To Do

Finish math webassign homework and written homework; prepare for quiz
Study for Cognition final and write final paper; hw 4 due tuesday
Finish Texts and Ideas essay

I can do this. I live for times like this.

Bronze

Not a dream, this time, but a wish;
In one hand lies a cigarette that never burns out,
and in the other, your hand in mine.
We pass this flame between us,
partaking of it as need be,
and watch the sunrise
for signs of the world without.

Poring through Wikileaks

Gentlemen, my suspicions about #OWS have been confirmed.

http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/52322_-social-report-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-live-in.html

On Videogames

Over the last several months, I've been playing videogames too often. They're fun as an occasional break from school, from work, but when it becomes the focal point of your life, you know it's a problem. I wouldn't call it an addiction, per se, but it might as well be. I've experienced addiction before, and I know the signs. I can't just say 'I'll only play for a few minutes' and then go through with it. More often than not, I end up playing for the majority of a day, then get angry with myself for wasting time.

I attend one of the most expensive universities in the country. My mother is paying for my tuition out of pocket, and neither she nor I can afford to waste that investment. If I put as much time and energy into my schoolwork as I did these strategy games, I'd be at the top of my class. I'd write essays that could become part of the American canon, and conduct ground-breaking research in cognitive science.

So for my readers out there, as much as for myself, I'm swearing off of video-games this semester. I'll uninstall my steam account, and wipe every game I've installed on my computer. And I'll hold myself accountable; If I slip up, I'll tell you. Because whether or not you respond, I will be ashamed.

I mean, hey; people die every year from too much gaming. Do I wanna end up like that? 

The debate goes on: Part 3

From: Cameron

 

I don't believe that Isolation is the idea, here. We are not living in the 19th century, when this was possible and actively practiced in the U.S. Hell, France even asked us to help them with their problems post-revolution, to which we said "nahhh, we're gonna stay neutral on this one." This coming after France was the country that ensured our victory against Great Britain. Isolationism is what lead to the attack on Pearl Harbor, which we paid Japan back for a hundred times over, but we ought to have been better prepared.

A new paradigm, however, exists in the 21st century. We aren't, and cannot be, the world police: there are too many conflicts around the world, from South America to Africa to the Middle East. If we DO attempt to intervene in every possible conflict, we will overexpand and meet the same downfall as every empire in history. Rome fell when it expanded too far north into Europe, and too far south into Africa. Byzantium and the Sassanian empires fell when, as they fought over the fertile crescent, Islamic armies came pouring out of Arabia.

Alexander's empire was far too big for anyone to handle. Even the individual kingdoms that emerged after his death crumbled relatively swiftly - including the Seleucid empire. We also have the example of the Hunnic empire, which lasted all of 20 years until Attila's death. We have the Mongolian empire, which lasted a mere 200 years.

The British Empire was the most successful of its kind, in part because it had centers of government in every region it controlled. However, even it fell.

America IS an empire, and it is a force for good. It spreads democracy whenever and wherever possible, and currently has the best performing government system in the world. However, it too has its weaknesses. Overspending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, wherein spending on each of these agencies CANNOT be cut, is the main cause of our spending deficit. Cutting that, rather than national defense spending, would be a wiser course of action. As we all know, though, these programs are the third rail of politics. Since Ron Paul is the only candidate that seems absolutely committed to cutting our budget, it makes sense that he wants to trim it where he can: defense spending is easier to cut than Medicare or Social Security.

If Romney, Gingrich or Santorum are able to come up with a better plan of action, i'd support them in a heartbeat. But they're wasting their breaths by talking about social issues when we face a fiscal problem that will be the downfall of this country, if not addressed immediately.

My last thought on this subject, as it applies to domestic and foreign policy, and fiscal concerns.

A federal republic appears to be the best system of government at this time. Conspiracy theorists believe that a small group of people in power are working to create a one-world government, of which they would be the leaders. I do not believe this to be the case, but if it were, it would be a rather stupid form of governance. Each man would be like a king, or a tyrant, and would have no checks or balances on what he did.

But a one-world government, operating as a federal republic, would be feasible. A bicameral legislature would have representatives from each country, the lower house based in proportion to their respective populations, and the upper house with two senators per country. An executive would serve for a very brief term, say one year only, after which he could never be reelected. Supreme courts would ensure that laws operate within the bounds of the constitution - whatever that new constitution would specify. All laws, besides the constitution, would expire after 10 years - forcing legislators to periodically reexamine them if they wish to keep them. The terms of office for any government official would be one-term only: a set period in which they act according to the promises they have made to their constituents.

Just as with our government system, each country would have discretion over local laws, taxes, and administration.

The benefits I see from this model are as follows:

World peace: disputes can be solved through discourse rather than brute force. 

Common law would apply to all citizens, protecting them equally from theft, bodily harm, and civil rights violations.

Promotion of international free trade: all tariffs would be eliminated

A singular monetary system whose value would draw stability from its constituent countries.

Adequate funding for large-scale public works projects, such as roads and railways, in every country.

Efficient, streamlined distribution of the global food supply.

Education systems that allow students to study wherever they please.

Promotion of capitalism, with all companies answering to ONE regulatory body. Small businesses allowed to flourish via microloans and other credit channels.

And lastly, funding for the sciences on an unprecedented scale, generating the potential to solve our energy problem, and advance cures for cancer, mental health problems, and drug addiction.

Potential disadvantages:

As with any system, there is a potential for corruption. There would need to be many eyes watching the government at all times to ensure that it stays clean.

Feasibility: people don't like to cooperate with each other. Having every country in the world adopt this system would be an extremely slow process, as compromises are found.

Finally, this system would have to be extremely secular: it would have to respect and leave religion alone, and not encourage or discourage the development of any one religion. Because of this, such a system would have to come into being for a reason: why would any one, or number of countries agree to cede power to a central power unless something was in it for them? This model is a work in progress, so I welcome any thoughts and comments.

---

From: Victor

Nick:
I would like to comment on your notes,

 

The fact that the government repeatedly lies to us and keeps things secret from us is enough of a reason to suspect that, usually when it goes to war, it is not for the best interest of the American people nor for the people in that region. There may be a few exceptions, but in general, this is sadly the case. Of the interventions you showed me in the last email, only the Korean and Balkan interventions seemed to have either neutral or positive outcomes. Libya is now ruled by Al-Qeida, a group which is not a good alternative to Quadaffi. Military intervention has caused more problems than it has fixed.

 

You are for restrained US foreign policy, as I understand. Recently, in 2011 and 2012, we have watched events in the Middle East, so-called “Arab spring” (in reality it is rather “Arab winter”). The US intervened in Libya (as a part of NATO), but stayed more or less neutral in other countries.

Now we are witnessing mass murder in Syria, with no action taken by the US except the failed UN denunciation vetoed by Russia and China. What is your take on this? You think we just watch the Syrian bloodshed and do nothing? My question illustrates that there is no easy answer to everyday international challenges.

Somebody should make a hard decision, like it or not… Isolating ourselves would not resolve issues pertinent to our security and interests.

 

Victor

 

From: Nick

 

If there’s anything that you absolutely have to watch, it’s this documentary on the relationship between US and war. As a favor to me, please watch the whole thing.

 

“Why We Fight”

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyxRW702Cho Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqDinS41-z8 part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MURjhEFx45Y part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41rlm8INo_M part 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_szqNFzKrE part 5 * Corporations have nothing to do with the military and war? John McCain thinks otherwise. But that can’t be because it’s a “leftist” position, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOwrlISqdok part 6     Dick Cheney made 60-70 million dollars from Halliburton

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eIYeDWNrfQ Part 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoOuAt891as Part 8 ******most important

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QHqB3UtSGA Part 9 * government lies, news manipulation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R3bIX4uEhU part 10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFCivIxiTuE Part 11***** the cost of war on the Iraqi people, more lies from the government

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBoTaPwRuC0 Part 12

 

The fact that the government repeatedly lies to us and keeps things secret from us is enough of a reason to suspect that, usually when it goes to war, it is not for the best interest of the American people nor for the people in that region. There may be a few exceptions, but in general, this is sadly the case. Of the interventions you showed me in the last email, only the Korean and Balkan interventions seemed to have either neutral or positive outcomes. Libya is now ruled by Al-Qeida, a group which is not a good alternative to Quadaffi. Military intervention has caused more problems than it has fixed. If the government truly went to war with the interests of the American people in mind, it would have followed the constitution and it wouldn’t have been so secretive. The fact that it has ignored that founding document constantly over the last 50 years proves to me that there is some other interest in mind. I’d like to believe that the US government has never done anything wrong and that it always supported freedom for others and always supported democracies, but the fact is that those were just words, and the actions, for the most part, are contradictory.

 

I simply don’t understand how the US can send food, money and aid to some people while at the same time bombing others who, for the most part, are innocent (obviously that’s not the goal, but innocent people make up 95% of the casualties, and you’d think they would have changed strategies by now). An Iraqi who lived through the 90’s, a period of perpetual US bombing and sanctions that killed a million people, will not remember the US as a force for good. He will not remember how the US affected Europe through the Marshall Plan or how it saved people in the Balkans. He will remember how a US drone killed his family and how the US government prevented medicine that could have cured his children’s ailments from entering the country; how US policy directly affected him. This is where the anti-American sentiment comes from, and we need to understand that if we have any hope of changing things.

 

This is the precise reason I bring up US actions that have a negative effect on the world. It upsets me how US policy is such a double standard. It upsets me that our image is tarnished through terrible actions like this. I don’t want the US to be portrayed as the bully. I don’t want the US to be hated. I don’t want the US to be attacked. But the only way to change that is to address its flawed policy. Otherwise we will remain in this perpetual state of warfare and totally ignorant of the true causes and the effects that it has on people in the affected countries. This is not a leftist position, this is the constitutional position. If the constitution is to the left of the current Republicans, then that should tell you something about the Republican party. I don’t pick sides when it comes to political parties, so don’t think that I’m a leftist or a rightist, or a centrist. I’m a realist.

 

On a side note, the US government classified 16 million documents Top Secret in 2011. Does that mean that 16 million documents can compromise American security, so they have to be hidden?

Corrections

Into the Electronic Revolution

Cameron Beaudreault

Do me a favor; put away your cell phone, turn off the music and pay attention. If you are reading this essay to learn something, you must actively engage with it; otherwise you may as well go back to checking your Facebook news feed. Nowadays, people can access any information from anywhere, including their Facebook and Twitter accounts, the vast stores of information on Wikipedia, and news updates on the presidential elections; all from the comfort of their phones. So is this technology inhibiting us, or assisting us? Some academics view the popularity of sites like Facebook and Twitter as proof that the Internet has little place in education. One of these pundits, a former Harvard professor named Sven Birkerts, single-handedly catalyzed this polemic with his writings. Because we are no longer living in the 90’s, a question must be raised: what if our society’s intellectual problem is not too much technology, but that the technology we have is underutilized?

Birkerts believes that the Internet is going to be the death of intellectualism; his essay “Into the Electronic Millennium” reflects on his encounter years ago with a professor who wanted to sell him his entire book collection. When asked to explain his divestiture, the man replied that he saw that computers were the future, and that his books represented a lot of pain for him. For Birkerts, a bibliophile by nature, this memory was rather unsettling. “It is a kind of marker in my mental life, for that afternoon I got my first serious inkling that all was not well in the world of print and letters” (470). This idea was corroborated by others, “new men and new women” who sold their books “as if heading to the future also required the destruction of tokens from the past” (470). From Birkerts’ perspective, people who sold their libraries and bought computers were rapidly abandoning the world of print. Considering the massive bookshelves in my home that have sat untouched for some time, though I come from a family of readers, I am inclined to agree. Online reading is seductively convenient compared to the process of finding and buying books.     

This seduction raises an important question: given the convenience and ubiquity of the Internet, how harmful could it be? As a much younger form of communication than print, we will only know whether or not it caused a break with the past in posterity. Anticipating the potential harm it could cause, Birkerts describes inherent problems with the Internet; unlike print, it is not subject to either the rules of logic or syntax. Worse, arguments on the Internet rely on anecdotes and rumors rather than facts, and lack historical context. Moreover, Internet content requires neither sustained reading nor processing, and is often published with no quality control, making it unusable for serious purposes (472).

Even so, print carries its own set of drawbacks; research is a painstaking process that becomes even more arduous by sifting through books. Moreover, the depth of a book depends almost entirely on the reader’s background. Unless he or she has previous knowledge of Salic Law or the foundations of European Monarchy, he would little benefit from reading the unabridged edition of Don Quixote. Perhaps most distressing is that written language is ambiguous, and like visual media can become propaganda in the wrong hands. I find that the two mediums have complementary roles; Google and Wikipedia are efficient tools for gathering data, while books donate structure and points of debate to one’s research. Web hyperlinks enable a deeper understanding of a subject, and books keep one’s thought processes coherent. The comments sections on websites provide exposure to multiple points of view, but analytical papers ensure that an investigation stays focused. The problem, as seen in the quote above, is persuading people that the two can coexist.

How can they coexist when students use the Internet for so many things other than school? Observing this, Birkerts argues that the Internet has worsened the decline of America’s education systems, and warns us of the “possibility that the young truly ‘know no other way,’ that they are not made of the same stuff that their elders are” (473). He fears that it has destroyed the work ethic of today’s youth, and that technology may be the only “way” they know how to learn. The other “ways” are the classroom paradigms of the lecture, the seminar, and the Western Canon. I agree with the letter of this warning; physical textbooks hold little interest with students who grew up with technology, especially for boys, since they are both naturally hyperactive and mainly visual learners. But if the lingua franca of today’s youth is technology, then why not teach them with it? I remember my 11th-grade Anatomy classes as being among the most informative and enjoyable parts of high school, because our teacher used animations to illustrate the lessons. This makes me believe that other classes would meet success with this type of illumination.

One of the reasons that public school students struggle is because almost none of their classes emphasize visual learning. Worse, much of the work they do is so repetitive that it effectively discourages learning. The effects of both problems are so pervasive that they can even be seen in the “best” students; while researching for a public speaking class last year, I found a graduation speech by Erica Goldson, the valedictorian of Coxsackie-Athens high school, that described how the work that went into her success ultimately stunted her education.

"While others sat in class and doodled to later become great artists, I sat in class to take notes and become a great test-taker. While others would come to class without their homework done because they were reading about an interest of theirs, I never missed an assignment. While others were creating music and writing lyrics, I decided to do extra credit, even though I never needed it. So, I wonder, why did I even want this position? Sure, I earned it, but what will come of it? When I leave educational institutionalism, will I be successful or forever lost? I have no clue about what I want to do with my life; I have no interests because I saw every subject of study as work, and I excelled at every subject just for the purpose of excelling, not learning (4)."

Erica’s exceptional grades came at the cost of her ability to pursue extracurricular activities. By going through school  ‘by the book’, she was unable to explore possible future areas of study. While Birkerts would argue that her method of learning 'by the books' was an effective teaching method, she herself noted that she felt lost and underdeveloped intellectually. Can we really say that Birkerts’ views hold water here? Erica Goldson wouldn’t think so.

Because so few of today’s students are interested in the classics, some have suggested that it is time to revise the Western Canon. Such a change would cause more harm than good, because it would hinder students from learning the foundations of western civilization. Fellow classicist and NYU student Andrew Montalenti argues that while the Canon itself should be preserved, the style in which it is taught must be changed, for: “the Canon does not make the artwork within it great; it is the artwork that makes the Canon great. By remembering this, our interpretation of these works can be richer and much more complicated than a mere deductive confirmation of expert opinion” (2). Students must be allowed to draw their own conclusions from reading these works. This would give them the ability to be as interested in the Canon as they are in reality shows. A number of recent movies (“Romeo and Juliet”, “300” and “Gladiator”), shows on HBO (“John Adams” and “The Tudors”) and video-games (the “Assassin’s Creed” series) accomplish this by giving audiences a pleasurable, accidental introduction to the Canon. Teachers could use these to convey lessons in the lingua franca while respecting the intellectual sovereignty of their students. Note that while visual media such as a videogame or a movie can be an effective aid to the academic process, it should be used as a teaching tool; by itself, it is not a linchpin for learning.

          Assuming visual media to be of no use for teaching, Birkerts predicted three major events that may come true should the Internet displace traditional learning methods. With no impetus for people to develop their communication skills, the majority of people will increasingly use “plainspeak”; a dumbed-down language similar to “newspeak” from George Orwell’s 1984 (474). If Internet discussions remain shallow, there will be a collective forgetting of historical perspectives (475). Worse, without exposure to diverse perspectives, a social collectivization is highly probable; people will be polarized along national, ethnic and religious lines, and the concept of individuality will cease to exist (475). If these predictions came true, it would spell the end of free will for everyone but the political and economic elite. For this reason, before attempting to counteract them, we must first make sure that they haven’t already happened.

If Birkerts’ assertions were correct, I would have no business using computers to do schoolwork. If, however, I found an investigation that dispelled his worries, my only concern would be to use technology responsibly. I found such an investigation by the BBC regarding “the social consequences of the Internet” (16). As the author Michael Lewis made headway into the project, he found that the network actually encouraged the exercise of free will.

What I was after was more like the Internet consequences of society. People take on the new tools they are ready for, and only make use of what they need, how they need it. If they were using the Internet to experiment with their identities, it was probably because they found their old identities were inadequate. If the Internet was giving the world a shove in a certain direction, it was probably because the world already felt inclined to move in that direction. When I realized this I stopped worrying over the social consequences of the Internet and began simply to watch what was actually happening on the Internet. Inadvertently, it was telling us what we wanted to become (16).

People embraced the technology, not out of coercion or hypnosis, but because they wanted to. This allowed for experimentation with their identities, as well as the creation of entirely new ones; many youths used it to explore interests in music, finance and law, which destabilized institutional monopolies of these industries. This, I believe, was the cause of peoples’ worries; thousands of jobs were at risk for every company to go bankrupt.

This concern over job security also helps explain Birkerts’ fears; a growing disinterest in literature threatens his ability to teach, and it is understandable that he would believe the Internet is to blame. It is also possible to address these fears while meeting the needs of students like Erica Goldson, Andrew Montalenti, and myself. Our desire to learn is still present, but we also want to develop perspectives that are not derived solely from our teachers. We should be able to share our knowledge with our peers and remove the intellectual inequalities that come from a one-way, teacher-to-student learning paradigm. This project could be undertaken though a website that allowed students to discuss and collaborate on their assignments, thus alleviating the burden on teachers to make sure no one is left behind. By distributing our knowledge amongst ourselves, more class time could be spent on learning new things rather than reviewing old lessons, enabling us to more fully realize our academic potential. I intend to create such a website, and hopefully find a solution that would please even the likes of Sven Birkerts. Rather than trying to prove him wrong, I want to reassure him, and myself, that our past will not be forgotten in the electronic revolution.

Works Cited:

Birkerts, Sven. “Into the Electronic Millennium.” Occasions for Writing. Ed. Robert DiYanni and

Pat C. Hoy II. Boston: Thomas Wadsworth, 2007. 469-76.

Montalenti, Andrew. “Questioning the Canon.” Mercer Street. Ed. Pat C. Hoy II. New York: NYU
    College of Arts and Science. 2003. 1-7.

Goldson, Erica. (2010, June). Here I stand. Valedictorian speech presented at Coxsackie-
    Athens High School. Coxsackie-Athens, New York.

Lewis, Michael. “Next. The future just happened.” New York: W. W. Norton and Company. 2001.

16.216.

Good News For Once

Well, well! Santorum's tearing it up, here, and Paul isn't doing too bad in Missouri. So what does this spell for the rest of the campaign? One: It's going to be a loooong primary. Two: Santorum has the potential to disrupt the Romney/Gingrich battle. While some might argue that this could leave the Republican party divided, whomever wins the nomination will have survived a test of fire. Any dirt that could be dug up on these candidates - Gingrich, Paul, Romney or Santorum - will have already been dug up. Any accusations that could be made will have already been vindicated - or proven right. As such, whomever deserves to win the nomination will win, by merit of their records and rhetorical skills.

Therefore; read 'em and laugh. We all know Santorum's not going to last long. 

 Results for U.S. Republican Presidential Primaries

	State	Gingrich	Paul	Romney	Santorum			reporting
02/07	MO	-	12.2%	25.3%	55.2%			99%
02/07	MN	10.6%	27.1%	17.1%	45.0%			64%
02/07	CO	17.3%	12.3%	22.5%	47.7%			16%
02/04	NV	21.1%	18.8%	50.1%	10.0%			100%
01/31	FL	31.9%	7.0%	46.4%	13.3%			100%