A Brief History of God and Atheism

Just watched this for a class I'm in. It's quite an interesting historical examination of the roots and development of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I'm hoping we'll spend a little time outside of the "western" religions, but chances seem slight at this point.


We also watched this film, which is a brief but fairly comprehensive review of the history of atheism and its basic tenets.

Democratized Education and Autodidacticism

I've spent a good deal of my day today, and some of yesterday, enjoying the videos posted on khanacademy's youtube channel. It seems abundantly obvious to me that this is one of the most beneficial ways to utilize the internet (and especially YouTube, which is so well-populated with tripe) for the free edification of people. Of course, one must wonder after watching some of these videos (especially the ones covering mathematical topics) why it is that education is considered such an expensive endeavor. Simply enough, education is just the communication of ideas to an audience initially unfamiliar with them; we engage in educational processes every day when we inform our cohorts of new material (even if that material is no more intellectual than our noticing a change in gas prices at the corner store).
At this point, I am not prepared to deliver a full critique of the bloated public and private education systems, but since one of my first blog posts years ago still seems fairly relevant, I'll throw up a link right here.

I would recommend giving the 15-minute tutorials by the Khan Academy a look. Even if you are familiar with some of the subject matter, there are bound to be areas which will help shore up particular knowledge gaps.

A Tiny Bit of Correspondence

Hello Wiley,

I'm a [] librarian [] and have read many of your BI columns. While I don't always completely share your views regarding intellectual property, you seem to be well informed and have good understanding of the issues. While I do believe that artists, musicians, and other creative individuals (such as authors) should be compensated for their professional work, major publishers (as you may already be aware) tend to be greedy and seem to be trying to chip away at "fair use" provisions in current copyright law. A current suit against Georgia State University by several publishers as a case in point. They really don't represent the interests of their authors so much as their own bottom lines.

Anyway, when I saw this blog by a librarian who is well known in the profession for her astute writings, I thought you might be interested in reading it. We all hope this scenario doesn't play out as depicted here, but students and faculty alike would do well to be more aware of this issue. We library types don't have a lot of clout in such matters, but if the scholars who produce the work for which the big publishers charge so much would just get more worked up about it, there might be some hope of preserving the traditional values of higher education—including the free and unimpeded exchange of ideas, information, and research.

Cheers,

xxx xxxx

-----

[Sir],

Thank you for your link. As an avid bibliophile, I consider librarians (as a totalizing stereotype) to be people with whom I share many goals, open and free access to knowledge being one of them.
I will caution you that I have inadvertently engaged in a rant below (as is often the case), and do not expect you to read all of it, but would like to briefly present my views regarding intellectual property, with the hope that we could find some sort of middle ground, or at least discover specific policy suggestions vis a vis my views on intellectual property and your expertise in the library sciences.

I agree with you that artists and musicians should receive compensation for their work, but I often find that they are simply the "working class" of their respective monopolized industries--and hence why writers like me must work for free (as I am doing right now) simply to "build a portfolio," most musicians will devote countless years to pursuit of their passion, with little prospect of "making it" (or "selling out," depending on your perspective), and most artists will hone their skills to a precise degree with little prospect of their pieces ending up in any major galleries. The end goal of "making it" in any of these industries is touted as some definitive state of accomplishment, whereas the people who achieve that ultimate measure of success are usually hacks (in my opinion) who have no real talent but are easily marketable because their production formula does not change (unless the industry demands it): see Steven King or Katy Perry for apt, if over-exposed examples.
I am not attempting to polemicize, but I find that these are broad issues that are not relegated to any one industry or field. The ultimate mission of libraries is to provide free or low-cost copyrighted materials to the public at large (not limited to books, clearly), and as such I think it is obvious that there will be a constant adversarial relationship between "artistic industries" and those who attempt to distribute their materials for anything but the suggested retail price.
Intellectual property is generally the purview of large business interests with the legal capabilities to ensure they receive the benefit of those rights, often undercutting one another in the attempt to gain vertical and horizontal control of any industry. As a recent (and slightly tangential) example, you can take a look at this article: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/in-a-bill-wall-street-shows-clout/, which illustrates (at least from a fiscal perspective), the importance of intellectual property in the ability of large businesses to charge fees for processes that are entirely abstract in nature. I assume that you have read Lawrence Lessig's "Free Culture," which is a great (though dry) review of the interference of business interests, via the legal system, in areas which were formerly considered cultural domains and not subject to monetization. If not, you can take a brief look at his website (http://www.lessig.org/), which hasn't been updated in awhile, but still features some interesting resources and blog posts in a slightly more open-ended vein than the blog you linked me to. I also believe Coe library has all of his books in their catalog.
Interestingly enough, in a recent discussion hosted by Democracy Now! in London, Slavoj Zizek (the famous Slovenian philosopher and psychoanalyst) mentioned (roughly apropos of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange) that he believed "one of the main reasons capitalism will get in to crisis is intellectual property. In the long term it simply cannot deal with it." You can browse the transcript or watch the video here: http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/7/5/watch_full_video_of_wikileaks_julian_assange_philosopher_slavoj_iek_with_amy_goodman (I recommend skimming the transcript unless you have a deep personal interest in Zizek's nearly unfathomable ramblings or Assange's conspiratorial analysis of world politics).
Now, even though I am certainly not a "post-Hegelian neo-Marxist" or whatever Zizek claims to be as of his most recent book, I do think he is smart enough to be making a cogent point here: intellectual ideas are not the property of any one person, and especially not large corporate entities legally considered to be people. If one considers an idea to be their property, they should not even espouse it without the expectation that it will be re-appropriated by others for their own personal use, and the use of society at large. I do not write with the intention of charging people for my work, I write with the intention of encouraging open-minded discussions within the public sphere--notably, my efforts would most likely be curbed at any "respectable" publication outside of campus media. The attempt to restrict the ownership of ideas amounts to totalitarianism (thought control), in my view, and though it is not as blatant as outright censorship, it may in fact be more pernicious because the only people who are aware of the impacts are those involved in creative industries or (in your provided example) academics and librarians who have difficulty accessing the information necessary to their jobs. More importantly, those of us who are attempting to make a career in one of these fields become accomplices in the process once we "make it" and receive some minor reward for our extensive efforts.

With this general overview in mind, perhaps I could ask you for a suggestion as to how we should maintain these intellectual property rights without large-scale social change? As you are undoubtedly aware, the period for copyright licenses has been quietly extended over the century until, in some industries, copyrights have come to outlive most authors/artists/etc. Should we make copyright laws less stringent, or should we make more provisions for fair use by libraries and educators? What are some specific real-world examples of restrictive policies on university campuses that I could look at in order to formulate a more nuanced perspective on this matter?

I hope you do not find this response overly-long, combative, or unfocused (though it is likely all three of these). I am genuinely interested in learning more about these issues, but my studies leave me little time to familiarize myself with new areas of law and society unless I am prodded to do so by one such as yourself. Let me thank you for occasionally taking the time to read my unpopular diatribes in the Branding Iron, and thank you further for having the consideration to write me about an issue that I believe we share some common ground on. If there is any way that I could convince you to outline the issues (bullet-point style, perhaps?) that you consider paramount to the maintenance of fair use rights on university campuses, I would greatly appreciate it.

Warmest regards (and apologies for my verbose tendencies),
-w.c.

P.S. As I am looking for content for my blog and have spent an inordinate amount of time on this email, would you mind if I post your email and my response? I would cut out your name and personally identifying characteristics.

-----

Wiley,

I find your reply to be none of the 3 negative adjectives you ascribe to it.  It was a pleasant surprise to see anyone take the time to write this comprehensive and thoughtful of a reply.  Among other things, I do understand a bit better now the nuances of your thinking on recompense for creative individuals vis-a-vis large corporations (or corporate-style entities).  I do not mind if you post the content on your blog with the personal info deleted as offered.

Right now I don't have quite the time to do your request justice, but as soon as possible I will try to address your questions.  Again, thanks so much for taking the time to answer my email.

-----

Hi again.  I will take a bit of time to respond to your email asking me for my thoughts on the intellectual property on campus issue.  Glad to see you are familiar with Lawrence Lessig's work in this area.  While I have not read his publications in full, I have seen a number of blog posts, commentaries, etc., both from and about him, that have been linked from library-oriented sites that I follow.  So he certainly has visibility within the library community.

As to my thoughts on the most promising strategies for dealing with overly restrictive copyright policies, making copyright laws less stringent would clearly be the best option.  Unfortunately, realistically I do not see that happening in the foreseeable future.  As the passage of the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" makes clear, Congress sadly is not going to suddenly stop listening to the big guys like Disney and start listening to us library/academic types.  Far more promising (though challenging enough in its own right) is fighting hard to preserve existing fair-use provisions for libraries and educators.  It is provisions like these that appear to be under assault in copyright litigation such as the current Georgia State University case mentioned in the blog.  Besides engaging the litigation battles and doing our best to lobby lawmakers, we need to keep the issue visible to the public (or at least teachers, students and other scholars) through advocacy.  The American Library Association does this all the time, and hopefully higher-education groups such as the Association of American Universities and the American Association of University Professors are on board too.  More people need to be aware of, and care about, the subject.  A point one often hears is that we need to be sure we are fully utilizing fair use in our daily work, as voluntarily restricting our practices through fear or uncertainty as to what we can/cannot do makes it that much harder to maintain legitimate rights to use copyrighted material.

Off the top of my head I can't cite particular examples of restrictive policies on campuses because I have not researched this and any examples I may have run across in the past have faded from memory.  Generally speaking, I would say that we have adjusted pretty well to the current copyright law which has been in effect since 1978 (as amended to extend the term, as you correctly note).  As you know we here at UW provide a lot of material on e-reserves as well as delivering huge quantities of material that people ask for via "Request It" either utilizing fair-use or paying for permissions when necessary (a cost that is seldom passed on to students).  I don't work directly with e-reserves or Interlibrary Loan (the "Request It" people), but my sense is they can usually provide what faculty & students want, one way or another.  They do get the occasional clueless prof who will ask them to scan an entire book and place it on e-reserve—not bloody likely—but then we simply suggest that they either pick the most relevant chapter or two, or just place the physical book on reserve.  Course pack requirements and costs may be good cases of restrictive policies, but I'm not well informed on that area.

I can give you a relevant example, though, that you may find interesting.  Don't know if you've discovered it, but we have a wonderful database of digitized Wyoming newspapers representing most of the news output from around the state.  Great for researching Wyo. history and all things Wyoming—if you're interested only in content published up to 1923.  That date is the most recent one for which we could safely assume that everything was in the public domain.  Much of the post-1923 content probably could have been used as well, but there was neither the time nor money to seek out all the rights holders to either get permission to reproduce the content or confirm that there were no rights holders (the latter category is often called "orphan works").  Very frustrating to say the least.

Finally, to address your question about any other issues paramount to maintenance of fair-use rights, my major case in point would be the open-access movement in scholarly communication, both within and outside the library context.  The primary premise of open access is that academic authors do their research, publication, etc. using university resources (appropriately since this is a core job expectation of most faculty), usually without remuneration beyond their existing salaries; then submit their work to an academic journal, whose publisher retains copyright and sells the work back to the institution (usually via the library of course) at a ridiculous price.  Open access seeks to circumvent this model by turning universities into publishers in their own right, cutting out the expensive middleman (aka the traditional publisher) and thereby saving money.  But it's taking longer to get off the ground than some had hoped.  For one thing, there are genuine costs involved in publishing.  Even with the typical e-journal which eliminates the costs of printing, binding, shipping, etc., there are costs relating to the editorial and production processes.  If you're not going to charge the author to publish their work—and few wish to go that route for obvious reasons—then the university either individually or as part of a consortium is going to have to subsidize this work somehow.  With the painful budget cuts now taking place in most states, this is even more of a challenge.  Getting faculty buy-in is an issue too—hard to change the academic culture where publishing in prestigious, top-tier journals is valued greatly, despite the fact that said journals also tend to be among the pricier ones.  Nonetheless, I don't see the open access model going away, and most of us hope that ultimately it will get the kinks worked out and become the dominant means of scholarly communication.  At a minimum, authors are being encouraged to retain copyright on work submitted for publication rather than turn it over to the publisher.

One related initiative is the rule established a few years ago by the National Institutes of Health, requiring NIH research grant recipients to make their published work funded by said grants freely available to the public after a certain time period (one year as I recall).  This is a condition of receiving the grant in the first place.  The premise being that the taxpayers who ultimately fund the work should be able to access the results without either having to pay twice by buying a copy of the journal, or trying to find a library that will make it available to them.  The latter is obviously not an issue for those with access to library resources through their affiliation with a college, university, etc., but can be for members of the general public.  Other funding agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, have been encouraged to adopt such policies as well, but I'm not clear right now on how that effort is going.  Would be nice if it was a uniform requirement across funding agencies, but we're not there yet.

Hope this has been of some help in addressing your request.  Again, thanks for writing.

Warm regards,

xxxx

Zizek and Julian Assange on Democracy Now!

This is a fantastic video, if you're interested in such things. Julian Assange is actually quite eloquent with some questions, if evasive with the ones directly pertaining to him. Zizek is slovenly and brilliant, as usual.

Watch live streaming video from democracynow at livestream.com

Greek Protests Continue, Police Respond With Brutal Force

Protests continue in Greece as their parliament deliberately ignores the demonstrations (in spite of some lip service paid by certain members). Police and protesters "clashed" today, but there is much speculation as to the nature of the "thugs" who have been initiating seemingly unconnected criminal acts (such as looting and destruction of property)--many claim they are agents provacateur, seeking to justify the extreme violence utilized by the police in response to the ongoing peaceful protests against EU-imposed austerity measures.
It's important to note that "polls suggest that up to 80% of Greeks reject these austerity measures," as reported by the Guardian. Not surprising considering the pay cuts, job cuts, and tax increases involved; these are not simply radicals hellbent on destruction, these are "the people" in every sense of the word.

This is one of many videos posted recently showing the police using unnecessary force against clearly peaceful citizens:


This tweeter is providing regular updates of the state-sponsored attempts to force a rout by protesters. Luckily, they are still holding strong, despite the passage today of several pieces of legislation related to the externally-imposed austerity measures.
According to Sofia (as quoted in the Guardian): "But people kept coming back, they were clapping their hands whenever they heard many gas bombs explode. From time to time they were singing. All sorts of ages, professions [joined the protests]. I'd say they were people that wouldn't usually protest and now they do."
Inspiring. we would be lucky to have such a commitment to real democracy in this country, but unfortunately all we have is the Tea Party.

I cannot emphasize enough my appreciation for the strength of the heroic protesters standing their ground against all odds in Syntagma Square and elsewhere in Greece. Keep fighting the good fight!

Tragedy in the Holy Land: The Second Uprising

An insightful documentary into the history of the foundation of the Israeli state.

Recent Speech at the University of Cologne by Noam Chomsky

I will add some thoughts after I finish viewing this.

(in) Consistency.

The three central items to which most of the anarchist movement are opposed are the state, the church (or religion), and capitalism (or property). However, when examining the relations between large repressive institutions in seemingly unrelated social areas, it is difficult for socialist libertarians to provide much more than tentative hypotheses positing correlations between similar modes of organization, theorizing and operation. Anarchists, as a general rule, can be relied upon to theoretically oppose the concept of large homogenizing entities in principle, but it is also (or should be) a goal of practical libertarians to direct their critiques at pervasive social assumptions which underlie our tacit everyday acceptance of authority and dogmatic ideologies on an often innocuous and seemingly(!) purely subjective level. Unfortunately, it is difficult, in the absence of any significant organized social movement in our era, for anarchist philosophy as a whole to present a unified front as regards less-tangible constructs and underexposed or underexamined ideologies--even broad subjects such as "the media," which share structural qualities with the familiar demons of church and state, cannot be fit neatly into a rubric of "modern anarchism" (if indeed there is such a thing).
The political realities of anarchism and the its libertarian ideals demand that it maintain flexibility in the face of such seeming inconsistencies, though. As a practical political philosophy, the strongest advantage of anarchism over established political factions is its undefinable borders and unique capacity for embracing and integrating itself with the struggles of any time period. The consistently Heraclitean landscape of pertinent social and political factors practically requires a minimalist governmental philosophy, in the mind of the anarchist, and this provides the basis for the adaptive framework which seems so hodge-podge and uncoordinated to hierarchically-minded individuals.
To illustrate the way in which "anarchism" can simultaneously reject and accept an idea or institution, we need look no further than popular representations of libertarian philosophy: indeed, the (questionably) "Libertarian" American political party favors a set of objectives which are roughly anarcho-capitalist; and the concept of "Christian Anarchism" seems to be philosophically inconsistent with any legitimate definition of anarchism, since it simply replaces the secular power of the state with the ethereal notion of god; similarly, many self-proclaimed anarchists, while espousing an attitude of total antagonism to the interference of outside agencies with the affairs of the individual, have no problem with sacrificing their liberties to another individual (who simultaneously engages in the same codependent self-defeating behavior) in the voluntarily cooperative venture of repression known as "marriage"; finally, there is the familiar and difficult issue of "successful" self-proclaimed anarchists (Noam Chomsky, among others) who possess a small fortune and thus seem to be complicit with at least some aspects of disproportionate distribution of wealth and capitalism.
The simplest and most consistent definition of anarchism is a system of opposition to all hierarchies and reductions of individual liberty, and as such cannot honestly abide any hint of subordination, even subordination which is "voluntary." I use quotations for that word because it seems that when power structures are pervasive (as they are at present), the mind is irretrievably warped by constant exposure to ideas and situations tainted by such structures. Even the most critically-oriented skeptic is likely to succumb to at least some of the conveniences and temptations offered by the almost ubiquitous consumerism and jingoistic (nationalistic) fanaticism which on some days seem perfectly inescapable. Because of the necessary inconsistencies between different conceptions of anarchism, and the tangible political benefits an open-ended value system provides, it behooves the movement to allow room for disagreement within its ranks. This is only in cohesion with the basic ethical precepts of anarchism, which at the very least should always place individual liberties first and organizational unity last.

Simple Considerations on the Subject of Liberty

I hold this truth to be self-evident: that all people are not created equal and will not be treated as though this is the case. This is not my personal preference, but it is a realistic assessment of the facts of life.
People are not "created equal": they are limited by hereditary, cultural, geographic and socio-economic circumstances to a narrow range of possible outcomes and potentialities. It is a mix of influences which are (a) "naturally-endowed" (the amalgamation of circumstances existent at the time of birth--genetics, etc.), (b) uncontrollably or indeliberately externally imposed (e.g. disease and accidental traumas, as well as less dramatic and even minute subjective influences like incidental exposure to ideas and vocabulary) and (c) deliberately externally imposed (education, theology, propaganda, advertising, mass media). If we could do away with the overly-simplistic ideology that people are really "equal," in any sense of the term, we can perhaps also stop using and thinking along the lines of such misconceived notions as "the people," "the general will," "the national interest" and so on. Rarely are groupings as simple as our common abstractions would have us believe, and it is highly unlikely, especially given the large populations concerned, that any useful generalizations can be applied to a "demographic" or single easily-isolated section of the population.
The similarity between the classical Marxist infatuation with achieving absolute equality through absolute control of governmental authority and our present emphasis on universal suffrage and non-discriminatory governmental policies is palpable. In a system where politics is reduced to the appeal to certain demographics in an analogous manner to effective marketing strategy or "market share," it should not be surprising that totalizing labels are used to reduce a large mass of individuals into definable categories. The tragedy is the acceptance (both tacit and explicit) by social justice advocates of such totalizing categorical labels with the expectation of finding some meaningful manner of shrinking power differentials between individuals and repressive institutions.
An easy illustration of the paradox inherent to attempting to achieve individual freedom through uniformity/conformity is the institution/ideology of feminism. By defining as its primary power base a group which composes more than 50% of the world's population, feminism utilizes a tried and true tactic (power by numbers) to solidify its claim as a formidable force in the fields of political advocacy and philosophy (more specifically, ethics). This is not in itself wrong, to attempt to elicit positive egalitarian changes by force of sheer popular will, but the ultimate effect, as with any group or institution which claims to be single-minded, is to reduce the initiative and freedom of the members in favor of an all-too-familiar conflict-oriented approach to activism. The risk factors for increasingly authoritarian behavior are abundantly obvious in this case: (1) the denunciation of the "other" (in this case males and non-feminist females) implied by the exclusivity of the ideal, (2) inflexibility and hostility caused by negativistic associations with all things male, (3) the underlying presumed necessity for authoritative sources to "speak for" women who are "incapable" of advocating for themselves and who may in fact not wish to be advocated for, (4) confusion/dissention among self-proclaimed adherents due to inevitable disagreements over the specific tenets of the larger and broadly-outlined concept of "feminism." These factors are present in any unifying organization or affiliation. Of these, the fourth is the most curious, for in an (unfortunately) Hegelian manner, groups tend to subdivide on a long enough timescale, creating novel justifications for exclusion or exception and feeding the first two. What I am definitely not suggesting is some uncontrollable progression toward an ultimate ideal, but rather a recurring cycle that unthinkingly feeds (or at least fails to reverse) the trend toward more sophisticated and complex systems of tacitly accepted authority.
I do not wish to imply that feminists are closet dictators, or anything of the sort. Instead I mean to encourage all activists and those in the social justice fields to consider that exclusive advocacy of rights is tantamount to denial of rights to others. The answer to ubiquitous inequality is not the selective improvement of certain groups' situations, but the gradual elimination of barriers to any individual maximally improving their quality of life.

Helen Thomas. . . Really That Evil?

There could hardly be a more patent example of misdirection by the media than the recent Helen Thomas "scandal," which has, it goes without saying, attracted its fair share of attention in the obsessively self-referential and predictably unoriginal blogosphere.
Perhaps the bloggers are not to be blamed; after all, the "professionals" in the mainstream media could only manage to disagree from one another inasmuch as some of them admitted to previously respecting her. Richard Cohen--who by all appearances also did not appreciate Thomas' earlier collaboration with Stephen Colbert--took the opportunity to give a history lesson entirely inapplicable to anything at all, other than a facile sense of irony.
Even the articles "in favor" of Helen Thomas can hardly avoid making lame excuses as to their reasoning for supporting her: James Zogby, President of the Arab American Institute, says she 'misspoke,' and makes the seemingly poignant comment that other people have said things which people do not agree with; Ellen Ratner of FOXNews.com basically concurs, but unconsciously reveals by her ineloquent sentence fragments omething herself, remarking that "we all have said things -- or thought things -- about 'other' groups of people." Wow, those are some heavy guns to have on your side, Helen.
I should hardly need to point out that criticizing Israeli policies is hardly 'anti-Semitic,' though that is very likely what you will be labeled as if you choose to exercise your ostensible right to free speech. Remember, the question which was posed did not regard Thomas' opinion of "Jews," she was asked her opinion of the situation in Israel. And what is the situation in Israel? Currently, the top news items discussing the state of Israel are all connected with their embargo of the Gaza Strip since 2007; it's not a pretty situation, and in many countries there have been significant protests against what has been rightly considered an illegal policy (for instance, detaining aid vessels in international waters is strangely considered a crime in most circles).
The "scandalous" words Helen Thomas delivered were couched in a matter-of-fact declaration of the reality that the Palestinians are living in an occupied state. In fact, the explanations for why her statement was "racist" or "bigoted" are entirely convoluted; why is it racist to demand that an occupying group exit a country which was forced to accept them, and subsequently oppressed by progressively more violent and restrictive means? It is only racist if you assume that the words "Jews" and "Israel" are direct synonyms, which they are not.
Putting aside the deeper issues involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (for purposes of abbreviation), it should be obvious, that if we were to replace the two countries in this instance with two others in a similar situation, it becomes untenable to equate the criticism of any government's occupation with "racism": e.g., if someone were to ask me "what do you think of the situation in China," and I were to respond, "they should get the hell out of Tibet," it would be unlikely that you would call me an anti-Chinese bigot. In this circumstance, however, since Israel happens to be a religiously-affiliated state occupying a differently-religiously-affiliated state, it is acceptable(?).

Definition: Responsibility

"Do you ever get the feeling that everything in America is completely fucked up?"
-Mark Hunter, Pump Up the Volume

Well, my friends, the time has come for my personal revolution. If it isn't obvious to those of you who know me, I am experiencing a euphoria that can only stem from productive self-examination. I feel great, and I'll tell you why: I am the creator of my own destiny. This may sound like a bit of optimistic nonsense to most of you, maybe because it's obvious that nobody else controls our individual lives.
However, I feel as though I'm finally getting to the core of my explorations into the human condition. Do the rest of you? Because, honestly, I can do this by myself, but it won't be half as much fun. I have a newfound respect for open communication and honesty, because I now know much more clearly what I should do to help others with their problems. The first step is to understand, and I can't understand anything if I can't expect honest answers to my questions. I can tell you that I will be honest with all of you.
I can also tell you that I am afraid. I fear a lot of things; I'm afraid of being alone, most of all. I fear the police, the government, and the depths of my own insanity. I fear the possibility that invisible enemies will destroy me, but I fear more greatly that my own faults will be my undoing. In giving the rest of you my uncompromising respect and trust, I am scared of the possibility that I will not earn the same from you. It's my promise to you that I will endeavor to ignore my fears and be responsible for my actions.

We're all worried, we're all in pain. That just comes with having eyes and having ears. But just remember one thing - it can't get any worse, it can only get better. . .Quitting is not going to make you stronger, living will. So just hang on and hang in there.

So let's toss some fears out. And not like this shoddy excuse for a blog. C'mon, write something original.

I'm afraid of the future, because it probably won't go the way I want it to.

"I never let my schooling interfere with my education"

-Mark Twain.
Blanketing the nation with government-funded higher education furthers the already notable depreciation of college degrees in the job market. Inequities in higher education are nothing to applaud, but with information increasingly becoming universally available (at least more so), what sets you apart in the job market is not your education, as these/these happy fellows will attest to. What the world needs is an increase in intelligence, not necessarily an increase in education.

Definition: Democracy

I've been informed that my manifesto is long and rambling. Well, far be it from me to subject the rest of you to reading that huge thing, but it will be archived if you'd like to peruse it. I think that what I have there is a disconcerting and realistic representation of my moral principles, which are fluid at this point.
-



Now that we have that over with, my first proposal is a policy of free public education. If you find the other post too long to merit reading, by all means skip it and read this one. I consider this a comprehensive and well-considered idea, that education at all levels should be free to the entirety of the public. I also feel that any person aspiring to denounce my philosophy will immediately show their true intentions: free, unadulterated access to education is a cornerstone of truly democratic societies. The British seem to think so.
Our educational system is incredibly obsolete for our time. To be sure, it is a good measure to mandate that all Americans should have the right to a high school diploma. However, we've come a long way from the days when this country had nine universities for its 13 colonies, to our current plethora of institutes of higher education. We are waist-deep in the information age, and any lack of emphasis on education will force us, as Americans, to fall further and further behind the rest of the world.
I will openly state, from the outset, that my plan is a deliberately deconstructive response to the "No Child Left Behind" [sic] measures. It seems ludicrous to me that the United States Congress would rationally choose to implement a measure placing educational emphasis on "bubble-sheet" tests and rigid standards for teachers. Not only is the intent of the legislation seriously warped, but to tie meaningless educational standards to a school system's federal funding seems underhanded and malicious. It is, essentially, the blackmailing of our nation's educators and administrators. As I have grown up and ridden the cusp of the "No Child Left Behind" generation, I have seen the results, and they're not pretty. The arguments made for this policy's purported success are purely self-feeding; it's been shown that the improvements on test scores have been the result of lowering standards (in the case of Missouri), or removing non-tested elements from school curricula.
Absent my concerns over Bush's idea of education, this is a uniquely troubling vision of the nation's future. Strangely enough, even with this major educational reform underway, President George W. Bush has threatened a funding proposal for education recently, prompting me to wonder why Bush consistently practices "fiscal discipline" in the areas of public education and healthcare. It's interesting to note the relation between the Department of Education's budget and that of the Department of Defense, and observe the Bush administration's clearly-defined funding priorities.
A college education almost certainly guarantees a significantly larger income where a high school diploma will not. Add in the fact that a bachelor's degree just doesn't go as far as it used to, and you have a population composed of suddenly under-educated citizens. Not only does our current approach ignore the need for qualified professionals in the technology-driven economic market, but it is tantamount to the enslavement of the lower class. Higher education is a blatant barrier to low-income families achieving better status in our society.
Not only are they less likely to receive a high school diploma, but low-income college students are much less likely to complete college than their high-income counterparts. This has a nullifying effect on any arguments made for completely merit-based educational recognition.

Low-income high school graduates in the top quartile on standardized tests attend college at the same rate as high-income high school graduates in the bottom quartile on the same tests. Only 36 percent of college-qualified low-income students complete bachelor’s degrees within eight and a half years, compared with 81 percent of high-income students.

Furthermore, low-income students, the ones who are most likely to need student loans, remain uninformed about their student loan options. Concurrently, minority students have a decreased probability of graduating. Is it any wonder why we, the structuralists of the world, think that this is a system of inheritance? How is a poor kid supposed to get a bachelor's degree, when federal grants are a pittance, and scholarships guarantee we'll be in debt for decades? Well, there's always the possibility of dropping out.
If people weren't forced to get their education in a 15-20 year sprint, they could space out their studies, more easily adjust their education with employment, and we would have a guaranteed supply of qualified personnel in all fields. Is this a bad idea? I ask all these rhetorical questions because the answers seem self-explanatory. Here's my suggested mode of correction: we should imbue a non-governmental organization with the powers to disburse funds to private educational facilities and organizations. These funds will be provided by the federal government, who would maintain a Department of Education, for purposes of administrating programs for professional fields which require government certification.
I don't think the government should be absent from public education. Their role is critical; as a democratic society, our elected officials should take care to preserve the values of our forefathers in a changing world. But, like a well-behaved student, the government should be neither seen nor heard in the administration of education. A non-governmental, non-profit organization should be responsible for disbursing federal funds to schools. Furthermore, rather than conforming to an unbending set of standards (in a field where one size does not fit all), we should be encouraging diversity and innovation in educational institutions. It is important now, more than ever, that the general population enjoy a well-rounded education in the liberal arts and in fields such as engineering or medicine.
If we adopt the philosophy of "lifelong learning," we can imagine that adults are just as able to learn and grow as adolescents. It should be immediately apparent that the only barriers to continuing education for adults are time and money. Assuming this, if education were free, what society would we see emerge?
The United States now has the world's largest service economy, shedding our previous status as an industrial superpower. Our product focus has shifted from goods to ideas, and it is upon these ideas (the end result of education) that our nation's future rests. Imagine the number of qualified scientists in a field of research doubling or even tripling. Now imagine that number being replicated throughout all fields of research, adding to the capabilities of our society to solve its own problems. This is an enormous improvement to envision, yet it would pale in comparison with the number available after the general population could educate themselves in any field. Your plumber would have a master's in literature, your secretary, a Ph.D. in communications, and your children could look forward to as many degrees as their heart could want. With all these informed people out and about, it's also easy to envision a world where conversation is more relevant and productive.
With higher education, there is an attendant decrease in crime rates. It could also offer a means for self-rehabilitation for the millions behind bars in this country.
A greater median of general education in this country would also, conceivably, increase voter turnout. College-educated students are not only more likely to vote, but it seems logical that they would also be more responsible voters, leading to a better democratic policymaking process as a whole.
Education for adults will have a spillover effect on the next generation, encouraging a cultural habit of lifelong learning. A study by the Institute for Women's Policy Research states:

The positive impacts felt by those enrolled in higher education filtered down to their children. Many survey participants (42.4 percent) indicated that their children had improved study habits since their enrollment in higher education and almost a third (30.4 percent) indicated that their children are now making better grades. The vast majority of respondents (88.0 percent) indicated that education made them feel better equipped to help their children achieve educational goals[emphasis added].

A mind toward the future is certainly what this nation needs. With people struggling to keep up with daily developments, it's easy to get lost in the river of the present and stop thinking about the inevitable ends we will be taken to. As of now, the future is something I know nothing about, but I know one way to make sure it will be a smooth ride with a few surprises as possible: educate. I believe that not only do we have an obligation as members of a democratic society to be educated and enlightened, but we have an obligation to future societies to structure our actions and policies in a reasonable way. To do otherwise would be to deny our own consciousness; by failing to operate by virtue of our natural gifts of intelligence, we deny an integral part of ourselves. I consider my proposal for free education to be a self-fulfilling plea to reason; we must adapt to the world around us, whether we choose to in our leisurely prime, or with predictable disaster staring us in the face.

Definition: Manifesto

After an appalling amount of research on Blackwater, I was finally dissuaded from releasing an unoriginal expose by a considerate friend. If you want the skinny on the whole deal, though, I would highly recommend checking out this Pulitzer-prize nominated series. It enumerates the facts and background behind the company's business, and goes the extra distance to include all the relevant issues. It includes:

• A look at a historical perspective on mercenary groups, and a timeline of Blackwater's own history.


• The otherwise-normal job benefits contractors lose out on, plus a piece on the employment advantage Blackwater has over law enforcement agencies.


• Character pieces on a couple of contractors who work for Blackwater, first-hand accounts of Blackwater agents in combat in Iraq, and the revealing transcript from fatal helicopter accident.


• Selections from the 55-page contractor handbook, plus facts about the company,


• Visions of the future for Blackwater, an article on their operations in post-Katrina New Orleans, and their financial practices and ties to Halliburton.


• An interview with billionaire founder Erik Prince, as well as a look at the head honchos of the company.

The depth of that series is astounding. I would highly recommend it to any person wishing to explore the current trend toward the privatization of our military. There, I said it; please read up for yourself and formulate your own opinion (if you dare).

-----


Beyond my personal interest in political occurences and international affairs lies a deeper philosophy, one which I have endeavored to embody, not only through dedicated epistemological rigors, but also by example of my actions toward others on a regular basis. I will define the basis of my philosophy as such: human beings should help other human beings. Sounds simple, does it not? Well, as I have learned over the progression of the past several years, it is surprisingly difficult to convince people that they should help one another. It is the distinct separation which I believe distances my agenda from that of the people around me. This rift I must accept, for I believe an attendant political ideal of personal liberty must compliment my philosophy (which I will refer to as "universal compassion").
As a matter of pre-emptive self-defense, I feel it is necessary to distinguish myself from those whose ideals may coincide with mine at some level. I prefer to manifest a larger agenda than one which is simply political, socio-cultural, or scientific. I deny the concept that these fields of human organization exist independently of one another. Of course, the fields' inner workings are, by design, interdependent on the inner workings of the others--political entities will seek to entreat whatever constituency they represent through new sociological and scientific manipulations of their kingdoms, while scientific and sociological fields will continue to exist, in whatever form, to appease the masses with an interpretation of the world around them. This is neither a good nor a bad thing; since organizations have existed since the beginning of recorded history whose sole purpose was the explanation of our relation to the natural world, it seems a safe assumption that these organizations will proliferate and mutate in correlation with whatever changing forms human civilization may come to take.
Keep in mind that these organizations, whatever form they take, will be constantly building on the practices and beliefs of the organizations and societies which preceded them. Assuming that we, as humans, are the only species which has demonstrated the effect of a generational learning continuum (few, if any, animals demonstrate the ability to rationally comprehend their species' history), we must assume that we have the largest known base of stored knowledge. Thnk about it: because we have developed a system of gathering history and analyzing its effects on the present, we are the only known species capable of molding and crafting not only the present, but our own future. This puts us in a uniquely complicated situation, being the only species with this power and having no other example to operate by. It is a difficult process, and an imperfect one to boot. This can be frustrating in a very large way, for you and I are the unwilling participants and administrators of the Human Experiment. We define our own future, even if we don't want to, because we are burdened with the inescapable burden of self-awareness and the almost instinctual desire to better perceive the universe surrounding our own private microcosms.
"But I really don't care about those other jerks across the ocean," you may say. Indeed, though many of us take little time to worry about the plight of of billions of our brethren who are starving and dying on the other face of this tiny blue orb, most of the people I've encountered have a great deal of compassion for their families, friends, and even their local geographic area. Personal relatability, most of all, forces us to examine the background behind people's actions and behaviors. Consider your own emotions when a close friend or family member is involved in an accident, seriously injured, or killed. Does our grief at another's pain represent a deeper bond with them, or is it a selfish mourning at the loss of one of our favorite everyday comforts? I postulate that if it is to be believed that another person can gain personal growth or enjoyment from their association with me, there is a tenable net benefit to the interaction. I also proffer that people are naturally social because this is a natural state of things, to be one with the people around you and benefit from their company. So while our self-interest may play a part in our preferred modes of social interaction, people are naturally inclined to relate to one another on the basis that they share complimentary interests or styles. Is it ludicrous to assume, based on this, that we are part of a larger web of social interactions which are undertaken for the purpose of bettering people, understanding them, or developing some social cohesion with them?
Please don't misunderstand me, I am not naive enough to suppose that people are all pursuing interests which are for the betterment of humankind. That is precisely my issue; while people naturally tend to group together and support one another in some way or another, they continue to exist within false divisions and categories. Rather than recognizing our existence as a mutually-evolving "social organism" (if you will), we continue to support divisive mechanisms which are designed to limit the natural symbiosis of our relations and instead purport to set us against one another over petty differences. To quote the timeless martyred president, "a house divided against itself cannot stand." By all means, we are different people. Such is the spice of my day-to-day existence, without which I would be sourly resigned to my status as a cog in the machine. I embrace the concept of diversity within our culture, but I believe we should correlate diversity with togetherness, to a common end. For instance, though my area of study may be different from a musician or a lawyer, there are similarities between all areas of interest which seem to pervade throughout time and bind us together in the purpose of bettering the world. We seek to better ourselves through adoption of a profession which suits us, and we aim to excel in that area. In a perfect world, this would be the ultimate embodiment of democratic education: completely egalitarian pursuit of personal betterment by virtue of limitless academic resources in whatever areas of study a person might care to explore.
In a perfect world. Unfortunately, as I noted before, human social evolution is an imperfect and jerky process. Advancement can occur in leaps and bounds, in many areas at once or in one particular field, but only if the conditions are correct. History certainly seems cyclical in that respect, by virtue of the establishment of (relatively) long-lasting periods of political stability, usually at the hands of a few hegemonic powers. The important distinguishment to make, when examining historical cycles, is to observe the advancements within a particular field of study during the reign of certain groups. Quite obviously, scientific advancements aptly exhibit the political and social agendas of their time, whether by complicit association with forces of politics, or in direct opposition with the views of the mainstream. Galileo and Copernicus were considered heretics in their time, and their observations form the basis upon which Astronomy, and our tenuous modern scientific understanding of the perceivable universe, still rests. This makes for an interesting anecdote, but few stop to consider the implication it has for our modern scientific acheivements. With revolutions in scientific understanding come political and social revolutions, since every new invention and discovery necessarily forces our previous knowledge into obsolescence. This is a reassuring idea, since conceivably our society will always have a historical and scientific perspective on its own existence. Ergo our development is nearly guaranteed, on the basis that new means for understanding and application of that understanding will naturally evolve from our discoveries.
But our development is not completely fool-proof, in that it can be halted, diverted, or manipulated by whatever social agenda is impressed upon it. This is glaringly apparent from any quick skimming of a history textbook. Humanity is a resilient organism, and it will most likely persist as the hardy, self-reliant being that it purports to be. But our existence is not merely a gratuitous predestined state of affairs. It is nothing short of pretentious to claim that our existence serves no purpose, or that it serves only our purposes. Logically, if humanity existed for no purpose, then our imperative would be to destroy ourselves, lest we be tricked into a pointless, absurd triviality which would mock the very machinations and forces which maintain the universe we have come to be part of. This is a dangerous mode of thinking, possibly suicidal, so if we believe self-preservation (either societally or individually) to be our primary objective, then we must accept that our existence has some purpose, even if we are not capable of grasping it; there are infinitely larger, and simultaneously infinitely smaller processes which we are a part of, and I believe that this alone indicates that our existence is not merely gratuitous, but perhaps represents a mathematical or scientific probability which we are not aware of. To attempt to represent meaning deistically will always seem lacking to me, since it will forever be an answer which exists irrespective of the question. If I can ask "why," "what," and "how," and get the same answer for all three, alarms start ringing in this incredibly intelligently-designed organic computer of mine.
So, we either exist to serve a larger purpose or our own purpose, right? Well, I'd like to find, as I would with most things, an appropriate synthesis between the needs of the one and the needs of the many. To this day, I have yet to find a theoretical or moral stance which effectively argues why we should not operate with the concept of the greater good in mind. If not the greater good, then who's good? A quick examination of our circumstances will reveal that we, as intelligent, communicating animals, will be much more effective on a grand scale if we operate in numbers. Many people will always be more capable of enacting large projects than few people, and we certainly face problems which are common to the whole of society, yet escape the attention of those at the top. Allow me the benefit of a proposing a hypothetical situation which is not entirely unreasonable:
Suppose, hypothetically, that there existed enough resources on this planet to adequately care for the entirety of its population-humans within the larger biosphere. Now, imagine that, instead of equilibrium occuring, the most intelligent and geographically populated species chose to eradicate large populations from their shared biosphere, and monopolize the entirety of the resources for their own use. But here's the ultimate irony, this species doesn't even conserve the resources for the betterment of their species, but for a select few whose agenda would never coincide with those of majority. One would hope that those select few had a damn fine grasp on what actions would be best for the future of their species, though all the factors would indicate that they actually have a very low opinion of the many common relatives who are striving and scraping for even an adequate meal.

But enough of the soap-box rhetoric. It'll get me in trouble. At a very deep level, I believe that the right to self-determination and individuality IS inalienable, as well as mutually beneficial. I would not be the person I am today if it weren't for the individuals who bless me with their comments and dialogue on a regular basis. It would not do if these people had not developed their own philosophies and ideals, because these different modes of thought are the lifeblood of my own learning process. Without exterior impressions of my own behavior, it would be impossible to guage the impact my actions have upon others. I believe that we should, as most do, recognize that our ability to enact change usually is limited to our immediate surroundings and those that we are closely associated with. Certainly, I doubt that my writings here will have any impact on the majority of the world. I do recognize that those who I choose to associate myself with and those who choose to associate themselves with me will most likely find this personally relevant, to some degree.
And this is where I will position the crux of my thesis: the sythesis between my larger obligations and those to myself. For if I am to believe myself a member of this society, I should endeavor to serve a cathartic purpose. It is in my own best interests that the society around me be adaptive to serve my interests, as well as the interests of those in my immediate vicinity. To this end, I am in acceptance of the reality that my needs may coincide or depart from theirs, but that we should come together to form cohesion on the issues where we find common ground. Yes, I do recognize your sovereign right to make your own decisions, and I respect that right, for it is one which I claim as my own. I also recognize the inherent rights of our apropos symbiotic relationship, and will forever attempt to find a proper way to relate to others which neither forces my will upon them, nor implies any expected return on my "investment." Emotional investment goes both ways, as I think most couples will attest, and decisions which harm one party in a relationship will naturally work to the disinterest of the other party. Though this may seem a glib reappraisal of a karmic ideology, I think it is a natural inference that people will not be happy if most of the people around them are in a bad mood.
Allow me to restate my appreciation for those members of my closest personal circles who may find the opportunity to read this at some point. It would be foolish of me not to recognize their contributions to my own personal state, one which I am quite fond of and have no intention of altering, other than to advance my understanding of and cooperation with others. Of course, every person I encounter has the potentiality of teaching me an important lesson, and any appraisal of reality would be lacking if it did not include the larger majority of society, with whom I will probably have no personal interaction. I can honestly say that my life is enriched by the consistent procession of different characters and conversations, piloting my thoughts to accept new methodologies which may have previously been unattainable.
This, I strongly believe. In order to fully understand other people, it is necessary to suspend judgement to some degree. I say "suspend," because it is critical that we be allowed to judge our circumstances in order to learn. However, we must also recognize that our judgements are nearly always tainted by biases and colorings which we may not even consciously process. You see another person, and you immediately make assumptions as to their economic status, heritage, and identity, almost as an automatic motion. This is not necessarily as bad as some would have you believe. While it may affect your initial perception of someone to think that they are wealthier than you, it does not have to distort your interaction with that person. This is where suspension becomes critical; if we try to free ourselves of our natural processes for differentiating people from one another, there is no thinking involved in our interactions with them, only assimilation. We must understand that people's differences represent a sequence of individual events leading to the present incarnation of that person. With this in mind, we can interpret their actions and thoughts to be the manifestation of their background, but this is what should eliminate any discrimination or bias from our interactions with them. If we accept that people are from different backgrounds, then as a matter of fact their mind will operate with a different set of presuppositions, but it should be our objective to form a bridge between our presuppositions and theirs, to see where ours fall short and how we can improve ourselves from their learning.
This is, in essence, how our society maintains a generational learning curve, but what I propose is a conscious effort to assimilate beliefs and ideas which are foreign or strange to us. It is difficult to examine a situation critically from within its confines, but to step outside and view one's entire belief structure from the view of another is radically revealing. Not to mention scary as hell, because foreign concepts and modes of thought are uncomfortable and, by definition, more difficult to relate to. The next step is the adoption of another's beliefs and ideals, if only for a test run. This can be enough to drive some insane, because to see yourself from behind another pair of eyes is nearly impossible to accomplish, and often the picture doesn't jive with the one previously imagined.
So I will not hold it against any of you to disagree with me, or to ignore the hell out of my ideals. They are, after all, not your own. But I will respectfully posit that in considering yourselves rational, thinking beings, you should at least consider that acceptance of new ideas will keep you ahead of the curve. I do not propose a massive reorganization, revolution, or rebellion against the society we live in, but rather an acceptance of our inescapable bonds to one another. I care very little about our minute disagreements, but I would like to see what we can accomplish together.

Some may think that my philosophy is quite coincidental with the oft-quoted "Golden Rule." Au contrare, I find that the Golden Rule's critical failing is its lack of an ethos. Rather than justifying one's actions toward another as a matter of personal choice and ethical contemplation, our choice is made for us because we must imagine how it would feel to be treated well or poorly by ourselves. Quite an ironic image, and a positive excercise. I agree that we must consider the impact of our actions on others, but it seems a selfish trick that we could only imagine our impacts on others as they apply to us. "Doing to others" what you want them to do to you would seem to leave a whole bunch of people unhappy. Treating other people the way they want to be treated seems a whole deal more respectful.

I suppose, at the end of this, that I should apply my ideals to a political or social spectrum. As best as I can explain it, I believe that I have an obligation to my civilization which transcends my personal agendas or motives. So, the inevitable question becomes what I can do to best serve this society. Well, if I believe in self-determination and the right of a sentient people to educate themselves, I would consider myself an enemy to forces which would seek to deprive people of liberty or of their ability to think freely and clearly for themselves. However, I also believe that human society, in its current incarnation, is on the cusp of a dramatic realization about itself. To interfere with the natural progression of events would be presumptuous, to say the least. Therefore, to avoid undue manipulation or control of the opinions of others, it is my primary objective to facilitate the education and self-determination of the people; not to force these upon them, but to open the door so that the masses can recognize their own abilities and dreams, and come to realize them.
I believe that governments, businesses, and other organizations should exist to serve the needs of the people, not the other way around. It seems pretty rational for the society to dictate the means of its own progression. Despite the usual fears that the people are not fit to govern themselves, I ask you, as the people, who knows your needs better than you? Who better to represent the ideals of people than the people themselves? If the people are stupid, then why aren't we educating them? That question nearly answers itself.
If my motives are not clear by this point, I fear they never will be. On the contrary, I fear my motives are crystal clear, and they will be swallowed up in a sea of apathy. I have been lectured, many times to date, on the general disillusionment of the population and their lack of interest in my ideals. On the other hand, it may be that I am espousing a philosophy which is entirely common, and this will be received as "the same old claptrap." Well, my friends, it is time for me to ask you: why are you so disillusioned? Why is it that you don't want to care about the rest of the world? Is it just more comfortable to sit in your recliner and bitch about your electrical bills while you waste hours of your life away in front of the neo-Orwellian televisor? Postman put it best when he stated that Big Brother would never need to watch us if we were constantly enticed into watching him.
Perhaps my plea for sanity will be lost in this sea of incomprehensible gobbledegook. If this is the information age, and the internet is indeed the nexus for accessing a new generation's wealth of knowledge, perhaps it is only fitting that my insignificant cries be forever cached on some far-off server in New Delhi or Bangkok. I still have faith that we will somehow find a way to make sense of this mess eventually. Until then, I will continue sending my thoughts out to community as a whole. Don't lose hope, our final destination is somewhere better (though the layover in hell may take awhile). I don't mean this in the sense of some cosmic predestination, as I've said before; it's a gradual evolution, as most things go in the universe. However, we cannot get caught up in some "big picture" perspective when we're still trying to lay down a base coat on the canvas. Our individual actions do have meaning, and they do alter the greater order of things, however minutely. Our impact on the future will dramatically affect the outcome of this whole experiment, and we do have a larger obligation--not only to the society we live in, but to the society which will come to be as a result of our actions today.
Summarily, my opinion might be a load of horse shit. All I ask is that you think rationally of a reason why it is, rather than writing me off in the too-common judgemental method. Ask yourselves and ask your peers, where do I fit into all this? Am I a cog in the machine, an individual with my own agenda to fuck society, or an individual who embraces society and hopes to improve it?

Definition: The

It was a glorious day today. Not just because the weather was nice, though that always helps brighten my spirits. Today, it happens, I realized that my ideas are most appropriately translated to some form of print, since I have trouble organizing them as they happen to occur in my mind. This blog represents my intention to document my research in various areas during my free time. Despite my ulterior motive of justifying/formulating a coherent personal manifesto (the overarching goal), I believe that a deeper meaning can be constructed from the individual lessons learned on a daily basis. With this in mind, I will attempt to logically piece together my procession of ideas as they expand and diverge, following those trains until the end of their track, to see if they reunite, or define themselves as individually relevant material.
I recognize the appearance of the preceding paragraph. It would seem naive of me to assume some reasonable progression of topics into a "big picture." At the very least, there is no clear definition of a mission statement or of particular topics to be discussed. This matter will be cleared up by the time of my next post, in which I will explore my first topic: the recent Blackwater scandal. This particular subject intrigues me to no end, considering the background of Blackwater's leadership and the de facto utilization of private security firms by our government in military conflicts. This lends itself quite handily to criticism, but not the matter-of-fact criticism that the mainstream media tends to employ. I endeavor to explore a deeper reason behind the incredible changes in our government during my lifetime; this involves questioning the exploitative policies which have become commonplace in the last ten years, the division of the American public over certain issues, and the ideals and beliefs that we, as citizens, share with one another.
Aside from those political issues, I find that the categorization and separation of different topics from one another removes context, and defines a new type of knowledge: that of the trivial. With this in mind, I will strive to relate and analyze different areas of interest which may not be traditionally associated within the same context. Psychology and sociology provide interesting perspectives into political and economic interactions, and as such, should not necessarily be viewed as specific divisions of academia. Different viewpoints are also a necessity to prevent repetitive or unproductive modes of thought. For this reason, I intend to invite complementary writers to contribute to this, hopefully to the benefit of all involved.
Let me be explicit in this: this blog is an excercise in innovative, collaborative, and unconventional thought processes. It is nothing more than an excercise, and should be viewed not as a statement, but rather an interpretation of the facts.
Further examination to follow.