Who do We Endorse?

When I entered the University of Chicago in 2007, I was a convinced Political Science major with aspirations to enter the realm of International Relations. UChicago was home to many well respected International Relations scholars, including John Mearsheimer, one of the foremost neo-realist scholars. Over the course of my education I began to question the neo-realist position, and eventually all of International Relations and its approach to the study of political conflict and cooperation. I have not maintained close ties to the UChicago political science department or its professors. That is, until very recently.

John Mearsheimer is no stranger to controversy. In the summer of 2007 Mearsheimer and his Harvard colleague Stephen A. Walt published The Israel Lobby in which they argued that lobbyist groups that were pro-Israeli were exerting undue influence over American foreign policy. Mearsheimer and Walt were charged with Anti-Semitism, which was a charge I found really out of place. The arguments they made were that Israel is not a country that should receive disproportionate aid from the United States, and that Israel should not be allowed to be free of criticism. This is most decidedly not anti-Semitism; its a legitimate criticism. But this didn't stop a firestorm from brewing around the book. During my time working with people in the Political Science department I heard the debate go on and on. People who worked with Mearsheimer swore up and down that he wasn't an anti-semite. People like Alan Dershowitz begged to differ. And on it went.

Then, this year, Mearsheimer wrote a blurb for Gilad Atzmon's book The Wandering Who? which has generated significant criticism in its one right. The student newspaper at the University of Chicago, The Maroon, published a letter written by Dershowitz in which he cites, at length, some of Atzmon's more despicable rants. At issue seems to be that Atzmon's writings, beyond his newly published book, are riddled with some fairly controversial statements and that Mearsheimer was simply not careful when he chose to blurb Atzmon's book. As a matter of fact, Mearsheimer has come out and said

 I was asked to review Atzmon's book and see whether I would be willing to blurb it. This is something I do frequently, and in every case I focus on the book at hand and not on the personality of the author or their other writings. In other words, I did not read any of Atzmon's blog postings before I wrote my blurb. And just for the record, I have not met him and did not communicate with him before I was asked to review The Wandering Who? I read only the book and wrote a blurb that deals with it alone.

 He chose to focus only on the book in question and has explicitly denied any knowledge of Atzmon's other works. The issue I have with this defense is that it raises serious questions about anyone's responsibility when reviewing and endorsing someone else's work. How much should one scholar know about an author before he or she choses to endorse their work? Is there some minimum standard that must be met? Certainly people rarely agree completely either with a work they endorse or with the author who wrote that book. But is it one thing to disagree about somethings, like political views or philosophy, and another when it comes to prejudicial views?

Certainly, there is a standard in academia to avoid ad hominem argumentation and to, instead, deal with the ideas at hand. But is this always responsible to ignore an author's previous works and views in favor of remaining focused on the writing at hand?  I can't speak to the quality of Atzmon's book itself- I have not, nor do I have a desire to, read it. But the entire controversy has raised questions for me about how much scrutiny individuals should be under when they choose to read and represent others. The banner of "academic freedom" has been flying for quite some time, and it has continuously found itself under fire. I think academic freedom is important, but I also think personal responsibility is important.

I'm not a fan of Mearsheimer's work. I'm actually not a fan of his theoretical framework. And now, I can't say I'm a fan of Mearsheimer's judgement. Beyond this, I have never actually read or heard Mearsheimer say anything anti-semitic. I have, however, seen him now exercise some fairly questionable choices in what he wants to endorse. But I have to thank Mearsheimer for one thing. He's made me think much more carefully about what it means to endorse a work and how much I should know about the author of that work before I chose to say anything publicly about it.

In Pursuit of Relevance

I am studying Cultural Anthropology, a field under particular attack in the state of Florida where Governor Rick Scott recently disparaged the discipline as being irrelevant and useless to the job market. And indeed, if you do a simple news search for the term 'anthropology' you will find articles that back up the dismal job placement of anthropologists both in the private sector and in the academy. There is no denying the fact that anthropologists have a hard time securing jobs after any extended period of time in the field, but what is implicitly being stated here is two-fold.

First, relevance is assumed to be tied to the job market and the ability to be a field in which people can get jobs. This is a particular kind of relevance. Rick Scott's comments seem to fall under the category of thinking where colleges and universities should be diploma factories. His vision, and those who share it, is one in which the degree is ultimately irrelevant and the only thing that matters is that it can be hammered out and made to fit into a pre-prescribed slot in the work force. This is what happens when the defending logic runs "anthropologists can be consultants for a number of international firms." This is most certainly true, but not really a great explication of the field of anthropology or what it can uniquely contribute. Economics majors can, and do, go into consulting with the same expectations placed on them by the job. As can English majors. Responses to Scott's statements have been to show that anthropologists can and do find places on the job market, but this doesn't really address the question of why anthropologists may contribute in a unique fashion to their chosen job site.

Second, the notion of relevance itself is bound up in a very limited way. Very few people would deny that economists or political scientists are relevant. After all, these are the people who show up on talk shows and analysis programs most frequently. The social scientists I have heard most frequently on NPR (I know, a great example of relevance, right?) have been political scientists and sociologists (not to mention the fetishism of economists). To be relevant is to be consulted by people who view you as an expert. When something happens abroad, the anthropologists who has spent years in the field there isn't consulted- its the economists or the political scientists who have studied the area who get the call. This is a pretty standard gripe among people in anthropology, but it comes with another angle. When anthropologists are brought into a role of expertise, like in the Human Terrain System, members of the anthropology community immediately become upset. I personally have problems with HTS, but it seems curious to me that the pulls within the field happen in two directions. We want to be heard because we can contribute to thinking through a wide variety of problems, but if we are listened to in certain registers there is an immense backlash.

I think Rick Scott is a bit of a myopic fool for making the comments he did, but he isn't a unique case. Throughout my undergrad years I had many people I knew disparage the social sciences as being "unrigorous" or pale imitations of the "hard sciences" where objectivity is claimed to flourish. And it is the hard sciences that Rick Scott and others believe should dominate the realm of higher education. But I can't help but think that this begs so many problems that people aren't looking into. Anthropology isn't, or at least shouldn't be, modeled after the hard sciences. Their methods and perspectives work well with certain sets of conditions, but they too are fraught with limitations. What I personally think anthropology can do is defend us against our own arrogance and remind us of ourselves when we become too involved in something. While I do think there are a myriad of cases where anthropologists should be consulted (in realms of policy making especially) I think that, more fundamentally, anthropologists can take a moment like the one in which Rick Scott decided to attack the social sciences and see how these are indicative of much larger trends and patterns within a community.

The STEM fields should receive a lot of support, I don't doubt this. But to believe that the STEM fields are superior to the social sciences is a fallacy that begs problems. I very much doubt that an engineer will have the tools at his disposal to answer questions of inter-communal conflicts or the integration and interrelations of ethnic groups in metropolitan centers. And to think that these problems are unimportant is to invite a world of consequences.

Currently: Occupied

Apparently the Occupy Wall Street movement is something that has been going on for a while, and is large enough to merit its own Wikipedia article. I say apparently because, as someone who just started school and didn't have internet at my home for nearly a month, I've had a hard time being connected to the world.

But the Occupy Wall Street movement is interesting to me. On the basic principle, I am fully sympathetic with the protestors. Trying to deny that the financial sectors of our economy represent undue influence on the political sector and have lead to some highly egregious breaches of public moral norms is rather difficult. I suppose the people who would disagree are those who are either uninformed at the most basic level, or who actually believe in the Utilitarian model and its application to corporations. Unfortunately, I think that position is untenable and rooted on some seriously flawed axioms. But that is neither here nor there.

What I find problematic, however, is the following. There seems to really be more of an amorphous shape to these protests rather than the kinds of directed and well focused protests this country has seen in the past. This is perhaps evidenced by the Occupy movements lack of central demands that appear actionable. I am not saying that what they want is not just- I believe that it largely is- but that what they are after is really unclear pragmatically. I will borrow a quote from The New York Times contributor Gina Bellefante as quoted on Wikipedia, "The group’s lack of cohesion and its apparent wish to pantomime progressivism rather than practice it knowledgably is unsettling in the face of the challenges so many of its generation face — finding work, repaying student loans, figuring out ways to finish college when money has run out." I agree with Bellefante's point here. The movement may capture the general ideals of a great many of us who have grown up in an America market by run-away corporations, but that does not mean our ideals are well articulated; yet. When writers look "behind the scorn" they most certainly do see precisely what it is that is bothering the protestors, but they cannot translate this into an articulated grievance- only a laundry list of complaints.


There is something to be said, however, for the fact that the amorphous demands that these protestors hold have actually converted in to action. While I agree with Bellefante at this point and time I also hold out hope that action itself may lead to an articulation of demands. And I also hold out hope that the protests themselves will become the trigger by which more people come to identify their grievances with the ways in which finance and governance intersect in this country in a very baffling way. 


The article from Salon.com that I linked above has a fairly interesting point that I would like to put out right now. The author of the article, Glenn Greenwald, writes:

Given the costs and risks one incurs from participating in protests like this — to say nothing of the widespread mockery one receives –  it’s natural that most of the participants will be young and not yet desperate to cling to institutional stability.  It’s also natural that this cohort won’t be well-versed (or even interested) in the high arts of media messaging and leadership structures.  Democratic Party precinct captains, MBA students in management theory and corporate communications, and campaign media strategists aren’t the ones who will fuel protests like this; it takes a mindset of passionate dissent and a willingness to remove oneself from the safe confines of institutional respectability. 

This passage troubles me because it does presume that the demographics of the protest are acephalous because of some deficiency with young protesters and the absence of those skilled enough to bring direction. Firstly, I would have to say that these are moments when leadership is forged and structural thinking outside of the "safe confines of institutional respectability" leads to remarkably change. The protests against the Vietnam war were made of a similar demographic, but they have now become venerated for their powerful effect on American political-culture at the time. I tend to agree with Greenwald's overall point- the protestors do deserve support from those who share in their ideals. But they also deserve that those of us who cannot protest begin to articulate the frustration in words and thoughts at the same time action takes form. Those of us who share in their general sentiments have a responsibility to begin a much bigger discourse on the nature of what troubles us. We have an obligation not to march in the streets, though many would like to, but to lend support to those who do by creating a voice.

At this juncture I do not know if this movement will actually begin a substantive shift in the way the financial, political, and civic spheres interact, though I do hope there will be some lasting effects beyond the protests. These protests have the potential to represent a serious moment for this generation growing up in the world after 9-11 and on the downward slope engendered by decades of reckless faith in a system of markets geared towards wealth disparity. While I support the protestors and feel that they are embodying something very important, I do not think it has taken a meaningful shape yet. I hope that a voice will be found soon, and that a peaceful but powerful change will come.

Lost in a City of Nostalgia

I visited New York City this weekend and I really had a wonderful time. The vibrant energy and sheer volume of everything in that city really is something to behold. But as my girlfriend and I were walking home from the train station, I realized that beyond enjoying the city I had also become faintly homesick.

Chicago is not as densely populated as New York. The things to do are not quite as plentiful and there isn't quite the same vibe. But at the same time I couldn't help but get caught up in the affective memory of the architecture of the city running along the Chicago River. The sheer wonder of standing on the bridge flanked by the Wrigley Building or of the wonderful escape places like Hyde Park could afford for those weary of the pressures of the Loop. Skyline scenes standing in Grant Park at night still provide me with a deep sense of joy.

And I would suspect myself of having "the grass is always greener" syndrome except that I loved Chicago when I lived there. That is, of course, not to say anything against New York. Its just not my home. It captures a different kind of energy for me that, while exciting, doesn't quite give me the same kind of peace that Chicago does.

I am settling in fairly well to life in Princeton, make no mistake about that. I do enjoy many things about not being directly in the city anymore and I'm starting to (slowly) figure out the pace of things here. But still, I just can't quite shake this feeling I have for the city I grew up with and love. I think about driving at night, east bound on the Kennedy, when the colorful displace of the City of Broad Shoulders comes into view. I imagine the cavernous Loop with is massive walls on all sides. The marble and steel and glass form a brand new environment along the wide streets. The wonderfully abrupt sight of the L hovering over the street still, for whatever perverse reason, gives me a sense of home.

This may simply be the nature of home sickness. I bring to the fron everything about a place that I liked and I sideline everything that I didn't care for. But that may also simply be the nature of any place we come to call home. Even standing on the top level of the Target parking garage and looking to the city brings me a smile. The quieter, tree line streets who have stolen their peace among the buzzing of the city streets remain fond memories. Even the decaying landscape of the South Side as we ran through the streets on a training run still stand out in positive lights.

I got lost in my memories again.

I don't really have much of a point save to remind people that the places we call home rarely every disappear in our minds. And when we find new homes they are defined in the terms of the places we left behind. But this can be a great source of joy, and one that I relish.

Its Ok, We Can Not Understand Science Together

Since I still have time to read news sources in the morning, I spent a little time on NPR this morning. On the right-hand side I saw this little gem: "In GOP Presidential Field, Science Finds Skeptics." My blood pressure is elevated here.

Anyone who knows me well knows that I have no problem admitting that intelligent people can be conservatives in a sense of the word that extends beyond our vernacular use of it. There have been many people who I have met who have rooted their beliefs in a philosophy that is often coined "conservative" on the American spectrum. I'm perfectly fine with that because I can understand and respect that. What I have a huge issue with, however, is when something like this happens:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has publicly doubted the science of climate change and says creationism should be taught alongside evolution, is the new front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination.

I know many people who are global warming deniers, and they all seem to formulate their opinions based not upon the actual scientific principles behind the phenomenon and instead on the political ramifications they perceive from the "pushing of the global warming agenda." Look, it's really not difficult to understand that the evidence for global climate change is not based upon local weather but on chemical reactions occurring in the atmosphere and in the oceans. The fundamental principles of these chemical reactions are extremely simple and not negotiable. These are things that any one, irrespective of their major field of study, can understand. But instead, the understanding of the science is dominated by some political point being made.

The fear of "big government" has become the driving force in global warming denialism- not a skepticism of the science. I have come to understand that there are many who believe that global warming is a plot to simply generate more taxes- which makes it all the more peculiar that it is not only American scientists who see evidence of global warming. This misapprehension of the way in which one should disagree or agree with a scientific point is precisely what leads to presidential candidates who lack a fundamental understanding of scientific findings can somehow find themselves in front of their primary.

By the way, at least two of the candidates in the GOP field also deny evolution on grounds that they mask as being scientific but which are firmly religious.

This ties in well to a point I have tried to make with many of my friends in the so-called "hard sciences." They have asserted that the rigor of their fields and the objectivity of their work give the hard sciences some sort of privileged position among other fields of study. I have contended that science works very well among those who understand it and who are willing to engage it on more neutral terms (though never wholly neutral). However, science only matters to non-scientists in so far as it confirms or improves the reality they have constructed and perceive. Controversial science among the non-scientific public is not that which is still up for scientific review or the findings are still left for interpretation, but rather that which upsets the socio-political order that people wish to maintain. In this case, it is a move away from federal government and towards a "free-market" state.

I suppose the only point I want to pull out from all of this is that the idea that denying global warming is not being a skeptic- its confusing science and political posturing. My suspicion is that a few of the "conservative" lawmakers and candidates are fully aware of this and are deliberately stating these positions to garner votes. However, I have a much more sickening suspicion- namely that a few of them actually believe what they are saying.

The Blue Sky Torn Asunder.

The ten year anniversary of 9/11 is just around the corner, and as every conceivable media outlet and pundit gears up to delve into their "expansive coverage" I think that maybe I should say something before I get disgusted and fed up with their commentary. What I am going to say comes not from ten years of expert study and analysis of the events of that day or the "post-9/11 world" but instead from growing up in the wake of that event. My perspective is one marked by a childhood before the event and a period of growing up after that event.

Ten years ago, on September 11th, I was getting ready for middle school to start. I was in the 7th grade, and classes didn't begin until 9 am. I remember, very vividly, that I was walking out of the shower and into the living room when I saw that the Today Show was on, as it always was in the morning. Only this time, the images were very different than the cooking segments or interviews that usually occupied the show at that time. The first world tower was spewing smoke, and Matt Lauer's comments came only sporadically and in short bursts. He was, like me, in absolute shock and disbelief. I remember that the first thing that went through my mind was that this had to have been an accident. But how could a pilot not have seen the tower? The airports were fairly close, so of course they could have been that low over the city if something had gone seriously wrong. But as this train of thought was progressing, on screen came the second plane. And flames. What was happening? I just couldn't put it together. It made absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

By the time I made it to school, the notion that someone had actively attacked the World Trade Center had go around through the student body. I remember that my speech class was replaced by the entire class watching a tv set up. The whole day was marred by a strange silence that was spoken. We were talking, we just weren't really saying all that much. I also remember that fear was cropping up everywhere. Outside my science class, students were talking about how we might be the next target. When asked why we would be targeted, someone else responded "McHenry county is the fastest growing county in the country!" I don't know if that was true at the time, but it just demonstrates that we, as a bunch of 7th graders, really just let our fears plant themselves firmly. Everyone was seriously uncertain about what was going to happen next.

When I think back to that day, I imagine a vast, blue sky with that kind of summer morning warmth everywhere. Then an earth shattering bang. This is just the sense I got from that day. An average summer morning completely torn apart.

These are the memories most of us have, and what a lot of us are going to think about over the next week or so. But what I think also deserves reflection is just how much life has changed since September 11th, 2001. For me, there's this cognitive barrier between the pre-9/11 and post-9/11 world that may well not exist at all. Still, right around that time I just can't remember what the dominant sentiments were- how the world was different (if it really was different on a local level). I have to think about the world now, and what 9/11 really did to the world.

We of course saw a period of tremendous injustice on many fronts. The victims of 9/11 suffered injustice in their deaths that day. They committed no crime and deserved none of what happened. People elsewhere, however, also suffered injustice. The administration launched a war in Afghanistan that did not carry with it an understanding of the enemy at hand. Countless civilians have been exposed to harm and death through no fault of their own. Just like the people aboard those planes and in the Pentagon and World Trade Centers had no part in the foreign policy that engendered the hatred of others, the people of Afghanistan did not take part in the acts on that day. Still, ten years on they live under the shadow of that day in a very serious way. The people of Afghanistan had their world changed forever. And the invasion of Iraq was brought up in the ferver of "patriotism" that rose after the attacks. When Iraq occurred, I know that many people were caught up in the rhetoric that was used to justify the war. But many more, much braver people, spoke out against it. I wish I had been old enough to really have understood what was happening at that time. Instead, I had to watch the world around me and slowly come into the world intellectually under these circumstances.

When Osama bin Laden was killed this year, my first reaction was not jubilation. I didn't jump up and cheer. It was not that I was upset that bin Laden was killed- it was that I didn't really think anything was going to change. I had a moment when I sat there and thought back to that image I have about 9/11. The blue sky torn asunder. That image didn't melt away. No death would take away that feeling. No death was going to correct the injustice suffered by the people who died on 9/11, the civilians of Afghanistan, or the people of Iraq.

I grew up in a world where racist rhetoric had been used by people who feel I am too compassionate towards the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. Somehow, my sympathies are transferred to the people who perpetrated the act instead of to the families who have lost loved ones everywhere. I grew up in a world that was governed by the fear of an invisible foe everywhere. Nothing changed when Osama bin Laden died. I don't remember where I heard it, but I think the following sentiment carries my own feelings quite well: "I will never celebrate another person's death, but neither will I mourn his [bin Laden]."

I know that many of the problems I observe today existed before 9/11. There were always crazy people who thought there was some massive world conspiracy out to take away their freedoms- 9/11 just provided them another medium to paint their lunacy on. There were always racists and xenophobes who blamed others for so many of their problems and sought to demonize that which was not them- 9/11 just gave them a new platform from which to shout. There were always people who wanted to forward a crooked foreign policy- 9/11 gave them new angles of justification.

People died on 9/11 because of the actions of a few criminals. And many more people have died since because of a reaction formed too poorly. I know what I say here will upset many, but I know that I am right. There is so much more I could say, but can't (or shouldn't if I ever want this post to end). As the ten year anniversary of 9/11 comes, we will rightful remember those who died on that day. But as the 11th year starts, I wonder how many people will remember that the world changed in so many more ways since then. The blue sky was truly torn asunder everywhere.

People Here are Weird (Don't You Look at Me!)

I have spent just four days here in New Jersey, and already I am experiencing some culture shock. Living here is going to take some serious readjustment on my part, and its definitely going to take some getting use to.

First, people walk around here at night and aren't out to mug someone and/or worried they might actually get mugged. The South Side of Chicago is not a post-apocalyptic nightmare world marred by some perpetual state of anarchy, but it also isn't Lincoln Park or Naperville. Security concerns are legitimate, and the exaggerated shadows of nightfall can really amplify those fears. Here, I think the sketchiest thing I saw was someone rolling down a residential at about 70mph. When I lived in Chicago, I wouldn't say that I walked around with my eyes constantly darting around and expecting to be shot or stabbed at any given corner, but I certainly grew accustomed to the fact that bad things happen in a city. That's just the way it is. Every walk at night comes with some level of risk. But that seems to disappear here.

My girlfriend and I walked down to Nassau street the last two nights, and it certainly is a bustling little avenue. It has a lot to offer, certainly, and its very quaint. But it really felt like the only center of activity vis a vis a population density. As soon as we started walking away from Nassau things got quieter. But not quieter like "Hey, your wallets gonna be mine and if you yell someone is probably only going to tell you to be quiet." There are just fewer people. Doorways down Leigh Ave were left wide open and the sounds of people settled in their homes wafted out onto the street. There's just a certain tension missing from the air.

God, I miss that tension.

But here's a huge draw back to the way people relate to space here. If you aren't on Nassau street you must be on your way somewhere else immediately. There are fewer places with storefronts and places to linger, so people move about from one center to another, disjointed from any sort of cohesion in the borough. Perhaps once the undergraduates arrive things will change, but the way a place is during the time only permanent residents are around is certainly telling.

So Princeton is really a place characterized by several centers for communal exchange and many places people live. Its a suburb without the city and slightly more people. Movement is highly dependent on either a car or a biker with some street smarts. There's very little worry of being the victim of a crime on your way home from class, but there are also no other places of interest besides your immediate points of destination.

Let me also say that roads here make no sense. I understand Princeton was laid out before the invention of cars, but you'd still expect there to be some sort of order. Instead there are roads and destinations. That's about it. I will miss having the grid system.

What I'm learning is that I actually internalized a lot of things from living in Chicago that don't necessarily translate here. I watch my back a lot when I walk at night, which probably makes me look like a crazy person. I'm also expecting most idlers to ask me, aggressively, for money for the "bus" so they can get "home."* I'm a bit of a fish out of water at this point, but I am enjoying it at the moment. Though, that's probably because classes haven't started.



*Here, bus means drugs. And home means high. Just for those of you who didn't know.

Friends Back East

Welcome to your new home
Here's your bed, you sleep alone
Getting everything you wanted
Getting everything you wanted and some
Here's the kitchen, cook alone
Look at the water boil.




I am officially a Chicago transplant on the east coast, and I wont lie its going to be tough. Of course there are the financial challenges that I have to face until I get my fellowship check (I'm hanging on by just a few hairs) but there's so much more to adjust to. And these are the things I have yet to even fully process.

There is, of course, the adjustment of being away from so many of the people I know so well, and who have come to know me. Out here, its just my girlfriend and I sleeping on air mattress on the floor at night in a largely empty apartment. And my air mattress deflated last night. It is disorienting to know that I will not run into anyone I know as I explore campus. There will be no recognition or catching up. Even the people I do know here in Princeton are known only from one small weekend back in March. I both relish and fear this state of being, because being unknown liberates us from fulfilling expectations as well as traps us to the scrutiny that a bug under a lamp would experience.

This is the melodrama of the twenty-something year olds everywhere. We are cut fresh from college and sent into the winds. Some of us have had to leave behind everything and everyone we ever knew in order to take the next steps in our lives, but those steps are truly uncertain. I don't really feel the same way I did when I started college- my unbridled optimism about the next step is replaced with cautious enjoyment. I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop, and I know there are many people I grew up with who are feeling the same thing.

I'm not writing to complain about anything, because I think I have very little to complain about. I am in a very privileged position in terms of what I get to do for the next 6 years. Yes, I am desperately low on cash, and my furniture consists of a dining set and several boxes. But that really doesn't matter in the long run. What I am trying to vent, in some degree, is the fact that after college some of us feel really lost even when it seems like our lives should be figured out. Entering grad school isn't the period on the last phase of my life. Everything runs together. Grad school is me from last year without a city that he knows, or even loves. I don't know much about Princeton other than the fact that I am going to try and make my home here.

All homes have a moment when they are made. But at the same time, I am never going to really leave my old home behind. That's why I will always be from Chicago when it comes right down to it. We are all fortunate that, as we move into the post-college landscape, we are able to bring something- however intangible and tacit it really is- along with us.

So many people from my generation are now looking a new landscape in the eye. There is not the certainty of protection inside the institutions and homes we use to know. We are instead forced to not only forge ourselves continuously, but also new spaces in which we must live. Its exciting and unsettling, but its everything we really wanted. It just doesn't look like we imagined it, yet.


The song quoted at the top of this post is "Friends Back East" by Jawbreaker, from which the title is also taken.

Libya's Next Challenge (America's Next Step)

This is not good. I'm officially what President Barack Obama would call a "cynic." I discovered this yesterday as my twitter feed and news alerts started going off about how Libyan rebels had taken Tripoli and the rule of Qaddafi had effectively ended. The news started coming in and I just kept waiting for two things to happen.

First, when will it be that the major news networks start playing up the possibility that Libya becomes a "terrorist safe haven" and an "Islamic state." We all know this is inevitable, and that any support given now for Libya's overthrow of Qaddafi will soon be replaced with the jingoist paradigm that has so defined the last two decades. What is happening now is the typical jubilation that goes with any instance in which Western involvement is seen as having a positive, democratizing effect somewhere else in the world. What will happen soon is the typical "they don't know how to really have democracy" trope as fear begins to creep into the discussion surrounding Libya.

Second, I'm waiting for the United States to engage in usual, interest protecting, covert operations. These are not new, and they have defined the behavior of the executive branch since the 1950's, at the very least. How long will it be before CIA operations focus on forming a stabilized government friendly to American interests. This is not some outlandish, conspiratorial thought process; its a logical extension of American history in foreign intervention.

Of course, I hope that this time will be different. The idealist in me really wants the new Libya to be treated with mutual respect and welcomed into the international community on fair and open terms. But it's incredibly difficult for me to entertain these hopes seriously. Such was not the case with Afghanistan or Iraq, nor has the Egyptian government in the post Mubarak era been treated as a nation in charge of its own destiny. Egypt is perhaps the best example of how things can go so wrong because American media sources have continued to play up the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood and the rise of an Islamic state. These speculative news stories play directly into the xenophobic fears of many people who watch these cable news networks and they thus raise support for international intervention. Or, at least, it creates a de facto justification for when the intervention comes to light.

I'm not trying to take this into Manufacturing Consent territory, I'm just trying to express how my cynicism tempers my hope for the future of international events. The United States has a long rap sheet of foreign intervention and a bad history with countries in the Magreb and throughout the Middle East. So when I hear that Tripoli has been freed from Qaddafi's rule, I cannot help but hold my breath for the other shoe to drop. The loud, cable TV shoe.

As events unfold in Libya, I also wait to see events unfold within the American discourse around Libya. It will tell us a great deal about the future of American relations with the Middle East beyond simply what policies the current administration chooses to pursue. It will also be important to pay attention to exactly what kind of rhetoric the new Libyan government takes up in lieu of NATO involvement in the struggle against Libya's dictator. Those developments will be instructive of how deep the scars are from the post-colonial era.

The Art of Being Preachy

It has not escaped me that this blog has become very preachy as of late. I've been venting about political events and the climate of discourse with no real coherence to speak of. And as I speed every fast towards my fate as a graduate student in anthropology (assuming I take care of the red tape matters at hand) I wonder about what kind of anthropologist I'm going to be. Maybe as importantly, I wonder what kind of person I am going to be.

The question of what kind of person I am is not as easy to answer as I thought. After all, I am very aware of who I am trying to be- what ethical questions I have to answer on a day by day basis are shaped by who I imagine myself as- but I don't have a great idea of who I am right now. Its entirely possible that its an impossible question to answer because we may all be highly dynamic to the point that asking questions about ourselves in stasis is moot. Or maybe I'm just very, very bad at being truly self-reflexive.

Except when it comes to being self-conscious about what I write on this blog. Whenever I finish talking about some political event or climate I have to step back and say "how would an anthropologist talk about this?" or more often "would an anthropologist talk about this at all?" These are really inane questions- of course- because it always comes across as contrived and boring when someone tries to pigeonhole their entire life based on what they do for a living. But still, the question extends to my thoughts about my career as I move forward.

For four years I got very good at talking about politics (contrary to what this blog may indicate). I don't mean political forecasting or superficial analysis, rather discussions of philosophical genealogies of contemporary political events and questions of identity in international politics. But at the same time I really got frustrated with the fields of International Relations and Political Science. The kinds of questions, and the way I can answer the questions. Anthropology allowed my line of questioning and curiosity to really have room to breathe, and the more I learned about the field the more I really came to love it. But I'm still very new at this, and maybe I need more practice at talking about anthropology.

Yet, it would be disingenuous to suggest that the things I write about here don't matter. They matter to me a great deal. I think they are important discussions to have with serious implications for the world I am coming up into. What I wonder is what my perspective is. I fall into the trap, far too often, that ones perspective is singular and tied to what they do principally. If all I did was write entries in the voice of an anthropologist, whatever that would be, I would be very bored with what I am doing.

When I write here, I am mostly venting. I am sometimes asking people who are reading to think about things from a new angle. When I talk about the debt ceiling, I often want to think about how our discursive climate has affected things, not what the politicians are doing. So, when it comes to it, this blog is not me trying to be something, but just being what I am. That doesn't mean I know what that is, simply that I am acting that out. And the perspective that I bring cannot be forced.

Perspectives are not limited by who we want to be, but who we were and are as well. The most valuable things I have to offer are not to be sectioned off and defined as being "anthropological" but are those things which are collectively influenced by my experience.

So the moral of the story- don't ever expect me to write like I would in an academic setting. And I'm sorry I'm so preachy. Kind of.

The Right to Remain Anonymous?

Internet stalking seems to be really fashionable, and it is no secret that I indulge in various social networking websites on a pretty constant basis. And, quite honestly, I don't believe that its up for debate that these websites and services are having a pretty direct and meaningful impact on the societies it has become a part of (and those which they may be creating). But with these websites comes a pervasive question of privacy and what kinds of privacy people are entitled to when they use these websites.

This morning I was reading this article on a Google+ Insider. As Google attempts to push its way into the social networking website, there are bond to be ever more contests between the Google Team and Facebook- and this particular one happens to revolve around the ways in which applications on the social networking websites may collect and utilize your personal information. I wont bother with a synopsis of the terms of use regarding privacy- you can easily go and find that yourself. However, I am left asking "what exactly constitutes personal information?"

After all, when I created my Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ accounts (not to mention old sites I don't use anymore, such as Myspace, Livejournal, or Xanga) did I not sign up to have my information posted online? See, this may be one of the biggest problems with assuming that consumers can have a regulatory affect on markets- consumers are not always rational actors with perfect knowledge. I'll admit it right now, I didn't sit down and read the terms of use when I created my accounts. And I haven't checked them each time they have come up with new versions. So am I not to blame if my information is being "leaked" or otherwise distributed?

Of course, there have been cases where companies have distributed information and disclosed such actions to no one, leaving for some legal gray areas to be worked out. And the information I posted is not necessarily "private" information. I want this information to be shared- of course just not to everyone. So there are obviously places where disclosure is absolutely necessary, but to claim that the information is personal is just a little bit disingenuous. These aren't tidbits of secret information, or at least they shouldn't be.

The whole iPhones tracking your location scandal doesn't sit well with me, and seeing the same ability being applied to Google+ and Facebook does, however, make me a little wary. And while I have disabled these features, there is a pretty stark contrast in abilities between me, the user, and the providers of any service I sign up for. As technologies move forward, it is not really practical for me to be able to keep track of everything the provider suddenly becomes able to do. How will I know when they suddenly can know when I'm using a public restroom off of highway 55?

In my third year of college I did a research project on cyberbullying which explored the ways in which we, as an individual oriented society, have been unable or unwilling to think about personal interactions online in a more critical fashion and have often dismissed the Internet as "not being real life." I have heard many people talk about how the teenagers who suffer from cyberbullying are unstable people anyway, and it didn't matter how they got bullied. What is ignored in such an argument, however, is that Internet technologies, including social networking, have actually broken apart the private/public divide that we thought existed. It is possible to be chased home by your problems outside. The Internet, while being accessed in a "private" setting is not really a private domain. And this is the heart of the issue, I believe. There's a tendency to link the Internet with the privacy of the home without realizing that the very existence of the Internet is predicated upon "public" or shared movement of information.

I don't actually know how to feel about these issues in any meaningful sense. I'm reluctant to give Internet providers or other service providers a free pass to disguise what they do from users. The Internet is largely produced by public use and exchange. At the same time, I think it may be foolish to believe that the Internet is capable of being a private space. What is Internet privacy, and what would it really look like?

Political Bias in Universities

I have often heard that Universities are insidious places where liberal professors brainwash students into believing only in the liberal perspective. The theory goes that professors are usually hired only because they are liberal, and that these professors go one to subvert the minds of you students and bend them away from the "conservative" perspective. Of course, this would have to mean that the students are not only brainwashed when it comes to social issues, but also economic issues. On August 5th, Inside Higher Ed attempted to get at this issue of political bias in an article linked here. However, Higher Ed moved to discuss how the academy is usually inept or unwilling to examine its own climate while it turns its attention to institutions outside of itself. I don't take issue with that point, but I am instead disappointed that we did not see a much more in depth perspective on politics inside undergraduate institutions.

Professors, graduate students, undergraduate students, and staff all have political views formed when they arrive to any university. This is the inescapable result of the maxim "opinions are like belly buttons; everyone has one." But the question is, do these university members actively brainwash students towards a liberal position? Having gone to college, I have a hard time seeing how. No professor ever mocked a student's political position in front of me- even when they were horribly unsubstantiated by evidence. Even in working with professors in the political science department, no political platform was ever formed and espoused by the professor. Robert A. Pape, for example, talked at length about the theoretical issues and hypothesis behind suicide terrorism, but he never repeated any political stance held by either major U.S. party. He did not take a stand on what the military's budget should be, how it should be raised, or any such talking point. To this day, I don't know if Pape is a democrat, republican, independent, or apolitical spectre haunting the University of Chicago.

I bring this up to illustrate that political views are not always widely broadcasted by professors. I'm certain a counter anecdote can certainly be brought up to nullify my statement above, but I would argue that a professor who exposes their political views before a class of undergraduates risks losing credibility with his or her students. If a professor exposes something along the lines of "republicans are all idiots, under-educated and woefully inept on issues facing this country" he or she can turn off students who come from conservative backgrounds and thus failing at his or her job. This is not to say that some professors harbor no such feelings, I'm certain some do, but that such positions are highly risky in a classroom setting.

At the same time, I have had great difficulty arriving at a conclusion about what professors of any discipline should have to say about politics. This question is perhaps more relevant to members of the social sciences than it is to the hard sciences in some respects. Professors are expected to be experts in their fields, and could potentially inform policy makers and publics alike on issues pertinent to the political discourse of the day. But should academics choose to come down on a side during any debate, do they not immediately fall subject to the rhetoric of the opposing side? This is a question of courage for the academic who chooses to speak up. He or she will have to face the inevitable onslaught of vitriolic rhetoric that is so common today.

It should also be mentioned that the notion of the academy being nothing but liberals is difficult for me to wrap my head around. My alma mater, for example, is home to the Chicago School of Economics- one of the juggernauts of fiscal conservatism of the twentieth century. The modern father of free-market economics, Milton Freedman, called Chicago home during his formative years. And many professors I have met have not fallen in line with what most people would call "liberal." Perhaps this is what is at issue. Being liberal when it comes to social issues is certainly pervasive at universities- but I believe that comes with a function of being educated to think critically and broadly. As soon as this occurs, there is a tendency to categorize someone as being a "liberal." But there are so many other factors that make up someone's political views. Members of philosophy departments are certainly not going to have the exact same political philosophies. They may all be seen as being 'liberal' but may have some views that don't fall into line with that political label.

Politics during my undergraduate education were at once ubiquitous and obscured. I can't say I was brainwashed (how would I know?) but I can also say that I never really had a political discussion with any of my professors. I'm sure there will be the argument that such brainwashing occurs under the radar, in a highly esoteric fashion. But this is such a sign of disrespect to the students who are attaining a college education. To believe they can be so easily persuaded with some sort of jedi-mind trick is insulting to the students themselves. I know that these views are commonly held in tandem with anti-intellectualism, but at the core is a serious misunderstanding of how politics in university settings (at least with undergraduates) works.

If I ever hope to teach, this is certainly something I will have to come to terms with. There are injustices that I don't think anyone should be silent about, but sometimes these injustices are perceived only through particular lenses. At the same time, the goal of educating undergraduates should be, I believe, to influence students to think laterally irrespective of whatever they hope to do after graduation. It is not to transmit a particular set of doctrine, but to instill critical thinking. Of course, no matter what I do I'll still be the liberal academic hippy in the ivory tower who is so removed from reality its not even funny.

Of Course! He's LYING

Every morning, I make my rounds through several news websites to check on some of the big stories as well as some of the smaller ones. Today, I had a convergence of two of these websites, NPR and The New York Times. NPR featured a small article on Warren Buffett's Op-Ed to the New York Times about how he feels that the "super-wealthy" really should be taxed at much higher rates. He also counters the much touted argument that taxes kill jobs when he states

People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.

This isn't a revolutionary argument- people on twitter have said the same thing in about 140 characters since this whole debate started. But when Warren Buffett says it, people have a very different reaction. Rather than rebutting the point with "you don't know anything about economics" we have the following gems from the comment section of NPR

Yet... somehow Mr. Buffett sounds so magnanimous. It's all talk. He SAYS he want's to pay more... there's nothing STOPPING him from paying more. Put your $ where your mouth is! Write the check!

There's clearly a missing step in this person's reading of Mr. Buffett's original editorial, assuming he or she even bothered to go and read the original editorial at all. Mr. Buffett is not concerned with his taxes alone, but is after the more systemic problem in the American tax code. Of course, a wealthy man saying that taxes on the rich should be raised has to a) have an ulterior motive and b) is wrong that he doesn't pay enough. If Buffett had come out and said that he pays enough (or too much) we can be certain that people on the right would be touting his words as proof positive of their views being correct. But because he came out in the exact opposite, his credibility must be utterly undermined and you get comments like:

Fair Tax: EVERYBODY including John the tax cheat Kerry, pays 20% Consumption and everything. It makes too much sense for manipulative-minded liberals who have a socialist agenda for America.

What's of further interest is that, of course, no one on the comment section actually came out with figures and arguments to the contrary of what Mr. Buffett has argued for. Instead we have wonderful diatribes and efforts to simply wrest any degree of authority from Buffett (including some really well placed red herrings). Now, I'm not trying to really come down on the issue at hand so much as I am trying to point out how hopelessly disappointing the comments of the readers are. I think Buffett makes a great argument and I am entitled to agree or disagree with him on whatever basis I see fit so long as it is on topic and critically thought out. Not so with our fine Internet denizens. Instead, soundbites and personal attacks govern the land.

Mr. Buffett's argument is not outlandish, and it underscores some the largest issues we have in the relationship between government and citizens. For some reason, there's a knee jerk reaction to protect the super wealthy from taxes because, and I have heard this many times, taxes lead to a removal of our freedoms. This is F.A. Hayek's argument stripped of what little support it had to begin with. And the end result is a group of posters who throw themselves full screed ahead.

I can't generalize as to why this is the case. I just don't know who these people are or what they have done to put themselves into such a horrible position when it comes to the formation of arguments and opinions. What I do know is that anytime I see these comments posted, I lose a little faith. I have to get in the habit of staying away from the comment sections of most websites. It's not that people are inherently stupid- its just that some of the stupidest ones are the loudest.

There are.... TERRORISTS IN YOUR COMPUTER!

The hacker groups Anonymous and Lulzsec have been getting a lot of attention lately, despite the fact that all they have really done is create minor disruptions. Nonetheless, I have been hearing an ever increasing amount of talk about the need for better internet security. And no doubt, there have been even more worrying signs that cyberspace may be the next front line in international antagonisms. The future of "cyber warfare" is a topic I'd much rather leave to experts in the field. I have a hard enough of a time trying to get my computer to wake up from sleep mode.

The other day, however, I heard a segment on the radio talking about the possibility that these hacker groups, notably Anonymous and Lulzsec, could be infiltrated by terrorists. This claim, of course, presumes that these hackers are not terrorists by virtue of their action and that only jihadists classify as terrorists. The entire segment was about how international terrorists could infiltrate the groups and turn them against the Western regimes. Ladies and gentlemen, there are terrorists in your computer.

Again, the underlying assumption here is that only jihadists or islamic fundamentalists can be terrorists, and that cyber attacks may be the next place they chose to go after American interests. This simply highlights the cumbersome nature of the words we choose to use. Anonymous isn't a terrorist organization, or at least I don't think it is, unless they are infiltrated by groups like al Qaeda. I can't help but feel as though a certain degree of islamaphobia underscores the very segment I heard on air.

If McCarthy had internet connection, no doubt he'd have suggested the very same thing. I know this is a cliché parallel to draw, but its fairly apt. Since 9/11 our phantoms have been terrorists out to destroy us by whatever nefarious methods they may have. And now, there is a small group who genuinely fear that terrorists will wage war against the US via cyberspace. Now, there's already evidence that state actors have already begun attacking one another (linked above) but this is not enough for people. We need the boogeymen to be everywhere. Oh, and the boogeymen are all only muslims.

What bothers me is that the threats of cyber attacks have to be instantly coupled with terrorism, and that our definition of terrorism has to be so narrowly defines (though the use of the word "terrorism" itself is problematic already). There are, of course problems with the notion that terrorist organizations have a vetted interest in using cyber attacks. Such attacks expose attackers to being located and are limited in the scope of their possible damage. But beyond that, there's still the question of why we feel the need to associate terrorism with the threat of cyber attacks.

Let's also forget the notion that the hackers who comprise Anonymous and Lulzsec are not automatically manipulatable. Just because a "terrorist" infiltrates an organization does not mean that the organization will then go along with whatever this individual suggests. But these problems don't phase these commentators at all- terrorists are everywhere!

I'm not going to say that this is impossible, I just don't have that kind of information. Still, the leaping to that conclusion is troubling. At best, its just a way to sell the product of news commentary- terrorism sells. At worst, its islamaphobic paranoia that's divorcing itself from careful analysis of the situation at hand. In any event, even if Anonymous takes down facebook like they said they would, they better leave Penny Arcade alone.

Trading in Our Futures

When I was a kid, it was impossible for me to really imagine myself beyond a small window of time. Perhaps 3 or 4 months down the road. This, of course, did not stop me from playing imagination with the future. Entering middle school was exciting because the way we changed classes every 45 minutes, to me, fulfilled the ability to pretend I was more grown up than I was. I would pretend to be older, but only by a little bit, and I contented myself with this. Similarly, I was uncertain that the future would really exist. I remember, in the 5^th grade, being genuinely afraid that the world would end with the start of Y2K and that I'd never be a “grown-up.” I could only look a little bit down the road and, at the same time, I was always convinced that the end of the road was only slightly beyond that. Fatalism strikes the young mind in very terrifying ways, but it does far more damage to the mind that is declared to be matured.

The future is part and parcel of the way we conceive of our lives now in every respect. I cannot be certain that this was any different in times gone by, but the future does seem to have a remarkable place in the way we conceive of ourselves and our livelihoods. The obvious example is the forecasting that takes place in our stock markets. We trade on futures, anticipations of what things will look like- what people will want. The present is not really the main concern unless it directly reveals a potential glimpse into what things will look like down the road. Perhaps another way the future has become our time period of operation is in the way the past is obscured. The past is often employed to predict the future, as many use the discipline of history as a predictive tool, forgetting that we often interpret the past only in terms of a provincial present.

And fear is always cloaked about the future. We anxiously await the time China is predicted to finally overtake the US as the world's largest economy assuming that, with that moment, something fundamentally American will vanish. If being the largest economy is so integral to being American, then yes, our identities as Americans shall be washed away and rightfully so. Nothing so shallow should be so vital to our collective identities (whatever they may be). The future is what we look to for our guidance and it holds all of our deepest fears. Some of these fears are certainly warranted- we carry on demanding sight of the future without taking notice of all the dangers that we have engendered ourselves. And now, we look at the future and cannot escape from a certain amount of dread. We have been undone and the decline now begins.

I don't see escape from this mentality being simple in any respect. Thinking of the possibilities that come with crisis is not so hard when we are so convinced that we are about to lose everything that makes us, well, us. Perhaps we have failed to look at the present with any degree of care to the point that we no longer recognize ourselves as people living in the moment. We only see decay around the corner with no notion of what will persist beyond that point.

All of this presumes that we are in fact on a path of impending decline- its fatalistic. There are many, many voices- rational or otherwise- that have always insisted that this is the place we would end up going. Even I, in high school, thought in terms of this fatalism about the United States. I avidly read things by Noam Chomsky, for example, with this absolute certainty that everything he said was fundamentally correct. I spent my senior year writing a 38 page paper on the parallels between ancient empires and the United States (which, today, looks like nothing more than a trite exercise) that concluded with the declaration that all empires fall. And they do. But I really don't think that back then I was ever really convinced that I would see this decline in my lifetime.

Maybe I'm not convinced of it now. In any event, I think people do really hope that what we are experiencing now is just a natural cycle in the way our economy works and that prosperity and progress, as we defined it before, shall return to us. Yet there are others who predict and utterly grim and total collapse of the world as we know it, replaced by something else. We look to the future and assume it is directing this present we now exist in. The future is at once uncertain and determining with our present selves prostrate before it. This is part of why we feel such anxiety about our material life and why we cannot constructively imagine ourselves beyond the next six months.

I have written this post completely laced with a kind of fatalism. I think, like many people, I want to be able to have a confidence that everything is going to be alright. But what I would define as “alright” is not entirely clear. Perhaps comfort materially and mentally is all I require to feel as though things are “alright.” Maybe we need to jettison our dependence on the future in favor of understanding the present. Rather than building ourselves towards some expected future we must become more reactionary to the events of the present. We're going to give ourselves Paris Syndrome when it comes to the future, and that would really cripple our collective confidence.

Things may get much, much worse in the near future. I, and everyone else, have no choice but to live with that prospect. Things may get much better in the near future, as well. We cannot passively await that possibility. The more I think about it, the more I think we have handed our agency on to something that may or may not exist in the form we imagine it.

Nothing here is serious scholarship or spoken with any degree of confidence in the complexities behind what we are experiencing now. Its spoken through the mind of someone who still wrestles with the uncertainty and fatalism of a kid who just worried about to much as well as the mind of someone who truly believes things must change because the way people behave and think today has become very unsettling. 

Being Afraid

I feel like my blog has betrayed some of my obsession with politics in recent posts. I don't know, just a nagging suspicion.

Watching as the S&P has downgraded the United States Credit Rating has been interesting. Part of it is because I am only vaguely aware of the complexities involved in international finance. But a much bigger part of it is because of the questions and reactions I have already begun to take notice of. Underpinning all of the observations and comments made about the last month has been a prevailing sense of anxiety and uncertainty.

The person with whom I am staying with in Denver asked me what I thought about the whole situation. After briefly talking about the childishness of the Congressional leaders who helped bring about this scenario, we also acknowledged how the material mentality of many people had likewise contributed to the serious problems of the economy. We touched on some fairly common themes; people bought houses they couldn't afford because the house is a symbol of success, credit has become the medium of purchase over the previous four decades, and the surplus of the Clinton era promoted an environment of reckless borrowing. Testing these assumptions empirically is not really my concern because it is the relative truth of these statements that is so interesting to me. My host was looking back on the last two decades and identifying a pattern of material and financial life that she had lived through. We concluded our discussion with her saying, point blank, "its all really scary."

I think, at the heart of all this anxiety, may be the fact that the uninterrupted "progress" experienced by the US has really hit a serious road bump. The progress I refer to is material consumption. An unyielding march towards more consumption and more purchasing with no hint of retreating. We have, in the United States, become accustomed to such a powerful array of purchasing opportunity and material diversity that it seems unimaginable that such prosperity could be eroded. I think people genuinely worry that their way of life will be reversed or perhaps lead to a steady decline in American material prosperity.

And news agencies demonstrate a concept that dovetails into this fear over material declination. NPR's headline as of today is "American Pride takes hit with S&P's Downgrade" The article quotes a professor of economics as saying "[the downgrade] is a way of saying that our government isn't working right now." I think this is certainly true. As James Loewen noted, there is a precedent in American education in history to believe that our government always does the right thing (see Lies My Teacher Told me Chapter 11). But the government did not do the right thing, and everyone can see it plainly. Already, government officials have retuned to political blame games and there is little hope, in my view, that these things will change any time soon. But when NPR refers to "American Pride" what exactly is the source of that pride? Certainly not a pride in our self-proclaimed values (values which many of us do take seriously but feel are not lived up to).

This pride is one of having great wealth and being a country of uninterrupted progress that is measurable by what is in stores and what is in our homes. Or that's my first theory. It must be difficult for people to imagine that things are going to get worse, not better. I know that its a difficult prospect for me as I head out on my own. What the next week will bring is a difficult enough question that looking 6 months into the future seems impossible. And this really adds to the sense of anxiety that is creeping into the minds of many people I talk to every day. Day by day people look to the stock markets as barometers of their own futures and they await whatever reactions come from the brokers and traders.

What a downer of a blog post. And this really doesn't contribute anything of merit. But sometimes I just like to hink out loud.

Books from the Past -or- Not out of the Woods Yet

My descent from Rocky Mountain National Park is coupled with news that the stock markets have taken a serious nose dive and people in Breckenridge are snobs. But I'm on the last stretch of my "unplugged period" (which is what this will be called in my memoirs) and as such I can now finally bother all of you with my thoughts.

During this break in the park I have read Erik Larson's new book In the Garden of the Beasts which proved to be a very easy and interesting read. I have also picked up a book that people have talked about for years and years but that I only just now had any interest in reading. James W. Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me strikes me as both thought provoking and utterly banal at the same time. Maybe that's because any teach who had an impact on me in High School actually took Loewen's work to heart and applied it in earnest. In any event, while I have learned some really great little American History factoids, two things really stuck out to me in reading this book.

First, Loewen's book really dovetails into calls for the improvement of the American education system. Politicians and community members have been fixated on the really dismal performance of our public education system and have demanded that our students begin to perform better on standardized tests and other notable metrics. But what Loewen points to is that our education really is too geared towards the bland, unenjoyable memorization of facts in schooling. Loewen takes a very hard stance against the way American history textbooks have made history mundane, rather than exciting and dynamic. There were moments early in the book when Loewen would mention that blatant lack of discussing cultural syncretism in the expansion of the US or the unwillingness for textbooks to present just how contentious many episodes of American history really are. He even demands that textbooks teach High School students abou the less-than-savory episodes of our government's history. And at first I thought to myself "come on, these high schoolers are just not advanced enough to understand all of this." But I have to stop myself, because here is both my cynicism talking and my inability to recognize that the problem isn't the level of material presented at the High School level, but the fact that our education systems do not prepare students to really learn and think.

Over the spring I spoke with a professor from the University of Illinois at Chicago who spoke about how, in any given classroom only 30% of the students were actually ready for college work and material. The other 70% simply contented themselves with poor grades because they would not ask for help or blamed her for their own misfortunes. See, the issue is that there is a pressure for students to attend college as the logical next step in their development but the schools rarely provide the background it takes to really learn. The reason I, at first, scoffed at Loewen's suggestions is because these were all perspectives I didn't pick up until my senior year of High School and developed in college. But I'm a product of a really terrible public school- I was just lucky enough to have met the right people at the right time.

Lowen's standards seem so impossibly high to me because, from a young age, American students are taught to learn for a test and memorize dead facts- not living and vibrant disciplines. In short, we have done a really terrible job of teaching our students how to learn. Success is a 30 or better on the ACT, not critical thought and engagement with arguments. I have thought a lot about higher education without looking at the fact that the way students in the US learn is not conducive to real scholarship. And all students are not going to be college material of the highest order, but that should not be a measure of success. The measure of success should be equipping students how to engage their world critically. Alas, I dream.

Secondly, if the administration and community members are really interested in competing in terms of innovation, they must change education towards critical thinking, not bland memorization. Innovation is the product of real learning, and learning from contentious fields and arguments. If all we want to do is get students to repeat what already exists then we also resign ourselves to a country of limited innovation. We also hide real history (and by proxy, the other social sciences) when we conceal controversy and failure and glorify success and strip agency from many of the figures of our past and present. There is no innovation without an understanding of failure and an ability to ask and learn.

So when I read Loewen and think he's just a little bit over the top, I also have to note that the problems he's describing go much, much deeper than secondary education textbooks. But I'm not an educator, just a lucky product of public education.

Live from Colorado

The blatant lack of posts this past few days has been a result of me being out camping in Rocky Mountain National Park. It has been really breath taking in the most cliché of ways, and I have smelled about as ripe as a the armpits of the world's fattest man. Its been a great trip, and I have more of it to go.

The last couple of days Kate and I have gone on some hikes up the sides of mountains (much harder than I thought it would be) and the most amazing parts have not been the scenic mountain top views, but instead the moments when a trail runs deep into pine forest. Sound seems to be swallowed up by the trunks and light is slowed to a trickle everywhere. Hiking through these moments of natural quiet, the solitude strikes my deep in the chest and has an incredible knack for stopping my train of thought dead cold.

One of the biggest adjustments to all of this has been the infrequency of internet connectivity. I am so use to having a world of instant feedback at my finger tips where I can put a little bit of myself out there and have it acted on, reacted to, or simply left to drift in the static. My twitter feed (something that is predicated on instant feedback), Facebook, and Google+ all remain silent to me. Yes, even this blog, where I escape to write about nothing in the most indirect way possible is something that is delayed constantly. Up the mountain, swallowed up by the trees I am unconnected and, strangely, it feels ok.

I have gotten very use to killing time in such an efficient manner online, as most people have. I can jump between news websites and YouTube videos for hours, producing nothing and consuming nothing of substance. Sometimes I wonder, if I were convert all the hours I have spent idly online, what kinds of things I could have accomplished? But when these thoughts do come, I get cold inside and run for Penny Arcade to cheer my wasted soul.

You have to imagine a mind use to being over stimulated by heaps of nothing suddenly coming face to face with a wall of trees. A single track path cutting the way through is dwarfed by the enormity of the forest all around it, and instead of nervous mental energy seeking a stead hit of the internet, it is stopped dead. The world is somehow tactile again instead of digitized. My news fix is achieved through a $15 dollar radio with a signal interrupted every time a moose sneezes. And believe me, its been strange observing the stories I have been most invested in not at a constant stream, but in bursts at the beginning and the end of each day,

Maybe there's some moral I should extrapolate from all of this. Something about how I should learn to cut back at my digital life and embrace this corporeal existence in all its ephemeral glory. Maybe. But what I take away from all of this is really that I saw a moose when I woke up this morning. It was a big ass moose.

For Norway

I wanted to begin my blog today by first extending my condolences to the people Norway. For those who are unaware, the people of Norway were subjected to a period of terror brought about by a militant extremist. While details are still emerging, readers can find what disturbing details that have emerged through simple news search.

However, as this tragedy unfolded, I have been shocked by the reactions many people have had. They have ranged from the disrespectful- people using the tragedy as a platform to forward their political beliefs in regards to carrying arms- to the outright disgusting with people asserting that the attack is a false flag designed to insight UN martial law (I'm not joking). These speculations and assertions do a tremendous amount of disrespect to the memory of those who fell in the rampage.

To those who speak up about this proving that people should more widely be allowed to carry guns I can only point out that this happened in a foreign country and that their laws are their own. I also want to point out that such arguments come at the expense of those whose memories are now placed in the uneasy light of what has happened. To those who assert these outrageous conspiracy theories I can only hope that you never have to experience the pain and heartache of losing someone you love to the kind of violence that transpired in Oslo and Utoya.

What has also come from this tragedy is a deadly reminder that over the past few years, right-wing extremism has pushed its way into European politics. This has ranged from a German author asserting that Muslim Turks are "dumbing down the German population" to anti-immigrant parties gaining support in various political bodies. And we must not forget that several countries have declared a "failure of multi-culturalism." Ideas of cultural purity and national identity are not new to this period in history, but there is a raging undercurrent of xenophobia that is taking too strong a hold.

And this is not a European problem. No one can deny that here, in the United States, there has been a perpetual problem with the extremes of both sides of the political spectrum. Domestic terror does not simply appear when there is an attack- it festers in the minds and hearts of the hateful. When public discourse continues on and allows the levels of wide-spread vitriol to rise we expose ourselves, constantly, to the kind of threats these people pose.

There is something more contemporaneous that bears mentioning. There are indications that the assailant was an ardent anti-islamic extremist. His hopes were to insight a grand revolution with Islam representing his central enemy. Islamaphobia, a particular xenophobic hate that has only gained momentum since 9/11 and recent waves of immigration in the EU, is not only a disturbing but dangerous. There must be no mistake, anti-Islamic sentiments represent racism and erroneous thinking at its worst, and it has revealed itself to have horrendous consequences.

Islamaphobia has been one of the most terrifying aspects of modern political discourse in my eyes. And to see someone, so convinced by this hatred take to armed force only solidifies my anxieties. Innocent youths were gunned down in cold blood because one man was allowed to fester his hatred. People going about their day were taken from this world simply because of their political positions. And while Norway was where these hatreds came to a head, the danger exists everywhere that these prejudices are allowed to grow.

In the wake of this tragedy, there is one thing I think I am obliged to do. It is not to strike out with hatred and support crackdowns, but to speak out against hatred everywhere. We, in the United States, are not immune to the troubles of extremism at home and we have an obligation, if we cherish peace and prosperity, not to strike out against enemies everywhere but to speak out and be aware of the troubles in our own homes. To the people in Norway, the most I can offer is my promise to do my part in cutting through the lies and hatreds that breed this kind of violence.

Narratives that Work (unfortunately)

It's starting to feel like the only thing I write about is politics and the media, but a comment on my last blog did get me thinking about something that I felt should be written. The comment read, in part, as follows:

Do you really feel like News Corps (notably Fox News) are the only right-wing news in a sea of liberally-slanted news outlets? Or is that a particular narrative they try to convey? Perhaps even more bitingly – but my own particular flavor of media critique – is to be found in a now I suppose sort of old Catherine Lutz piece "Reading National Geographic," which briefly discusses at what point did the truth become taking the most extreme political views on the perceived right and left, and having some audience-produced synthesis of them being the "truth?" In other words, why do we (perceive a) need (for) a right-wing network to counterbalance left-wing networks if not for the sake that somehow having two strongly and unabashedly opinionated views to create "balanced" truth.

 I suppose the informal nature of my blog has allowed me to be imprecise. I should absolutely clarify what I mean when I saw that News Corp is the only right-wing news outlet in a sea of liberal news outlets. There is a number of incredibly high-profile news outlets that sell opinion as news and have begun to do less and less meaningful analysis. And I don't mean this from the perspective of someone who studied political philosophy and political science, I mean this from the vantage point of a consumer of news. And most of these big name news sources have been demonstrated to have a "liberal-slant" or bias, notably The New York Times and MSNBC among others. I read the Times and even I can tell when the liberal-bias pops up- it just doesn't bother me because their factual errors are far less prevalent than those on FOX news. MSNBC, however, has begun to do something pretty troubling, and I think this move is characteristic of something I noted once before and alluded to in my last post.

As the commenter above notes, there is a very real possibility that FOX news is the only right-wing outlet against the liberally controlled news sector because they sell themselves as such. I think the commenter is absolutely right in pointing out that there's something very wrong when we think we have to have a right-wing balance in our news media because it belies the fact that these outlets are in the business, to a great extent, of producing truth. And their narrative is successful to a great degree. What I wanted to point out in the last post was that Murdoch's problems have, in part, triggered an attack by other news agencies because this kind of dichotomy has triggered a battle between two ends of the spectrum who work to produce their truths and sell them. And the consumers allow that because that's what they want.

My whole point in mentioning the Chomsky hypothesis was to suggest that there are too many people who radicalize the position and expect the fault to be on the media-state relationship and that their logic borders on conspiratorial thinking. I wanted to suggest that there's actually a huge level of complacency from consumers of the media for what is broadcasted. We have bought the narratives and we like the narratives being delivered in accordance to our likings. This mode of media consumption has also generated cases where journalists do some rather questionable things ethically.

But I think there's something else worth mentioning in the construction of these right-wing versus left-wing narratives. Right-wing groups have consistently cried foul against the media for being unabashedly liberal and working against the conservative position. They insist that the media pursues a liberal agenda. I want to be clear- this is not all conservatives, just the loudest ones. And we have seen these groups even suggest, just last year, that NPR was an overtly liberal organization. This is clearly a stretch in my eyes, but nonetheless it demonstrates how the playing field is set up. The alternatives are set up as pushing one agenda leaving room for organizations like News Corp to push the exact opposite one.

So when I say that News Corp is the only right-wing outlet in a sea of liberal outlets, I suppose I am speaking from the vantage point of the consumer, not the careful observer. The narratives, unfortunately, do work and they do incur real reactions. In this case, Murdoch's troubles trigger a wave of news stories covering the scandal and being careful to mention Murdoch in as many instances as possible. This then becomes ample evidence for many that there is an overtly liberal ocean looking to crush the only conservative voice out there. These are real arguments people have presented me with, so its hard not to take them seriously in so far as this is the environment people are maneuvering in when it comes to their news.

My next blog post will have nothing to do with this subject. Promise.

Blame Game

Ever since Noam Chomsky published his book Manufacturing Consent and the subsequent movie was made on his book, it appears that every young radical I meet or encounter both in person and online is utterly and completely infatuated with everything that book had to say. There has also been a move away from the writings of Chomsky and a move towards the expansion of "media conspiracy" arguments made at every term. The recent scandal involving Rupert Murdoch's News International and revelations about the relationship between police and media sources has only seemed to reinforce these views of the media.

There should be no mistake, there is evidence to support many things that Chomsky has to say. The relationship between the media and government and the ways in which media works on its consumers is truly fascinating, but I personally believe that Chomsky overstates his case. But to suggest such a position to young radicals in love with the thesis is to declare oneself a "shill" and a slave to the system.

But I don't see grand conspiracies or organized efforts between the state and media to produce desired effects. Instead, I see amoral institutions acting in their own self interest, namely achieving readership and thus profits. This typically creates ethically dubious relationships between the media and the contacts they maintain both among law enforcement and government (as well as any other story subject). Its fairly clear that the drive of news organizations is towards profit and survival, and when ethical issues arise they only form weak obstructions to the efforts of the more deplorable of journalists. There are structural pressures on journalists as the company for which they work demands results, and the journalists must either cave into the pressure or hobble their career to some degree.

Now, this does not, in any way, shape, or form excuse what Murdoch's News International has done. No, what it does is demonstrate the moral weakness of its members and its leadership. The greatest challenge for these editors and CEOs is to express some individual moral integrity to resist the structural pressures of being in a corporate environment. It is not easy, but that does not make it acceptable to surrender to such despicable forces in an effort to achieve the "story."

The irony is that now Murdoch's news empire is the story, and every other news outlet has pounced on it. While there is an element of justice to this turn in the road, there is also something to be cautious of as this story moves forward. Murdoch's various networks, most infamously FOX news, are notorious for their right wing bias in an ocean of liberally biased news sources. They are also notorious for their really poor reporting and hyper-distorting style of analysis. So, naturally, networks like MSNBC have pounced upon this crying for blood. There's a part of me, too, that wants this to cripple and alter the way Murdoch's news networks operate. But that may be a sign of my naïve nature.

But returning to my reason for writing this post: I remain amazed that people try to turn this into a Chomsky issue where the state-media relationship is the only one of value. But when you look at this whole thing, it speaks to the way we consume media, and how our consumption plays a direct role in the pressures and motives that engender stories like these. Its hard to believe that such a systemic failure of morality by these journalists and CEOs would have been possible if there weren't such a demand and environment around such deplorable reporting. Again, this is not an effort to let these people off the hook, but rather a long way of saying that people who blame the state-media relationship are shifting the blame and not being self-reflexive. At the same time, I am not trying to dismiss what Chomsky and his readers argue for- I'm just saying that its not the only story in town.

My little self-righteous blog will not change anything. Rather, this really serves to remind myself that I can be caught up in the sensationalization of news and the media wars that go on. Huge, amoral news corporations all circle one another in the tank, waiting for any sign that they can eliminate the competition. I believe that that is precisely what is happening, and viewers and read of the more leftist-media outlets are wasting no time in enjoying Murdoch squirm. But this is not just about Murdoch anymore. NPR did a story yesterday covering the systemic issues in the media-law enforcement relationship, and I appreciated it. Rather than delighting in Murdoch's discomfort, they tried to draw out the bigger question. And that, I think, is really important