Globally Rational

In case you haven’t heard yet, Obama officially announced yesterday that Joe Biden will be his running mate.  I don’t think anybody will deny the fact that Biden’s “experience” played a major role in the decision… Obama has been criticized for lack thereof, so he needed a running mate who has been in Washington for a long time (although, as I’ve mentioned before, I don’t think that a bunch of experience in the Senate or as a low-level military officer is as important as Obama’s experience and training as a law expert).  But if we read a little bit deeper into the selection, what can we learn about Obama himself?

He could have picked a wide variety of yes-men as his VP candidate.  He could have taken this opportunity to call a truce with the Hillary mob.  But he wanted to stick with his convictions, and Hillary was an expert in the kind of politics that Obama had been deriding.  He wanted to show that he will run an administration of logic and reason rather than political maneuvering.  Biden has a history of challenging the norm and making a positive contribution to a discourse; Obama wants somebody who will prove him wrong when need be.

Now it’s time to see which of the cookie-cutter candidates McCain picks.

Popularity: 44% [?]

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Recently, a Chinese blogger visited Beijing to write about the Olympics. He ended up getting a visit from the local authorities, who aren’t exactly big fans of free press (China is ranked 163rd out of 169 countries on the worldwide Press Freedom Index). They escorted him out of the city and took him back to his hometown; meanwhile, another group of officials harassed his parents back home. To anybody who knows anything about China’s human rights record, this doesn’t really seem unusual.

So what’s the big deal? Well, I’d say that it’s the fact that we actually know about this specific incident. The blogger managed to use his Blackberry to post Twitter updates while he was being detained, so his readers (and others who became interested during the process) always knew exactly what was going on. Usually, when something happens in China, nobody knows about it… but this guy managed to use the blogosphere to get his story out to the masses. This doesn’t tell us much that we didn’t already know about China… but it does give us an insight into the real potential of the blogosphere.

Blogging has the power to become an art form, but only if we can weed out the people who don’t know how to write and have nothing to write about. If we can somehow get rid of the people who are only blogging for the purpose of generating ad revenue, we will be left with a very useful source of original writing. We have already seen the ability of top bloggers to influence the public… maybe we’re not too far from the day when quality online writing becomes a significant measure of public opinion and a novel source of original policy ideas.

Popularity: 48% [?]

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Following is the second guest post by Zartost.  He gives us an occasional dose of philosophy among our random worldly ocncerns.

This is the first draft of my first attempt at poetry. I am just bored w/ the mundane discussion of worldly matters … so despite my obvious weakness in my command of English language, I tried to write something different. Comment on what you think. I’ll clean up language a bit when I get more time … but for now I am more interested in what you think

---

On my path, I saw a hare,
an eagle pecking the carcass bare,
I couldn’t but wonder, is it fair?
In the heavens, where justice prevails
will the raptor be tried, for this crime?
or is it truth, in nude,
- that I move afar, in amnesia?
But I heard the hare thus wail:

But I am a hare, of nothing I care
If only I were alive, when the dusk arrives
Amid the grass I run, but in the shade I hide
Across the field I hop, but with fear masked
Careless I be, only death awaits me
Careful I am, for the vicious sees me
Freedom I wish, but fear surrounds me
Peace I seek, but peas are all I find

But I am a hare, of nothing I care
Hear O’world, of nothing I care
I have no burrow, I live in no hole
My fur is no velvet, I live in no flamboyance
Simple I maybe, but swift I am
Shy I maybe, but a prey I wish not be
Contented I seem, but in horror I live
“Die you must,” dictates the holy nature

An eagle she is, the angels spoke
A regal bird, with grandeur unmatched
her head never droops, nor does she err
With beauty and power, a divine blend
With pride and honor, she stands high
With wide wings, she fly amid the clouds
Speak O’Hare, what sin stains her heart?
Why must we punish this wonder on earth?

I dodge, I run, but a mistake, she seize
ruthless, her claws pierce till my bone,
I shudder, as my blood ooze,
With each peck, my life wanes,
In pain, in despair, I look up to thee,
Of no avail, I hear you angels laugh
What have I done, that I deserve this?
Larceny of life, I will never forgive

“Enough,” the king of birds rebuked
Appaled am I, with your silly pule
Who will feed me, if I don’t hawk?
My children lay bare, on the ariel nest
If you don’t die, they will, for sure
Should not a mother protect her babe?
I may seem majestic, but a bird I am
And like you, survive I must

Remember O’Hare, Mors is never late
Why do you cling to this banal life?
Cursed I am for I cannot laugh
Cruel I may seem, but heartless, I am not
Your death I mourn, your pain I regret
But slay I must, a duty of mine
Kill I must, so my children are alive
What wrong have I done, for this arraignment?

On the wonderous earth, life is abound
Many hares and Many eagles
Some are alive, Others are dead
But the beauty of earth vanish never
Only the angels laugh forever,
What is this justice, that you cry about?
I play a role in some divine play
How am I cruel? How have I sinned?

The Hare again –
But I am a hare, of nothing I care
If only I were alive, when the dusk arrives
For all I have, let me not die
But if you lives, I may die
The wise speak of a God, does he not see me cry?
Cruel he must be, for in despair he made me
Is there justice, in that I die?
Is there love, in this world?

But I am a hare, of nothing I care
Animate and free, I yearn to be
Frightened and sulky, I hate to be
Perhaps of hunger, perhaps as a prey
But in the end, I know, I must die
If only I were alive, when the dusk arrives
O’ but I am a hare, of nothing I care!
Where is justice in that I die?

As I walked away, I couldn’t but wonder:
is this justice? is this fair?
that a hare must die for an eagle survive?
is this the love, that you say, nature give?
is life not ours for us to live?
will pain or hunger, ever leave?
do you God, still hear me, lament?
Is nature, dead, like a stone?

---

Popularity: 47% [?]

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Recently, Russian forces intervened to help control the violence in neighboring Georgia, much to the anger of the international community.  The US and the EU have condemned Russia’s “invasion” of a sovereign nation, saying that Georgia should be allowed to handle its own problems in its own way.  Apparently, international intervention is no longer acceptable.

Am I the only person who sees the hypocrisy here?  In the last few years, the US has had military presences in Yugoslavia (and later Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia/Kosovo), West Germany, South Korea, Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Turkey, Somalia, and Nicaragua, and those are just the places with a high enough profile so that I can name them off the top of my head.  All of those nations were sovereign when the US entered, and plenty of them (Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Japan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Nicaragua) were initially hostile to the American presence.  I’m not saying that we were wrong to enter any of those conflicts (except maybe Iraq), but why is it that it’s unacceptable for Russia to send peacekeeping forces into neighboring territories when we do it on a regular basis?

Sure, I understand that this is a case where Russia is siding with an independence movement that is fighting against an internationally recognized government.  But isn’t that what we did when we helped “liberate” Kosovo from Serbia?  We were siding with a movement that the Serbian government considered a terrorist organization.  I still think that we were right to help the Kosovar people… but in order to do it, we had to invade Serbia’s internationally-recognized borders.  Why is it that Russia can’t cross Georgian borders in an attempt to help the Abkhazian independence movement?

The UN has always promoted self-determination for war-torn regions like the former Yugoslavia.  That’s why Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, Albania, Serbia, and Kosovo are now independent of one another, like they always should have been.  Because of the independence, ethnic violence has declined substantially in that area.  So why can’t we apply the same sort of principle to areas like Georgia?  What about Palestine and Kashmir?  What about Rwanda and Eritrea?  Why is it that they don’t deserve the same sort of self-determination that we gave to Kosovo?

The US had a vested interest in the downfall of Yugoslavia… in that conflict, the last remnants of Soviet Communist influence in Europe were crushed.  If we gave the Azkhabians the right to democratically choose their own fate, however, we would actually be siding with Russia.  We’d piss off Israel if we started a self-determination ballot in Palestine and we’d piss of India if we did the same thing in Kashmir.  And the people in Rwanda and Eritrea are too poor and black to warrant any concern.

The sad part is that we didn’t even hear much about this conflict until the Russians got involved.  We didn’t hear about Rwanda and Eritrea until after the fact.  And when I did hear about it in the news, I heard the politicians’ response before I heard the actual facts.

Popularity: 54% [?]

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I don’t think I’m the first one to notice that we tend to group people in a way that makes us believe that they’re “all the same”.  Most Americans, for instance, think that India is one large country with one huge, homogeneous population… in fact, India is about as culturally diverse as Europe.  Similarly, I’ve noticed plenty of white Americans who expect all black people to be criminals and all Muslims to be terrorists.  On the other hand, people rarely make such generalizations about their own ethnic group.

Why is this?  Well, psychologists call it “outgroup homogeneity.”  People tend to believe that their own group is more varied than other groups; interestingly enough, this effect is unrelated to whether or not a person knows a lot of people from different groups.  It even exists between groups that interact with each other frequently, like men and women.  We go as far as to manifest the effect in our fiction… for example, it seems that alien planets are always culturally uniform.

Many Americans think that all Arabs are aggressive militants.  Many Arabs think that all Americans are aggressive militants.  Israelis think that all Palestinians are aggressors; Palestinians think that all Israelis are aggressors.  If we could find a way to defeat this outgroup homogeneity, couldn’t we eliminate many of our cross-cultural problems?

Popularity: 57% [?]

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I’ve been writing every day for a few months now (with the exception of the last couple of days) and I am starting to wonder… does anybody actually take it seriously?  I’ve noticed that, in a lot of cases, cognitive dissonance sets in and people seem to automatically associate the facts with their predetermined opinions.  Sure, I’m sure that plenty of people consider what I write… but am I really englightening anybody and helping them mold their opinion?  Or am I just feeding back what you already know?

After five months and 120 posts, I thought it would be appropriate to ask my readers… what exactly is it about this blog that makes you want to come back?  I’d like to start focusing on my best work instead of occasionally reiterating something that you already believe.

Should I keep writing about politics?  Should I write more about science?  Should I stick with analyzing facts?  Should I include more opinions?  Do you like it when I’m passionate or when I’m neutral?  Am I better when I create novel opinions or when I just talk about my viewpoint on a commonly-held opinion?

Thanks in advance for your feedback…

Popularity: 57% [?]

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

There were two firebombings today at the University of California-Santa Cruz.  Many people have dubbed this a terrorist attack.  So who could be at fault?  Al-Qaeda again?  Or are Hamas or Hezbollah infiltrating US soil?  Maybe we should just blame Islam in general…

Or wait… it turns out that the bombings were the work of a crazy animal rights activist (or maybe a group of them).  I guess that means that we should start subjecting PETA members to special security.  Pet stores should probably start running background checks.  This isn’t the first time that an animal rights activist has attempted vigilante justice… so should we treat all of them the same way that we treat all Muslims?

Let me clarify the fact that I like being subjected to extra security at airports and immigration offices.  I realize that I’m a young Muslim male, which means that I am part of a high-risk group.  If that increased security might prevent a terrorist attack, then I’m happy to be subjected to it.  But maybe we should consider giving the same sort of consideration to PETA members, people with psychological problems, and people with a criminal record.  Sure, it sounds like an infringement on rights… but as long as we’re subjecting high-risk groups to special security, why discriminate against specific high-risk groups?

Popularity: 61% [?]

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I came across an interesting article today; you should check it out before you read this post.

People often tell me that Muslims deserve the treatment they get because we tend to produce more extremists than other religions. Let’s disregard all other factors (for example, the fact that Christian extremists have been common in the past, just not today) and take a look at one of the many incidences where a Jewish rabbi calls for extremist action. I don’t have a problem with every Israeli just because a few of them call for atrocities… so why do people have a problem with all Arabs just because a few of them do the same?

Islam does not promote the murder of innocent civilians. I think it’s the Middle East environment that leads to the development of violent ideals at times. You hear about Muslims “terrorists” more often than their Jewish counterparts because the world’s Muslim population is 100 times the world’s Jewish population. Just think about the watershed events in the history of the Holy Land:

I’m sure I’ll get plenty of unrelated comments… keep in mind that this is not a post about Israel and Palestine; my only purpose is to establish that Islam isn’t the only philosophical system that occasionally (in very rare cases) breeds extremism.

Popularity: 63% [?]

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

It seems to me that the entire idea of a “war on terror” is fundamentally flawed.  Typically, a war is waged between two specific entities; terror, on the other hand, is an entire concept.  You can’t fight an ideal by sending guns and launching bombs.  You can’t fight an ideal by killing civilians and occupying territory.  You can only fight such an ideal by building schools and helping the public… but, unfortunately, that doesn’t give us instant results.

So far, we’ve been trying to beat “the terrorists” into submission.  The problem is that “terrorists” is far too vague of a term.  How do you find a terrorist camp?  How do you distinguish a terrorist from an average civilian?  You can fight a war against Al-Qaeda, you can fight a war against the Nazis, and you can fight a war against Slobodan Milosevic… but how can you fight a war against an abstraction?

Every time we kill an innocent person, that person’s family members are that much more likely to become “terrorists”.  Even when we kill a not-so-innocent person, we still fuel the hatred that we’re trying so hard to ignore.  In the months (or years) it takes for us to invade a country, our enemies manage to flee to a completely different place.  Now if we go into the Pakistani tribal areas, we’ll just see another Iraq… we’ll find ourselves engaged in a bloody war with many civilian casualties and the extremists will escape in the time that it takes for us to clean up our own mess.

Then who will we bomb next?  How far do we have to go before we realize that we’re following the same shoot-first-fix-later approach that led to the downfall of Rome and Britain?

Popularity: 65% [?]

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!