The Path To Salvation Is hard

For the first time in as long as I can remember, I stepped away from reading news. I don't mean that I just decreased what I read. For over two whole months, I did not absorb any significant news.

Part of it was due to increased focus on the bar exam, but most of it was a conscious effort to walk away from the world for a bit and hide in my lair. In that time, I moved in with roommates, read several books, built a computer, played lots of computer games, and generally embraced a selfish style of life. Knowing myself, it wasn't enough for me, particularly after reading "The Razor's Edge" by Maugham.

I read "The Idiot" by Dostoyevsky a while back, and Maugham's work brought back what I found to be the essence of Dostoyevsky's Prince Myshkin. For those who haven't read "The Idiot", Myshkin is an epileptic that was raised far away from his native Russia. His way of thinking and interacting with others are thought to be naive and like that of an idiot.  However, Myshkin acts with a thoughtfulness, respect, and kindness that others just cannot comprehend, branding him an outcast in a society that wishes to embrace it's convoluted, self-interested ways.

Maugham's Larry Darrell is a similar character - a messianic figure of sorts that showed a different way of life that conflicted with society. Darrell has the chance to embrace a life of wealth and happiness with a childhood love, but runs away from it in search of self-discovery. By no means is he selfish. Instead, he helps all of those he encounters. He simply walks away from a life of materialistic comfort to seek a life of spiritual peace.

With school over and choices ahead of me, I've been able to think a bit about what path I want to take. Most people I know are content to ride along a standard path that so many people equate with success - a job, a house, a stable relationship. I find it hard to accept that this is all there is after decades of education where we have been given the chance to expand our minds to utilize tools to which most in the world will never have access.

In fact, I can say it would be a failure of potential and responsibility at this point to simply progress forward on that common, obvious track. Frost's poem "The Road Not Taken" hints that the road less traveled will be more interesting, but it will also be fraught with struggle and confusion. There may be no success at the end, but unlike many others, we have the tools to embark upon that path.

For the first time in my life, I can say that the path ahead of me isn't clear. Worst of all, I'm starting to realize that it's not going to be an easy one. It's not about finding a job or paying rent, but it's about pursuing a responsibility that can't be put aside in the name of simplicity, comfort, and ease.

In this mindset, I started to pay attention to the world around me several days ago. I gently started to read, think, and write. In reading, I realize that the world has become a more confusing place in the few months I've been away. Then again, that is the way of the world. It stops for no one.

In some ways, it was appropriate that I started to enter the world again on the tenth anniversary of the attacks on the U.S. on September 11, 2001. I remember waking up to the a description of the World Trade Center being hit by planes. I watched as the Pentagon burned from the plane that crashed into it. But, as always, life went on.

I wish I could say this is where the U.S. dealt with adversity, conquered it's enemy, and made the world a safer place. But the world stops for no one, and the world got to be a more confusing place.

As I read through what goes on today, I realize that we have embraced a world of fear. We act because we fear poverty, terrorism, unemployment, government, or solitude. When I talk to those around me, I realize we don't have hope anymore. No one talks honestly of a brighter tomorrow that is safe, comfortable, and peaceful. Instead, there is simply living in the present because the future is just ahead of us, inevitably bringing it's consequences of success and failure. We accept the future for what it is, embracing that fear as a part of life.

I think it's easy to pretend otherwise. It's easy to ignore the problems of the world, to say they aren't ours to worry about. How can an individual affect the lives of starving children in some far away country? Why should I be responsible for the failures of those around me, those that are doomed to a life of poverty? Why must I care about the racism and bigotry around me when I am not the target of such actions?

These questions are rooted in fear and blossom with ignorance. They have become a part of life we can ignore, like the filthy, smelly man sitting on the sidewalk, repeatedly asking for change.

That's not the life I wanted. That's not that society I looked forward to joining as a child. I refuse to live in a world that reacts in fear of our failures. I refuse to look away and ignore.

Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, But Words Will Kill Us All

After reading an op-ed piece by Henry Giroux, I'm reminded that I live in a very segmented part of the U.S. While this can tout it's egalitarian and holier-than-thou lines, when it comes down to it, it's just as racist as the rest of America. A great example is the fear that pervades the minds of those that refuse to set foot in the poorest central part of the city, which has a vibrant minority community and some of the best ethnic food in the city. To a different degree, parts of the culturally Hispanic area are similar. It's easy to say that these parts of the city are avoided due to crime, but the crimes that take place are those against property, not random individuals.

In a larger application to all U.S. citizens, Giroux's calls for a stand against the growing separation. He goes back to his language about the invisible people who are disposable. They are exploited and trampled by larger social, political, or economic structures. As Americans search for an answer to the problems they see or are deceived into thinking exist, the framework for their answer results in the disposal of these people.

There are people mobilizing ignorant, and/or stupid, citizens into thinking their problems can be solved by a return to "American" values. It sounds patriotic until you realize American is built upon immigrants. It sounds independent and fiscally responsible until you realize that your tax cut comes at the cost of the suffering and death of the poor. It sounds secure until you realize that your neighbors are afraid to pray in public in a country that was founded upon religious freedom. These words are simply a vehicle for hatred fueled by hatred simple xenophobia. When the issues are analyzed discretely, that hatred is legitimized.

That's a good look at the problem, but what do we do about it? Do we sit contently, reading or writing about the subject in a closed forum, waiting for the problem to solve itself?

We have a responsibility to do something about the problems we see - locally, nationally, and internationally. Apathy is not acceptable.

Time Isn't On Our Side

It's been a long time since I posted something on here. I attribute this to discovering twitter, and posting quite frequently to my public and personal accounts. While the depth of material is in no way comparable, there is something to be said about actually having someone read what I post/write.

I really do miss the chance to write paragraphs, flushing out concepts and tossing links around like a literate lunatic. Today, the insanity returns.

In the last year, I've found myself arguing more and more for an adherence to idealism. Idealism to me isn't an end, but a means. It operates as the struggle that provides an intermediate solution that includes some idealism rather than excluding all of it. While most of my colleagues disagree with this view and espouse a purely economic or pragmatic solution, I think that problems should be addressed with at least a semblance of ethics and morals.

Because of this view, I've found myself with a smaller group of friends and a more defined view of the options that lay ahead of me professionally and socially. Here, we have a wonderful segue into relationships. You can't escape time.

The key question is whether a person should pursue idealism to the fullest of their abilities. This means placing the ideals that a person holds higher than anything. It's the force that drives so many young people in our society - that uncompromising nature that fails to yield to the advice of so-called experience that age brings.

However, as we get older, we change as individuals. No longer are we looking out for our own interests, but we start to incorporate the values of caring for others on a more personal level. I'm not talking about sending gifts to people on their birthday or making sure that the Christmas shopping is done on time. I'm talking about establishing common relationship roles, such as husband, father, or boyfriend. Since I'm male, I view it from a certain perspective, so using a gender neutral list would lend the interpretation of this writing a false property.

Relationships change our priorities - hopefully. The successful relationships I've seen have caused a shift from focus on the self to focus on the other person(s). Soon, the primary goal is no longer to solve literacy worldwide or to solve world hunger. Such goals become secondary.

When viewed from this perspective, age doesn't change our view of the world. Instead, we choose to change our perception as we build intimate relationships. Aging simply occurs simultaneously. This is a slow compromise of those ideals, because supporting those directly around you supplants the loft goals of single youth.

Following this logic, it simply means that as we learn more about life, the way we approach life changes. I don't think there is a judgment call on the shifting the priority of our individual goals. Yet, I do find that it highlights the dangers of an idealistic path.

The idealistic path can be a barren one, with joys few and far between. It's not for everyone, and some find parallel paths that contribute effectively rather than wholly. Garrison Keillor recently wrote an op-ed piece for the International Herald Tribune, addressing this very issue. When it comes down to it, many people take the path of "cheese" because idealism can be quickly forced out when competing with family and comfort.

To end this ill-timed post, I'll say that I find more people these days looking to not take a serious approach to life. I'm not sure if this means that my generation desires to skip the idealism of youth or if it is simply abandoning reality completely. Time will reveal the follies of our choices.

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.

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.

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.