The World and Us

Life or Death?

2009-02-24T22:46:00.000-08:00

This is why people don't like doctors. They can't make up their goddamn minds. One day I read a story about a drink a day being good for you, the next day I read that that same drink is going to give me cancer. Which is it? Since there are conflicting reports, do they cancel out? Does that mean there is no effect?

They (doctors, of course) say that the human body is an insanely complex organism. Then, they spend countless hours, days, weeks, years, and lifetimes trying to figure out how one thing (take your pick: broccoli, cigarettes, tissue paper, carrot juice, staples) will affect your body when ingested. Isn't that a bit ambitious?

Those who think we should keep trying, great! Why don't you figure out how all the substances on the planet Earth interact with our bodies (adjusting for the variability in the organic makeup of 6.5 billion people) and get back to us when you do!

While they're working on that, someone pour some whiskey in my coffee (to get the full medical benefits of both) and light my cigarette. I might as well take pleasure in the things I enjoy. You never know, there might be a report out tomorrow telling you that it'll add ten years to your life.

Old Games, New Names

2008-08-16T19:30:00.000-07:00

Every so often, I encounter something, either printed or said, that is incorrect or false and I am slightly contented that I know otherwise. If I'm given a chance to refute the falsehood, I usually take it. This past week's events in South Ossetia have elicited a similar mood from me but I've been appalled at the overtly bias reporting that has followed this supposed war.

My main qualm here is with history and people's lack of understanding of it. I've been doubly disappointed by the American media's wholehearted support of the U.S. government's anti-Russian synopses of the situation in South Ossetia and Georgia. Even the reports of the Iraq war have or had inklings of dissension; I've seen none concerning South Ossetia thus far.

To be clear, I'd like to preface what I'm going to write with the following: this is not to be an examination of Russia's geopolitical interests. I recognize that its actions might be - and very likely are - a purposeful strategic move to demonstrate its military prowess and continuing influence in the region; I have no doubt that their entrance into Georgia was more inspired by self-interest than any sort of benevolence. Nonetheless, what Russia did must be examined within the context of Georgia's actions and that is what I will attempt to do here.

History

The leftover animosity of the Cold War is clearly pervading media and mindsets to this day. Back then, everything the USSR (or the "Russians") did was bad and everything the U.S.A. did was good. Of course, it was the same, only reversed, in the USSR itself. Nobody bothered really delving further into the veracity of anything. Unfortunately, even though the USSR has dissipated, this attitude has remained. For those who are defending Georgia's territorial integrity, I wonder if they're familiar with the history of the Caucasus.

Foremost, one needs to be familiar with the ethnic crock pot that is the Caucasus. There are so many different groups of people that the region could easily be fragmented into 20 (albeit, tiny) countries. Some peoples have been there longer than others (Armenians and Georgians compared to the Azeris) and the existence of some is not due to any ethnic differences but rather a difference of religion (certain Ajarians).

Recognizing the prime opportunity this presented, both Lenin and Stalin took these groups and bunched them all together within artificial borders not begotten of any true reflection of the inhabitants' wishes. Therefore, South Ossetians (an Iranian people, non-Georgian), Abkhazians (a Caucasian people, non-Georgian), Javakhetsis (an Armenian people, non-Georgian) comprised the Georgian SSR. Whereas, Nakhichevan and Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabagh) were allocated to Azerbaijan and parts of what was to be Western Armenia under the Treaty of Sevres were allocated to Turkey. The idea behind this was that these people would have to live in Soviet republics (except Western Armenia, which had not yet been repopulated after the Armenian Genocide) where, by reason of historical animosity, life would be difficult for ethnic minorities. Thus, the people would be distracted with their petty fighting while the USSR continued on its farcical odyssey without hindrance. I wouldn't say that this objective was completely reached while the Soviet Union still stood but, perhaps unintentionally, it has done wonders for Russia's geopolitical strategy since Soviet states gained independence and almost immediately had to confront these underlying ethnic differences (Abkhazia, Ajara, Chechnya, Artsakh [Karabagh]).

Georgia has been exemplary in fulfilling the intended (or not) expectations of blind amalgamation. They have one of the worst records concerning the treatment of their ethnic minorities. In fact, all the peoples (Abkhazians, Ossetians, Ajarans) who have either tried to secede or have requested autonomy have often done so while referring to the Georgian government's and the Georgian people's treatment of the ethnic minorities that live within the country. This is not even including the Javakhetsis (ethnically Armenian) in the south who live in more squalid conditions than any other ethnic minority but who have yet to try to resolve their problems with force.

Despite how Georgia or Georgians might treat their minorities (although that is good enough reason), when the West was prodding the peoples of the Soviet Union with talk of self-determination and liberty, everyone seemed to agree that people should be in charge of their own destiny and that that would be best achieved through self-governance. I wonder what has happened to talk of self-determination now that the USSR is gone. By being complicit in accepting the borders of former Soviet states, the United States and the West are, in essence, submitting to the decisions of Lenin and Stalin. Shouldn't South Ossetians be free to secede if they see fit? Especially since they had no choice in being a part of Georgia!

Territorial integrity has become a catchphrase for maintaining unsustainable situations around the world. It's the reason governments in Africa use to burn villages in their fights against secessionist rebels. It's the reason given by Spain and France to refuse the Catalan and Basque minorities of their countries, respectively, to allow to secede - although - if their actions of the past decades are any indication - they clearly want to. The example of Africa can be expounded upon to clearly illustrate the absurd nature of "territorial integrity". As diverse as the Caucasus are, Africa is an almost immeasurable amount so. Regardless, based on the way the English, French and Dutch carved up most of the continent when they colonized it, they assigned meaningless and artificial borders before they left. So, people like the Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda were put in the same country and, eventually, 800,000 people were massacred in an unbelievable display of savagery. There was a similar story in Yugoslavia and that one country was broken up into seven parts! One final example is Iraq: three warring groups of people, one country, one border, formerly under British mandate. It's no coincidence.

This game isn't new to world powers.

Lately

Nobody knew the first thing about Georgia in the West. Under Edvard Shevernadze, it was a crumbling former Soviet Republic that nobody cared about. It was more war-torn than most because of the numerous concurrent ethnic conflicts and it made no overtures to the West so it was mostly neglected.

When Mikhail Saakashvili came to power in the "Rose Revolution", everyone had high hopes for change. He was American-educated, at Columbia Law School and he vowed to reverse the fortunes of the country. He gutted the security services, he promised transparency and he even changed the flag to better reflect Georgia's history. It was, however, too good to be true as he himself had to deal with the discontent of the population who had come to expect so much from him in promoting a democratic Georgia.

His failures notwithstanding, he has had one great success and that is becoming a stooge of the West. Mr. Saakashvili ceaselessly pandered to the the wishes of the United States and Europe in the hopes that they will be at his side when he decided to do something really stupid. Last week he did just that. Against the warnings of Russia, Georgian forces entered the breakaway region of South Ossetia and tried to reclaim it as their own. In this case, Russia called their bluff and sent in their own armed forces to battle against the Georgians. There is a high probability that the Georgians expected them to do that but they likely also expected the United States to come to their aid - the latter turned out to be a serious overestimation of their expectations. Consequently, the Georgians were terribly embarrassed as they had to retreat after attacking a region of their own country.

The Ossetians naturally do not mind Russia coming to their aid. For one, their countrymen are located in the Russian Federation and are, comparatively, in an envious governing structure as a sovereign republic with its own leader. Secondly, being ignored by the Georgian government, that Russia is willing to support its wishes to secede or, at least, become autonomous, Ossetians feel that if they have to submit to a larger country's government, their lot would be better within Russia.

Media

Not wholly unexpectedly, none of this is mentioned in most American media. No history, no sufficient background, rarely any interviews with South Ossetians themselves. What we hear is that poor Georgia tried getting back "its" land (which I addressed) and big, bad Russia came in and ruined everything - unprovoked, of course. Interestingly, nobody is saying (in the same sentence), "Russia went into a neighboring country to help a people who have made it clear they want to secede...almost like the U.S. went into a country on the other side of the world, overthrew its government and created more violence that Iraq had seen in the past 50 years because...oh ya, there was no because".

The news has become - assuming it was ever any different - sensationalist garbage catering to the idiocies of the population. No American gives a damn about South Ossetia or Georgia or their people but toss in a few lines about Russian aggression and you have a new battle of the superpowers, or the attempted reemergence of one.

Even this post you're reading (if you got this far) is too long for 98% of the population and this is the most cursory of summaries if one is interested in understanding anything about the region in question.

I suppose this is how history has transpired. Governments feed the mob, the propaganda aids and abets, the outsiders criticize. Except, every so often, the critics win - and when they do, that's what we call revolution.

Clean Feet and Shiny Shoes

2008-07-06T14:20:00.000-07:00

There are some things that I believe will always be beyond me. One of those things is feet washing (along with pedicures and the like).

A person must be considerably audacious to request that another person wash his or her feet. If one was worried about the cleanliness and upkeep of their feet, why wouldn't they wash and pedicure it themselves? I assume if you have enough money for a pedicure, you have enough for a bucket that can hold hot water and soap. Or is it the bending down and putting nail polish on the nails that is the undesirable aspect of the process? Perhaps this oil and lube for the feet is thought to be a good idea once in a while; although, I can't imagine somebody going to get their ass washed every so often by someone else for no reason other than the belief that they can't wash it that well themselves (which is troubling). It's not OK because Jesus did it!

Since I'm on the topic of feet, let's talk about the shoes that go on them. How can a guy sit down and have someone else shine their shoes for them? I've shined my own shoes before, it's not that difficult. Maybe it's the imagery that it evokes: a person in submission, head hung low, not looking his master in the face. Shine your own damned shoes!

There must be an underlying sense of superiority that allows a person to let someone be slouched over in front of you, cleaning you or something on your person, something you just couldn't do yourself.

Engendering Lies

2008-06-16T10:48:00.000-07:00

Easy access to information brings easy access to misinformation. Students of anything can already be overwhelmed with the amount of "neutral" knowledge that is available. This is a perfect scenario for those wanting to disseminate lies into the mainstream and pollute the knowledge pool of that subject enough so that the truth is obfuscated for those who are just being exposed to its existence.

This is what is happening in the case of the Armenian Genocide's historical record and Turkish attempts to rewrite history. No self-respecting scholar today disputes the occurrence of the Armenian Genocide but there are those who receive funding from the Turkish government for unrelated academic projects who consequently come out and try to reject the existence of the Genocide. These short-sighted "scholars" are effectively signing up for a club composed of denialists and revisionists like David Irving and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I suppose if your intelligence (or lack thereof) cannot garner you fame, then infamy will suffice; that is the only reasoning I can imagine someone using in choosing a path that is mired with deceit, corruption, and a marginalization of the truth.

Here is an example of a blog which I doubt is read by anyone who makes the presence of factual information a prerequisite of the articles they read:

PoliGazette - "Turkey is the New Israel"

In this post, the author, Michael van der Galien (who happens to be the Editor-in-Chief) suggests that Jews control the United States and then, without nearly enough literary finesse, says that "Israel is being replaced by Turkey". He obviously has underlying biases that he is not very good at masking. Unfortunately, not only is he genocide denialist but he is also an anti-Semite. It is dangerous for the world that certain people's - including Mr. van der Galien's - misconceptions are so easily accessible by anyone who can get on the Internet.

Another gem, this about NOT teaching genocide in Toronto:

PoliGazette - "Victory for the Truth"

The movement for genocide denial has reached such a low-point that it is lobbying for children to become misinformed youths. Apparently, it was not enough that generations of children were lied to in their native Turkey, so now they are bringing those same falsities to a school board located in a free and democratic nation. It's understandable that those of Turkish descent might not want to admit they've been lied to: who likes to admit that everything they've been taught has been false? Nevertheless, if they were really concerned with the integrity of their history, they would face it, come to terms with it, and mend the fissures it has caused in their reputation. For now, all they are doing is fighting a losing battle on the world stage, further soiling their name among those who hold honesty, courage, and strength in the utmost regard.

One might ask why Mr. van der Galien is so interested in the Armenian Genocide and its merits. A quick view of the "About" page can be telling:

PoliGazette - About

After taking a look at that, I'm not sure it was Mr. van der Galien's idea to write these stories. One of the contributing authors' descriptions reads like a veritable oath to the Republic of Turkey:

Meltem Birkegren: Contributing Author

Meltem is a Turkish woman living in America. She is a modern woman, brought up with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s principles and, therefore, a strong defender of secularism and advocate of women’s rights. Her view on the press and, thus, bloggers can be summarized (in the words of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk) thusly:

“The press is the nation’s shared voice. It is an innovator, a school and a power in itself.”

Although she lives in America, she remains devoted to the wellbeing of Turkey. To inform Turks but especially foreigners about what is happening in Turkey, she runs the website Turkish Digest: an absolute must read for all those interested in this part of the world.

I'm curious, would a person concerned for the wellbeing of Turkey possibly be inclined to try to protect it through reiterating the same lies that hail from the Republic itself?

I wonder how Mustafa Kemal would respond, considering his views on the press highlighted above, if he knew that a journalist living in his country, Hrant Dink, was murdered because he had proposed an innovative idea. How would he feel if he knew that the country's most prolific author, Orhan Pamuk, has exiled himself for fear of retribution concerning his affirmative position on the Armenian Genocide? Most importantly, how does Ms. Birkegren feel about the juxtaposition of Mustafa Kemal's quote and these events that I've mentioned? Not too strongly, I imagine, as most of Kemal's ideas and plans for Turkey have been perverted into an unrecognizable heap of ultranationalism and violence.

On Ms. Birkegren's website, you can find a link to a website that is ostensibly operated by Armenians (http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/) but is, in reality, part of the Turkish denialist machine. Is the deception not obvious when people form a website with the sole intent of misleading those visiting it?

All this being said, it would not surprise me if Ms. Birkegren suggested to Mr. van der Galien that he write a few things badgering Armenians for keeping the memory of their murdered ancestors alive. He may have owed her something for getting him published in the Turkish Daily News because, lord knows, nothing riddled with that many two-bit facts would be published by any credible news source.

You should do what you can to fight the denialist, anti-Armenian, anti-Semitic garbage which is being published by the PoliGazette. This is only another battle in a grander struggle for truth and genocide prevention.

Two Photos. $14. Sign Here.

2008-06-01T13:23:00.000-07:00

If it costs 15 cents per photo to get your pictures developed at most stores or online services, why did I just pay 14 DOLLARS at Kinko's (the ultimate in ripping you off for being convenient) for two passport photos that are each 1/8th the size of a regular-sized photo? Because I can't get them anywhere else!

I tried Rite-Aid, which is supposed to have the photos for $7.99 but the only things my local Rite-Aid carries are Bud Light and sunscreen.

The most important question is why the hell these pictures are so expensive. When I asked the worker at Kinko's - who's probably just as knowledgeable about mountain climbing as he is about the services offered at his store - he first told me "I don't know". When I kept pressing, he said "it's probably because we use digital": isn't that supposed to make pictures cheaper?? Finally, he gave me the right answer: "it's because people need them". That's right. When you only have one or two places to go for a specific type of picture and size, they can charge you however much they want and if you're not ok with that, no passport for you!!

Imagine if pumping out passport photos from your printer was as easy as drinking orange juice. Kinko's would have to compete with your ultra-cheap, home-based passport photo racket. Genius! Get to it, people. The passport-photo-at-home movement starts right here!

Gays Can Marry! What's Next??

2008-05-16T01:45:00.000-07:00

It's so easy to get people excited in America: just talk about gays, God, and guns.

Today, it was about the gays. The California Supreme Court lifted the state's ban on gay marriages, thus removing yet another relic from America's collection of puritanical ideology. Now, homosexuals will be free to LEGALLY destroy the sanctity of marriage - at least, that's what some people will soon begin pissing and moaning about.

I find the fact that a debate about gay marriage even exists so incredibly preposterous that I wonder if people are afraid legally married gay couples are more of a "threat" to the heterosexuality of their children than gay couples who hold hands, kiss, and have kids of their own but whose relationship is not recognized by the state. We (at least, I) know that gay people exist. We also know that the destruction of the family unit had nothing to do with the "sudden" appearance of these homosexuals but was more a result of the advent of TV dinners and a general increase in the size of sex toys when non-white versions were introduced around the time this country stopped being racist (somewhere between the 1960s and...). In fact, I thought conservatives had a larger problem on their hands. Weren't their priests having sex with their little children? Did they fix that or is obstructing the confirmation of the legal status of people one doesn't know more important than protecting the mental and physical health of their own youth?

It seems to me that the same people who don't want gays to marry, don't want to believe that gays exist. Can someone give me one goddamn argument as to why they shouldn't be able to marry? Why do we spend time on such non-issues? I think people should be able to marry monkeys and dogs and their hard drives if they damn well please. What's it to you?!

Gay people are here. They don't destroy the institution of marriage (it's true, Jerry Falwell admitted it before he went to Hell). If your child becomes gay from seeing a married gay couple kissing, it's probably because he or she hasn't seen you and your spouse be affectionate with each other for fear of polluting his or her mind; if you have and they turn out gay anyway, you're not attractive and the thought of being with someone like you or your spouse scares your child. If nothing else, you can learn to accept that gay people can be legally married and revel in the idea that they still won't be able to get married in your church; your kids are in the clear there, as long as you keep them away from the priest and your Republican congressmen.

--------

Note: On the Liberty Counsel's (which vehemently opposes gay marriage) website, you can find a whole page leading to links about how to learn not to be gay. I couldn't find a link that discussed child abuse or alcoholism or adultery or domestic violence. I also couldn't find one that tried to help sexual predators or rapists or murderers or pedophiles correct their aberrational behavior. I'm glad they know where the real evil lies.

Don't Ask Why Black People Are Pissed

2008-04-25T16:08:00.000-07:00

I don't feel much anticipation for the verdicts of police officers on trial for pumping a dark man with bullets anymore. How many different reasons can a judge/jury find for not throwing these miserable policemen into prison? I am not kidding, do not ask why black people are angry. Don't ask why they might say "things" about white people. Actually, white people should be happy that black people still try to get along most of the time. Do you wonder why there are gangs? Yes, well, if you have the police shooting your people, do you expect others not to do the same? Life is cheap in the ghettos and the price control comes from the police. Rappers get up there and say "fuck the police" and then you have white mothers bitching that it's corrupting the (white) youth. Do they have a parallel organization - as they do to censor rap - of good, white Christians fighting for legal justice, speaking to Congress and the like? Of course not. It's easy believing in the justice system when it's working for you.

Rack another one up for murder: legal when you work for the NYPD.

Sean Bell
Shot 50-something times on his wedding day by NYPD. Two young girls left fatherless.

Amadou Diallo
Shot 40-something times by NYPD as he reached for his cell-phone in front of his house.

Donovan Jackson
Mentally-ill young man beaten severely by LAPD. Officers counter-sued for reverse racial discrimination.

Rodney King
Beaten severely by LAPD. Acquittal of officers who did the beating led to the L.A. Riots of 1992.

Attempted Revolution

2008-04-11T01:12:00.001-07:00

Over a month ago, presidential elections took place in Armenia. The result was what most people expected: a victory for the ruling party and its candidate, Serzh Sarkisian. His main opponent, Levon Ter-Petrossian, the first president of the independent, post-Soviet Republic of Armenia, contested the results and went ahead with his promised protests. Thousands of people gathered in the capital of Yerevan to make clear their discontent with the prevailing situation in the country. Now, Mr. Sarkisian has taken office and the protests, for the most part, have subsided - but not after leaving eight people dead and seeing hundreds put in jail.

As I've expressed here before, I'm not one to unequivocally reject revolution as a means of change. In fact, I believe certain cases - such as the one the Founding Fathers of this country found themselves in during the late 1700s - warrant a revolution to unify a people under a common cause, toward a better society. Nonetheless, this attempted revolution in Armenia was flawed in countless ways and I am loathe to see it take hold with people who should have no business participating in it.

Let us examine the foundation. It is a man whose own ineptitude at leading a nation led to the current state of affairs that he now vociferously attacks. I'm not about to blame the energy crisis or extreme poverty of the (then) recently independent republic on Mr. Ter-Petrossian. But, there were indeed things that were wholly in his control which he could have remedied. For instance, the viral corruption in the police force and in most government institutions was not only allowed to go on under his administration, it was perpetuated to the point of near irreversibility. The taking of political prisoners and the flamboyant suppression of citizens' rights and freedoms were part-and-parcel of Mr. Ter-Petrossian's time in office. Throughout the elections, he went on the offensive about how these poisonous vessels were unabashedly proliferating under the current administration. (For the record, he did indeed apologize for using the same methods himself.) Not only that, he made central to his rhetoric the separation of the background of Mr. Sarkisian and Robert Kocharian (the now former president) and that of his audience: the tidbit that the former two were from Artsakh (Karabakh) and, essentially, not from the "real" Armenia, like the voters he was courting. For no reason other than this vile attempt to drive yet another wedge amongst the Armenian people am I glad to see that his protests are now over and that his mouth is shut as he is under house-arrest in the mansion he became entitled to when he agreed to step down a decade ago.

What is most curious to me is how easily Armenians (especially, of course, those in Yerevan) seemed to gobble this up, much like a starved peacock. There have been reports that I've read and those that I've heard from sources in Armenia that being a "Karabakhtsi" is now an insult. It was already clear before the election that many people believed that the war in Karabakh was the cause for the difficulties in the early years of the republic. That may true and it probably is! So what? Did those people forget what the fight was for? It was not an act of benevolence on behalf of Armenia Armenians for Artsakh Armenians; it was a fight between all Armenians and those who were massacring them and those who were refusing to allow them to be free. I can assure you that those people now living in Artsakh are living in much more dismal conditions than those people in Yerevan but they will be the only thing between the attackers and Yerevan: I'd like to see what their opinion is of Artsakhtsis if that ever becomes a possibility. Mr. Ter-Petrossian should be ashamed of himself for promulgating any such thinking as an educated man and supposed statesman.

I will likely receive the retort that the people are fed up with the status quo of the country and they are finally willing to show it. Possibly. Although, let's not forget that one way this faux-revolution took hold was through the support of many high-level government officials and businessmen. What was their impetus? Having the comfortable lives the people in the streets yearned for, I would like to know what brought them out to the protests to speak. Perhaps it was a sense of allegiance to the man who had initially allowed them to pillage and rob the people they were attempting (somewhat successfully) to instigate. I'm also aware of participants in the protests who were not at all part of the constituency of the disaffected: they were simply privileged persons who I'll call "hopeful democratizers". Their intention was not to improve their own lot but to bring forth democracy. Noble objectives, indeed, but misplaced in the support of an unlikely reformer.

Ultimately, Mr. Ter-Petrossian was the wrong choice for the people to latch on to as their savior. It is interesting that none of the other candidates - those with better platforms and cleaner records - were pursued with any of the zeal afforded to Mr. Ter-Petrossian. It simply underscores the shallowness of a struggle when, clearly, the people are not inspired for change of their own accord, but are mobilized by the irresponsible musings of a has-been.

Note: I find the jailing of innocent people and the violence perpetrated against benign citizens to be abhorrent. I strongly support the right of people to assemble peacefully and the aforementioned was not meant as any sort of approbation for the methods used against the people to encourage them to disband. This was solely an examination of the reasons behind the protests and my associated opinions.

Post Script

Armenians continue to think they are being left behind. They see revolution and apparent democracy in Georgia and they want to have it to. They forget that Georgia is a fragile composite of sub-states that the central government hardly controls. They begin to believe that since there was no "democratic shock", there needs to be one. They forget that democracy is a process that is built upon through generations of work and the reformation of mindsets. They see corruption and use it as the source to maintain their lost hope for the future of Armenia. They forget that they are complicit in this process by submitting to the requests of bribery. What sets apart successful peoples is the assumption of responsibility upon oneself - the individual - to improve the society that one lives in. This inherently implies that people should not look to government for change but create it themselves. Some think that the best way to do this is through revolution, peaceful or otherwise. I defy them to take that revolution to their spirits and resolve to dedicate their energies to productivity against all odds, to betterment in times of destitution, and to triumph when all seems lost.

Bear-ly Kept Alive

2008-03-24T17:25:00.000-07:00

I want to know how many free-market "conservatives" - who would quickly denounce any sort of welfare to the working-poor or universal healthcare - reproached Bear Stearns for its incredible failing. How many more criticized the Fed for guaranteeing the loans that were going to be provided by JP Morgan (prior to the latter's announcement that it was going to acquire the distressed bank)?

The argument is that if Bear Stearns defaulted, it would surely cause the economic picture in America to instantaneously become bleak. As such, it was necessary for the Fed to step in and make sure that didn't happen. I don't remember any mention of the thousands of people who these banks had provided low-interest loans to. How when those low rates were raised, these people were forced out of their homes. We know that there were bad lending practices taking place but it is becoming more clear that only the individuals who were preyed upon were the sole ones left in misery. Why wouldn't a bank ... bet the bank when it knows that it will surely be thrown a lifesaver or be engulfed as part of a corporate consolidation?

GOTV

2008-03-03T05:47:00.000-08:00

I'm glad that the election has come so far that I can now write about the Democratic candidates for president. It's amazing to me that some people are saying the protraction of this electoral cycle on the Democratic side has created/is creating divisiveness within the party and it does not bode well for the general election. Are you people insane? What is happening is the ultimate exemplification of democracy and people involving themselves in it. Of course, after so many years of apathy in the United States, this likely comes as a shock to most and they are unconsciously upset because it is out of the ordinary.

Nonetheless, every person registered to vote should have voted or should be voting in their primary election. There are few excuses left as to why one shouldn't or can't because of available absentee voting, early voting, and the long hours of operation of the polling places. Get out and vote and make sure you are part of the process that determines the next president! If you don't, take any future complaints you might have and shove them where the sun don't shine.

Healthcare

2008-02-22T01:41:00.000-08:00

It's time for universal healthcare in America. It angers me when people oppose it with idiotic reasons like: "why should I pay for someone else's insurance?" or "this is another step toward socialism" or "this is anti-American". My question is, what happened to the benevolent American? All the Republicans who want to help those poor, ass-backward Middle Easterners by bombing the shit out of them and building democracies into their countries' systems loathe the idea of helping their fellow Americans have a better life. Perhaps it's that we have the supposed possibility of attaining enough wealth in America to pay for it ourselves whereas the same is not available elsewhere. Yes, I'm sure if we lassoed in the insurance companies enough that they weren't completely gouging, lying, and generally being the scum of the earth (+), we could all afford insurance that actually ensured we would have what was necessary in times of need. But that doesn't happen in the land of capitalism! You want good health, you gotta pay for it! Since we won't reign in the insurance companies, we need the healthcare to come from elsewhere. Either by government sanction or goodwill. The latter has manifested itself in the form of free clinics which are great but they aren't hospitals.

By now, you should know what happened at King-Drew Medical Center in L.A: A person died in the emergency room's waiting area. They called 911 from the emergency room because no one was doing anything! Those who can't afford insurance, wait until the unsustainable pains in their body finally compel them to go to an emergency room which is filled with many others of the same mind. These aren't the unemployed or the welfare collectors; these are tax-paying citizens who can't afford health insurance for their kids, family, and themselves because it's too damn expensive.

If you're paying for the War on Drugs, the war on Iraq, the war on Afghanistan, the healthcare of Congresspersons, aid to nearly every country in the world, and $1000 toilets in the Pentagon, you bet your ass I expect you to pay for universal healthcare in this country!

Pacifists and Darfur

2008-02-22T01:29:00.000-08:00

For everyone who is a pacifist or who might be against capital punishment, I have a question: What do you think about what is going on in Darfur? If, for example, someone had the capability to round up the Janjaweed militia and eliminate them, do you think that would be a prudent venture? Considering that they have raped and murdered Darfurians ceaselessly, would the cessation of their own lives be a boon to humanity?

Really, would the world be losing much if it "misplaced" those who had a superiority complex so extreme that they feel the need to decimate whole populations?

Ron Paul - Republican

2008-02-01T22:07:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure about this guy. I think he has some good ideas like reexamining the Fed and sticking to the Constitution, for example. Regardless, Congressman Paul is not presidential. I cannot possibly imagine him dealing with the issues that confront the president of the United States.

One might argue that a shortcoming (one of very few) of the U.S. Constitution is the dichotomous nature of the ability to use force. The president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces which would suggest that he or she decides what they are doing. Also, it stipulates that war must be declared by Congress. Well, what is war? And what makes any military action unconstitutional? It's a source of debate Paul's opposition to the war in Iraq relies heavily on this perspective. He wants to use the election process to pose questions as to why we're doing the things we're doing but, in the process, he doesn't provide any positive force in the discussion. We know things are wrong and I'm glad he's addressing issues that other candidates aren't but people don't want to hear that everything is going wrong and the only way to solve it is through non-involvement. Try explaining why the U.S. government should abolish the Department of Education (as he suggests). Perhaps there is good reason for it, perhaps not but isn't it an imprudent undertaking in the short amount of time available before the election?

People will always, undoubtedly, say that they are against repetitious political chicanery but, ultimately, some pandering to them is necessary on the part of the politicians. If you want to have an intellectual discussion with the populace, it would have to be elsewhere. Since he loves referring to the Constitution so much, he might be a better candidate for Supreme Court - deciding on the constitutionality of what Americans are doing or putting up with - rather than for president.

This is all his supporters' behavior notwithstanding. A man I spoke with referred to them as "brownshirts" - in reference to the Nazi Youth. They really are a radical and irrational bunch. They're so absolutely convinced of their intelligence and and superiority that counter-arguments are not welcome nor considered. If that is a reflection of the candidate that they are supporting, I'd prefer to not have him as president - or a country full of his supporters.

Lastly, just as with McCain, I have a problem with his age. Neither man strikes me as quick-thinking. Granted, I'm just afraid McCain, in one of his angry fits, pushes the red button but Paul I can just imagine looking wide-eyed at his staff if something goes wrong and mumbling something as he pulls his hair out and his dentures fall out. Age doesn't equal proper experience or wisdom and it shouldn't in this case either.

John McCain - Republican

2008-01-31T09:38:00.000-08:00

I'm really excited to write about John because I'm completely dumbfounded by his popularity. He is just incredibly stupid and I'm almost surprised that the American public (well, the Republicans, at least) is on its way to making the same mistake it made 7 years ago.

Did any of you watch the debate in Los Angeles? McCain's arguments resemble those of a 3rd grader's trying to get you in trouble with the teacher. He sat up there and repeated himself throughout the night, mostly referring to his unparalleled ability to lead in the face of "radical Islamic extremism" - because, that is and should be, of course, the primary concern of the president of the United States. Or maybe NOT. The last time we concentrated on radical Islam as the foremost issue in American politics, we allowed our people to suffer in New Orleans, we neglected the middle class, we ignored practically every domestic issue in favor of dealing with the radical Islamists. I don't want another president who is going to make the eradication of radical Islam a priority because I have a feeling that if we make America a better place, radical Islamic movements against this country will take care of themselves.

Also, listen, I know he's a war hero and he's definitely not modest about it and it may sound cruel to say but what the hell difference does it make? Being in a POW camp doesn't make you a good leader. Being a soldier definitely doesn't make you a good leader. Yes, if you're at the top of the chain of command (i.e. Colin Powell), you may have good leadership skills but we're not only talking about the military. We need to consider the plethora of duties the president must perform and when these candidates succeed in portraying themselves as absolutely fantastic in one sense, BE CAREFUL. Don't be swayed by one-dimensional appeal. Consider what John McCain would do if there was another Katrina. Consider what he would do if there was a second Great Depression. Consider what he would do if there was a health epidemic.

His intellectual capabilities don't seem to encompass much outside of the realm of military acuity. That's not enough. It's more than we have now but it's not enough and I urge all Republicans to consider this as they go to the polls. John McCain is not what America needs.

The Presidential Race

2008-01-31T09:34:00.000-08:00

This has been a long time in the making but now is when these people and issues need to be discussed.

I will start with the Republicans because they just had their debate in Los Angeles yesterday. It will be followed by the two Democratic candidates left.

Read and understand what I'm writing here because if you're a part of those polls, it's in your interest to realize some of the things I have.

Good luck.

Democracy! ... Where?

2007-11-11T12:48:00.000-08:00

Someone told me the other day that the Georgians (the country, by the way) had a healthy democratic process. That since their people were willing to stand up in the face of corruption and criminality that they were far advanced compared to, say, their neighbor Armenia. I think that is terribly dimwitted. What good is revolution every five or ten years? The country, in that situation, is in constant tumult. A revolution happens, the new leaders come into power, they continue with the old ways, and then another revolution happens. Democracy is a protracted process that requires patience. Revolution may beget democracy but it is not a democratic occurrence. It is something that comes in between political processes but is not a political process itself. The Georgians may have not realized this yet.

People love revolution. Fighting for the rights of the oppressed can only be opposed by a few. It's great when the people take their lives into their own hands and create change. The question is how often a revolution should be had. Thomas Jefferson said every generation. The Georgians didn't even wait four years.

There should indeed be popular action and reaction in society. Citizens of a country must protest unjust situations that they have to live with because of government policy. Similarly, the leaders of a state should reflect the wishes of the population. That's where my agreement with the aforementioned person ends. Just because the people are rising up every few years to take back power does not indicate any sort of positive political process. In fact, it shows how dysfunctional the country is that, apparently, nobody elected or placed in power has any wish to serve in the best interest of its citizens.

It's become tiring to see Georgia and Ukraine held up by the West and, especially, America as bastions of democracy in an undemocratic neighborhood. Shortly after Viktor Yushchenko took control of Ukraine, he had a falling out with his closest ally, Yulia Tymoshenko, who became a rival. THEN, since the popularly elected government was so inept, the man who likely was behind the poisoning of Mr. Yushchenko, former president Viktor Yanukovich, became Prime Minister when his party won in the elections. Growing pains maybe, but when allies can't put personal differences aside to better the country they were revolting for, is there an underlying problem of personality that destroys these supposedly democratic leaders?

Georgia now looks more like Pakistan than any sort of budding Western democracy. Emergency rule (read: martial law) has been declared by President Mikheil Saakashvili. People are being beaten in the streets. Tear gas. Water cannons. Banned free press. Raids. People should not have to revolt so often to get a proper leadership instituted. If they do, it is their right, but don't tell me that it is any way telling of a healthy democratic process.

A Cynical but Benevolent Nature

2007-08-29T21:25:00.001-07:00

I had a little text message conversation with a buddy of mine the other day. He pointed out something that I had thought about recently (begotten of the conversations I have with myself): that I am a cynic. Rather, in his own (texted) words, he told me these posts had become increasingly cynical. I've wondered, since becoming a bastion of negativity and hopelessness, what attitude is indeed the most beneficial and right. I like to believe I'm an optimist who is sure things will go right even though (and especially) when they look doomed to go wrong. Conversely, when I observe my surroundings and examine occurrences that have already taken place, I almost invariably find the wrong in them and am ready to critique the shortcomings of said occurrence. So, I've decided that when dealing with issues in retrospect, I find myself being cynical because it rarely turns out the way my optimistic side was hoping for.

Which is best?

To be frank, I despise unhindered negativity. Fatalism is one of my most hated policies. People who complain unendingly and make no effort whatsoever to influence or change their environment have no standing with me. On the opposite end, those who are content with whatever life brings them are no more enjoyable to be around. If you've convinced yourself that life is great and the world is a beautiful place and that's all there is to it, you're an idiot.

I try to appreciate the beautiful just as I am ready to criticize the ugly. I enjoy experiencing nature both while immersed in it and also by observing it. I like to look at select women as pieces of art - not to objectify them but because their beauty, I believe, needs to be observed as a pleasantry of life. I love and enjoy many things: music, travel, dance, literature. The reason I don't write about them much is because I think there are already too many media sources dedicated to reporting about them, although in an almost wholly superficial fashion.

My purpose is to try to ground those who think that life is ONLY beautiful and great. It definitely is that but I want them to take a keener interest in their environment. This is why I am disenchanted with the American cultural phenomenon of disassociation. No responsibilities but to yourself and your consumerism and supposed well-being (although that well-being is creating a more polluted, obese, and, in general, unhealthy world not only for us Americans but people worldwide).

Likewise, I don't want people to be unceasingly selfish. Making lots of money is great and should be everyone's right but it should not come at the expense of human lives. There should be no talk of food shortages when the Western world (and especially America) is gorging itself on every type of food imaginable and throwing away much of what's on their plate.

Finally, I like my entries to be discerning in a way that might open up the readers to a new idea or criticism that did not affect their train of thought prior to reading about it. For example, Gmail was a particularly interesting case for me and then, not surprisingly, the Economist had Google on the front page of their magazine with privacy issues being a central issue in the subsequent texts.

I'm not a negative person, I just like people to be humble and consciously appreciative of the positive things in their lives. Everyone should make every effort to notice the good things in every situation because otherwise, an all too cynical person will always end up depressed and sour at the world; always upset and propagating the very negativity and misfortune they are unhappy about.

Nobody Cares About the Miners, Really

2007-08-26T03:22:00.000-07:00

I'm just going to come out and say it because nobody else is: what the hell is it with all the news coverage about miners being trapped in the mines? How is this relevant to anything?! Is watching this on the news - regardless of the outcome - going to affect your life in any way? NO, it's not.

It's definitely no secret that Americans (along with some converted Canucks and Europeans) are tragedy-whores. Unfortunately, human interest stories just don't do it anymore - somebody better be dead, on the verge of dying, or horribly dismembered but humbly triumphant. Maybe it's some romantic connection we have to the blue-collar worker. The downtrodden and disrespected guy who works in the mine or in the car factory. How it wasn't enough that the guy has to work hundreds - if not thousands - of feet underground to provide coal so we can heat our homes and now he might be dead or dying because some profit-hungry company has once again neglected the working man. You don't really care, though. It's like watching a real-life game. It's the Roman Colosseum, version 2007. Up against the forces of nature, the miners are in a serious fight for their lives and the game involves other humans/team members using technology to see if they can outsmart Earth - although, ironically, it was that technology that created the mess in the first place. So, you watch in real-time with 30 second updates about how much time they have left to live, what the possibility is that they're already dead. No "reality show", no sports event, and no soap opera can match this ultimate drama of life and death. If and when these people die, they would have paid for your entertainment with their lives. What could be more exciting? If, to your veiled dismay, they happen to win and get out of the gauntlet or maze or labyrinth, you'll nod and say "Way to go. That's inspirational", although the only thing you'll be inspired to do is stuff your face with the extra-lite triple chocolate chip Rocky Road ice cream you were eating for dinner.

By the way, if you're into the whole mining accident thing, you may want to check out the ones in China. Over there, they almost always die and it's usually in much larger numbers than here (more than a hundred, sometimes!).

Addendum:

If you watch this stuff and act like you care, stop lying to yourself...PLEASE. You might cry when they announce they're dead. You may even think about sending a few bucks to the family (a grand though rare gesture, I'd imagine). But, you're going to forget about it in a week because you didn't REALLY give a damn about those miners. Then, you'll catch wind about Courtney Love ODing on Flintstones vitamins (the red ones because they obviously taste the best) and you'll watch that on CNN (the most trusted news network...and with good reason!) for three weeks straight as doctors try to determine if those were her natural lips or if the louse had gotten implants. Then, when they come out with the final autopsy report, you'll complain that the news only shows crap. Of course, you'll fail to realize that it's because of you that they're showing that crap in the first place because if they were to show, say, scenes of a genocide where blacks are being slaughtered or the state of affairs in an orphanage in South L.A., you'd chime "there is nothing good on the news these days" and change the channel to a re-run of Survivor: Season I (or whatever the hell it's termed) and reminisce about the awesome Survivor house party you attended.

"Oh, phew! It's not my fault!"

2007-08-20T23:35:00.000-07:00

This just in: being fat and obese is caused by a virus! That means it wasn't all those medium pizzas, triple cheeseburgers, and large Cokes! I mean, it was but it was the virus keeping all the fat in there. Obese people, rejoice! I guess there was good reason to wonder what was going on when you replaced the Cokes with Diet Cokes (good plan, by the way), you wrapped the triple cheeseburgers with lettuce instead of bread or when you altogether stopped eating and nothing seemed to help. This explains it. The body, invaded by a virus, made sure you stayed fat despite your valiant efforts. Maybe one day this child will be lucky enough to come across that virus.

Airport Security

2007-08-20T20:05:00.000-07:00

As I'm sure the (one or two) readers of this blog are well-traveled folk, I have no doubts that you have flown on a commercial or (since one of you is undoubtedly a billionaire reading the incoherent rants of an intelligent young man in lieu of formulating a plan to end world poverty) private jet, you've at least been exposed to, if not been the subject of, an airport security search. Shoes off, liquids in a bag but nothing over 3.5 ounces! ... and all metal in the bins.

This makes me wonder. Each time some abhorrent terrorist decides to go up in a plane to wreak havoc, does the TSA or whoever makes these rules believe that that person is going to be using the methods or tools of that method that are being scrutinized? That's the most anxiety-inducing part of the security apparatus at airports for me.

The air marshals that they were going to randomly put on planes after 9-11 should become standard procedure. Every single flight to, from and within the United States should include an armed air marshal. I figure it'd be too much trouble for the terrorist to try to pull off a stunt mid-flight when they know there is someone on the plane just looking to season the evening's microwaved roast beef with their frontal lobe.

HFCS

2007-08-17T18:53:00.001-07:00

Did you guess what that stands for? You should probably know - it's in damn near everything you put in your mouth (excluding body parts). HFCS stands for High Fructose Corn Syrup. It is in nearly every non-alcoholic, sweetened drink that comes in a bottle: Coke and Pepsi (obviously), Snapple (yup, HFCS is one of the "best stuff[s] on earth"...or, it must be if it's in there, right?), Powerade, Sunny D (that orange, supposedly healthy, drink for kids), etc. etc. Although, that's not where it ends! You've got HFCS in salad dressings, pasta sauces (e.g. Ragu), maple syrup, jams and jellies (even Knotts!!), ketchup, cranberry sauce, apple sauce, tomato sauces and pastes, Jello cups, kid and adult yogurt (although more prevalent in the former). Have fun trying to avoid all of these!

What is it? Why is it in our foods? To be concise, it is a refined form of corn syrup that has had its fructose content increased. If you want to read further into the technicalities, read here or type it into the search engine of your choice. As for me, I've already decided.

The studies that have been done vaguely link HFCS to obesity. Now, it would be ludicrous to blame one ingredient for such a HUGE *wink* problem but we are, ultimately, putting an artificial substance into our bodies (and yes, it is artificial because unless I can extract the stuff from a stalk of corn with nothing but a mortar and pestle or a more modern and efficient rendering thereof, it is indeed artificial). HFCS also may lead to liver problems similar to those of alcoholics (e.g. cirrhosis) because it is completely metabolized by the liver whereas other sugars are metabolized by all the cells in the body, thus, unnecessarily overworking the organ.

Why people must spend precious time researching intricacies to prove that this is OK is almost beyond me. On the company's side, it's obvious that the low cost of HFCS compared to sugar or honey is reason enough to use it, despite its possible adverse side effects. This time though, I don't think it's the company's fault. Just as I don't believe the health problems from smoking were WHOLLY the tobacco companies' fault (note: they were undoubtedly less than willing to provide information that could be detrimental to their business). Before you start cursing at me via your computer screen, read on.

People love talking about free will, whether a religious person or an atheist, a conservative or liberal, and here in America, we love talking about freedom. Well, if you're willing, you're free to prevent your own indulgence in something that might be harmful to you. Also, you have the freedom to not be so damn stupid as to think that when you're sucking smoke into to your lungs that it's not bad for you or that it's not going to GREATLY affect your health. Just as it is the case with HFCS. You'll hear that there is nothing wrong with it but it was created in a factory, for Christ's sake, not in someone's backyard. Do you need to be a scientist to figure out that your body just may not be ready to take that in? Americans have become so complacent that their thoughts are controlled by exterior forces telling them what's good and what's bad and we've become so used to it that the most simple things don't even occur to us. Think for yourself!

We're constantly inundated with messages about how bad drugs are, especially the ones created in labs (such as meth, ecstasy, and the cutting mixture for cocaine) but we readily ingest countless chemically altered products in many of our foods and drinks. I picked HFCS to write about because it's one of the most prominent artificial substances in our foods but a multitude of other lab-produced ingredients are in these same foods.

If you're eating this stuff and you're overweight or obese or you have liver problems in the future or your teeth start rotting early or your body is just not functioning as it should be, just suck it up (not literally, necessarily) and take it like a man. Nobody is more responsible for your well-being than yourself - be aware.

Seattle: Liberal or Puritan?

2007-08-13T22:23:00.000-07:00

I'm back from Seattle and I've got a few things to say.

First, I thought the city had a pleasant feel to it; very relaxed. The two places I enjoyed being were Pioneer Square - which was really beautiful and reminiscent of Boston - and Pike Place Market. The allure of the latter was just the crowd and the fact that people were outside and mingling. This may have been helped by the fact that it is the 100 year anniversary of the place but I expect it has a similar ambiance during times of normal business. The view of the sound (Puget) is great, as well.

Although there are many homeless people, none really bothered to ask for change or was a nuisance in any way. The punk presence is also obvious but they are markedly more timid than other punks I've encountered elsewhere.

In essence (or, in a sense), Seattle is a watered down version of San Francisco. It reminds one of a liberal, Western town on the surface. Filled with enlightened yuppies walking down the street. Its origins are based on a gold rush, such as San Francisco's but the economic prosperity of Seattle seems to be just reaching its peak while San Francisco's has long gone and left its mark (the tech boom does not count as it served to establish San Jose, if anything). Amazon, Starbucks, and Microsoft (sort of) are all stationed there so there is no shortage of capital floating around the city and the young, spiffy professionals that accompany flows of money.

Despite its well-known association with various musical successes (if you have no idea what I'm talking about: Jimi Hendrix, Nirvana, Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam), there are elements in the city that make an effort to downplay the connection between these artists and the city. Apparently, the alleged drug-use that brought some of these great musicians down is reason enough to disown them as products of the city - unfortunately. You see, Seattle is a law-abiding town and this is where I get started.

Quite unlike San Francisco, Seattle is not worn. The grunge scene seems to have been exported to somewhere outside of the city center (if it ever was there - I have no idea), for the most part. The citizens are touted as being one of the most law-abiding in the country - the type that won't cross a street 5 paces across if the "WALK" signal isn't going but there isn't a car for miles. It seemed to me that the liberalism that is supposedly inherent in the attitudes in Seattle has more to do with saving the whales and the environment (noble endeavors, nonetheless) than with the revolutionary and progressive attitudes you find in the city by the bay.

One thing stood out more than any other in my time there: the puritanical attitude toward liquor. First, if you find any liquor store in plain sight anywhere around downtown Seattle, STOCK UP - it's probably the only one you'll find for miles. Whatever though. I've seen this before, some towns have strict laws within busy areas. Hell, in Montreal, you can't even buy liquor in a market. You have to go to a special liquor store where they ONLY sell alcoholic beverages. In any case, my Dad had picked out a nice place for dinner that he'd been to before so we showed up at the front door. Guess what? "No Minors" it says! Well, my little brother is 20 1/2 years old (by minor they mean anyone under 21) and probably drinks more than I do but either the law in Seattle or the restaurant's owner decided that since a patron might WALK BY the alcohol bar, no minors can dine at the establishment - that was their explanation. What the hell? Are you serious? This means that he could go to a theater in Seattle and watch a XXX hardcore porno that involves all sorts of lewd acts I'll leave up to your imagination or perhaps go watch an action movie where people are literally slaughtered but he can't so much as be in the presence of alcohol or in view of it because.......................................................the sight of all the pretty bottles with the colorful liquids in them might very well induce him to become an alcoholic and we don't want to corrupt our youth in that way! No way! Not in Seattle!

Because of this idiocy, I've started a campaign against the puritanical influences which I believe are repressing Americans into a social ineptitude that is manifested in various dangerous forms to be explored in coming posts. It's about time that America started acting like the enlightened country it portrays itself to be and somebody needs to say exactly that and that somebody, for the time being, is me!

Such is my revelation begotten of an otherwise enjoyable trip to the Emerald City.

Gmail: Established c. 1984

2007-08-07T10:40:00.001-07:00

What's so great about Gmail? You'll tell me it's all the great features not available with other e-mail clients: the conversation-type e-mailing, the storage, the organization. Yes, these are pretty awesome and convenient but am I the only one who wonders about the totally non-private nature of Gmail?

If you haven't noticed, there are ads all around each of your e-mails every time you click on one. Coincidentally, usually all of those ads are related to the subject contained within your e-mail. This was worrisome the first time I came across it because I didn't know how those ads ended up there. Just so you know, I did some research and found out that Google scans each and every one of your e-mails in order to be able to sell ads to prospective buyers. I don't allow anyone to read my e-mails and I don't like the idea that someone might have access to any of my e-mails and I'm surely not the only one. So, why do we allow Google to do this? Is convenience enough reason to forsake our privacy? Someone must think so if Gmail has become so popular that its sign-up process is by invitation only.

If you're curious about the irony of me having a Gmail account in order to make this post, I will respond by stating that Blogger used to be independent until it was taken over by Google. I had established an account with Blogger prior to this takeover.

Literary Rundown: Das Kapital by Viken Berberian

2007-07-24T12:31:00.000-07:00

This is the first ever book review for this blog and you better believe that the book would have to be well worth writing about for me to take time away from criticizing every aspect of the world to do this. Also, because I discovered that people appreciate visual stimulation nearly as much as the power of the word, I included an image for the first time so you could judge this book by its beautiful cover. Your response to the changes are welcome.

-----------------------------------------------

Much like the main character Wayne, I avoid fiction novels – unless there is an important lesson that may be derived from the reading. This book perfectly encompasses the reasons why I think fiction should ever be read and it does so with a subtle mockery of the reason that was the source of my disdain: the capital markets.

I loved this book because it so simply highlighted how in our persistent pursuit of wealth, we rarely make the effort to appreciate what we were presumably accumulating the wealth for in the first place. The pleasantries of life such as companionship, of natural beauty, of moderate laziness are replaced with electronic toys, quick thrills (like a ten million dollar play against the market), fragile designer furniture. We become concerned with salaries, investments, 401Ks, retirement planning, expected growth, dividends … except we forget that the original plan was to use these things to somehow enjoy our lives – although we may have forgotten how to enjoy anything besides the increased return on investment of our portfolios. What good is money if you don’t use it?

Berberian clearly understands all of this and coupled with his immaculate descriptions of people, places, and things, he creates a wondrous projection of our capitalist society – not to condemn it but to show that capitalism need not be the sole governing philosophy of our existence.

In total, the perfectly placed instances of humor along with the important and relevant societal messages make for a thoroughly enjoyable and significant literary work. Every lover, financier, employee, and hopeful bon vivant should read this book.

Damn the Economy, These are Lives

2007-07-17T22:06:00.000-07:00

This is why these "emerging economies" will never be great countries: because the value of life does not register with them.

Brazil Plane Crash

Brazil's woes were well projected when City of God exposed the incomprehensible lives led by the residents of the country's favelas. Perhaps the situation was such because of the poor state of affairs at the time the movie was made or the time it was documenting. And now? Brazil has been named one of the top emerging economies in the world along with China and India. They are flush with cash and investments both domestic and foreign. There is an emerging middle class. Nonetheless, the inept systems that kept Brazil and these other economic wunderkinder so poor and backwards for so many years continue to rear themselves in various ways:

- China's growth has created megacities covered in filth. Some manufacturing areas seldom see the sun because of the thick layer of emissions everpresent in the sky.

- India, despite its "flourishing democracy" (as some overly hopeful observers state), is mired in poverty. Much of the population continues to defecate in the same rivers they drink from, there are no paved roads to many parts of the country, and the bureaucracy is so stifling that it cannot correct the country nor itself.

Brazil, on the other hand, should be different. Its government is popular, the population is concentrated in urban areas, there is no colonial legacy, and it is friendly with and has the closest proximity to the largest democracy and economy in the world (the United States, for anyone who hasn't paid attention to the news in the past 60 years).

Then why is it that an air traffic system that has been under scrutiny for at least one year and has been subject to criticisms from within by air traffic controllers has not changed whatsoever? Why has the government ignored all the calls for change? With complaints about infrastructure that will undoubtedly affect the image of the country, I seriously wonder what is preventing these incapacitated government officials from acting. As of right now, Brazil's air traffic schematic is no more advanced than any African country's and is very likely worse.

What upsets me is that there seems to have been more than one time that the airport's runway was cited as being unsafe and the authorities did nothing. In fact, a court referred to the detrimental economic effects of closing the runway! Well, damnit, I hope that no one flies into that airport any longer just to show that prick what kind of economic damage can befall an inconsiderate administration.

All of this isn't because I give a good damn about Brazil and its prospects for being something important on the world stage. It's because people died because of preventable shortcoming. It should have been a routine landing in the rain. It wasn't a hijacking, it wasn't a technical malfunction, it wasn't pilot error. It was just some senseless dimwits not willing to keep the best interest of their countrypeople's well-being in mind.

Until they remedy unnecessary suffering, these countries can have all the double-digit growth they want. I'm just fine with an over-regulated airline industry and a sluggish economy as long as I don't have to wonder about whether the plane I'm on is going to stop before the runway ends and whether I'll meet my end in a fiery hell of steel and gasoline or slowly suffocate as I float to the bottom of the nearest body of water.

What To Do With America

2007-07-11T18:01:00.000-07:00

This country, the United States of America, has reached its lowest point - governmentally speaking. I added the last part because it can go still lower in other aspects, such as our economic prowess but that takes a while to catch up so we can enjoy the suspense as we wait to see how that turns out.

President Bush has been a flop. We know that. He knows it, too. He can't even convince his own people to support him anymore. This is called being a lame duck. He thinks this is a short-term popularity contest he doesn't have to worry about because it will be history that judges him. That said, history will have a hard time judging when it has nothing to judge in the last half of his presidency. He makes me happy though. For someone to be so beat down, so terribly ravaged by everyone, he is one upbeat character.

His Cabinet has to have been one of the most unsuccessful in American history. I would even say they were ineffective but that would not be true as they effectively spent billions of dollars on essentially nothing, broke myriad rules, and embarrassed America before the world - that's being effective at causing loads of damage in a limited amount of time. They've proven to be a gang of criminals. Torture, lies, and everything else you've heard a fijillion times that I'm getting bored thinking about it. Some left, some refuse to leave.

Am I being too liberal? This isn't a question of liberalism - this is Americanism, at its best. Watch.

Ah, we did so well, too. We utilized our power of vote. We got those Republican and Democrats who plunged us into war and domestic atrophy out of office and replaced them with a majority of those we expected to do a splendid job in starting the rebuilding process. The Democrats were are only choice! (the wonders of a two-party democracy). Alas, it may have been better to have a Republican majority because at least they could say they were doing something.

I've come to the conclusion that Democrats are unrelentingly weak and coward-like. This has been said before, I know. Why don't they realize that the reason they don't have power is because they don't put their damn collective foot down and stand for something? If you want corruption out of politics, take the corrupt people OUT. If Vice President Cheney is refusing to cooperate, make him cooperate or get him OUT. Any civil officer (and I presume that includes the Attorney General, Secretary of State and underlings) may be impeached by Congress according to the Constitution. Of course, knowing and acting upon this would entail having read the Constitution and that would entail Democrats being pro-active about something and since we know that is not the case, we cannot expect any action to be taken.

Naturally, it's not their fault. They don't have a definitive enough majority to do any of these things so they'll just scold administration officials until the time comes for them to assume the presidency. At which point they'll moan about having to remedy the decrepit system they inherited.

As for the others, let us not forget that the loyalties of those Republicans in Congress are first to the Constitution of the United States and secondly to the people of the United States and THEN to whatever entities they may see fit in answering to. Therefore, they should be just as disenchanted with the state of things and be willing to band with the Democrats for the good of the country.

Unfortunately, America is selfish. We are taught to be selfish from when we are young. We are taught to take care of ourselves before we worry about others. This pervades even Congress and is perfectly stricken from display by the inaction of our Legislature in upholding the tenets they swore to preserve. The fatalism when it comes to breaking the status quo in politics was propagated by the people in office and is now repeated by the constituents. AMERICAN PEOPLE: only our willingness to save our American democracy will refresh the vibrant government which has made this the center of the world. If our worn candidates and our established parties are not performing their duties, we must perform our own. Protest, create our own parties, write letters, shout, call, cause a scene - whatever we need to rid ourselves of our apathy.

Every generation needs a new revolution. - Thomas Jefferson

I Don't Care About Iraq

2007-06-13T10:53:00.000-07:00

Like the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Nagorno-Karabagh peace negotiations before it, I've relegated headlines that mention the Iraqi conflict into my "who cares anymore?" news receptacle. Always the same tired stories about governmental impasse, the number of dead soldiers, another suicide attack, etc. Should these even be reported anymore? Probably - just so the people who thought it was such a great idea to go in there and prevent the terrorists in Iraq (I think there are still people who believe that Iraq was a terrorist training ground) from attacking the United States can recognize the repercussions of their sheep-like support. So they can see American soldiers dying in vain, for absolutely no reason. Just as the parents of those poor soldiers who are dying probably tell themselves that their sons and daughters are doing something important over there and their deaths are serving a purpose. Here is a real piece of insensitivity for you: they died for nothing. Shame on you for supporting your government's actions and allowing your supposed patriotism to transcend your attachment to your son or daughter, for convincing yourself that their lives are being usefully expended in the name of freedom and justice.

Otherwise, who really wants to read those stories? It's apparent that no one really cares about the Iraqis dying. With the all the conflicts that have been going on around the world, especially the ones that started far before this one, why should we care about Iraq? Because America is there? Although George Bush and his cabinet (most of which has coincidentally been disgraced) thought that entering Iraq was the top priority for America, I've contended that we should take a deeper look at things that are affecting our own country. Or, perhaps, if we're interested in meddling in the rest of the world's affairs, maybe we can try saving the rainforest and threaten Brazil militarily because once all those trees are gone and there aren't enough plants to clean the air that we continue to pollute (since our president has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and global warming, according to some of the same advisers, is not real), the threat to American lives is going to be much greater than a dictator who was building a bomb which didn't exist and who was providing safe haven to terrorists who weren't there.

Then again, it wasn't really about American lives, was it?

More Attacks, More People to Hate Us!!

2007-06-11T08:38:00.000-07:00

Everyone expected it but I think the source is definitely somewhat conspicuous. Senator Joe Lieberman called for an attack on Iran so as to prevent the deaths of American troops. Is this guy a Republican in donkey clothing or what? Why is he such an ardent supporter of military action in the Middle East?

What bothers me is the danger to regular Americans that is created by these dimwits in government who justify attacks with the pretext that it's saving American lives. Have these past five years not taught these politicians anything? We are easily the most hated country in the world. There are people signing up everyday for a chance to blow us up. Whose responsibility is it to take a step back and ask that oh-so-important question "WHY?!"? Why do so many people hate us?

If you want to save American soldiers' lives in Iraq, get them the fuck out of there!

Elections: Armenia

2007-05-14T21:59:00.000-07:00

It’s about time. I’m quite pleased with the election results in Armenia. The ruling Republican Party took the vote and it was followed closely by the Prosperous Armenia Party – run by one of the richest men in the country, well-known for his involvement in illegitimate business practices, along with associations that are becoming of such a person. Nonetheless, I - a dedicated believer in a participant democracy – am happy with the product. Even the Western observers reported that things turned out rather well, save for a few isolated incidents of irregularity. As expected, the opposition cried foul.

Normally, I am a supporter of oppositions. I think they are an absolute necessity in democracies as they serve the function of a counterweight to unchecked political power. In fact, I am disappointed that the United States does not have a true opposition in its political landscape and this is surely the reason for the apathetic mood of most of the constituency. In Armenia, one would expect a group would fulfill the role that their name implies – in this case, to oppose. Contrary to convention, the Armenian opposition has spent the last many years complaining, complaining, and … whining. It has boycotted Parliament in supposed “opposition” to the last elections that were all judged to be undemocratic. Rather than use whatever positions they held within the governing institutions of the country, they spent their time – comfortably, undoubtedly, for most of them – criticizing the current government as any regular citizen might in their home. Maybe they thought that if their cries were loud enough, a revolution would implant itself in the bosom of Armenia, as it apparently did in its fellow CIS countries. Of course, it never came. Before the elections even began, they were accusing the government of wrongdoing and of election fraud. Perhaps, that time would have been better spent campaigning and garnering votes. No, the show was more important. Make sure to let everyone know that the elections are going to be fraudulent, they must have said. The political ineptitude of these politicians, of the supposed opposition, made itself very clear. It also exposed two facets of not only Armenian political life but life as the ordinary person lives it: Armenians have gotten accustomed to not doing anything and they have gotten accustomed to, more importantly, to handouts. For 80 years, there were handouts. Now, they receive handouts from the four corners of the globe. Instead of take their destiny by the mane and lead it to where they want it to go, they would rather continue endless about their hardship and bad luck. This is now reflected in the words of the opposition “leaders” who don’t even approach the difficulties of the country’s poor.

Then, finally, we have a parliament who may act. A parliament, not completely comprised of one party but a few, different and, hopefully, divergent but relatively amicable parties that can work toward bringing a substantive change in the country. No longer can an opposition party complain that they will not participate because the elections were flawed – because they have no choice but to not participate.

This is, in fact, part of the process of democracy. A consolidation of power is necessary for it to be able to – very simply - function. Now, the hope must be that the parties in Parliament will keep an eye on one another and make a concerted effort not only to maintain but promote the democratic ideals embodied in the State’s constitution.

14 May 2007

The Case for NRA Classes

2007-04-16T20:21:00.000-07:00

It doesn’t seem like anyone has talked to Charlton Heston yet but I bet there is a good explanation for what happened. My guess is that NRA classes have been out of session for the past few years. You know, the ones that teach you how to use guns without killing innocent people. I think that’s why the Columbine kids did it – they hadn’t taken the class. At least, that’s what Mr. Heston was suggesting. As long as everyone who plans on using a gun takes the class, they should be A-OK.

I’m somewhat disappointed that I can’t seem to find this NRA class offered anywhere. I’ll put money down that the guy who just shot up Virginia Tech in the worst school shooting in U.S. history went online and looked for a class on how he could shoot the students for sport (without fatally injuring them) but, having not found anything that taught how to go about it in a civil manner, he just decided that since it was his God-given right (I don’t know if this was Charlton Heston as God or God up in Heaven who bestowed upon us this right) to own and use firearms, he’d be all right. Even if the police didn’t feel where he was coming from and decided to take him out, he could tell St. Peter that he believed God was cool with it and if he wasn’t, the man closest to Him (no, not Jesus) publicly promoted it on Earth on many occasions. I don’t blame him; I blame the NRA and Mr. Heston. What happened to accountability? I was hoping Mr. Heston would get on the ball after Columbine but it just seems he went senile and left us to figure out how to use these things ourselves.

All that is important at this point is for ordinary Americans to understand that this is precisely why we need to be able to have guns. Sure, we can’t really take them to school or work to protect ourselves but imagine how many more school shootings would be happening if prospective rampage-artists were not deterred by the possibility of me breaking the rules one day and carrying my gun around and being able to shoot back. I knew you would agree!

When those classes come back and everyone is taught how to shoot guns but not kill people while doing so, we’ll be fine. If, for whatever reason, the classes are not working and there is another school shooting, maybe they can try it out in an NRA classroom. That way there’ll be some fine NRA members who are present to experience first-hand what went wrong and why a few of their colleagues were unexpectedly shot to death. I believe that at that point, they’ll be able to give us a lasting remedy for this minor side effect of our natural right to release pent-up energy by ejaculating a bullet through the barrel of a gun.

16 April 2007

The Anti-Social Society

2007-02-21T20:38:00.000-08:00

I write to you as an American living in America. I thought I might write rather than call you and tell you because that might be too much human interaction. I grew up in Los Angeles, not exactly the most intimate city. Most of the communication outside of school and family was limited to flipping off a driver who just came dangerously close to running your car off a cliff either because they were not used to the driving rules of this country or because they had just lost the will to live – after three hours in traffic - so they figured that if they didn’t hit you and ended up crashing themselves, it’d be just as good. Even before the technological revolution took hold, this city’s vast expanses disallowed any meandering and lengthy communication which might overlap with rush hour, miserably extending one’s ETA if they didn’t avoid contact with others. With the advent of the everpresent cell phone, wireless computer, and iPod, the reasons to talk and interact with others have slowly diminished in value and operating as an electronic island has become the norm for most people, young and old. What a damn pity.

I’ll be honest. I came to discover this phenomenon while sitting at home on my computer, surfing the Net, as I usually do. I wondered why I wasn’t out exploring the city or, at least, sitting in a coffee shop with a book that would show off my intellectual curiosities to the pretty females that abound in those types of places. Why didn’t I just get up and go? This should be easy to answer for those of you who, well, think. It’s because I’d have to get up, for one. Then, I’d have to get into my car, pull out of my parking space, drive to one of the cool places conveniently not located near where I live all because the coffee shops and bookstores around my home more closely resemble the social scene at a nursing home than that of a hip new joint that all the important people frequent. Having gotten there, I’d have to deal with some person stopped in a one-way lane in the parking lot because they can’t park too far away from the store they’ll be going to to buy that diet shake for fear that it might burn more calories than is allowed by whatever weight-loss manual they’re using this week. Myself, I’d park as far away as I need to just so I wouldn’t have to wait. Then I’d go into the coffee shop, having walked an all too long 2 minutes from my car. Finally, I’d be in. Now, get the coffee and choose a seat carefully. Black and no sugar in hand and already at a disadvantage because my drink lacked an unimpressive title. There is a couch, my favorite, nice and comfortable; I’m off. Even better, a girl studying for her biology class: a few DNA jokes and I’d be having a pleasant conversation in no time. But no! There they’d be, the bane of traditional communication: two white wires eerily winding down from her ears. What to do? Caffeinated, hungry for human contact, I’d head home – there goes another gallon – and get ready to go out that night.

That would be another perverted social setting. Young people these days, they don’t go out to interact. They go to lose themselves to the music while on drugs, to get hopelessly drunk with friends in the hope that the liquor will relieve their inhibitions about talking to those people on the street they will see that night, to cruise in their car. Impersonality is the status quo and it’s comfortable because it’s quiet.

Wait! Classes! That’s where I’ll meet some new people, in a class at college. That’s right, when I sit in my lecture hall of 400 people at UCLA, I will ask the fellow student next to me what he thought of the Marx reading. Oh, wait, he’s sleeping. Maybe this girl on the other side has something to say. Apparently not because if you can sum up Marx in one sentence of less than ten words, then you either don’t want to talk or have a very limited vocabulary. See, you must be careful, don’t want them to think you’re looking for more than interesting conversation – especially since you’re not drunk yet and the sun hasn’t set.

I’ve even tried a few times to start conversation in a bus or at a bus stop, assuming those damned wires were not present. Good luck finding anyone to talk to at those places besides the bus driver, who I don’t mind because he or she usually has some interesting stories.

There is a rule in linguistics where the word that will often prevail through time is the word that is easiest to say. Since it’s easiest to say nothing, I imagine soon we will be texting our orders to the cashier at the burger stand, e-mailing our pizza delivery shop, and dining “out” in enclosed personal booths where we punch in our order on electronic screens, dining by ourselves or with a date - and a conveniently located TV at the end of the table which will keep the noise level constant even if the conversation dies down. If it comes to that, I’ll move to France, where they take at least 10 to 15 years to catch up to our novelties and I’ll keep going east until I end up back in L.A. at which point I will have gotten tired from all the conversation and will be able to easily reintegrate myself into the anti-social society.

5 February 2007

We Can Cry, We Can Be Angry, But Let Us Not Hate

2007-01-22T22:42:00.000-08:00

Is it any wonder that Armenians and Turks don’t get along? What has changed? A murder on Friday and the Turkish government says, in so many words, that it is an attack on Turkey - perhaps, but did they miss the point? Did Hrant Dink’s being an Armenian not have a hand in the assassination? The government seems to have forgotten that it was they who allowed Hrant Dink to gain infamy in Turkey as a result of what he was not supposed to say. His murderer killed him for something he said - except he did not say it but he was put on trial for it and convicted anyway, the only one, an Armenian.

Dink was probably respected more by Turks than by Armenians because he believed in his rights as a human and as a Turkish citizen so much that he knowingly risked his safety for what he thought was good and right for Turkey and that is something that Turks have rarely felt safe to do. In keeping with doing what was not allowed - by written law or otherwise - he had the unearthly courage to actually suggest to Armenians that they should befriend Turks and not consider them as their enemies. Preposterous! No, he was not known in the Armenian community as spearheading a mass movement that held a change in mentality as its cornerstone. Rather, he was cherished as an intellectual and one that was living in Turkey, what’s considered dangerous territory for an Armenian. Now, this intellectual is killed by a fanatic Turk in Istanbul, where the hanging of his ancestral Armenian intellectuals living there in 1915 commenced the Armenian Genocide. The one man who was willing to look past historical animosity, the one man who encouraged dialogue, the one man who took an unorthodox angle and thought that he could help both Armenia and the Armenians - and, in the process, help his fellow countrymen – by promoting a European Turkey, was now dead.

His killer was speedily caught. Nothing unexpected. Called him a gyavur, apparently. Nothing new there. That’s what they used to call them before they were slaughtered 91 years ago. Naturally, he doesn’t regret what he did and he’d do it again, so on and so forth. Armenians were at first wondering why another Armenian would be dedicating so much time to helping Turkey and are now probably saying “See what happens when you try to help a Turk?”. The government and the nationalists who were responsible for trying him and denouncing him are all calling this incident horrendous and tragic and all of a sudden the enemy of the state has become the state’s democratic champion. Of course, according to them, he who killed Hrant Dink is trying to destroy democracy in Turkey and was not possessed to kill a person perceived, ironically, as a traitor to Turkey.
The reason for why he died should not be effaced. He was no martyr for the Turkish republic - he was a martyr for freedom, democracy, and human rights in the Turkish republic, his birthplace and home, which he loved dearly. Those who are going to remember his efforts to bring Armenians and Turks together must not forget that he was steadfast in his views on the Genocide of 1915 with the exception that he approached it with a compassion and understanding that is seldom seen in the hate- and anger-infused discussions that surround the topic.

Hrant Dink made distinctions. He knew that the Turkish people and the Turkish government were two different entities. He believed something that most Armenians could not admit - that there were good Turks. So good, in fact, that the reason they would not admit the Genocide occurred was because they themselves could not fathom their ancestors committing such horrendous acts. The Turks today do not want to distinguish themselves from the governing bodies of the Ottoman Empire and Armenians do not distinguish the Turks of today from the Turkish government. First, Turks must realize that governments do things that do not espouse the sentiments of the people. In a society of free thought, they would have arrived at this conclusion themselves. Secondly, they must know that there were Turks who did do good in those times; those who took Armenians in, those who protected the Armenians in their homes because they were, in the end, human and not savages. Not allowing the Genocide to be discussed within the country automatically disallows the surfacing of these stories that prove good Turks stood up and sometimes died in the name of humanity, because they did not believe Armenians, their neighbors and friends, should be slaughtered. Once Turks learn the history of Armenians in their current lands, they will understand the gravity of what Hrant Dink was doing.

As for the Armenians, it is time that they also learn to look at Turks as people whose thoughts are not solely those that are diffused by the government. We must believe that Turks can be good and are good. The outpouring of Turks after the murder meant something: it showed that there were Turks out there who believed what Hrant stood for and although they may have previously kept silent, they would no longer. The yearning on behalf of both peoples for friendship exemplified not only in Taksim Square but all over the world through various means and media was an emotional statement for the triumph of our humanity and our basic want for love rather than the isolated loneliness of hatred.

Whether we like it or not, our cultures and our histories are intertwined and nobody and no government - including our own - in the world will care to solve our disputes if we do not do it ourselves. Hrant was pushed off the bridge he was building over a treacherous ravine; let us make sure that it reaches the other side.

The Soviets Are Not Dead

2006-11-24T01:09:00.000-08:00

We may think that with the fall of the USSR, the last great impediment to a democratic world was felled. If I may, I would like to contradict that thought by suggesting that although there is no other country in the world that can equate itself with America's superiority in all aspects of society, the ideologies that were promoted within the USSR and its satellites are alive and well in another, less traditional form: corporations.

For most people who live in developed countries, the idea of a corporation is a part of daily life. Most of what you buy, use, see, hear, and do is somehow connected to the business of corporations. This will not concern these corporations' impact on the world but, rather, how they influence the lives of the people that make them function.

Let's begin at the top. It is usually a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) who is at the helm of a corporation. He/she (usually he), is elected and placed into office not by the employees of the company but by a select few who are known as a Board of Directors. These directors are, also, seemingly arbitrarily elected. Of course, there is voting that goes on among shareholders of the company but most employees maintain an insignificant amount of shares to cause any dent in the ultimate results of any public "election". This is often left to the larger shareholders who, incidentally, own their shares because they have lots of money. The CEO is in charge of the whole company and can do essentially whatever he pleases. This includes hiring and firing employees at will, making decisions that will alter the course of the company, and commission projects that he feels are necessary. This can easily be compared with the dictators that led the Soviet Union not long ago and the finality that was inherent in the decisions they made. They had a support staff - much like the Chief Financial Officer, Chief Information Officer, and Chief Technology Officer - who were there to not only do the job that their title suggested but, to also support the leader when a decision was made. If, for whatever reason, the objectives of the ruler were questioned, that subordinate officer would promptly and easily be discarded of, as is the case in corporations. There is no tolerance for free thought that deviates too much from the information being disseminated from the top. It would have been difficult for someone who was reading the news in the past 5 years to not have heard about the great corporate scandals of many industries and the chief executives that were implicated during the ensuing chaos and, therefore, spending much time on the incredible amount of power these people hold within their companies and otherwise is not my objective.

Examining the life of a typical employee at a corporation, one notices some commonalities among them. First, there is usually a set schedule that the said employee must follow. For example, they must come to work at a certain time and they will leave at a certain time. In the hours that an employee is at work these days, they will likely be in front of a computer. This allows the employee to be more efficient in the work that they do but it also allows the corporation's watchdogs to monitor every step that an employee takes on that machine throughout the day. The Soviets were not so lucky as to have this technology to check on the staffers of the State (i.e. everyone) but they had other means of finding out when a person was doing something not to their liking: neighbors, children, spies, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, ad infinitum. In the corporation - even your boss, who might have access to your computer's contents or may concurrently view what you are viewing - is capable of being a source of information for the monitors or, perhaps, the enforcer him/herself.

The company, while you are at work, is everpresent. The technology that we have today allows not only for constant surveillance but also a record of everything that you have done. From an e-mail that was sent to a website that was visited, the company knows where you go and what you say. In the Soviet Union, access to the "outside" world was very limited and this allowed the surveillors the ability to keep a watchful eye on everyone's behavior. Any correspondence was subject to checks by authorities and may have been destroyed or altered to their liking. Freedom of speech did not exist and unwanted speech was quickly disposed of. In a corporation, if one feels the need to speak up about the injustices of the system that is being used, they are well aware of the wrath that awaits them if they freely express their thoughts as they will lose their job and be cut off from their means of sustenance.

Naturally, an employee (or a citizen of the Soviet Union) will progressively be more careful in the content that is viewed on their workstation for fear of a reprimand which might threaten their existence at the company (or, on Earth). Therefore, the limits of what one is allowed to say, see, and hear become quite limited. For example, in the Soviet Union, it was never a good idea to criticize the Communist Party and, if one did, they would be silenced through various, creative means. In a corporation, it is equally unwise to criticize the company one is working for as that will probably lead to being released from employment. This is because both the Soviet Union and corporations assume the idea that they are good and that you are dependent on their goodwill for your survival. With this logic, it does not make sense to belittle your source of life and therefore, if you have a problem with it, you do not have to form of part of the entity and they will help you in that detachment.

If one has ever worked for a corporation, they will have seen the bulletins, newsletters, and newstories that are diffused to the employees. These publications often project a positive aura and keep employees in the dark about the reality of the inner workings of the company. Also, in these pieces, it is suggested that an employee think about what is best for the company when he or she is doing their job and whenever they are representing the company. An employee must make sure to have the best interests of the company in mind prior to making decisions. There is seldom ever a mention of personal needs or desires and, frankly, these things seem to have little importance. Moving to the parallel, I remember reading somewhere that the Soviet Union had quite an elaborate information diffusion process which was commonly known as propoganda. Again, the people were told to do what was in the best interest of the Communist Party. There was rarely ever bad news and I do not believe there were any stories on the forced starvation of Ukrainians or the pogroms that took place during Stalin's rule. The economic status of the Soviet Union was not known until it swiftly crumbled and the unsustainable policies of the government were exposed for the world to see. Somehow, this seems similar to what happened to Enron when thousands of employees had absolutely no idea about the well-being of the company until one day when, in an unexpected change of events, the company disclosed its financial woes. Within weeks, one of the most powerful energy companies in the whole world shriveled into nothingness and most of the employees were left to fend for themselves - without even their retirement savings, which were mostly in company stock. I met a man who lived in the Soviet Union who had saved thousands of roubles in his bank account so that one day he would have that money to retire; that money disappeared the day the Soviet Union fell.

I have no doubt in my mind that a more involved study can be done about the similarities between the Soviet Union's operating structure and ideologies and that of today's corporations. Regardless, that was not my intention here and I wanted to simply bring to light this connection that is overlooked because of the proposterous nature of what it is suggesting. I believe, if you look closely, the two are more alike than you might think.

Although these companies are mostly located in what are touted as the beacons of democracy and free speech, between the hours of 9 and 5, be very careful of what you say, where you say it, and who you say it to. Somebody's always watching.

Letter to Editor - University of Arkansas at Monticello

2006-11-24T00:42:00.000-08:00

I wrote this letter to the editor in response to an interview conducted by a student on campus that was published here: http://thevoice.uamont.edu/4_9/democ.htm

I already have a post regarding this issue but this is in direct response to something written by a Turkish student and I felt it was important to show some of the gaps in that author's stipulations.

To: The Voice

Dear Editor,

I would like to rebut the article you had released online entitled “Democracy Trampled in France Parliament”. Although I am not sure of the date of its release, I would like to nevertheless write about a few contradictions that might help shed light on the issue and, perhaps, allow for a more balanced view of what happened. In the spirit of the free speech that journalism promotes, I kindly ask you to publish this despite opposition you may be subject to from the authors of the piece that I will be refuting.

First, I do not believe it was prudent for the author to state that it was “fair” to pick two people that were the subjects of the interview if their descent is of Turkish origin. Disregarding nationalities, oftentimes, ethnic identity is a much larger determining factor of a person’s ideas than where they were born or what their passport says.

Now, to answer some of the questions posed by the author. “Where is the democracy?” Actually, the democracy is inherent in what the French Parliament did. The representatives of the people voted to pass this bill. If anything, this is democracy at work. As far as the law of free speech is concerned, we know that free speech also has its limitations depending on which country you go to. Such a law would probably not be accepted in the United States. At the same time, in Germany, it is a crime to deny the Holocaust and I wonder if the author would be so courageous as to suggest that since such a law is a limitation of free speech, it should be rescinded.

In the piece, the author asks what genocide is and provides a definition. I am curious to know whether the author is familiar with Rafael Lemkin, the man who coined the phrase “genocide”. Mr. Lemkin was a European Jew who, horrified by the atrocities of the Armenian Genocide (yes, the Armenian one), decided to create a word to describe such a terrible event. Sadly, Mr. Lemkin and his family were, in later years, subject to the vile plans of Nazi Germany and he suffered through the Holocaust. So, let us make an effort to not forget what genocide means, where it comes from, and who lobbied international entities to accept this word as a description of what it is.

Also, I would like to clarify that by the time World War I was taking place, it was no longer the Ottoman government who was fighting in the war but a group of nationalist Turks called the Young Turks. Being of Turkish descent, I would have expected the author or the interviewees to have made that point. Of course, those who know the Armenian Genocide took place are familiar with the history of the Young Turks and know that they were the ones who orchestrated the Genocide. Three men by the names of Enver Pasha, Talaat Pasha, and Djemal Pasha (all Young Turks) were the ones who organized and ordered the annihilation of the Armenian people in Anatolia (what is now modern Turkey).

On another point, the author again fails to mention the two conferences organized by Turkish universities in the last few years that would have brought Armenian and Turkish historians together on Turkish soil to discuss the history of the Armenian Genocide and to debate the facts. These conferences were first postponed and subsequently cancelled because of massive protests by the Turkish citizens and threats by Turkish judges and advocates that the organizers would be subject to prosecution if the conferences took place. It has been the policy of the Turkish government that “history should be left to the historians” – why is there no mention of this by the author or the interviewees?

Concerning the fallout from the passage of this bill, I would not be surprised if the Turkish government indeed renamed the French Quarter the Algerian Quarter. In order to spite those that do not agree with its ideologies, Turkish governments in the past and present have infallibly changed the history of the country and the people. Plants and animals in modern-day Eastern Turkey that had Armenian names have been renamed so as to erase any indication that there was ever an Armenian presence in the area. Armenian churches, monuments, cities, and villages have been left to rot and have been exposed to the elements for almost one hundred years now so that soon they will be nothing but rubble on the land. Why would a country that had nothing against its Armenian population be willing to go to such lengths to absolve any evidence that Armenians were ever there? Why have the responses from the Turkish government been so caustic rather than proposing dialogue with these European nations? Why is it that these European, North and South American, and Asian countries have acknowledged the Armenian Genocide? These are all questions that those who know the Armenian Genocide happened ask themselves when they hear of Turkish denial of what happened. Your readers, perhaps, can ask themselves these same questions in an effort to gain a better understanding of the events that took place and, hopefully, find the truth.

Let us not desecrate the memory of all those who were massacred by ignoring calls for recognition and denying that their suffering ever took place.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my views and present them to your publication.

Kind Regards...

Diplomacy à la américaine

2006-11-09T19:25:00.000-08:00

In recent times, I cannot remember ever hearing, studying, or experiencing the government of a powerful country paying so little heed to the necessity of maintaining a positive diplomatic mission. This is not simply the fault of the Bush administration - since few Americans accept the idea that America should compromise on any of its policies considering it is the only superpower - but being the main link between the U.S. and the outside world, the burden does indeed fall on it. We have seen Russian foreign policy assume a role it occupied during the Soviet Union as the antithesis to anything American. There is no doubt that this is a result of Russia's newfound role as a secondary entity who knows its actual capability in exercising influence outside its immediate geographical surroundings is next to nil (save for the veto it possesses on the UN's Security Council). Regardless, perhaps Russia is providing a counterbalance in the face of U.S. hegemony and European pacifistic cowardice and, in doing so, attempting to maneuver the U.S. into a situation where they might be willing to talk rather than immediately act without support or discussion. The simplicity of President Bush's "with us or against us" campaign exemplifies the phrase's illogical but, nevertheless, airtight policy; there is no time nor room for said discussion, only action. Nobody wants to be seen as supporting terrorists by way of not joining forces with President Bush so, many European countries have sent military to Afghanistan and Iraq, albeit grudgingly, to stay in favor with the President and his staff. When France refused to support military action, they were immediately vilified not only by the media but by the representatives in Congress who decided that "French" fries was no longer acceptable and they would need to be renamed as freedom fries - I must say, this was a low point in American governmental initiatives and I buried my head in shame as a result.

The situation that President Bush faces now is quite grave especially considering he no longer has the backing of a Republican Congress and, having neglected most traditional allies, has isolated the United States in an unwelcome situation on the global stage all because America is not only a big deal but the BIGGEST deal and should not have to answer to anyone, especially Europeans who, despite being overly careful in their rhetoric, know a thing or two about wars and the importance of relations with not only allies, but enemies. Rather than cutting off communication and making noble demands of "Axis of Evil" countries ... (excuse me, my eyes had to come back to their normal position because of how far they rolled back into my head), he should be employing the resources of American intellectual might to reach mutually beneficial agreements with these countries and, in turn, be seen as a great diplomat, rather than a honkey from a farm that became president. North Korea and Iran know that the U.S. will not attack them now because of the horrible failures in Afghanistan and Iraq. The interesting thing is that the approach used by President Bush has remained constant in maintaining no regular diplomatic missions to either country, even after his failure in the other two countries. If he tried, maybe he'd get past the circumstantial evidence that sent us into Iraq in the first place with the claims that they had "WMDs" (damn, I hate that acronym). Who cares if Iran has nuclear power?! So does France! So does Britain! So does - MOST IMPORTANTLY - China! Who poses a greater threat: Iran or China? Iran wouldn't be so stupid as to touch the United States with a nuclear weapon, even if it had one. If it's terrorists we're worried about, we should be attacking Russia because they have twice as many nuclear warheads as us and a lot less money to launch them, making them a prime piece of expendable and expensive property for sale.

I ask myself how a country that was founded by philosophers, linguists, diplomats, and military geniuses has come to elect and allow such an administration and its actions. There is a very simple reason for this and it is the careless attitudes of Americans with regards to everyone else in the world. I would surmise that the situation at hand would not be so if it were only the two coasts voting for president - where the largest number of educated, relatively cultured citizens live. Therefore, we elected a leader who was "one of us", who could talk to us (not very clearly) with un-bombastic speech, who came from the South and was a good Christian. Let's not forget that he also went to Yale and Harvard and became a cowboy only afterward. We can compare him to his predecessor: highly educated, well-spoken, and intelligent. I don't want to beat a dead horse with criticizing President Bush's persona, rather, considering he has not done a single significant thing for the American people while in office as most of his term has been concerned with fighting international enemies, one would think he would have a bit more diplomatic panache. If he was the people's president, concerned with helping farmers, small business in the country, and improving education, among other things, his diplomatic incompetence could be disregarded. The fact that he decided to take on the world required him to develop an understanding of world politics which he clearly did not have prior to taking office.

What has undoubtedly degraded the situation is that he surrounded himself by people who were definitely more intelligent than he was but no more open to communication. Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Wolfowitz, and Mr. Bolton are all experienced in the world of politics but none of them used that knowledge to formulate a policy to "spread democracy" in any orderly fashion. When democratic movements were fomented in Eastern Europe, they took hold because the people realized the benefits of democracy by observing, as best they could, the functioning institutions of Western Europe and the United States. No bombs were dropped, no dictators were deposed. No one can argue that the might of the Soviet Union was in any way less than that of Iraq or Afghanistan. Perhaps, even, dare I suggest, that the people were content enough with their lives that they saw no need to protest or revolt.

In Afghanistan, there has never been a democracy or anything that resembles one. The people are joined by tribes, they have tribal leaders and they have warlords. Iraq, on the other hand, is an artificial country created by Great Britain. It never existed prior to British mandate as a collective whole and, in the infinite stupidity of the English leaders, just as they have created a war-torn and divided Africa, they created a country with three warring groups of people as they saw fit. If America was concerned with Saddam's treatment of the Kurds, it would have funded their separatist movement and allowed the Kurds to secede. Although, if one is at all familiar with the politic of the region, they would know that that is an impossibility since such an action would spark the ire of neighboring Turkey, whose own Kurds have waged a civil war since the 1980s. America's relationship with Turkey has not allowed any obvious support for the Kurds but it is now clear that America does not mind that the Kurdish region of Iraq is nearly non-problematic and operates, in essence, as an autonomous republic.

My suggestion is that the American government utilize their position in world politics to install dialogue with these "rogue" states. They are rogues because they are neglected and if you have ever dealt with a person that believes he or she is neglected, you know that belligerence rarely puts you in their favor. Compassion is not necessary but understanding is. For example, in another era, we decided to embrace Egypt as an ally and have since not had to worry about them attacking us or, our other ally and strategic partner, Israel. This was a country hell-bent on destroying Israel but now it floats in the sphere of insignificance concerning issues in the Middle East.

Dialogue and communication used to be a staple of international affairs and it still is in most parts of the world. America should proceed with caution as it continues its journey as the world's sole superpower. In the end, many of America's actions in different parts of the world are creating more enemies than friends and these enemies are much smaller and more nimble than whole countries are. America should realize that the reason they exist is because they have a reason to exist and if that reason is eliminated, there will be nothing left to fight America or Americans for. Our enemies are ultimately people and they are the supporters and the leaders. When the leaders' messages are not supported by the people, there is no one left to carry the cause. Cutting off the head does not solve the problem any longer; you have to cut off the body - not with the rancor of a chainsaw but with the delicacy of a scalpel.

The American People Have Lost Their Minds

2006-10-21T12:58:00.000-07:00

When I was in high school, I remember sitting in my world history class and discussing the current situation in Kosovo: that President Clinton had ordered NATO air strikes on strategic positions of the Serbian Army in order to prevent a genocidal campaign against the Muslim Kosovars of that region. Of course, the prominent issue at the time was the "scandal at the White House" and the discussion in class degenerated into a debate about the validity of the impeachment proceedings against the President. If you do not remember, this was because he had lied under oath that he had had "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky, an intern in the White House. The uproar that followed disregarded one important question: Why was Clinton prompted to lie under oath about his faux pas? He was in the process of preventing a genocide in Europe while a cigar and a stained blue dress became the center of his world. Nevermind that he'd done next to nothing while 800,000 Rwandans vanished from this earth at the hands of their fellow countrymen. The impeachment was the perfect stage to denounce a liberal president who had weak moral philosophies and who looked at his tenure as a chance to solidify American commitment to multi-lateral decision-making. Republicans exploited the situation within their constituencies to reinforce their idea that America shall answer to no one and will not succumb to the "lax" morality of other Western democracies; the American public ate it up. Not only was President Clinton impeached, his successor was Mr. George W. Bush, a born-again Christian convinced that God will show him the way and that America will re-establish itself as a force in the world to be reckoned with (although, I'm not sure when it stopped being one).

Today, President Bush has sent hundreds of thousands of young Americans into two nations to prevent them from attacking us once again (likewise, I'm not sure when they attacked us the first time around). We've created a civil war in one and done next to nothing in the other. Our media is encouraged by the administration to refrain from providing our enemies with ammunition by questioning the actions of the government. Hmm, where have I heard that before? Our own military leaders have publicly announced that certain officials are no longer conscious of the situation that they are delegating and that a new plan is needed. Finally, I remember clearly discussing whether or not we should enter Iraq with a rather hard-line conservative friend of mine. Her reasoning, taken verbatim from President Bush's rallies for war, was that we cannot risk "weapons of mass destruction" being present in Iraq. I'm quite sure when I say that that has proven to be a lie while under oath by the President. Where are the American people calling for the impeachment of the President? We've either settled once again into our banal apathetic state or we just don't give a damn that we have destroyed a country and allowed our elected leaders to lie to us as long as they don't use our precious White House for adulterous sex.

You know what though? We're a representative democracy and our system should function as such and our Congressmen and women should reflect that. Except, I used to think we had a two-party system. When the Democrats were afraid to question the administration for their own personal preservation, it exposed the cowardice that the Republicans had claimed all along. It would be difficult to construe a forceful response to any adverse event that might take place in the United States with people in power who would forsake their principles in favor of another term in office. Perhaps this stems from the capricious nature of the American public which has no principles itself. Its limited foresight and thought about what consequences the future might hold for the actions taken today has relegated most of their representatives to equally fickle stances or a sealed-lip policy in order to not step on anyone's toes until the tide has passed. The American population has so rarely had to deal with repercussions that affect it that it has become complacent with its leaders' decisions until they realize the original plan is not working and it is time to abort. It is much like a rich kid who does what he or she pleases with little thought as to the negative effect of what they're doing because they have learned that there are few who can reprimand them: how often do these kids go to prison for drug possession compared to their fellow citizens who come from poor areas? Lawyers are expensive.

My solution to all this is that every American student, before they graduate high school, be required to go to school somewhere other than their home district. In a decrepit neighborhood, in a rich neighborhood, in a foreign country, in another state. Open spaces have perpetuated an American public oblivious of their surroundings because they are not surrounded by anything. The only way to prevent the ineptitude that allows for uninformed and misinformed decisions made in our lives is to have a better understanding of the viewpoints of those who we do not understand and those we would not otherwise know about. For, in the end, the decisions made in our Republic's headquarters are guided by the wishes of its populace. We must know what we are getting ourselves into.

Muslim Fury Is Helping Europe

2006-10-16T20:18:00.000-07:00

Europeans have finally done it; they have alienated the Muslim citizens of their respective countries. All these years since World War II and the great infusion of Muslim workers and former colonial subjects from North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, and Turkey has not taught the French, Germans, Scandinavians, and especially not those outspoken Greeks and Spanish one iota of respect and tolerance for the people who subscribe to this religion that preaches peace. On the contrary, they seem to have been making a point of drawing out the ire of the followers of Islam. Rather than accept these people who have come from some of the most progressive countries to teach these Europeans a thing or two about modern times, all the latter has succeeded in is pissing the Muslims off! Do you not understand, Mr. and Miss Eurotrash? These benevolent Muslims have bestowed upon you the rare opportunity to participate in their inclusive social system and learn about the virtues of rational thought and religious freedom. If you're going to bring up the issue of the veil or buurqa, I urge you to ask any Muslim man and he will tell you that a woman has the right to choose whether or not to wear these articles of clothing. In fact, it is such a popular symbol of womanhood in Muslim culture that not one woman has ever been recorded as having said they do not want to wear a buurqa or veil! The European women, who - as one would expect - are all whores, never seem to heed the well-wishing offers of the Muslim youth to take them into their homes so that others will not see the unholy way they carry themselves; the young men's affectionate and soothing touch does not deter the whores. Therefore, these youth have had to employ a most ancient ceremony that allows them to remain in Allah's good graces after conversing with the godforsaken European woman: the young men spit on the whores. Allah would be proud.

It is of the utmost importance for a Muslim to protect the sanctity of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him). The European Christians who do not understand this have forced Muslims to burn these peoples' cars and government buildings in order to show them what the wrath of Allah will resemble if they are to continue down this dark path. Then, they insist we are being violent without offering any equally effective method of making them understand. Despite all this, since the Muslims who were already in Europe had not succeeded in making the Europeans see the light, it was necessary to show them what happens when the views of all Muslims, world-wide, were not shared. Hence, as Allah wished, these supposed "innocent" people were sent to Hell by way of some conveniently placed explosives in Madrid and London. It is better that those children who died did not grow up into the cesspool that is Europe to inevitably continue the wicked European ways.

If these Christians in Europe would just listen to the Muslims, they would be on their way to Paradise as Muslims are. The bank loans with interest and the free speech and the free thought and the liberalism are all examples of why Europe has not progressed since the Enlightenment - the Prophet did not condone these things, there is no basis for them to do so. Meanwhile, Muslim countries now provide choices for young children that no European school or institution can claim. If the children are so inclined - children meaning boys - they have the choice to study the true Muslim religion and they will learn what the Prophet Muhammad taught and what Allah wants for their future: if they so choose, they may carry out His wish and blow themselves up to advance the cause of educating the world.

Then there is the Pope - the leader of all Christians - who feels that verbally attacking the Prophet is somehow justified. At the very least, when Muslim Imams curse the Westerners and call for death to them all, they have good reason - if they were wrong, why have Europeans not protested and not partaken in ritualistic flag-burning demonstrations that are a tried and true indication of displeasure? It does not promote good faith among the two religions if the Pope is so careless in his rhetoric.

In the end, we can finally see that the efforts of Muslims in Europe and worldwide have taught the European Christians to not express themselves in ways that are not appropriate for their obviously enlightened Muslim neighbors. Would the opera production in Germany be cancelled otherwise? Muslims will ultimately prove that the ways of Islam will trump those who brashly undermine it for idiotic concepts such as equality and freedom of religion. The Europeans have proven the Muslims' point and, at this point, there seems to be no valid reason to cease the cleansing of the continent and the ideals that have made it into a bastion for irrelevant ideologies that no one but few non-Muslims ascribe to. It is promising to see a light at the end of the tunnel for all the sacrifices of Muslims everywhere.

Does Nothing Transcend Free Speech?

2006-10-12T17:35:00.000-07:00

The lower house of France's parliament has decided to pass a bill stipulating that anyone in France who denies the occurrence of the Armenian Genocide of 1915 will face punishment in the form of fines and prison time. Most news stories when this development took place were quick to claim the negative fallout it would have for France in terms of trade and relations with Turkey and for the European Union and its standing within Turkish society and government. Those who bothered to even consider the underlying issue that was the foundation for this bill criticized it as an attack on free speech or questioned whether the events that began in 1915 were really Genocide.

In reference to the classification of the events as genocide, I will simply refer to the father of the term "genocide", Rafael Lemkin, whose primary inspiration to coin a term to signify this horrid act of extermination was in fact what he learned about the Armenian Genocide through the trial of Soghomon Tehlirian who was arrested and subsequently released for the murder of Talaat Pasha, one of three orchestrators of the extermination. He asked himself why Mr. Tehlirian was standing trial for the murder of a man who had planned to exterminate a whole race a few years prior. Following the inexplicable events of the Holocaust - during which he lost a sizeable number of his family members - he campaigned for a term to describe such events and, likewise, prevent 'genocide' from ever taking place again.

I.

To continue, I would first like to address the assumption that a multitude of negative ramifications will befall France and Europe if this bill indeed becomes now, if not earlier. First, there has been similar rhetoric, not least from the Turkish government, aimed at any government or entity that so much as suggests a propensity to refer to the events of 1915 as genocide. When France first adopted a measure officially recognizing the Armenian Genocide, the same threats came from Turkey that trade will suffer and so will relations between the two countries. As promised, there were French enterprises who were restricted in their business and who did indeed suffer from the fury of the Turkish officials - for a while. Of course, making sense of their rash decision to attempt a severance of ties with the second largest economy on mainland Europe and one of the largest in the world, the Turks soon rescinded, ever so quietly, their decision, in essence, "to make France pay".

It is a curious phenomenon to me that it is portrayed in the media and by the Turks that they have the upper hand in the relationship. Let us not forget who is courting who. It is not France that needs Turkey - however much cheap labor and land it may provide French enterprises to do business. If this was France's sole objective they have the whole rest of the developing world to look to and there is no shortage of people who would happily uproot their lives for a chance to live under France's generous social welfare system, as many Turks themselves have. We have recently seen the result of not heeding the demands and wishes of a powerful country in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Chechnya. Turkey's association with the United States, irrespective of the political importance it holds, does not grant access to the relative free mobility America has in its dealings with the rest of the world. Although the French are often associated with a 'holier than thou', arrogant attitude toward their peers, it seems that the Turks have assumed that position during this confrontation while neglecting the reality that France's pretension was earned, despite its shortcomings, by contributions to the Western society it is so desperate to be a part of.

II.

Secondly, I would like to examine the general response to the passing of the bill and the seeming consensus that it is an unwarranted limitation of free speech. The irony here would be a good primer before delving in further. In the past year, there has been a concerted effort on the part of right-wing Turkish nationalists - with little or no apparent opposition - to severely limit the free speech of Turkish citizens, in regards to any Armenian or Kurdish historical questions that may be brought forth, by invoking Article 301 of their Criminal Code. This information is not presented to neutralize any commentary of the French or European oppositionists but to put Turkish accusations of the bill's "limiting of free speech" in a proper perspective. I believe that Turkish citizens are seriously concerned with the right to expression: it is disheartening to see that their only opportunities to exercise free speech manifest themselves exclusively in attacking or responding all things save for their own history and political situation.

As for all others concerned with the impact this bill will have on free speech, it is important to note that the punishment that is outlined for those who violate the provisions of the bill are not new and are, in fact, identical to those imposed on whomever might be inclined to deny the Holocaust. The French Republic recognizes, officially, both the Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust. Considering the law prohibiting denial of the latter, it does not seem logically unreasonable to have a similar - and, in this case, identical - restriction on any potentially malicious and hurtful speech one might enunciate. Human emotion is being marginalized when the effect of "free speech" on those who are personally connected with a trauma are disregarded. The idea of freedom in Western society undoubtedly reinforces the liberty to act in a manner that is becoming of each individual or group according to their own principles but, also, and always, in conjunction with a limitation on that manner which prevents its infringement on the peace - whether mental, physical, or emotional - of others. Hence, just as the vandalism of the Armenian Genocide Memorial in Lyon, France was clearly a criminal act deserving punishment, the vandalism of memories and history of this horrific event should likewise be punishable as a criminal act.

Finally, I believe the contention that the Armenian Genocide is not equatable to another genocidal manifestation in history is one of the more deplorable commentaries that has gained prominence in the wake of this bill. I am particularly keen on being redundant ad nauseam insofar as the emotional well-being of survivors, descendants, and sympathizers is prevented from being trampled upon by the ineptitude of those solely concerned with finding an audience for their provocations: no genocide is worse than another and no death is more painful than another. The repercussions that a persecuted people must deal with - assuming they survive - is not quantifiable and, therefore, no measure of the worth of their suffering should be applied. Each genocide is unique and, although all genocide survivors and their heirs may find solace in the morbid commonality of their experience, their personal haunting will forever remain exclusive to them. In a compassionate gesture of human decency, we should refrain from insulting this little bit of their lives by letting the discussion degenerate into one of statistical relevance.

-End-

My sincere congratulations to Orhan Pamuk - a courageous Turk whose literary and political achievements have earned him the Nobel Prize in Literature.

Education - Part I: The Rant

2006-10-08T19:16:00.000-07:00

Kids HATE school! Why? How often is a child excited to go to school because they are going to learn something? I would say that initially, when the child begins school in kindergarten or first grade, they may be happy once they become acquainted with their surroundings but within a few years, the only thing they are looking forward to when they're at school is recess and lunch. A teacher of mine told me years ago that our current school system is based on that which was developed during the Industrial Revolution in order to ingrain the factory-worker mentality into the child so it is ready to get on the production line when school is over with (e.g. the bell that rings to let the kids know they can go would be the bell that rang in factories that let workers know it's time for lunch; the method of teaching by way of lecture and nearly no discussion, encouraging complacent behavior was to prevent any rabble rousers in the factory who would disagree with the foreman).

In my day, I went through the typical anti-school behavior but conversely realized that I really liked to learn and I did not appreciate what the school, the school district, the parents, and the government was NOT doing in order to encourage me to learn. What was atypical was not that I wasn't enjoying school because I didn't see any reason for me to be there but because I wanted to be there but no one was willing to understand or listen to what I thought would make school a better place. Teachers and administrators expected all students 1. to be in class on time, 2. to not talk, 3. to not leave class to go to the bathroom, 4. to do homework.

1. How does an adolescent wake up at 7 o'clock in the morning to get to class on time when they went to sleep way past midnight? Scientific research has repeatedly proven that the adolescent body is going through such massive hormonal changes that it causes erratic sleeping behavior. Hell, they teach it in your Adolescence Skills and Biology classes! The ones that you're late to because of the things that they are teaching.

2. Of all the rules in school, this one is really curious to me. I understand the chaos that would befall classrooms if students were allowed to freely talk - this can be easily observed in a classroom with a new subsitute teacher - but most of my teachers outright banned any talking, whispering, or noise from the students. We, as humans, blessed with the power of speech, are disallowed to freely express ourselves from grades 1 to 12. Then, when we get to college, they offer Speech 101 where those who do not feel comfortable speaking in front of others can practice this fine art. When people get to the working world, they are expected to have superior communication skills which usually have to be taught in institutes of higher education because our natural inclination to express ourselves through speech was surpressed for most of our young lives. A child who is in primary school who talks when the teacher isn't keen on it will have to go stand in the corner as punishment! This is not to teach the child respectful speech because he/she cursed. Rather, it is punishing the child for talking. I, personally, decided in high school, that I would no longer pay heed to this rule and freely expressed myself whenever I felt was necessary. I was reprimanded numerous times and this behavior even caused me to fail a semester of Spanish. Likewise, I nearly failed my last English class before graduating. And? Was this an accurate representation of my capacity to learn these subjects or my actual knowledge of what they were teaching? Not quite. In college, I became an English tutor immediately after my first semester at the behest of my college English professor. As far as languages go, I went on to become a fluent speaker of French.

3. Can prostate cancer and colon cancer develop at an early age? I don't know. I hope not. I've never quite understood the reasoning behind having a pupil ask for permission to go the bathroom. Since when does my teacher and not my body control my bowel movements? "You should have gone before you came to school/during recess/during lunch". Yes, sir, I should have gone to the bathroom and gone into a stall to do what I need to and put up with the taunts and pranks of all the malicious children who happened to enter the bathroom at the time just so I wouldn't have to ask you while I'm in class. Or, perhaps, my bladder didn't tell me 40 minutes ago that I would have to go take a piss while I'm in class and it's just deciding to let me know now - should I have pre-empted my brain and forced myself to urinate while giving myself a hernia at the age of 11 so I wouldn't have to ask you to go to the restroom during class? As far as I am concerned, a student should be able to go to the bathroom whenever they see fit. If the school believes there is a reason to have someone monitor the bathroom because of smoking and drugs (which I know are there), they can assign someone to walk around the bathrooms ... maybe the priniciple.

4. I just spent 7-odd hours at school and I get home and I have homework for every one of my classes. Or, just enough to last me until bedtime. Is the child learning or are they repeating and memorizing and regurgitating? I would argue that it is the latter three. Most of the "smart" or top students at my school couldn't tell you when World War I happened two days after having aced the test on it. Why? Either because they cheated or because they had completely memorized what they needed to know in their temporary memory mechanism and quickly discarded it shortly after there was no use for it. If the time at school was spent wisely, in a way that engaged the children in the learning process, they would not need to do much homework to grasp the concepts. Now, they are sent home to do homework on a subject they probably have no idea about. "If you do your homework, you'll get at least a C". Great, so if I just make sure I look like I care about your class, you'll make sure I don't have to take it again because this is no more enjoyable for you than it is for me. The test is already going to ... test what I know about the subject, can't we spend more time making sure everyone understands? Of course not. There is a curriculum that a teacher must follow because it is well known that all people learn at a different pace and in different ways. If everyone was accomodated according to their particular learning pace and style, no one would learn anything! So, we will teach what we are supposed to. Those who understand: bravo! Those who don't, seek outside help or fail: it is of no consequence to us.

Accordingly, America has one of the worst primary education systems in the world among developed countries. One reason is the incredible disregard of the importance of good teachers. I come from a family of educators (and no joke: both grandfathers, one grandmother, father, mother, two aunts, among others) and I've always thought that I could spot a good teacher. My father wasn't always so sure but I've maintained that I could. One discerning characteristic that a good teacher possesses is showing care for their pupil. If you are authoritative, expect a revolution. In the early stages, a child will revolt because you are surpressing his/her natural instincts to run, play, and talk. In adolescence, a student will revolt because he/she sees no reason to listen to you in the first place. What's going to work better? Sending the student outside or to the office and embarassing him/her in front of classmates or speaking to the student after class and asking them if something is bothering them? I will tell you that the latter will work better almost exclusively.

We teach children at a young age that it is prestigious to become a lawyer, doctor, or engineer. When most children reach none of those levels, we tell them that teaching is a noble profession. Still, many who decided to pursue higher education at the better institutes of higher learning rarely have primary education as their final objective. They would much rather pursue these other fields first or perhaps a teaching position in a college/university rather than hastily decide to take up an elementary school classroom. How often does one hear of a teacher that graduated from Princeton, Yale, or Harvard? At least, at a public school. Most teachers (in California) come from the public state university system and have exhausted other professional opportunities after having likely failed at them. This is not true for all educators but there are those who fall into this category as I can tell you from personal acquaintances I've had who followed this route. In fact, garbage collectors (as important as their jobs are and as appreciative I am of the work that they do) get paid more than school teachers.

These are a very small number of problems that I see in our school system and I will likely expand on my thoughts here in the near future. Also, yes, this was indeed more of a rant rather than a formal organization of my thoughts as I felt this would be a creative precursor to a more developed discussion.

The Beginning

2006-10-08T18:55:00.000-07:00

I've created this blog as a means for me to express my views concerning various issues that are of interest to me and that I believe are less than prominently present in the media.

Although I would be hard pressed to believe that there is a large audience for the intricacies of one's daily life, I will likely post random personal thoughts and experiences which I would like to be shared with those who might come across this part of cyberspace.

My primary interests lie in all spheres of politics and philosophy. Despite my love for education and intellectual thought and discussion, I do not respect conscious and unsolicited condescending language or mannerisms (although those who wish to express themselves in such a way are welcome to do so as I am not one to impede on another's ability to say what they want) . Similarly, those who content themselves by shutting out everything besides what concerns them touch a nerve with me.

Sociology and psychology are also very interesting to me. Why people do what they do and how their surroundings affect their development and their lives. I hope to write and get some feedback on some topics in the near future.

Finally, the sciences and, especially, physics, are of great interest to me. It is a subject area that I have not studied in depth but the discussions that it has propogated with friends has caused a great desire in me for further exploration.