Created a sense of what is possible.” “Sent a voltage around a generation.” Clearly these claims are expanding Eminem’s fame and talent to represent something far greater. If you question my doubts about Eminem’s status as “saviour of modern poetry,” just do a quick google search for “Eminem lyrics.” I would recommend reading “Kim” or “Cleaning Out My Closet.” No, I won’t include the lyrics here.

Another instance of Romanticism I found in this article was the inclusion of a particular passage to trying to paint Marshall Mathers III’s real character.

’I have one story that sums Em up,’ ventures a friend. ‘After his second album he was in the jewellery store. He really liked a watch, but was worried that he'd not be able to afford it, so called his manager, Paul Rosenberg, to check he had enough cash. The watch turned out to be $15,000. At the time, Em was one of the hottest artists on the planet. He was worth millions. So Paul told him not to be silly, and just buy the watch.
‘But Em was like, 'I don't want to run out of money, I want my daughter to be able to go to college.' That's really tells the kind of guy he is. I think fame surprised him.’

Again, I am not questioning Eminem’s love for his daughter or that he really does care that much, only the manner in which this passage is included and how many readers might take this passage. Keep in mind he’s also the lyricist behind a number of wildly offensive rap songs degrading women and homosexuals and vividly portraying violence before you start seeing him as just a humble little sweetheart.

Overall, while I really enjoyed reading this article and I highly recommend you read it, I believe the Romantic nature in which Eminem was portrayed took away from the writing. Because Eminem is such a popular subject of criticism, it is understandable how counter-arguments such as this would try to go the other extreme. However, as with many other such things, in order to properly combat fierce criticism, I believe it is important to portray a subject in a fair light, presenting both sides of the argument and not focusing on one or the other. Thus, as the article eagerly anticipates, the arrival of Eminem’s new album, Relapse, to be due shortly, should not be judged before it has been released. Sure Eminem hasn’t released an album in a really long time, and sure he’s been hard at work in the studio during his three-year hiatus from the public eye, but I wouldn’t, like so many fans and critics, claim that this will be a masterpiece before it happens. But, hopefully, it won’t be much more than a month before we find out, for real, if the Slim Shady’s back, back again…

Obama to the Muslim World

This past Monday (January 26th), President Obama presented a humble and promising message to the Muslim world in his first official interview since taking office. In his interview with the Al-Arabiya Network, Obama managed to balance a message of humility and friendship with a firm grounding in American policy and principle. Some remarks that I found notable:

"I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy."

(In regards to what Obama told George Mitchell, his personal envoy to the Middle-east)
"What I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating — in the past on some of these issues — and we don't always know all the factors that are involved," Obama said. "What we want to do is to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years. And I think if we do that, then there's a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs."

“I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state -- I'm not going to put a time frame on it -- that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life.”

I also found it very interesting that Obama strongly praised Saudi King Abdullah for his Middle-east Peace Plan he recently proposed.
“Well, here's what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage to put forward something that is as significant as that. I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace.”

All of these quotes I found to be examples of agency, but a new form of agency, one that is quite the opposite of the tradition form of American agency. In recent history, American agency has usually been presented with brute force and strong ultimatums. A prime example of this older form of agency is the invasion of Iraq, where the United States invaded Iraq before there was evidence of weapons of mass destruction, with only a little support from other nations; in effect the United States acted as if they were a world police force. In comparison to this proud and rash form of agency, one that often required the oppression of others, it would appear that Obama is not exercising agency at all, but rather, letting the Middle-east exercise agency over their own affairs. However, I believe he is in fact exercising great agency, and doing so in a way that does not oppress others. By telling his personal envoy to the Middle-east to “start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating”, I believe Obama is not only showing the right way for the “leader of the free world” to lead, but trying to understand issues so that the United States will be beneficial in their intervention. By complementing the Mid-east peace proposal put forth by King Abdullah, even if he does not entirely agree with it, Obama is also showing agency, similar as to how a coach might encourage his players. Overall, I believe this new form of agency is an excellent change. After all, in today’s world, complex issues cannot be resolved by the actions of one nation alone, as powerful as it may be. Obama’s use of agency to encourage and include the support of other nations is the form of agency that is necessary to institute global change and progress.

Pot-gress?

As President-elect Barack Obama prepares to take office, he has opened a section of his transition website, change.gov, to questions from the public. And after more than 10,000 issues have been posted and 100,000 votes on these issues cast, the “Open for Questions” section has been closed. The top question? Iraq withdrawal plan? Economy turnaround plan? Education reform? Healthcare?

Nope.
The highest voted question is: "Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion-dollar industry right here in the U.S.?"

After a strong effort from websites like Digg (my favorite source for news, including where I found this article), questions about weed legalization and drug reform reached the top, with 16 of the top 50 questions about this issue.

While such an issue seems rather minor, despite these votes, in comparison to some of the other issues addressed, the issue of weed legalization is certainly not a tiny issue. Severally states, most notably California, have argued back and forth on the issue. I will sum up the argument from both sides for you.

Against Marijuana Legalization:
>Many argue Marijuana is a stepping stone drug that leads to the use of heavier drugs like cocaine or heroin
>Legalization would make it easier for kids to obtain the drug
>Increase in dangers such as stoned-driving, second-hand smoke, and the physical effects of drug abuse

For Marijuana Legalization:
>Not as harmful as alcohol or tobacco if used in moderation
>Reduced drug-related crime (Including theft to pay for high cost of illegal Marijuana)
>Would be taxed, money would go to the government instead of drug dealers
>Medical benefits

Regardless of which side you support, (I’m curious to hear your views) it will be interesting to see if our next president will address this issue or not. According to the Change.gov site, "Over the next few days, some of the most popular questions selected by the Change.gov community will be answered by the Transition team, and their responses will be posted here on the site." Seeing as this issue is so heavily presented, it is possible that we may hear something from Obama and his administration soon.

With thousands of people crowding jails for Marijuana related crime, and scientific studies showing that Marijuana is safer than both tobacco and alcohol, could the legalization of Marijuana, if it happens, be considered progress?

Progress Isn't Everywhere

When we think of progress in the world, we think of new technology or the booming economies of countries like China or India. But what of our own country, America? While indeed we in America are often the first to experience new technologies, whether they be computers, cell phones, or iPods, the majority of these technologies are manufactured outside the United States.

So what of the classic American companies, the companies that were a major part of America’s once booming economy? Many turn to look at the American auto industry, an industry that once thrived and dominated the market, but is now struggling to stay alive amidst fierce competition from foreign car companies. To examine the domestic auto industry, one must look at Detroit, “Motor City”, the home of America’s Big Three, GM, Ford, and Chrysler. And thus, I come to an interesting slideshow I found recently in the news: The Remains of Detroit. This grim look at the current state of a once grand industrial city sheds light upon the current state of our domestic industry, a state that unfortunately portrays quite the opposite of progress.

Here are, in my opinion, some of the more potent images of the slideshow (From Time):



Michigan Central Station
Once the city's primary passenger depot, Central Station has not been used since 1988. Photographer Hemmerle sought out Detroit's derelict buildings as part of a project exploring how far America has fallen. "Industry is one of the things that we let go that we need to get back," he says.



Fisher Body Plant #21
Abandoned in 1991, the Fisher plant was originally built to produce Buick and Cadillac bodies.



The Michigan Theatre
Built in 1926, this glorious building functioned as a performance space until 1976, when it was converted into a parking garage.



Packard Automobile Manufacturing Plant
Many of the derelict structures are used by homeless people.

Overall, these images portray an eerie theme of abandonment and lost splendor. Is this the fate of the American Industry as a whole? Or perhaps a warning of what will come if we are not careful? In either case, I believe that these images show that while perhaps we may experience a feeling of industrial and technological progress, such a reality is does not exist everywhere.

The Future of War

This past week I came across a fascinating article. Entitled The Science of the Future of War, the article is actually an excerpt from the recently published book Sex and War by Malcom Potts and Thomas Hayden.

The article’s opening lines immediately brought me thinking: “Today’s most brutal wars are also the most primal. They are fought with machetes in West Africa, with fire and rape and fear in Darfur, and with suicide bombs and improvised explosive devices in Israel, Iraq, and elsewhere. But as horrifying as these conflicts are, they are not the greatest threat to our survival as a species. We humans are a frightening animal. Throughout our species’s existence, we have used each new technology we have developed to boost the destructive power of our ancient predisposition for killing members of our own species.”

Indeed, history shows that this is true. The article cites three major examples and examines them in close detail: Poison Gas, Nuclear Weapons, and Germ Warfare. All three are perfect examples of how humans have adapted technology to create devastatingly lethal weapons. While it is not difficult to question whether humans have made moral progress, technological progress seems unquestionable. And yet, as this article powerfully demonstrates, our technological “progress” has now made the destruction of all human life on earth an easier task to accomplish. Thus, is technological progress really a good thing? All our medicines and scientific advances have decreased the impact that nature and chance has over our lives (once devastating diseases are now curable, better nutrition has led to longer lifespans), yet our advancements in the fields of war have increased the power for ourselves to deal death to each other. Who would you rather give that power too? Ultimately, it comes down to the question of true human nature. If you believe humans are naturally good, then the increased control we humans have over ourselves is certainly a positive change. But if you believe otherwise, well… perhaps technologic is just hastening the arrival of doomsday.

The article, however, chooses to take a very rational, scientific approach. It acknowledges that war is an inherent feature of humanity, and that the key to preventing war is to understand and prevent its causes. The article cites competition over resources as the fundamental factor that causes all conflicts or wars; perhaps a difficult proposal to accept in the light of the recent fundamentalist religious violence. And yet, it gives solid evidence to defend this argument:

“Human wars may come wrapped in a veneer of religion or political philosophy, but the battle for resources is usually just below the surface. When Pope Urban II exhorted the nobles of Europe to join the First Crusade, he contrasted the lands where they lived, which had “scarcely enough food for their cultivators,” with Palestine, where the crusaders would be able to appropriate land from the Infidels. In World War II, the need for land and resources was expressed as Hitler’s concept of lebensraum, or “living space.” “The aim [of] the efforts and sacrifices of the German people in this war,” he wrote, “must be to win territory in the East for the German people.” The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because they knew they had to destroy the American Pacific fleet if they were to access the Indonesian oil they needed to supply their industries. As we saw earlier, while rapid population growth and massive unemployment in some settings, such as the Gaza Strip, do not cause wars or terrorist attacks by themselves, they certainly make them more likely.”

The article continues on to explore the connection between population group, the subsequent increased demand for resources, and periods of war. Evidence for this argument can be found, and is cited, from all periods throughout human history. Yet the true importance of this argument and this article is its relevance to the present in the future. With population increasing exponentially and the signs of reduced resources already showing (rising oil and gas prices, destruction of rainforests, and water shortages), following this pattern set by history will yield war and global conflict on epic proportions.

“We live in very different evolutionary times than any of our ancestors. After 3.5 billion years of competition, life on Earth has reached its carrying capacity. More competition at this point means fighting harder over a constantly dwindling pool of available resources. As we seek ways to solve our environmental crises, address the warming climate, and combat emerging diseases and global poverty, our very survival as a species requires finding more ways to cooperate rather than compete. And thanks especially to WMDs, the survival of our species now also means bringing an end to war as we know it. It is time to leave our history of team aggression behind.”

Technology and Happiness

In this past century, or even in just the past twenty years, the world has experienced an advance in technology greater than ever before. The microchip has redefined all of society; everything from iPods to phones to vehicles to toys now rely on this precious technology. Advances in technology have brought cures for deadly illnesses, drastically improved the living conditions of the average person, and have created new standards of recreation and entertainment. In short, technology has come to define human progress.

So what is the goal of life, the purpose of humanity? The answer rings simple and clear from a wide range of sources (including the Declaration of Independence), yet I feel perhaps His Holiness the Dalai Lama said it best in his speech at the “Forum 2000” conference in Prague in 1997.
“I believe that the very purpose of life is to be happy. From the very core of our being, we desire contentment.”

Thus, it makes sense that technological progress would be a fair indicator of progress as a civilization. Unless, of course, technology isn’t necessarily making us happier.

An article I read today, entitled Technology and Happiness: Why getting more gadgets won't necessarily increase our well-being, explains the situation.

“By most standards, then, you'd have to say that Americans are better off now than they were in the middle of the last century. Oddly, though, if you ask Americans how happy they are, you find that they’re no happier than they were in 1946 (which is when formal surveys of happiness started). In fact, the percentage of people who say they’re very happy has fallen slightly since the early 1970s -- even though the income of people born in 1940 has increased, on average, 116 percent over the course of their working lives.”

The article goes on to explain that this isn’t just an American Phenomenon, but something that occurs in numerous developed countries. Exhibit A: Japan. “Between 1960 and the late 1980s, Japan's economy was utterly transformed, as the nation went from a low-cost supplier of cheap manufactured goods to what is perhaps the world’s most technologically sophisticated society. Over that stretch, the country's GDP quintupled. And yet by the late 1980s, the Japanese said they were no happier than they had been in 1960.”

And yet, according to the article, there was one group of Americans that stayed consistently very happy: The Amish. The article even states that on a survey asking how satisfied you are with your life on a scale from 1-10, the Amish turned out to be as happy as the Forbes 400. Could the Amish’s independence from technology be behind this trend?

Curious to see what other populations were “happy”, I googled “Happiness Survey” and click on a link to a BBC news article. Title: Nigeria tops happiness survey. The other top five, in order, were Mexico, Venezuela, El Salvador, and Puerto Rico. The United States sat at 16th.

Another interesting article I found talked about a study regarding children, technology, and stress. After reading the first two articles, the verdict of this one surprised me. Today’s youth have become so technology dependent, that removal of technology would lead to extreme stress. However, in the context of my peers, this conclusion isn’t actually that alarming. Excluding hours spent sleeping, I would estimate that many of my teenage peers spend less than an hour without having access to their internet, cell phone, iPod, computer, or TV. I myself realize the dependency I have on technology, having experienced the chaos of not having my phone with me or the frustration of having my internet go down. Web 2.0 has only tightened the chain; social networking sites like Facebook, or media sharing sites like Youtube have expanded the internet so it is no longer just a place to send emails and look up information. Thus it is only natural now that a break from our dependence on technology is stressful, and yet, this brings up some key points. If the average American is not any happier than they were several decades, and yet, if a separation from technology now brings stress, and consequently, unhappiness, then, without technology, aren’t we unhappier than before? Has our dependence on technology destroyed our ability to draw happiness from things we once did? Or perhaps, has technology created as many new burdens as new joys?

I would like to end with the rest of the quote from the Dalai Lama:

“In my own limited experience I have found that the more we care for the happiness of others, the greater is our own sense of well-being. Cultivating a close, warmhearted feeling for others automatically puts the mind at ease. It helps remove whatever fears or insecurities we may have and gives us the strength to cope with any obstacles we encounter. It is the principal source of success in life. Since we are not solely material creatures, it is a mistake to place all our hopes for happiness on external development alone. The key is to develop inner peace.”

Thus, I would argue that technology is neither human progress nor regress, at least as far as happiness is concerned. Technology is simply a physical means of achieving things, it does not promote happiness or stress. Humans do that to themselves, and technology is just a means, just like everything else, to do so.

An International Perspective of the President-Elect

Without doubt the biggest news of this past week is the election of Senator Barack Obama for the next president of the United States, winning in a sweeping 364 to 173 electoral vote victory over Republican candidate Senator John McCain. This election made history in many ways, and for many, this is at last a change for the better, eight years due. In an era where, at times, it seems as if it is the US against the World, with international relations souring across the board and overall international criticism of American government and society on the rise, I was curious to see the global reaction to Obama’s election.

My first stop was the Time article The World's View of Obama's Win, which had perspectives written from eleven different countries. I’d highly suggest you read it, but in any case, here are the some key points that I have selected from each nation:

Malaysia: “In Obama's victory are sown the seeds of great expectations that a truly new chapter will be written in the history of the world.… Muslim nations will have cause to celebrate this triumph; it offers prospects for genuine dialogue and engagement and should witness the politics of diplomacy supplant the politics of war and the theology of terror.”
Hmmmm…. Muslim nations huh? Diplomacy to supplant war? It seems as if this could be a change for the better.

Czech Republic: “I am more glad that Barack Obama won… he will be a President of a new generation — a new type, with a great understanding of the multicultural nature of the contemporary world.”

France: “Anti-Americanism will not disappear as though by magic, but its life will get harder.”
Thanks France.

South Africa: “Obama's election has given hope to people everywhere that change is possible, that this debilitating status quo of a polarized world of "them" and "us" can change…. Today, those who want to end the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance, those who want to promote justice, peace and greater tolerance among different faiths are celebrating because Barack Obama is the new President of the United States.”

Spain: “In this complex period our world is facing, Barack Obama's election has kindled a feeling of hope, one that most Spanish citizens and Europeans share, and one that reflects a shared confidence in the real capacity to build a better world.”

India: “The most important thing that Barack Obama brings to the presidency is his willingness to reason.” (and I must add: “Spreading the wealth a bit in a deeply unequal society is not as offensive to reason as it appeared to Joe the noncertified Plumber.”)
A president who thinks?

Britain: “Our highest priority must be to meet the current challenges in the global economy, building a stable and effective international financial system and addressing the threat of climate change.”

Kenya: “I believe Mr. Obama exhibits many of the best characteristics of our species in terms of intelligence, sensitivity, resolve and a willingness to reason…. We all require a President who will remain calm, focused and hopeful. Well done, America; your democracy has delivered.”
(Obama’s father is Kenyan)

Germany: “Bush is a one-man axis of evil, and Obama the redeemer: "Deliver us, for thine is the kingdom …. But politics is not about redemption…. Will the Euroswooners still love Obama when he presses them for more troops in Afghanistan and real sanctions on Iran?”
Excellent point, Germany. We will see.

Egypt: “The President-elect is an African-American Christian with a Muslim father who lived across many continents and came from humble beginnings. This sends a powerful message to the rest of the world about the need for diversity and building bridges, values that are at the core of any efforts to create a world at peace with itself.”

Singapore: “Obama's election will significantly reduce anti-Americanism…. It will make a huge dent in the strong silent prejudice against blacks in many societies… if we can reduce this deep ethnic prejudice, we may have hope for other ethnic divides… between Israelis and Palestinians, or Tamils and Sinhalese. If we can finally focus on our common humanity, we have a real opportunity to create a better world.”

Wow, so on the whole some very positive reactions. I supposed I shouldn’t be too surprised however, at least based on a poll from the website iftheworldcouldvote.com. According to these polls, only two countries were red (as in for McCain, not as in communist): Macedonia and Albania (okay, and Niue if you count its one vote). Don’t ask me why. The entire rest of the world were all “blue states.”(Some notable statistics: Afghanistan 79.2% in favor of Obama, Canada 89.2% in favor, China 88.1%, France 94.5%, Germany 92.5%, India 86.8%, Iran 80.7%, Iraq 71.4%, Japan 88.4%, Mexico 87.7%, Russia 88.1%, Sudan 92.7%, UK 92.9%) In an era where international relationships are, quite frankly, unavoidable, I believe these polls show that perhaps America has made a wise choice. However, I am curious as to whether the majority of these feelings are based on Obama’s actual proposed policy, or perhaps rather his slogan of “Change”, sometime I feel the entire world would agree we need. In the end, only time will tell.
God Bless America.

Windows 7: The Perfect Balance Between Idealism and Pragmatism?

A PC guy myself, I was happy this week to see the article title First look at Windows 7's User Interface appear on my homepage. For those of you not quite as computer-obsessed as myself, Windows 7 is the next version of Windows, the successor to Windows Vista and set to be released sometime next year (or Jan 2010) at the latest. In the wake of the disastrous (or at very least disappointing) release of Windows Vista, with numerous bugs and compatibility issues, Microsoft is supposedly planning to release Windows 7 ahead of schedule.

In order to first understand why I view Windows 7 as a possible perfect balance between idealism and pragmatism, we must first take a look its predecessors, Windows XP and Windows Vista. Released five years apart, the longest gap between Windows operating system releases, Windows XP and Vista are very different in almost every aspect. For most users, Windows XP had become the norm. While functioning similarity to the Windows OS’s before it, XP brought a newer, sleeker interface and increased stability and efficiency; and the result was a very reliable and user-friendly operating system. Paired with its long existence (a full five years before the arrival of Windows Vista), Windows XP became the standard definition of Windows. Towards the end of its life, however, XP began to fall behind the times. Security was lacking in comparison to today’s new security threats, and on the whole, while XP functioned properly, its appearance was showing signs of its age, lacking the image of sleekness that other technology had developed since its release.

Thus, the release of Vista was heavily anticipated. Press releases and leaks showed a gleaming new OS, complete with amped up and entirely new features, not to mention heavily increased security functions. And yet, upon its release, numerous issues began to surface. There were complaints about its cost, hardware requirements, digital rights management, and most of all, compatibility issues. The OS that had seemed so appealing, the image of the future, lacked all the reliability that Windows XP had. Indeed, Vista was a new look, one that called to the numerous users tired of the XP appearance; but for many, the issues with compatibility and other bugs were too great to ignore. Many eager Vista customers switched back to Windows XP; in fact, computer companies returned from selling exclusively Windows Vista computers to computers where the buyer had a choice as to which OS they would want. For all its ideas and innovations, Vista simply was not a pragmatic choice.

I, for one, have abstained from upgrading to Vista. I’ve modded my version of XP so its appearance and functionality is more Vista-esque, but at the core, it is still plain old reliable XP. Nevertheless, I am very eager for Windows 7. Like many users who have stuck with XP, I hope Windows 7 will have the perfect balance; the sleekness and new functionality of Vista paired with the reliability and user-friendliness of XP. This recent press release seems to promise just that. Right away the article states:

“Windows 7 will not contain anything like the kind of far-reaching architectural modifications that Microsoft made with Windows Vista. ….While Windows 7 doesn't undo these architectural changes—they were essential for the long-term health of the platform—it equally hasn't made any more. Any hardware or software that works with Windows Vista should also work correctly with Windows 7, so unlike the transition from XP to Vista, the transition from Vista to 7 won't show any regressions; nothing that used to work will stop working. So, rather than low-level, largely invisible system changes, the work on Windows 7 has focused much more on the user experience.”

Just what I wanted to hear. The article goes into much further detail, explaining some of the specific features of Windows 7. Most notable is the taskbar. Based on extensive surveys, Microsoft has learned that the majority of users have anywhere between 5 and 15 windows open at a time, often switching back and forth between at least two or three of these. Thus, Windows 7 will feature only icons in the taskbar; by hovering the mouse over the icon, a user will be able to see miniature images of each tab open in that application. Thus, the complexity of having three internet browser windows open at once with five tabs in each will be a breeze. Essentially, Microsoft has found a meeting place between innovation and practicality, a perfect combination between Vista and XP. The article closes with a few more promising words: “These UI (User Interface) changes represent a brave move by the company. The new UI takes the concepts that Windows users have been using for the last 13 years and extends them in new and exciting ways. Windows 7 may not change much under the hood, but the extent of these interface changes makes it clear that this is very much a major release."

Could Number 7 be the perfect blend between pragmatic old XP and idealist, yet problematic Vista?

I sure hope so.

Idealism, Pragmatism, and The Music Industry

This week, while browing from the news, I came across a rather interesting article. Entitled, "NiN’s Donation Model Doesn’t Work for Most Artists”, the article explored how this innovative method of album releases does not work for all musical artists. It’s very possible you have no idea what I’m talking about. Well, to explain: recently, two famous bands, Nine Inch Nails (NiN) and Radiohead released their newest albums on the internet, free for download. Fans were not required to pay anything for the download, but were free to make a donation; essentially pay as much for the album as they thought it was worth. This approach was hugely sucessful. According to the article: “NiN made $1.6 million in the first week their album was available for download, and Radiohead said it made more money online than with all of their other albums combined.” Wow! Not bad for a “free” release!

So many were impressed by these results that some believed that this would be the future of the music industry. Every album release from now on free for download? Could this goal be too idealistic to work?

Well, turns out, maybe. The article goes into depth as to how the “donation model” doesn’t work for all, if not most, artists. For starters, NiN and Radiohead were already hugely popular bands and had a very solid fanbase. And yet, as many know, amid the massive music industry, only a few ever make it to the top. For the millions of “undiscovered” artists out there, such a method generally doesn’t work.

The article uses the website Jamendo as an example. Jamendo is based on the very same principles as the donation method; artists upload their music on the site, and users download their music for free, with the ablity to make donations. To be blunt: “Of the 423968 users, 1650 have donated something, little under 0.5%. In total, these users were good for 2712 donations adding up to just over $36,000.” The top grossing artist on the site has made just over $1000 in three years.

So unfortunately for both eager music fans and artists alike, this donation method isn’t the new face of the music industry. And yet, does that mean that this idealistic goal is merely a dream, a giant “what-if” that exists only in musical utopia?

I would argue no. As the article is quick to bring up, Jamendo is not a failure. While the donation method has not raked in profit like artists would have wished, for many, getting their music out is the best they could have hoped for.
“The people who download their music for free, and like it, are potentially the people who visit their gigs, buy merchandising, and tell their friends about this great band they discovered. Lesser known artists will never be able to generate a decent income from donations, but making their music available for free sure is part of a viable business model.”

Bill Ayers or McCarthy?

If you’ve been following the presidential race at all in the past couple weeks, you may have noticed a constant reference to a man named Bill Ayers, someone the McCain campaign has been linking to Barack Obama. Bill Ayers is currently a Distinguished Professor at UIC, but during the sixties and seventies, he was a cofounder and member or the radical left Weather Underground

organization, an anti-Vietnam War group that protested U.S. policies by bombing the Pentagon, U.S. Capitol and several other government buildings. As a result, the FBI labeled them as a domestic-terrorist organization. (Although these actions were certainly wrong, it is worth noting that warnings for evacuation always preceded the bombings, and as a result, none were ever injured in the attacks.)
So where is the connection to Barack Obama? Well, turns out, Ayers and his wife, both currently very successful and distinguished college professors, live in Hyde Park, the same place where Obama and his family live. The relation between the two is explained clearly in a recent Chicago Sun Times article:

In the mid-1990s, Ayers and Dohrn [his wife] hosted a meet-and-greet at their house to introduce Obama to their neighbors during his first run for the Illinois Senate. In 2001, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's campaign. Ayers also served alongside Obama between December 1999 and December 2002 on the board of the not-for-profit Woods Fund of Chicago. That board met four times a year, and members would see each other at occasional dinners the group hosted.

In addition, Ayers and Obama interacted occasionally in their roles with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a not-for-profit group charged with spending tens of millions of dollars it obtained through its affiliation with a school-improvement foundation created by late Ambassador Walter H. Annenberg. Obama chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge's board of directors. Ayers served on the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, which made recommendations to the board on which organizations should get grants. The groups worked on school-reform efforts between 1995 and 2000.

Obama’s connection with Bill Ayers is indeed fairly minor. Not to mention, the Bill Ayers today is certainly a much different person than who he was in his notorious anti-war activism days. (The Sun Times Article compares him to Bobby Rush, Black Panther-turned-U.S. Representative, for his work with Mayor Daley to overhaul Chicago Public Schools.) However, the McCain campaign has repeatedly referred to Obama’s minor connection with Bill Ayers as a major issue that voters should be concerned about in this election.

So why am I bringing all this up? Well, I realize that we just finished up our “Perilous Times” unit, but I couldn’t pass up this connection. In a recent interview on MSNBC’s Hardball, Michele Bachmann, Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota, made some comments that sounded eerily like McCarthy. Yeah, McCarthy! Remember him? Watch the interview here.

I find it troubling, but rather unsurprising, that as the McCain campaign and the GOP are entering a “time of peril” (Real Clear Politics Poll: Obama +5.0), they are starting to exhibit similar tactics as McCarthy to gain control of the people. If you noticed toward the end of the interview, Bachmann stated that she suspects Barack Obama to be Anti-American, and thinks the media ought to try to uncover who else within Congress might possess such views. “I have here in my hand a list…”

All too good to be true?

While browsing my regular online news sources today, I came across a rather intriguing headline:

U.S. Investing $250 Billion in Banks

Yikes! If you add that to the 700 billion bailout plan that was just approved, lets see… that’s…
well, that’s a ton of money.

The last time I checked, our nation did not have that kind of money to spare, in fact, I recall that our nation was already in quite a deficit as a result of the war in Iraq among other things. With the presidential election just around the corner, debates on taxes, increased funding for education and other things, and social security leave me wondering: how is it all possible? Where will that money come from?

Of course, as this entire economic crisis has constantly been compared to the Great Depression, it is only fitting that we also compare the solutions of these two issues. Interestingly enough, the New Deal also relied on a lot of financial aid from the government. Under the New Deal, the government employed thousands of people to work on large government projects, with the emphasis often primarily on providing jobs and wages rather than creating things the government really needed. That is not to say that these New Deal government projects were not beneficial, but rather, that the idea was mainly to solve the issue of unemployment and bring the nations economy back on track. So I suppose in that instance, further spending of money by the government was successful in solving the economic crisis.

However, it is still hard for me to believe that the government will be able to fund the bailout plan, invest further in American banks, while all the while carrying out the promises that both presidential candidates are making; increasing funding in important areas like renewable energy and education, while at the same time decreasing taxes. During the great depression, New Deal legislation was by far the highest priority in the government, and drastic measures and sacrifices were made in order to steer the economy back on track. However, in this present day situation, it appears as if the government is using money as a simple solution to all problems and the average American thus feels little direct impact of the economic crisis. It’s as if no sacrifices need to be made, an approach that I believe is too good to be true, and one that I find logically impossible. The way I see it, at some point or other, the balance will have to be restored. We can’t keep solving financial issues with money we don’t (as to my knowledge) have, as some point in America’s history, someone will have to pay up, and pay up big. This may not concern the government; after all, most of its members are already pretty far up in their years, but it concerns me. I don’t want to pay the past generation’s debts, I don’t want my children’s taxes to be funding a bailout plan that happened years before they were born.

So when I read the article about the U.S. Treasury investing heavily in U.S. Banks, banks that were on the verge of collapse only days ago, I worry. Perhaps, like the New Deal, this really will solve the economic crisis. Maybe the best thing we, as a nation, can do is invest in ourselves. I know little of economics; perhaps, in the end, this will all balance out. But I worry. Something tells me this is all too good to be true.

It’s a little recession, not a depression.

Browsing through the recent news on my computer, I came across an interesting article. What first caught my attention was the title, paired with the news category. The title, “See a Pattern on Wall Street,” seemed like a pretty common article title, especially these days, but it was not under the business or U.S. news category, but rather under science. Hmmm… Click, click.

The article began even more bizarrely. Two pictures of seemingly random marks. “Take a look at the two blurry images below. Can you see an object hidden in each one?”

And the article reads: “Before I give the answers, here’s another question: Do you feel a certain lack of control over events right now?”

Anyways, if you were like me you notice the image of Saturn in the image on the right immediately, and strained a little bit to discern something out of the image on the left. I eventually decided that it was a face. You see it? Well, if you were like me, you probably weren’t all to concerned about that, you were more interested in how on earth this had anything to do with Wall Street.

Anyways, after this intriguing introduction, the article begins to explain itself. Apparently a new scientific study shows that when people are primed to feel out of control, they are more likely to perceive patterns where they do not exist. So yes, it actually is Saturn on the right, but the left is just a random mess of lines. As the events of Wall Street have little to do with me (at least directly), the little prompt at the bottom of the images did not really affect my viewing of these images, but I would be very curious to see what a Wall Street investor might make of the image on the left.

Anyway, the study also showed that people are more prone to believing conspiracy theories and superstitions in times when they feel out of control. The article cites, for instance, that past studies have shown that deep-sea fishermen have more elaborate rituals and superstitions than fishermen who fish near the coast, where conditions are more predictable. Overall, I believe that the results of these studies make sense. The feeling of things being out of control that this article constantly refers to is almost synonymous with “Perilous Times,” our current theme in American Studies. Making this connection, I looked back at all the time periods we have covered thus far under this unit, searching for the same parallel. Salem Witch Trials. Wow, what a key example! The town would choose a crazed witch hunt over the admission that the events that were occurring were beyond their control.

In fact, the results of this study, reflecting countless eras throughout the world’s history, can perhaps explain early American Puritan society. According to Puritan belief, God alone chose who was to be among his elect, those who would be saved and taken to heaven. It did not matter how you behaved in life, for after all, according to Puritan belief, if you did good, it was because God granted you the capacity to do good; essentially you were not in control of yourself. Now, if you recall from the point of this entire article, people try to draw order or create the illusion or order amid an environment in which they feel out of control. Therefore, the great Puritan paradox was born. It was the idea that if you were among God’s elect, he would bring you great fortune in life, and consequently wealth and good fortune were sure signs that one must be among His chosen. In effect, therefore, Puritan society was not unlike most societies; wealth and fortune determined social standing. In fact, the Puritans, under the immense burden that lay upon their minds that they were not in control, took it one step further, with community rankings that decided how close to the front of church one sat.

The case of the Salem Witch Trials also reverberated in my head upon reading another example presented by the article, the bombing of London. According to the article, while the bombing of London during WWII was completely random, people spontaneously created that illusion that certain areas, certain blocks were chosen as targets while others were intentionally spared. People even went so far as to accuse residents of spared regions as being Nazi sympathizers to the point in which their safety and lives were at risk. The very idea that in both of these cases, people would more readily turn on others than face the reality that what was happening was beyond their control strikes me as scary, and yet dreadfully true. Thus, in this “perilous time” that we currently face with the stock market and the economy, it comes to me as no surprise that people seek out a simple, organized explanation. But the reality is much more complex, the stock market fell and banks failed not because of one person or one problem, but because of numerous issues that accumulated over years, going as deep as the very nature of your nation’s economy.

Upon looking at these times in history, it may appear these recent studies do little but scientifically prove the obvious. However, I found the end of the article quite interesting and thought provoking. The scientists noted that the delusion of order was in fact beneficial in some cases because it relieved depression and increased confidence. (My mind now jumps back to Wall Street. An entire economy based upon confidence. No wonder why the government keeps encouraging people to keep investing. Whether the market is under control or not, perhaps the best thing for it would at least be the illusion that everything is under control.)

Anyways, I would like to end with a quote from Dr. Whitson, one of the scientists who ran the experiment, from the article:

"Feeling in control might be one of the central animating forces for psychological and physical well-being. Not only are people who feel in control less likely to see things that aren’t there and end up chasing ghosts, as our research shows, but there are also a wide variety of health and societal benefits. When people are given information about a medical procedure – and thus feel less uncertain – they recover more quickly."

So perhaps deceiving ourselves in these times of peril isn’t the worse idea.

It’s a little recession, not a depression.
You have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Blessed by a Witch Hunter

While browsing the internet this weekend, reading the news, I came across an interesting article title: “Sarah Palin and the Thomas Muthee Witch Hunt”

I assumed the term “witch hunt” was a metaphor, as it is generally used in the news, until I read the article’s opening lines:

“Sarah Palin has been linked to a witch hunt. No, not a figurative witch hunt, the kind in which people are made to feel pressured and discriminated against. I’m talking about a real witch hunt, in which a woman is accused of witchcraft by someone seeking political power, and the woman is forced to flee her home in fear of her life.”

As the article explains, Pastor Thomas Muthee, in his effort to get control over the town of Kiambu, Kenya in order to start a church, started a witch hunt. Choosing a local woman who happened to be a fortune teller and, more importantly for Muthee, was a “close associate” with the leaders of the town, he accused her of being a sorceress that was cursing the town. As proof for these claims of witchcraft, he stated that there were three car accidents in the neighborhood near where this woman worked, “sure evidence” that she was a witch. As a result of these accusations, the local population went into panic and police were sent to arrest this unfortunate woman. When she was finally released from jail, she fled the town, and as a result for getting rid of this “demonic-spell” casting woman, Muthee had the support of the town and was able to establish his church.

If there is but one glaring message from our recent reading of The Crucible, by Arthur Miller, and our study of the Salem witch trials (though there certainly is not just this one), it is the sheer horror and destruction that a witch hunt brings upon a community. I cannot begin to describe that sickness in my heart to hear that such a horrific accusation was used as an instrument for one to gain power. And yet again we see the reflections of Salem 1692 and how easily a community surrenders power to the accusers of such a witch hunt, and how such absurd claims were at that time also used to try to accomplish other goals.

So how does this Kenyan priest’s revival of one of the darkest chapters of American history have to do with the current vice president candidate on the republican ticket?

It just so happens that Muthee had visited Sarah Palin’s church, the Wasilla Assembly of God, during the time when she was running for governor and had prayed over her. He prayed to “bring finances her way even for the campaign in the name of Jesus... Use her to turn this nation the other way around” and to keep her safe from “every form of witchcraft.”

What does Palin think of this incident? Check out this news clip.

Puritans and the Market Crisis

Well, the inevitable has happened.

I’m sure by now, you’ve all heard of what happened with the stock market.
For those of you stuck in a hole for the past week or so, here are two links; the first detailing events the led up to the chaos that recently unfolded, and the second, explaining what exactly happened. Actually, it might not be a bad idea to have a look at these articles, even if you have been watching the news.

Anyway, while browsing the news, a particular article caught my eye. Entitled “Lessons From the Puritans”, the article, by Cal Thomas, opens with the line: “ ‘Greed is good.’ (1987 film ‘Wall Street’).” Immediately following: “ ‘Whoever loves money, never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless.’ (Ecclesiastes 5:10).”

Thus, Thomas critiques the current market crisis; not placing the blame on a particular government administration or lack of proper regulations, but rather upon the very ethics that sit at the heart of modern Western culture. He explains that it is the very way which our nation operates, with its obsession for material, or “worldly” goods that has ultimately caused the disaster that is the American economy. Thomas then quotes the puritan Thomas Watson:

“‘Blessedness . . . does not lie in the acquisition of worldly things. Happiness cannot by any art of chemistry be extracted here.’”

Indeed, in this “perilous time”, I cannot help but agree with Thomas’s point. However, I question whether such a noble perspective was truly the belief of the Puritans, or perhaps rather what we would prefer to believe the Puritan’s believed in. After all, while the Puritan’s viewed success and material fortune as a product of God’s will alone, they used these external signs as a means of determining who was among God’s elect. Therefore, in practice, the possession of material goods and worldly success still played a major role in Puritan societal status.

This seemingly contradictory element of Puritan society makes me wonder whether perhaps the desire for wealth and success is an inherent feature of all human society. However, whether it is or not, I believe the Puritans may still have much advice to offer. I believe that, while they may have harbored some flaws and contradictions in their society, their core beliefs and ideals may help us shed some light on the flaws of our own society, flaws that have led to the current crisis that we face.

"You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig"

This past Tuesday, Barack Obama stated in a speech, comparing McCain's economic plan as similar to Bush's: "You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years. “Unfortunately for Obama, it just so happened that in her acceptance speech last week, Sarah Palin was quoted as saying "I'm a hockey mom! You know the difference between a bulldog and a hockey mom? Lipstick!"
Therefore, it was no surprise that the McCain campaign immediately claimed that Obama's statement was a sexist remark against Palin. Personally, I think it is pretty clear that such a incident was merely a coincidence (an amusing one at that), but then again, politics is politics, and as the race heats up, either campaign is likely to jump at such an "opportunity".

However, this little incident is merely a minor detail in the overall issues and ideas that are brought forth by this upcoming election. Gov. Palin is the GOP’s first woman to be on a presidential ticket, perhaps an indication that times are changing. Rosemary Camposano, spokeswoman for WomenCount.org, a campaign group initially founded to support Hillary Clinton's presidential effort and is currently working to advance women's political issues, states: "Palin was an incredibly clever political strategy. It shows the Republicans are asking themselves: What is the undercurrent moving people in this country? Where is the untapped energy for this election? And they figured it out. It's women.” An eloquent way of stating what many have crudely phrased, that the surprise pick Palin was chosen simply because she was a woman, an attempt to snag still bitter Hillary supporters. Whether the reason or not, the reality is that several polls from this week now show the McCain-Palin ticket with a double-digit lead over Obama-Biden among white women voters. (Although the validity of these polls might be questioned as in other recent news several polling companies admitted to sampling more Republican than Democratic voters, allegedly in order to create the illusion of a closer presidential race)

Overall, it is clear that issues of sexism will continue to play a role in this very unique upcoming election. Although I personally believe voters should be more concerned about the issues, I believe the reality is that such media-created controversies will still have an impact on this election.

A final ironic detail: In a recent interview, when asked what he thought of Hillary Clinton’s economic plan, McCain repeated Obama’s controversial pig-lipstick comment in what could be viewed in the same perspective as Obama’s comment was.