Who Are You? What Have You Sacrificed?

Obama won. Why did it feel so anti-climactic?

As I simultaneously watched a station with a clear liberal bias and another with a clear conservative bias, screens came up stating Obama won the requisite number of electoral votes immediately at 8 PM PST. My glance at the screen in the midst of a discussion caused me to state evenly, "Hey, look. He won."

With that calm fact, every history book was outdated and needed a completely new section on the progression of racial issues. It hasn't hit me, and I don't think it will. For many of my generation, the racial issue doesn't matter. The fact that the country elected an intelligent idealist far outweighs the color of his skin.

The gloss of the victory wears off quickly. With the promises and goals he has stated, Obama's work has just begun. Implementation, the real challenge, looms overhead. Even with a Democratic majority, there will be intense battles. The Democratic party does not have a history of unity and teamwork.

The expectation of Democratic control to allow a drastic shift in American policy is unrealistic. The leadership shifted, and that might cause a fundamental change in operation. But, most of the same legislators that voted for attacking Saddam, the Patriot Act, FISA still hold their seats. Many of the members of Congress that appointed Roberts and Alito are still present.

To lay the responsibility of the government's actions over the past several years at the feet of an individual, an administration, or a party is ignorant. Legislation was passed and judges were confirmed, counting more than just Republicans among their numbers. Blaming Bush is a folly, one that ignores the individual responsibilities of all those involved from top to bottom in the democratic process. Our country does not operate only by simple majority, but by a simple majority with the complicity of a sizable minority. If there are actions that faulted, we are all at fault.

We have an individual responsibility to act. Someone I know once criticized the poor quality of public defenders in the United States. I asked him if he was going to change that and become a public defender. His reply was one of shock and disgust that I would even suggest such a thing. What use does the world have for people that simply identify a problem, doing nothing to resolve it?

Similarly, if a government acts in a manner with which people do not agree, there must be clear and immediate action against that action. Many people I know that lamented about the illegality of the war in Iraq or the violations of human and civil rights committed by the government. Yet, most did nothing but talk about the situation. They did not participate in rallies, write to their Congressional representatives, or even fund groups protesting these actions on legal and social fronts.

This strange attitude extends to many levels. Yet, many people ignore them. The change has to start with individuals. There can't be a casual relationship approaching these issues. The responsibility to act starts and ends with the individual, especially those with access to resources. There is no justification. There is only the excuse, the mask of apathy.

Sound esoteric? These events take place in every community. Homelessness, drug abuse, domestic violence - all of these issues need some resolution. Yet, people complain at time lost while helping the homeless while they protest against the people sleeping in doorways. People decry the effects of gang violence, but people don't stop buying marijuana or help fund and run drug abuse clinics. Domestic abuse is condemned, but few individuals become social works or public defenders. Few want to involve themselves with non-profits to fight to change society or the system that suppresses individuals that seek and/or need help. Why?

Part of the problem is liberal laziness. It is the comfortable situation where one knows that many others agree with a certain position, so there is no pressing need to act themselves. Someone else will do it. One of my friends pointed out that this applies to many more people than liberals. I agree to that point, but I think that progressive liberals need to take issue with this problem. They want change. It doesn't come by someone else acting. You don't see conservative groups sitting back on their laurels. Proposition 8 and Amendment 2 passed.

While even these problems may seem somewhat distant, take an issue that I am facing right now. A friend of mine (friend A) is torn between letting her friend (friend B) stay over the week of Thanksgiving because friend A fears that the friend B might distract her from studying that week for her law school finals. Friend B is homeless, living out of a car. The reason friend B want to stay over is to volunteer in the kitchens in the area during Thanksgiving. Friend A will also be gone during Thanksgiving to visit with her family and does occasionally volunteer in a homeless shelter.

To celebrate Thanksgiving by denying a homeless friend a couch to sleep on so that they can help feed the homeless contradicts every fiber of my nature. But when you realize the importance of first year law school grades and the cost of law school, the issue starts to enter a gray area for many people.

Why is there a gray area, in this situation or any other? Why is there a balancing interest that opposes the change you want to see in the world? The responsibility to act does not lie with anyone else but yourself. Ghandi said "Be the change you want to see in the world." Act or shut up.

Through the Night

There are very few good romance films that are big releases in the United States these days. The instant reference I get when I bring up the subject is often The Notebook. It's sad that this movie is actually considered of any worth since it is boring, dry, and predictable. I know that much because I've watched the first 30 minutes three times and have repeatedly stopped the movie at that point for fear I would lapse into a permanent coma.

When I think of excellent romance films, I somehow always run over the bump of Somewhere In Time. The film brings out a forlorn contemplation, tearing away possibilities and replacing them with moribund reality. Strangely enough, the feeling is similar to those last few minutes of 12 Monkey's or Infernal Affairs, tearing our whatever emotion lies inside of you and leaving nothing but a void.

The theme that binds these films focuses on a failure to escape a world constantly pursuing the main character(s). However, in each situation, the situation is one that is chosen - not forced upon them.

Maybe that is why the films are so devastating - they are tragedies in which the characters try to fight a destiny they can feel pulling them deeper and deeper. Self-destruction is far more complete when a person knowingly walks along a path towards it because it is the only choice that can be fathomed.

In that same step, idealism has to be followed through with, despite its obvious failings. Choices must be made in the belief that something good will come of them, otherwise there is no point in moving forward. That step forward, into danger, is what generates hope.

People seem to forget that pushing forward always involves risk. The massive potential for change can only be present because of the darkness of the current situation. The question needs to be placed in the context of what can be lost, not what can be gained. Importance lies in how great the cost is to us and the decisions we make to avoid or minimize that cost.

Placed, in a more concrete example of this election, we face dangers abroad and at home. Fundamentalist religious revivals, declining standards of freedom, increased militaristic tensions, and a precarious global finance and trading market are elements of the day. To see the world plummet downwards from any or all of these is a great cost to bear.

This places the United States at a critical decision point, between McCain and Obama. Both have promised to lead America forward through the darkness. Because of this promise, both must be evaluated in terms of the cost that we face in the future, not the benefit that either may bring. Which candidate can minimize or maybe even avoid the exploding costs of healthcare, social security, poverty, education, military casualties, international instability, worker exploitation and genocide?

There is an excellent quote from Batman: The Dark Knight, where Harvey Dent states optimistically, "The night is darkest just before the dawn." So many people forget that after the dawn the night will come again. Our path out of darkness will be a path into darkness once again.

The rhetoric of the presidential candidates reflects a benefit-analysis, primarily to set the bar low. They characterize themselves as agents of change, deviating from the path that America, not only our President, has chosen for the past two terms. In doing so, both Obama and McCain argue to try to address the present and future costs, but are unwilling to go so far as to say they will solve for them.

The resulting resolve is one that compromised both politicians. Voters admired each of these men for characteristics they thought would help deal with the travails ahead. In response, Obama handed over the idealism of a radical candidate that pushed him so far though the Democratic party. McCain let got of much of his lauded honesty and ethics in selecting his vice-presidential candidate and recent endorsement of smear campaigning.

Done to reduce expectations and increase mainstream support, both candidates established a message that they would try to address the costs - that they would change the current political scene of the United States. But the political scene isn't the problem, it's the impacts of the political scene. When you distill the message of each candidate, we are left with a promise to try to change the costs.

"Do or do not - there is no try," said Yoda. If failure isn't an option, why do our proposed leaders hold themselves back in fear of it? Lead us forwards or don't lead us - failure is not an option.

I Hurt Myself Yesterday

There are profound pleasures and debilitating disappointments in life. As a romantic idealist, it seems that I experience both to the fullest. Maybe one could go so far as to say that such a philosophy of life tears away the thin film that clouds our daily existing, feeling things to a somewhat unhealthy extreme.

I haven't posted in a quite a while. This is partially because of my recent explorations of the city consuming a large part of my day; however, I think most of it revolves around adjusting to the social and intellectual dynamics of law school. It is not extremely relevant to my posting today, but I thought I should inject some explanation, as I have often been annoyed with many a writer that fails to feed me with works on a regular basis.

I've met many people in the past two weeks, while accepting new experiences that I previously held back from. Some of them have been amazingly pleasurable; others have been disappointing. The one thing that ties my recent experiences together is the people.

Everywhere I experience people, I find something redeeming within human nature. From the crack addicts on the side of the street that get up every day to the people who walk by them while ignoring the pleas for change on their way to work, human beings persevere no matter their environment.

In the lost and forgotten part of society, I can find the heart of humanity - the constant suffering that is visible physically and thrown back into the faces of the invisible people. Knowing tomorrow will hold nothing better and still moving on, there exists concrete proof that falling down completely will not stop the soul.

It is easy for most other people to go forward in life. With the insulating advantages of money, education, food and safety, life does not throw challenges that we really have to continually and wholly struggle against in our daily lives. The most difficult things experienced by most of the people around me involve trying to figure out how to pay back loans or dealing with a relationship that is in dire straights. Maybe a dying relative or a loss of personal faith lies at the extremes. These things are part of normal life, and we function with and through them, overcoming the simpler hurdles.

The two sides I have mentioned are commonly stated. It is the connection between them that is not addressed. The person vomiting on the sidewalk and the businessperson that casually steps around to avoid damaging her or his shoes - this connection is the crucial one.

It is a fine line between pretending a person is not in front of you and not seeing the person in front of you. When you glance at the unwashed panhandler and catch their eye, you can see the glimpse of some connection, even if it is simply the person realizing they can target you for monetary sympathy. The slight eye contact that includes revulsion, pity, and wariness preys on the bond that humans hold with one another.

The loss of that contact is dangerous. Allowing such people to become invisible is a separation from the most shameful part of our cities and slums. It indicates an apathy that separates us from our humanity - the shame, the hope, the fear, the pity. Ignoring that frail person hunched over a step is ignoring our soul.

It is easy to exist in ivory towers, ignorant suburbs, hedonistic clubs or spiritual enclaves, making the rest of the world an unfortunate thing with which we are obligated to deal. Losing your soul is not a difficult process - it simply requires looking forward without a wavering glance. Eventually, looking in the mirror reveals the subtle transformation, presenting the question of if anything can be felt. The decision between either keeping our humanity or holding an empire of dirt must be a continual one.

Caught Between A Rock and A Hard Place

This week, I moved to the city to attend law school. This will be my first time living within a metropolitan area, so I am experiencing a culture shock (albeit a soft one).

My apartment is a two-bedroom is located near one of the poorest neighborhoods in the city. When reading about the school, many visitors complains about proximity of this environment to the school, implying that it was a horrific learning environment. Yet, having been to several large cities before, I can honestly say that this area is not a violent area that you have to fear entering at any time of the day.

I've been exploring the area on foot since my parents confiscated my car upon my request. The city is no place for a Subaru. However, it is here with me in spirit as I explore the hills and alleys of the areas around my school, particularly, the wilder sides.

The neighborhood I live in and the government buildings have provided me with a first impression of the city - high culture melded with ethnic variety, dancing side by side in an odd, but functional, pair to provide an extremely rich and diverse place to live. From the multitude of markets and restaurants to the symphony, theater, and museum, the combination revealed to me that I have in fact made the correct decision in attending my current school.

In my explorations, I determined that I needed to get deli meat. Having lived in suburbs, this usually consisted of a quick trip to the local supermarket, meaning the local incarnation of Piggly Wiggly or Safeway. There is a Safeway in city, but it is too far for me to transport meat from efficiently. So, my search for a deli began.

My first hit was to a halal market. I was ecstatic to find a cool Muslim deli not too far from my apartment that served clean meat! A closer inspection of the meat market revealed that they focus on beef, goat, and lamb. Unfortunately, I am not a die-hard lamb sandwich fan. My search for turkey continued...

My next hit was a deli at the edge of one of the more expensive parts of the city. It was a bit further than the Muslim market, but I was willing to make the walk to find something decent in the area. Since my transportation pass was burning a hole into my table, I decided it was time to venture out again for some public transportation.

If my neighborhood was a culture shock, getting off the shuttle at the heart of the tourist area of the city was an even bigger one.

After experiencing what I thought was the vitality of the city in all its multi-cultural glory - I walk into what felt like yuppie central at the moment. It was full of tourists walking down streets with massive commercial stores. Everything was clean and shiny and new - belying an undertone of a much more vibrant city that released its full energy in a couple blocks in another direction.

Starbucks was again present in full force. I'm starting to think that you can't escape it because they have formed an evil alliance with McDonalds, with McDonalds taking over low income environments and Starbucks raising an iron fist over the realms of the middle class.

Apparently the fist extends with British steel and all into the city, gleaming over the shops and tourists. I have heard of the the hotels in the area before; however, I didn't think that a supposed landmark of the city would need to be branded with a green circle, demanding to be service by patrons who tolerated gossiping baristas and slightly overpriced, generic, mass-produced flavors.

This duality of the city that I have been growing accustomed to over the past several days was harsh to my budding understanding of my zone of living for the next, at the very least, three years. Understandably, people desire to live somewhere safe, clean, new, and beautiful; in today's crime-laden world, it is completely justified in most cases. But what is the cost of obtaining that environment? The area was not only gentrified, but was commercialized and sanitized of the multitude of cultures that resided in the vicinity, relegating the cultural experience to global tourism. The creation of a monetary, racial, or ethnic haven functionally lobotomizes the very essence of what a city - diversity with coagulation, not one without the other.

Before coming to the city, I would have loved to live in the richer or tourist areas. But after my experiences in those area, I don't know that I could enjoy it to the extent that I am enjoying living wedged between a diverse neighborhood and the city's center. The clean stone of the State watches over the vomit-stained sidewalks, drawing bare a crucial vein shared with many urban environments around the country and world. With this iconic dichotomy of a gold-encrusted, domed city hall and the addict-addled street corners, I think I have once more fallen into a living situation by accident that fits my nature.

This is a place to think, learn, and change.

McCain v. Obama: Economy

During the last several weeks, I have tried to hold conversations on the Presidential election. However, it seems that people are still in the dark as to the individual stances of the candidates, staking their viewpoints solely on misconceptions handed down by various media outlets and generic, liberal interpretations of stances on issues according to the respective candidate's party, particularly in terms of economics. Let there now be light where there was once darkness. I will address McCain's current economic stance first and Obama's second simply due to alphabetic organization.

If you have been reading my blog, this may seem like a shift away from the usual theme. Deal with it, read on, and learn something.

McCain's Economic Policy Paper
On dealing with the bank closings, McCain doesn't want to help failing companies, but rather homeowners. The primary tool of this will be loans provided from the Federal Housing Administration. For students, McCain wants to extend the loan security for student loans..

McCain also has plans to balance the budget, citing Clinton's similar feat in the mid 90s. This would require limited or no additional spending, removal of earmarks, and an intense scrutiny of current government spending.

In terms of taxation, business taxes would be rolled back, as well as government imposed mandates on insurance. Research and development would benefit by qualifying for a tax credit. A big notable is lowering the estate tax, while providing for a $10 million exemption. McCain intends to suspend the gas tax during the summer.

McCain fully supports globalization and an increase in free trade through multilateral and bilateral agreements, similar to NAFTA and the WTO. In the spirit of reducing barriers to trade, he wants to remove tariffs on sugar-based ethanol remove corn-based ethanol mandates (this is probably referring to minimum production/investment). To deal with shifting jobs in respect to increase competition, McCain wants to bolster access to student education and workforce reeducation, including improved unemployment systems to facilitate the process.

Obama's Economic Policy Paper
Obama's approach to the banking and mortgage crisis deals with legislating a fund to prevent mortgage collapses. Simultaneously, he wants to institute new regulation regarding mortgage fraud. For banks, he wants to remove the ability for banks that file for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 to modify mortgage terms. Over the entire industry, Obama touts a more transparent system, citing EU actions for support.

Obama also wants to make some changes to tax methodology. First, he wants to simplify the tax filing system into something that can be done quickly, without an accountant. He also plans to increase tax credits for college payments and child and dependent filings. For mortgage interest deduction, he wants to expand them to all tax payers, not just those that itemize.

For seniors, Obama wants to remove taxes on those that make under $50,000 a year. For low-income families, he also has a plan to promote investment by matching certain amounts that they invest in retirement plans. For those currently without access to retirement plans, Obama wants to institute retirement plans for all people and automatically enroll them in it, allowing for employees to opt-out if they wish.

Obama also plans to grow manufacturing, through providing tax assistance (the assistance isn't defined) and loan programs. Part of this program includes job training that incorporates clean technology.

Trade programs in Obama's policy follow fair trade rather than free trade.

Technology also seems to be a priority, with Obama supporting an increase in investment and making the research and development tax credit permanent.

Analysis
First off, I would like to state that Obama's policy outlines are better defined than McCain's. This really contradicts much rhetoric about Obama having vague policy measures, opting for egalitarian speech instead.

McCain wants to balance the budget, which Obama has not promised to do. However, while McCain claims to support the individual in terms of tax relief, it seems Obama's tax credit ideas are more flushed out to help citizens. If McCain wants to balance the budget, he cannot hope to cut the spending that he states he wishes to - a one-year moratorium on spending sounds close to impossible. He cannot hope to cut the government's income while attempting to balance the budget either.

Obama, on the other hand, has no commitment to balance the budget, which is a bit worrisome. His promotion of fair trade over free trade does adhere to good ideals to preserve worker's rights and good environmental protection, but it also maintains questionable barriers to trade. This is partially due to "fair" trade not being defined by the market, but by what people believe their product is worth. This leads to all sorts of inefficiencies and possible methods of corruption.

Both candidates have goals to increase market transparency and help out homeowners caught in the mortgage crisis. While McCain stops most of his citizen's benefits at this point, Obama goes a step beyond, citing specific pension and tax credits for individuals. These are clearly outlined in his policy, while McCain's initiative to help students is vague at best.

Between the two candidates, it is clear that McCain is a supply-sider. Obama approaches the matter from another end, helping individuals to cope with the market. This highlights a fundamental aspect of Obama's campaign - he wants to specifically help the disadvantaged. While his actions may be well-meaning, they may not actually help poorer individuals who depend on free trade to lower their daily costs.

Obama also wants to promote manufacturing jobs, which is very strange. The US has a high-tech service oriented marketing, moving away from the manufacturing jobs of the past. Obama's protection of these industries doesn't help these people, it just pushes them further into a job that requires protectionism to survive and will eventually hurt the US economy.

Harsh Freedom or Regulated Nightmares

Government regulation has been a recent topic in the news due to the financial straights of many banking and mortgage firms. However, all of these discussions on air and in in print take place after the fact, trying to evaluate how the loss of money and market strength could have been avoided by government oversight.

This view seems flawed in two ways, twisting arguments to protect the consumer and to help the consumer. At first glance, it may seem that these positions are one; however, the logic behind each approaches from very different directions.

The sometimes glaucoma-ridden eyes of Big Brother are asked to look over specific industries and actions when it seems that consumers are being exploited by the party under regulation. This argument sounds noble at first, working for a suffering citizen often in the face of corporate avarice.

This argument simply further marginalizes the "common" consumer that is being protected in two ways. In context of sub-prime mortgages, many people were obtaining loans above the prime rate because of a poor credit history, making them risky borrowers. These mortgages often had an option to only pay the accruing interest on the mortgage, with clauses that the interest rate stays at a low fixed rate for a short period of time. After this time had elapse, the mortgage rate jumped to a higher adjustable rate, requiring households that utilized these mortgages to pay more per month.

This type of mortgage is looked down upon by many, since it seems to take advantage of the consumer through the shifting rate. Yet, this presumes that the consumer is too stupid to understand that the rate will shift. Gone are the lofty and noble calls of pro-regulation experts, replaced with a gritty view of the world that looks at people as too stupid to understand the contracts they enter. Subsequently, these people should be prevented from ever doing so by government action.

The other part of this argument is even more vital. By preventing these people from obtaining such loans, society benefits from a more stable economy. Thus, regulation is deemed to be for the public interest. This argument loses much of its altruism, as now it isn't the so-called victims of these unregulated actions that will benefit. Everyone else will benefit by preventing their poorly thought out actions, especially by preventing banks from losing funds due to their risky actions.

This facet leads directly into the argument against regulation. It starts out quite egalitarian, assuming that the consumer is smart enough to deal with these loans. If these consumers default on their loans, the lenders that lose their funds to a risky borrower are simply incurring the high cost of their action. All pay a price for risky choices, but it doesn't matter that much as long as the choice is provided, which proves freedom of choice.

Freedom of choice walks underneath the giant umbrella of capitalism. Oh, that wonderful system that exploits workers in the eyes of half the world and provides a progressive, consumer-satisfying society in the eyes of the other half. Free markets provide a flexible system that allows for profit. Sub-prime mortgage loans were made to people with poor credit because banks saw an area to make profit since the cost of funds in the late 1990s and early 2000s was relatively cheap for both lender and borrower (or so they thought). Banks gave these cheap funds at high rates to borrowers, understanding their investment was risky (hence the high interest rates) and making their free choice.

Americans take pride in home ownership. It seems analysts and experts have forgotten the American dream. People with bad credit want homes too, and that is what the sub-prime mortgage allowed - a chance to finally reach the dream under which they were raised. With regulation against sub-prime lending, these would-be-homeowners wouldn't have been able to enter what they called their home each day for the several years they had a home. Should the government regulate by taking away the choice to risk home ownership, especially when banks are willing to provide them the funds to do this?

The issue of regulation is much more complex than people most people are willing to observe. Greenspan's recent book, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, addresses these issues slightly. But even he walks carefully around the issue, failing to go into depth of why the consumer must be protected or why they must be allowed to make their choice. He called for regulation in the cases of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae while simultaneously arguing that the risk of economic duress is worth home ownership. It is a confusing view, especially in light of his high regard for capitalism.

With or without regulation, the losers are those who do not have strong credit. They are either prevented from obtaining homes or they are exploited by high rates. Banks suffer a similar, yet less important, situation; prevented from making additional profits or they lose heavily from the risks they take. There is no right answer here. Every action has costs and benefits.

At the most, any regulation enacted should simply make sure that the costs and benefits of their actions are known. This will not be enough to stop the pitfalls of either situation highlighted above, but people should be entitled to make poor decisions. Without the right to freely make those decisions, we move further away from the dream that seems to drive so many Americans.

When approaching any decision, people must see the world through the other half's eyes. Avoiding such a consideration only leads to the further obstruction of government to positively influence our lives.

Whom Did I Kill Today?

I've pretty much failed at attempting to post regularly. I'll shirk my responsibility and blame a combination of school, law school preparation, and dread at the thought and reality of moving to the desert where I will serve this summer.

Much of my recent contemplation has been upon issues I've expounded during my last post. I have settled on a law school that provides a slightly more practical education over one that highlighted public interest law, bringing me one step closer to the point of losing a vital connection with the world.

This connection is one that I believe should impact our every decision. Each action, no matter how small, must be understood in an economic and political concept - an allocation of some resource. In most cases it is one away from others in less fortunate parts of the world towards our own benefit. Some of these decisions, such as buying toothpaste or chips to go with a sandwich, may seem minute and inconsequential. However, every small step away from understanding that tossing away the chips one didn't finish is one closer to a reality where children in another country don't get a meal for days or weeks.

I don't advocate that people stop living their lives, or that every decision requires a deep evaluation. Thought in this manner would stifle any progress or ability to participate in society. Rather, people should attempt to reach this ideal, so that a connection with the world outside our respective bubble is not severed completely.

To understand my point, I often point to the dogmatic stances of political parties. Republicans promote individualism, maintaining that people must be responsible for their actions and bear the consequences of their actions without a buffer from society to soften the blow of the negatives they may encounter. Democrats go with a slightly different take, promoting all of society's members to a status that requires maintenance by removing access to resources and opportunities to those outside our society. For clarification, think of welfare programs in the former situation and protectionism in the latter.

These cases both require severing of the connection at a different level. Republicans ask for one inside society, and Democrats ask for one outside of society. They also hope to simplify the situation into an us-them dichotomy, making sure that whatever in-group is created is the one the appropriate party represents.

Either way, a dissonance is established, where the claim is made that people are being helped. However, in both cases, people are being forgotten and left behind - inside and outside society. In both cases, people that have never had opportunities for a peaceful, fulfilling life are relegated to the out-group of lesser importance.

The core issue boils down to how one conceptualizes humanity. The categorization by nation, race, gender, or religion doesn't make sense in a increasingly interconnected, global society. People are people, and where one happens to be born, which religion one adheres to, what one looks like, or what one feels like should not define the abilities and rights one possesses.

Translating this into daily life becomes extremely problematic, when a domestic job is exported to someone who is making enough money to feed their family, possibly for the first time in generations. Is protecting thousands of these jobs worth the starvation or malnutrition of these others? Does it make sense to sustain the retirement base of the middle and upper classes at the cost of a lower class's education, nutrition, and safety?

Every action taken should bring along with it a conscious understanding of the cost incurred. A slight consideration of the alternatives of an action might actually cause people to understand the benefits they hold within our society. With such an understanding, maybe they would also come to realize their complacency and/or apathy partially contributes to the suppression of benefits to many others - those not only in our local streets and inner cities, but in neighboring countries, trading partner nations, and even those groups simply connected to us by their presence in our world.

Long Lost Life

I am attending law school this coming academic year. Most of my time has been spent considering my future, both in school and the profession. This really has brought up something I have been dodging for many years - what do I want to do with my life?

As with most things I contemplate, it seems my options are bifurcated. If I were to following my undergraduate education into a profession as an engineer, I would have multiple options. I could work for a variety of companies doing a variety of things. However, a career in engineering can't fulfill my needs. This is continually proven in my discussions with many friends who have graduated and are currently working for some of the most prestigious companies in their respective fields. Their apathy for most things in the world, while not all-encompassing of their kind, frightens me. The best engineers I know live for the project.

While it is a necessary profession, the days of the lone engineering creating an invention
that changes the world has passed. Such results are only achieved after years of struggle by the brightest of us, as the recent NASA Phoenix project has shown us.

Where does power lie within our country? The government holds most of it, through a legal system. Some might argue that power is held by individuals or corporations. Still, these smaller units exercise their power under the umbrella of the law. If you believe people hold the power, it should be understood that people are able to exercise it because our government acknowledges it. I don't advocate for this system, I just understand that it is in place simply by looking at nations with authoritarian governments within which individual rights are second to society's stability or just ignored.

Any path in life requires power, of some level. At the highest levels, power can be bartered and brokered like the Jell-o Pudding at a middle school lunch table. Simply rejecting the system gets nothing accomplished. If you want to affect change, you can either reform the system or destroy it. Since my revolutionary lunchtime actions culminated in a fiberglass-cast battle where I successfully parried lunch bag attacks, I eventually became a reformer. My power expanded greatly during the coming years, discovering the high value of turkey sandwiches and packages fruit drinks.

As I prepare to graduate college, I realize that bartering favors, food, and drinks no longer provides the power that I need to change anything. Law provides that next step to power, an education that allows me to open the gates of government. Even if I choose not pursue a life of change, understanding the system is necessary still if I want to act inside of it, to live a life of comfort with the power to do so. If change is my goal, then the avenue to powerful change is accessible.

It is those two paths, power for change or power for maintenance, that lie before me. The former offers a long, difficult path without great comforts and continuous failure by commonly accepted definitions of success. The latter requires flexible morals or the subsuming of them to achieve similar power much faster, yet constrained by the dictates of those that grant that power to a much greater degree.

At an idealistic age, I don't have much to lose materially. However, there is much I can gain. The idealistic choice comes at a great economic cost. In the same logic, the more pragmatic choice bears its own cost as well - that of my morals. What is of greater value - a six-figure salary or maintaining my morality?

I have the next three years to see if I can rationalize either view to the point of embracing one in a career upon yet another graduation. The generation that inspired and were in return inspired by the speech of a harmonious dream upon the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, the first steps of humanity on ground besides that of Earth, the first steps of women into social equality, and the first day celebrating the Earth's nature now let slip the very same ideals at the core of those events. Of all the amazing things that have been accomplished within their lives, can we hope to accomplish the same? Should we expect to lose the same gains? Have those who have come before us failed or succeed?

John F. Kennedy's 1960 Democratic National Convention acceptance speech (available both in text and audio) still applies almost 50 years later, with governmental regimes collapsed and discarded, technology advanced beyond comprehension, and social constraints cut more deeply into than ever before. The following is the last half of his speech:

But I think the American people expect more from us than cries of indignation and attack. The times are too grave, the challenge too urgent, and the stakes too high--to permit the customary passions of political debate. We are not here to curse the darkness, but to light the candle that can guide us through that darkness to a safe and sane future. As Winston Churchill said on taking office some twenty years ago: if we open a quarrel between the present and the past, we shall be in danger of losing the future.

Today our concern must be with that future. For the world is changing. The old era is ending. The old ways will not do.

Abroad, the balance of power is shifting. There are new and more terrible weapons--new and uncertain nations--new pressures of population and deprivation. One-third of the world, it has been said, may be free- -but one-third is the victim of cruel repression--and the other one- third is rocked by the pangs of poverty, hunger and envy. More energy is released by the awakening of these new nations than by the fission of the atom itself.

Meanwhile, Communist influence has penetrated further into Asia, stood astride the Middle East and now festers some ninety miles off the coast of Florida. Friends have slipped into neutrality--and neutrals into hostility. As our keynoter reminded us, the President who began his career by going to Korea ends it by staying away from Japan.

The world has been close to war before--but now man, who has survived all previous threats to his existence, has taken into his mortal hands the power to exterminate the entire species some seven times over.

Here at home, the changing face of the future is equally revolutionary. The New Deal and the Fair Deal were bold measures for their generations--but this is a new generation.

A technological revolution on the farm has led to an output explosion--but we have not yet learned to harness that explosion usefully, while protecting our farmers' right to full parity income.

An urban population explosion has overcrowded our schools, cluttered up our suburbs, and increased the squalor of our slums.

A peaceful revolution for human rights--demanding an end to racial discrimination in all parts of our community life--has strained at the leashes imposed by timid executive leadership.

A medical revolution has extended the life of our elder citizens without providing the dignity and security those later years deserve. And a revolution of automation finds machines replacing men in the mines and mills of America, without replacing their incomes or their training or their needs to pay the family doctor, grocer and landlord.

There has also been a change--a slippage--in our intellectual and moral strength. Seven lean years of drouth and famine have withered a field of ideas. Blight has descended on our regulatory agencies--and a dry rot, beginning in Washington, is seeping into every corner of America--in the payola mentality, the expense account way of life, the confusion between what is legal and what is right. Too many Americans have lost their way, their will and their sense of historic purpose.

It is a time, in short, for a new generation of leadership--new men to cope with new problems and new opportunities.

All over the world, particularly in the newer nations, young men are coming to power--men who are not bound by the traditions of the past--men who are not blinded by the old fears and hates and rivalries-- young men who can cast off the old slogans and delusions and suspicions.

The Republican nominee-to-be, of course, is also a young man. But his approach is as old as McKinley. His party is the party of the past. His speeches are generalities from Poor Richard's Almanac. Their platform, made up of left-over Democratic planks, has the courage of our old convictions. Their pledge is a pledge to the status quo--and today there can be no status quo.

For I stand tonight facing west on what was once the last frontier. From the lands that stretch three thousand miles behind me, the pioneers of old gave up their safety, their comfort and sometimes their lives to build a new world here in the West. They were not the captives of their own doubts, the prisoners of their own price tags. Their motto was not "every man for himself"--but "all for the common cause." They were determined to make that new world strong and free, to overcome its hazards and its hardships, to conquer the enemies that threatened from without and within.

Today some would say that those struggles are all over--that all the horizons have been explored--that all the battles have been won-- that there is no longer an American frontier.

But I trust that no one in this vast assemblage will agree with those sentiments.

For the problems are not all solved and the battles are not all won--and we stand today on the edge of a New Frontier--the frontier of the 1960's--a frontier of unknown opportunities and perils-- a frontier of unfulfilled hopes and threats.

Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom promised our nation a new political and economic framework. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal promised security and succor to those in need. But the New Frontier of which I speak is not a set of promises--it is a set of challenges. It sums up not what I intend to offer the American people, but what I intend to ask of them. It appeals to their pride, not to their pocketbook--it holds out the promise of more sacrifice instead of more security.

But I tell you the New Frontier is here, whether we seek it or not. Beyond that frontier are the uncharted areas of science and space, unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered pockets of ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and surplus. It would be easier to shrink back from that frontier, to look to the safe mediocrity of the past, to be lulled by good intentions and high rhetoric--and those who prefer that course should not cast their votes for me, regardless of party.

But I believe the times demand new invention, innovation, imagination, decision. I am asking each of you to be pioneers on that New Frontier. My call is to the young in heart, regardless of age--to all who respond to the Scriptural call: "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed."

For courage--not complacency--is our need today--leadership--not salesmanship. And the only valid test of leadership is the ability to lead, and lead vigorously. A tired nation, said David Lloyd George, is a Tory nation--and the United States today cannot afford to be either tired or Tory.

There may be those who wish to hear more--more promises to this group or that--more harsh rhetoric about the men in the Kremlin--more assurances of a golden future, where taxes are always low and subsidies ever high. But my promises are in the platform you have adopted--our ends will not be won by rhetoric and we can have faith in the future only if we have faith in ourselves.

For the harsh facts of the matter are that we stand on this frontier at a turning-point in history. We must prove all over again whether this nation--or any nation so conceived--can long endure--whether our society--with its freedom of choice, its breadth of opportunity, its range of alternatives--can compete with the single-minded advance of the Communist system.

Can a nation organized and governed such as ours endure? That is the real question. Have we the nerve and the will? Can we carry through in an age where we will witness not only new breakthroughs in weapons of destruction--but also a race for mastery of the sky and the rain, the ocean and the tides, the far side of space and the inside of men's minds?

Are we up to the task--are we equal to the challenge? Are we willing to match the Russian sacrifice of the present for the future--or must we sacrifice our future in order to enjoy the present?

That is the question of the New Frontier. That is the choice our nation must make--a choice that lies not merely between two men or two parties, but between the public interest and private comfort--between national greatness and national decline--between the fresh air of progress and the stale, dank atmosphere of "normalcy"--between determined dedication and creeping mediocrity.

All mankind waits upon our decision. A whole world looks to see what we will do. We cannot fail their trust, we cannot fail to try.

It has been a long road from that first snowy day in New Hampshire to this crowded convention city. Now begins another long journey, taking me into your cities and homes all over America. Give me your help, your hand, your voice, your vote. Recall with me the words of Isaiah: "They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary."

As we face the coming challenge, we too, shall wait upon the Lord, and ask that he renew our strength. Then shall we be equal to the test. Then we shall not be weary. And then we shall prevail.

Thank you.

Which to feed - the chicken or the human?

Food is something we take for granted here in the United States. From letting it rot and tossing it out to not finishing everything on a plate, food is assumed to be limitless and always affordable.

Many countries are now facing rising food prices. This doesn't mean a shift from not-so-healthy Applebee's to notoriously-sickening McDonald's, but a choice between paying for food or utilities. Either eat in the dark or sit hungrily in the dark, unable to to get piped-water or flush your toilet. Does this sound a bit too extreme? It is reality.

This is not some small problem. Nigeria (the title is based on this article), Haiti, Mongolia, Sudan, South Africa, North Korea, Madagascar, Djibouti, Liberia, Egypt, Brazil, and even Israel are facing this disconcerting choice. Think this is a long list? This is just the tip of the iceberg, a sampling similar to the bit of the giant that sunk the Titanic.

While it may have been an iceberg that sunk the ship, it was the low-quality steel used to construct the hulls that failed, breaking apart due to the cold water temperature. What is our low-quality steel? WTO abuses, a declining global economy, and a generally apathetic stance. There are more issues, such as using food for bio-fuels, but these are subsumed within the WTO and apathy cases.

Under WTO agreements, the US has been able to grandfather in many domestic agricultural subsidies, which would otherwise be ruled illegal under the WTO. Yet, while the US and several other countries enjoy the benefits of cheap food, the rest of the world does not have such a subsidy exception. The result is low global food supplies, fewer people to grow the food, and rising food prices due to a decrease in the domestic and foreign food supplies.

Most Americans benefit greatly from free trade. There are always people who suffer because they have low-efficiency jobs, such as manufacturing, that are not guaranteed to remain in the US - we live in a capitalist society that, as my sociology professor stated, "treats people like condoms - you get fucked and thrown away". It is a vicious characterization, but I do not think it is inappropriate. The people who lose their jobs because of this system hate free trade, a hate that is unjust because they continue to buy large amounts of goods from China and Mexico at WalMart and CostCo.

The reasoning behind such dislike towards a concept that causes Americans to lose jobs appears simplistic. But, jobs that are being shipped to countries less fortunate than the US, and they can perform the same job better and cheaper. Simultaneously, domestic jobs increase in quality, and the GDP of the nation climbs because we are able to perform tasks at which we are better. The result, in theory, is that while one generation may suffer the loss of a job, the second generation has a chance for greater success in life. This chance is not restricted to the US, but applies to all countries involved.

The cost of our cheap goods does not result in food crises in other countries. It is the misuse of the WTO that causes a maintained suppression of food production across the world by allowing inequality under the guise of "grandfathering". Concern with issues such as monetization as opposed to human life often prove the irrational and harsh ideals of the WTO. Americans may currently lambaste free trade, but they stop whining as their food prices rise.

Transportation and supply costs are a large part of this problem too, due to rising oil prices and decreased economic strength. Food costs more to produce and distribute. Subsequently, food producers charge more to make up for these costs. The result? Starvation by millions of people since buyers can't buy and producers can't sell, causing businesses to collapse and food production at all levels to decrease once more.

Then, there is apathy. I hate apathy. It is a sign of willful ignorance and the utter failure of humanity, while members of these groups go on to pray in their churches, temples, or mosques for salvation and peace. I don't get angry often, but apathy is guaranteed to break through most of the control I have.

People are dying. Most people I know seem to ignore or forget that. We can fix it simply by changing US policy. In this day and age, we can feed the world if we had the desire to do so. So what if we don't like how these ideas make us feel? We should feel guilty every time we go to the grocery store and see food rotting. We should feel guilty every time we toss excess food in the trash. We should realize the cost of our actions.

This apathy climbs to the highest levels. This paragraph is from the International Herald Tribune - the EU spokeswoman's comment just sickens me:

The United Nations special rapporteur for the right to food, Jean Ziegler, has said biofuels are "a crime against humanity" because they raise global food prices. But Barbara Helfferich, spokeswoman for the European Union environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, said, "You can't change a political objective without risking a debate on all the other objectives" of climate change and energy reform.

For a good summary on the situation, read the full version of the article.

Most people in America live in comfort. I have no problem with wanting to provide a materially rewarding life for oneself. I do have a problem with that life creating a forgetful layer of insulation from the suffering of the world. Our ability to drive a nice car to a restaurant, eat whatever we want, and then go home to sleep in an air-conditioned house does not allow the additional luxury of ignoring the death of millions.

Global World Order

I was discussing the concept of a global government in the context of a world without sovereignty last night, unfortunately with a stupid person. There are some ideals to which we can aspire to achieve, but such a government isn't really one of these.

First, there must be an assumption that we can reach a world without states or sovereignty. This relies on two things, human unity and all actors being rational actors; however, I can't think of any situations in which all actors have been rational. Rather, actors are irrational and petty - or 'human'.

Second, under the establishment of such an institution, sovereignty still exists, just compressed within the groups that control the government. There is always a controlling group. Problems across the world can be addressed, but how can we make the assumption that the entire world wants to respond in the same way? This removes the beneficial aspects of a universal government because much of a government's role reflects the society upon which it is based, minimizing the values of individuals in minority status in this government structure.

That leads to the third point - civil war. It will happen, because a global government means that there must be a global society. People's values and beliefs differ from area to area, and there will be conflict at a very fundamental level because of how people choose to identify themselves. Withstanding an extra-terrestrial attack that unifies all people on Earth as 'humans' or members of Earth, people will continue to identify by differentiation, about which Huntington talks.

I do think that a global secular body with state sovereignty that all people can participate within should be something to which we aspire. This is akin to the concept of a U.N. that actually enforces things, not just send peacekeeping troops that sit and watch people die.
The world isn't some atomic model, upon which everything will fall perfectly once we understand the ideal shape. It has a dark, deep soul - full of malice, depravity, indifference, suffering, and hope. The world can change and we have to appeal to our utopian ideals, but that doesn't mean we can achieve such perfection.

If we can't achieve the perfect, why not work simply in a pragmatic mindset? It appears to be a good idea - move to plan B and do the best we can. Does anyone like the results we have seen so far? We need to do better, because no matter how one views the outcomes of previous endeavors, it is usually agreed that they did not work out perfectly.

This Little Flame of Mine

Yesterday was one of those days in which several seemingly unrelated events occurred. Slowly, as the day progressed, a pattern started to emerge as new occurrences continued the thoughts of previous ones. Finally, by 11:30 PM everything clicked together in a shiny, colorfully wrapped package suitable for all audiences.

I decided to break with my nocturnal ways and woke up at the forsaken hour of 10 AM. My sociology professor required a chapter of reading before class, and I had been fairly distracted the night before, exploring the various solitary late-night joys of my town. The subject matter of the reading was post-Cold War sociological modeling - indicating how each of the former models failed and that a civilization-based model provided an excellent basis for analysis. None of this material was new, since this first chapter of reading was simply summarizing the material I had learned in an introductory class from the same professor.

However, right after my required reading, I decided to read the news. I happened across several prominent stories. From my last posting, you understand my lamentations over the failures of the press to correctly emphasize that which is important. Today they did a bit better, with The New York Times and The Washington Post both providing good coverage of the travels of the Olympic torch across France.

Apparently, the torch has already gone out several times, due to unprecedented protests along the elected path. Several people commented on the incredible organization and violence of these protests, unlike those of previous Games wherein a very small group of protesters deemed it necessary to act. The focus of these protests are to signify the dissatisfaction over China's human rights, especially those in the cases of Tibet and Darfur. I assume Darfur seeing as it has been a long term issue, while the articles I linked above specify only Tibet.

Protesters have been arrested after fairly aggressive actions. On the sinistro hand, I do laud the sentiment of protesting something which one finds to be morally repugnant. On the other hand, the violence of such actions is also repugnant. Either way, such actions are occurring and are a clear statement of ill will towards the Beijing Games.

At this point, I got ready for class and ate breakfast. I skipped eating my Patriot Flakes, substituting them for a hippie Cliff Bar. This may have been my problem, the results of my day rooted in a severe jingoistic deficiency.

The lecture hit a major point in discussing the classification of China in present day society. It could be considered as a semi-peripheral country, having a large workforce and developed industrial market, with a large natural resource market. This is partially at odds with China's political power, as it has a seat on the U.N. Security Council and greatly influences foreign policy domestically and abroad. China can maintain this structure since it is an economic dependency for many countries - exerting political control through the sheer breadth of its economy. The money appears! Of course, all we need to do is follow Detective Lester Freamon's suggestion and "follow the money".

The lecture eventually came to a halt, without any questions over two hours because I go to school with the willfully ignorant. Our tax dollars at waste. The insightful person that first observed that "the children are our future" must have also believed in conscious societal suicide. Case and point - SPQR. By this time, I'm guessing that most people have stopped reading or are just skimming for the keywords.

I rushed to catch the bus home and started up an episode of Boston Legal while I ate my lunch, an episode that happened to involve a major plot line about a man attempting to sue the U.S. government for its policy of positive inaction towards Sudan.

The Sudanese government, based in Khartoum, provides weapons and supplies to the Janjaweed, who are slaughtering the ethnic Africans of Darfur without any international hindrance. Khartoum, a Muslim government, simply restricted A.U. action to that of observation and rejected any and all U.N. action.

Where does Khartoum get the weapons and supplies given to the Janjaweed? From China, which provides Khartoum with money, weapons, and supplies in exchange for access to their natural resources, specifically oil. Follow the money.

The worst part about the genocide in Darfur is that everyone knows about it and doesn't act. The legal case in the Boston Legal episode was created to generate media exposure. Sadly, the writers of the show were blunt about the situation, explicitly stating that there had been much media coverage of the events in Darfur and the result was simple - the American public decided it didn't care about genocide in Africa.

China is using the 2008 Olympics to develop its positive image of globalization and good will. As a result, many people, seeing the disparity between the Olympic ideals and China's support of genocide in Darfur and continued human rights abuses in Tibet, refuse to idly and ignorantly support the Beijing Games. Even mainstream politicians are removing their support, such as Hillary Clinton who has called for Bush to boycott the Opening Ceremonies in line with her strong track record of acknowledging the genocide in Darfur.

With all of this in my head, I decided to go see Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who! While I don't want to give away the plot line, it resounds with any idealistic movement or unheard group battling against the pragmatism of, in the case of the film, the jungle. In short, although this post has been anything but, I saw the people of Whoville as the slaughtered of Darfur. Being partly geared towards children, the movie ends in song and dance. I hope to whatever deity that any of you believe in that the real situation does not meet a similar fate.

However, the pragmatist within me expects the U.S. to utter the ubiquitous "Denny Crane" and simply wash away the issue of Darfur as belonging to a remote other. We have to deal with our own urban genocides before we can solve problems abroad, because urban violence and decay are not deeply rooted, systemic problems. We can solve all of these problems by simply increasing the number of police on the streets. It is so easy - I can't imagine why no one thought of this before!

Yes, I agree, this is not an American problem at the moment. It is problem for the entire human race.

WHAT THE HELL AMERICA??

I like to consider myself a well-read individual, keeping up with a variety of events around the world. To accomplish this, I utilize several news sources, starting with The New York Times due to its US location and adherence to writing articles that don't make me think that I missed about 5 pages of text.

Today, The New York Times ran a story about their television associates at CBS. Now, I may be bad at math, but the Time has a story on the top of their front page online about approximately 12 people being fired. Apparently US readers must either be news deprived or they have become so stupid as to not realize the complete insignificance of this 'story'.

Either way, I can't understand why The New York Times would bother to even write about this. According to the article, these are local reporters being fired, not major news anchors. Does this mean that the quality of local news may decline because there are fewer members of the news staff? When was the last time anyone learned something that was true and useful from the local news? Is there some major economic impact from these people losing their precious jobs doing nothing but reading from prompts or recycling AP stories?

It irritates me that one of the few 'quality' news institutions in the US has lowered it's bar to such a level, even in this one occasion. When there are issues around the world that affect thousands or millions that simply require more press time to awaken the American populace, 1 percent of 1,200 local television news employees being sacked ranks in the upper echelons of what one should know happened today.

I understand the need to tap local markets to generate advertising revenue. I understand that many people watch local news and that when they don't see their favorite male or female 'news'-caster with her or his respective pectoral implants they may freak out and join a riot. I understand that people should be aware of who generates the news they observe.

On the other hand, we have so many other important issues to attend to. Why aren't there more articles on Darfur or Tibet? What about the coca trade in Central and South America? Or the millions of starving people in India or Africa? Or maybe the extreme violence and declining support structure of American inner cities? Why has all news about Afghanistan dropped out of sight, only to be replaced by news about Obama's re-tooled stump speech appealing to a group that he never paid attention to before? The world is in a constant state of decay, and all that holds collapse at bay is awareness and semi-informed action or inaction. The media possesses a great amount of power, but what does any of that mean when news about the news takes precedence over the news itself?

It is a sad state when we don't even have press-worthy news front and center to ignore. I think one of the soldiers who recently died in Iraq, Ryan Wood, had some of the clearest comments of all. I've re-posted his posting from The New York Times, but you really should read the entire article.

WHAT THE HELL AMERICA??
“What the hell happened?” any intelligent American might ask themselves throughout their day. While the ignorant, dragging themselves to thier closed off cubicle, contemplate the simple things in life such as “fast food tonight?” or “I wonder what motivated Brittany Spears to shave her unsightly, mishaped domepiece?”

To the simpleton, this news might appear “devastating.” I assume not everyone thinks this way, but from my little corner of the earth, Iraq, a spot in the world a majority of Americans could’nt point out on the map, it certainly appears so. This little piece of truly, heart-breaking news captured headlines and apparently American imaginations as FOX news did a two hour, truly enlightening piece of breaking news history. American veiwers watched intently, and impatiently as the pretty colors flashed and the media exposed the inner workings of Brittany’s obviously, deep character. I was amazed, truly dumbfounded wondering how we as Americans have sank so low. To all Americans I have but one phrase that helps me throughout my day of constant dangers and ever present death around the corner, “WHO THE [expletive] CARES!” Wow America, we have truly become a nation of self-absorbed retards. ... This world has serious problems and it’s time for America to start addressing them.
Ryan Wood, Myspace blog, May 26, 2007

Hello World

I know only a few people are going to read this blog - pretty much only people who know my real name. This will continue until my name enters the mass media for some reason and an aspiring intern decides to look up me up within the Internet archives, finding these postings.

From what I have envisioned, this blog will revolve around my internal conflict between an idealistic and pragmatic viewpoint in life. Both of these viewpoints are ones I espouse, but I often find the most challenging issue to be combine both to explain what I personally believe. Despite this wonderfully clear explanation, I doubt all of my postings will hold to this theme; however, I do believe that it will be the most common element.

I hope anyone reading this blog will consider what I say and post either a dissenting comment or one that adds another light to the issue at hand. My goal is to increase knowledge and awareness of the world within which we live.