CNN is a bunch of posers.

I saw a news nugget on CNN the other day (Maybe Tuesday/Wednesday, I don't remember) in which they alluded to the fact that a "wave of democracy" (my words) seemed to be sweeping through many countries recently. They had a few people come on and these people were asked how much President Bush and recent American foreign policy had to do with these new developments. So the talking heads gave their opinion (unfortunately not the band, that'd be much more interesting) oh whether or not President Bush's recent decisions had to do with all these new movements of self direction. And of course one person said it had nothing to do with the President, and one said it had everything to do with the President. And at the present time, I really couldn't care. Yeah, it'll be great to look back on it in ten years time to see whether the President was proved right by his decisions, but at the current time, all of the movements seem tenuous at best. Like they could crumble with one charismatic leader who wants ten of his own palaces. So how about we throw more effort at supporting these fledgling democracies and worry about giving credit to whomever in ten years time. I understand how it's important now for the future of how American decisions are made, but do you think the current Administration will change either way? So whatever, I'm just watching too much CNN.

No Child Left Behind, so slower for everyone

I've been thinking a lot about education lately, for whatever reason. I recently stumbled upon an interesting discussion at Plastic.com about the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). So if making standardized tests, which pretty much by default seem to be dumbed down to multiple guess questions to make it "fair to everyone," is the way to go, we seem to have problems. Surely there is a way to protect students and make sure that they are learning what they need to know to grow and achieve a higher level of education without mandating it by the government which simply seems to lower expectations of what the students can do. And allowing teachers more options as to how they teach the material, and to a large extent, what they teach. What use is an art class, or a music class, or for that matter an ancient history class? Not much if you're simply preparing the students to get a job after they finish high school and go on to a college that follows the same general procedure of education. But we're not trying to create worker bee's. We need to strive to create artists, musicians, historians. Afterall, it was the ability of man to create more food than he needed that gave rise to these interests in the first place. We need scientists for science's sake, artists for arts sake, historians for history's sake. Most importantly, we need for all of our sakes.

So I don't really know where I'm going with this ramble. Just that they system is broken, and we need to, and we can find a way to fix it. So that's what I'll try to do, but it's going to be a very slow process. I'm going to come back to it, but I'm tired and I just ran out of steam. choo choo.

Cynics and Virtue.

An old professor who I haven't seen in about 2 years got me thinking the other day (and that's the sign of a good teacher) about the meaning of certain words. He used to call me a Cynic, and he explained why, but it wasn't until recently that I really wondered why. According to Merriam-Webster it's just someone who believes in virtue, self-control, and independence are the key. Whatever, the actual etymology of the word is a bit harsh, but the modern version of the undercase cynic is someone who simply doesn't believe in much, except that everyone is out to get everyone else. So, independence and self-reliance, these are two key values that America has always seemed to have and cherished. But what about virtue, now there's a word. When I was suffering through Latin classes, I remember trying to translate this word. There were only about 7 different meanings to the word. Merriam-Webster has a few different meanings, with (in my so unhumble opinion) somewhat contradictory meanings. The first definition, a conformity to a standard of right. Does America seem to have this, sure. A later definition however states that virtue is "manly strength or courage." So those that are right are strong? Or those that are strong are right? Wow, a question that's been asked in too many philosophy classes I'm sure, and I never paid attention to those classes. I also found it odd that another definition was "a capacity to act" with the synonym being potency, with another definition being "chastity." That discussion is better left to a feminism lecture. So what does this all mean? Nothing. We chose to live by these values that we have assigned names and definitions too, but we're not always sure what they truly mean. In fact, we, Americans are sometimes confused about what we stand for. Maybe it's time to settle on better definitions.

Got me a movie...

where there aren't millions dying from AIDS, where we don't spend money on fancy cars, fancy clothes, fancy games. Got me a movie where we don't just forget about those suffering from whatever is there plight. I got me a movie where faces aren't screaming out in despair from the lack of oppurtunities to just do something, anything to change the circumstances. But I'd rather just fast forward and watch some American Idol.

Guilty as charged and I don't care.

Going to throw this up

Because non-profit's really shouldn't be making profits, and I know one of the guy's behind it.

Why the AARP is evil incarnate.

Well, not really. They're a pretty decent organization. My main gripe is that they are one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in the US and they don't represent me. But it's just not me. They really don't represent anyone under 50. I have a problem with any organization that is making decisions that will affect me for the rest of my (hopefully) long life for the benefit of it's members who have much less life left on this planet. Don't get me wrong, the rights of senior citizens (oh to be politically correct) should be protected, and the AARP seems to do a fairly good job at this. But is there policy good for me? Is it good for the other 20 somethings, and 30 somethings? I'd have to go for what is no on that one Alex. I want a group that represents me. It's impossible to have a President that does. He or She must be 35 years of age. Even a Senator must be 30. Forget about all this talk of making a constitutional amendment to allow foreign born citizens to become President, allow younger members to Congress and the Presidency.

Of course, even if that was to happen, I'd still have to lay the blame at the feet of the young ones. For whatever reason, we don't seem to want a lobbying group. We don't want to vote. It may have to do with being disenfranchised of the sense mentioned above, but I kind of doubt it. It probably has more to do with being wild and not tied down to any responsibilities. Whatever, we're getting beaten on by the older generations. They get our money now, and maybe we'll get someone else's money in the future.

And of course this all has to do with the latest Social Security row. So what do I want? I want a deal where the government can in essence just not tax me now, and not pay me later. Or better yet, give me cash now, and I'll just pay it back later. When I'm 75, I couldn't care less what type of car I'll be driving (if I can drive at all, that is). I want a better, faster car now. I'll pay you back. This is debtors country, what's wrong with the government getting in on the game? Tell me.

Wikipedia.

It's like crack.

Cotton

I know about nothing of farm subsidies here in the United States. But this interesting story in which the US has lost another fight in the WTO, this time to Brazil about subsidizing cotton production. And the first thing that came to mind is, what next? Will other products such as milk and corn be the next target? I have a feeling the corn export credits has something to do with it, but I really have no clue. Someone educate me. I just find it strange that we've lost yet another war within the WTO (which we supposedly have enormous pull over, because we pretty much pay for it) this time over subsidies. So exciting. Or not. But it's fairly important to the future of free and fair trade and the United States. The real question may be, are we going to actually follow the WTO's ruling, or just ignore it?

A communist regime by any other name?

So Gazprom and Rosneft are going to merge (these are the two giant oil companies of Russia with incredibly strong ties to the government). However, there will be some limited trading of the shares of Gazprom now (though it sounds like very limited trading). Gazprom makes a lot of profits for the Russian government right now, and is one of the reasons why the economy is doing so relatively well (relative at least for Russia). But is the strong connection to the Kremlin a good thing for Russia's economy in the long term. The strange part is the fact that the former Yuko's subsidiary, Yugansk, which is the center of much of the controversy is not part of this merger. The chaos of the Yuko's ordeal (in which the majority shareholder was imprisoned unfairly for playing politics) would seem turn many investors away from Russia, will this new merger bring in new capital or will more needed capital flee Russia? They don't pay me enough to answer the hard questions. But I'd bet this is not a good thing for either Russia's economy (a too strong reliance of the government on oil revenues) or for the future of democracy in Russia, but only time will tell.

So the TV stations are controlled by the Kremlin, the Gas and Oil industries are controlled by the government, and second/third parties are being pushed out of the political system. How democratic is Russia?

Question Time!

Does compulsory government service (either military, healthcare, education, etc) lead to stronger democracies. And by stronger democracies I mean do people feel enfranchised and do they take an active role in politics and vote in larger numbers.

I don't know obviously and I've been exiled from some of my better research options, but I hope to answer this question in the future.

The Fourth Wave?

Samuel Huntington is a fairly famous American Political Scientist (famous at least among political scientists) for his book, "Clash of Civilizations" (based on a Foreign Affairs article found here) in which basically that there are 7 civilizations and these civilizations will come to a head, rather than the individual states (kind of, not really, read the article for the real exclamation).

But in another book by Huntington, entitled "The Third Wave," (Not to be confused with the Toffler book, and here's a review to get more of an idea on the Huntington book) Huntington (again, very basic explanation) argues that there have been three "waves" of democratization, or in other words, there have been three times in history in which democracies have taken root and spread. After each wave, there is also the wave going out, in which some of the infant democracies return to an authoritarian or some other type of government. There is some criticism by others on this theory, but for the sake of this short article I'll just act like most of his assumptions are true. You can find other views on the subject by following this Google Search.

So if the third wave was in the 70's-80's, do the recent events mean that we are now in a fourth wave? Do recent events in Afghanistan, Ukraine, Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, and Lebanon show a reemergence of democracy? Or they all examples of the American influence that may lead to a hope of democracy and an eventual crash back to dictatorships and theocracies? Will other powers (Russia and China for example) come to play more of a role in these democracies in the years that come? It seems that these cycles of changes in governments are coming faster and faster as time progresses, will this be a trend that continues until we get some type of standing wave that denotes who knows what? I don't really know, but it'd be a great hypothesis for some PhD student for I'm not even going to bother to do any research to back up this un-theory. And then they could pay me royalties for my already stolen ideas.