This has been a blog fundamentally about pragmatism. From politics to the environment, from the Middle East to the Internet, from faith to friendship, controversial and significant issues of today have been explored from the lens of "compromise". Starting from the famed Zeno's paradox where movement is impossible, this blog sought to debunk that paradox -- and also the supposed benefits of absolutism. Indeed, every post has been grounded on the notion that movement -- physical, political, etc. -- is possible, but only if compromise is the vehicle.
Interestingly, writing regularly on Zeno's Fallacy forced me to see issues from different perspectives, required as I was to describe a compromise position. I wrote often about issues where I either had an uncompromising position or did not know much at all. In both cases, reading and researching for the blog helped me understand the issues at hand far better.
More than a mere understanding of facts, however, subsequently writing a post about the merits of compromise narrowed my research to those writing about middle-ground solutions. Such a filter helped me cut through the cacophony and soundbites that surround debate over many of these issues. It focused my thinking and enabled me to articulate both (or all) of the positions on the issue effectively.
Regardless of whether in blog format or not, my future ability to effectively engage in discussions of real world issues has been greatly aided by this opportunity to "race to the middle". I know that in the future I will try even harder to see a greater ideological spectrum before coming to conclusions that (I hope) will be pragmatic and not absolutist. Of course, it is important to be careful to not be overly compromising whilst compromising -- that is, not to give away too much while giving away just enough. Between Chamberlain and Kant, however, there is quite a bit of ground, and that's the sweet spot lies for me.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
A Progress Bar at 50%
Recently, the United States government announced that it would give up the last formal elements of its control over the internet. Currently, domain names (i.e. google.com or yahoo.com) are assigned to specific owners. In other words, companies or individuals can buy web addresses. Facebook owns facebook.com, for example. The apportionment of domain names is managed by an agreement between the US Commerce Department and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). ICANN is nominally an independent non-profit, but until now has been constrained by contractual agreements with the Commerce Department. The new policy by the Obama Administration would opt to not renew these contracts and allow ICANN to be fully independent.
Supporters of this policy argue that it is critical to enable a truly global internet, one not controlled by any specific government. They believe that in a post-Snowden world, nations will become inherently suspicious of any US-controlled communications system. Iran, North Korea, and Turkey have all discussed setting up intranets that do not communicate with the outside world. China already imposes the so-called "Great Firewall" that blocks politically sensitive content from the West.
By contrast, opponents of the Administration's plan believe that this surrenders control over one of the twenty-first century's most important technologies to an obscure, poorly understood agency. Some argue that ICANN, headquartered in southern California, is overly influenced by Silicon Valley technology companies to the detriment of internet users. Dozens of Congresspeople wrote to the President to ask that he change his stance, and the Department of Commerce appears to be trying to walk back their announcement.
Regardless of the ultimate outcome, this debate highlights the highly contentious issue of an open vs. closed world wide web. Perhaps even more broadly, it is about the role of government in regulating what is currently an open ecosystem. National security and personal freedom seem to often be at odds, but this example pits national security and technological freedom. The issue even seems to ask whether unilateral governance is better than multilateral governance. In short, the seemingly-obscure issue of domain names has echoes of many of the most controversial issues of our time. The ability to compromise on these will be critical, as the Obama Administration is discovering. Their latest plan is to slowly transition to a system of global internet governance (they've nicknamed it "e-governance") while using the existing framework to help smooth the transition. This seems like a good middle ground, but only time will tell.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Green Growth
On the heels of the new IPCC Working Group II report on climate change that warns of widespread, devastating global effects, there is a renewed debate over how to best reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Those on the political right argue that any attempt to cut emissions will come at the expense of the economy. In a time of slow growth, they say, the government should do nothing to impede the fragile recovery. This was the main political rationale for the defeat of the 2009 Obama cap-and-trade scheme. Of course, Democrats counter that global warming is an issue too pressing to be left to future generations.
This debate over how to balance the dual imperatives for growth and emissions control is analogous to the debate over the logging industry vs. rainforest stability, (potentially economically damaging) regulations vs. polluted ecosystems, and oil independence vs. preserving wildlife refuges (for instance, the ANWR). In my English class, we recently discussed the conflicts and the importance of framing them to not be seen as mutually exclusive.
Beyond such framing, however, aligning economics and environmentalism is the most productive compromise solution. Cap-and-trade, though much maligned by the right, does seek to do just this. It provides economic incentives for companies and factories to be environmentally sustainable. In other words, environmentalism helps their bottom line. The problem, of course, is that while under a cap-and-trade regime corporations have profit incentives to cut emissions, it is still far more costly compared to a pre-cap-and-trade system. As a result, the political incentives to cut emissions don't exist.
Perhaps one answer is to pair any cap-and-trade or emission regulations bill with concessions to the GOP. President Obama might consider attaching Keystone XL approval or increased drilling on federal lands, both priorities of the GOP, to help placate right-wing opposition.
However, even more fundamentally than band-aid political fixes, our society needs to develop technology that makes efficiency and pollution reduction actually profitable without the government manipulating the market (as in cap-and-trade). CO2 scrubbers that improve the output of powerplants, car engines that burn less fuel by increasing MPG, and more are all in the future. It is up to government, academia, and business to develop these solutions that can ensure this country -- and our world -- can both grow a great economy and preserve a great environment.
Beyond such framing, however, aligning economics and environmentalism is the most productive compromise solution. Cap-and-trade, though much maligned by the right, does seek to do just this. It provides economic incentives for companies and factories to be environmentally sustainable. In other words, environmentalism helps their bottom line. The problem, of course, is that while under a cap-and-trade regime corporations have profit incentives to cut emissions, it is still far more costly compared to a pre-cap-and-trade system. As a result, the political incentives to cut emissions don't exist.
Perhaps one answer is to pair any cap-and-trade or emission regulations bill with concessions to the GOP. President Obama might consider attaching Keystone XL approval or increased drilling on federal lands, both priorities of the GOP, to help placate right-wing opposition.
However, even more fundamentally than band-aid political fixes, our society needs to develop technology that makes efficiency and pollution reduction actually profitable without the government manipulating the market (as in cap-and-trade). CO2 scrubbers that improve the output of powerplants, car engines that burn less fuel by increasing MPG, and more are all in the future. It is up to government, academia, and business to develop these solutions that can ensure this country -- and our world -- can both grow a great economy and preserve a great environment.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Evolutionary Compromise
I was reminded recently in biology class of a post I wrote earlier in year entitled "Fitting Facts with Faith." In it, I described how the notions of creationism and evolution by natural selection are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, they are potentially synergistic. Though this dichotomy was briefly discussed in my science class, far more interesting to me was another example of compromise: evolution itself.
Natural selection is often understood to be a magical process by which the weak are all weeded out overnight. Instead, evolution has its drawbacks that prevent the creation of a "perfect species." As both my biology book and some recent research from the University of Michigan demonstrate, the evolutionary process is inherently one of compromise. Creatures must be adapt to be able to live -- and survive -- in a variety of different environments, perform a variety of different tasks, and handle a variety of different situations. The perfect creature would not be agile enough to outlast a change in the weather or available prey.
The very thesis of evolution is that out of a primordial stew of mutations and genetic code formed an increasingly developed series of life forms. This very fundamentally involved compromise -- between different DNA sequences with genetic information (called "genotypes") and different potential expressions of that information ("phenotypes"). Penguins, for instance, while good swimmers, have more difficultly moving on land. Alternatively, animals that could blend in with a forest scene would look remarkably out of place upon the outset of a snowy winter.
In some respects, it is comforting that no "perfect" creature can ever be created through natural selection. On the other hand, it is sobering to remember that humans were created by attempting to minimize the impact of hundreds upon hundreds of little flaws that date back to the first unicellular organism. Evolutionary compromise has been the only way that species survive, and the results are the rich web of life we call...(N/n)ature. But more on that later.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Compromise and Shakespeare
In two famous Shakespeare tragedies, Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet, the Bard of Avon uses characters too blind to their own moral absolutism to demonstrate the importance of compromise. Indeed, because they are tragedies, the characters must necessarily be flawed in a fashion that causes them to make poor decisions. The results of those mistakes then form the basis for the tragedies.
Hamlet's plot is driven by a series of desires for revenge: King Hamlet's ghost telling Prince Hamlet to avenge his death as well as Laertes seeking to restore his honor after Polonius and Ophelia pass away. Both are unrelenting. When Hamlet offers his apologies to Laertes in Act V, Scene II, the latter refuses to take them, citing his own personal honor. More significantly, much of Scenes IV and V could have been avoided had Hamlet killed Claudius during "prayer." His choice not to do so on moral grounds prolonged the story and resulted in the deaths of Hamlet, Claudius, Gertrude, Laertes, Ophelia, and Polonius. Alternatively, Hamlet might have considered acting mad in certain contexts, but preserving some relationships that were important to him (i.e. Ophelia). Most of the plot events can be attributed to the uncompromising nature of these characters.
In Romeo and Juliet, the two lovers are too lovestruck to contemplate anything apart from a life together. The play ends with their unnecessary suicides as a way to illustrate the silliness of such unrelenting love. Surely Romeo and Juliet should love each other desperately, but it is not rational to believe that suicide is a helpful solution to their grief. Their inability to bear that pain -- in other words, to temporarily compromise their love for their own sake -- is what makes the play a tragedy. Not only do they die, but they die unnecessary deaths at the hands of absolutism.
All these if-onlys solely serve to heighten the sadness of Shakespeare's tragedies. We, as the readers wishing deeply for a happy ending, want the protagonists to take off their blinders and abandon their tunnel vision, but they cannot. This is human nature; I am far from convinced I could be any different. It is part of Shakespeare's critique of human nature as too stubborn, too arrogant, too foolish. These opportunities, missed because of obstinacy alone, serve to deepen the plot and reinforce the emotional poignancy of the text.
Hamlet's plot is driven by a series of desires for revenge: King Hamlet's ghost telling Prince Hamlet to avenge his death as well as Laertes seeking to restore his honor after Polonius and Ophelia pass away. Both are unrelenting. When Hamlet offers his apologies to Laertes in Act V, Scene II, the latter refuses to take them, citing his own personal honor. More significantly, much of Scenes IV and V could have been avoided had Hamlet killed Claudius during "prayer." His choice not to do so on moral grounds prolonged the story and resulted in the deaths of Hamlet, Claudius, Gertrude, Laertes, Ophelia, and Polonius. Alternatively, Hamlet might have considered acting mad in certain contexts, but preserving some relationships that were important to him (i.e. Ophelia). Most of the plot events can be attributed to the uncompromising nature of these characters.
In Romeo and Juliet, the two lovers are too lovestruck to contemplate anything apart from a life together. The play ends with their unnecessary suicides as a way to illustrate the silliness of such unrelenting love. Surely Romeo and Juliet should love each other desperately, but it is not rational to believe that suicide is a helpful solution to their grief. Their inability to bear that pain -- in other words, to temporarily compromise their love for their own sake -- is what makes the play a tragedy. Not only do they die, but they die unnecessary deaths at the hands of absolutism.
All these if-onlys solely serve to heighten the sadness of Shakespeare's tragedies. We, as the readers wishing deeply for a happy ending, want the protagonists to take off their blinders and abandon their tunnel vision, but they cannot. This is human nature; I am far from convinced I could be any different. It is part of Shakespeare's critique of human nature as too stubborn, too arrogant, too foolish. These opportunities, missed because of obstinacy alone, serve to deepen the plot and reinforce the emotional poignancy of the text.
Compromising Compromise
This blog is devoted to the benefits of compromise: societal, political, and personal, to name a few. I'd like to spend this post discussing what happens when compromise goes to far: when it becomes compromising.
Compromise, as a noun, means to give up something in exchange for something else. Compromise, as a verb, means to endanger something important. In the popular discourse, many conflate the two. We hear politicians warn against political compromise that supposedly will endanger our national security, for example. When Obama shook hands with Cuban dictator Rául Castro or negotiated with Iran, it was only a matter of minutes before the first editorial was published online envisioning Obama holding a white flag in one hand and the Munich Agreement in the other.
These, however, are good types of compromise: compromises that achieves your goals without giving away -- compromising -- anything critical. The Iran deal constitutes an easing of sanctions (doesn't endanger US national security) in return for Iran halting uranium enrichment (potentially good for US national security). The handshake with Castro was simply harmless. Many pundits are rather poor at ferreting out good compromise from bad.
Another person bad at that: Neville Chamberlain. He went too far in the other direction, thinking that a compromising treaty constituted compromise. In reality, it was capitulation. He handed over the Sudentenland (bad for British interests and really bad for Czech interests), gave Hitler a free-rein over Central Europe (horrifically bad for British interests), and got, in return, a sheet of paper (simply meaningless). Compromise entails real, verifiable concessions by both sides, not unilateral disarmament.
Nixon's trip to China was compromise, because it gave the PRC something it wanted (relations with the US) and the US something it wanted as well (an ally against the Soviet threat). Had Nixon gone to China, hat in hand, and offered a complete unilateral normalization of relations without any quid pro quo, that would certainly be an unproductive form of compromise.
As important as it is to remember that every display of bipartisanship does not equate to 1939 France, it is equally important to understand how much to give up. Compromising (as a verb) one's ethical or moral standards, for example, is likely a poor route to take. A one way "compromise" is gift-giving, not compromise. Finding the right balance is critical.
Compromise, as a noun, means to give up something in exchange for something else. Compromise, as a verb, means to endanger something important. In the popular discourse, many conflate the two. We hear politicians warn against political compromise that supposedly will endanger our national security, for example. When Obama shook hands with Cuban dictator Rául Castro or negotiated with Iran, it was only a matter of minutes before the first editorial was published online envisioning Obama holding a white flag in one hand and the Munich Agreement in the other.
These, however, are good types of compromise: compromises that achieves your goals without giving away -- compromising -- anything critical. The Iran deal constitutes an easing of sanctions (doesn't endanger US national security) in return for Iran halting uranium enrichment (potentially good for US national security). The handshake with Castro was simply harmless. Many pundits are rather poor at ferreting out good compromise from bad.
Another person bad at that: Neville Chamberlain. He went too far in the other direction, thinking that a compromising treaty constituted compromise. In reality, it was capitulation. He handed over the Sudentenland (bad for British interests and really bad for Czech interests), gave Hitler a free-rein over Central Europe (horrifically bad for British interests), and got, in return, a sheet of paper (simply meaningless). Compromise entails real, verifiable concessions by both sides, not unilateral disarmament.
Nixon's trip to China was compromise, because it gave the PRC something it wanted (relations with the US) and the US something it wanted as well (an ally against the Soviet threat). Had Nixon gone to China, hat in hand, and offered a complete unilateral normalization of relations without any quid pro quo, that would certainly be an unproductive form of compromise.
As important as it is to remember that every display of bipartisanship does not equate to 1939 France, it is equally important to understand how much to give up. Compromising (as a verb) one's ethical or moral standards, for example, is likely a poor route to take. A one way "compromise" is gift-giving, not compromise. Finding the right balance is critical.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Compromise Ad (Nauseam)
One of the top-rated commercials from last weekend's Super Bowl was the Audi Doberhuahua ad. The spot begins with a couple that is having trouble selecting a dog from the selection at their neighborhood pet store. A salesperson suggested they breed two dogs together, thus creating the Doberhuahua. The commercial then goes on to show the abnormally large-headed-and-small-bodied dog prancing at dog shows, running down the street chasing the local children, and barking at passerby while sitting in its owner's purse. The ad ends with the on-screen line, "Compromise scares us too."
The reactions were immediate: Audi is showing us the "dangers of compromise." It was echoed all around the blogosphere.
What everyone takes for granted is that compromise is inherently bad. Audi, cowed as they are into purity by the menacing bark of compromise, surely themselves must compromise. They must compromise on safety, or else their new A3 would look like a tank. They must compromise on speed, or else the engine would comprise 95% of the car. They must compromise on aesthetics, or else the car would be made from fine designer leather inlaid with diamonds. They must compromise on profit, or else the car would cost millions. And so on and so forth.
Compromise is essential to good design. As yours truly wrote a couple months ago, complete inclusion without constraints only guarantees poor design. If everything is attempted, nothing is done well. While my previous post was about computer makers, the same is true with auto companies. The former might create an operating system so feature-packed that it is unwieldy, while the latter might create a car that is too expensive, too heavy, or too powerful.
"Compromise scares us too" makes a good ad line or Twitter hashtag, but fails as a design philosophy. Lets hope that Audi is less scared of their Doberhuahua than they claim.
I'll leave you with this tweet:
The reactions were immediate: Audi is showing us the "dangers of compromise." It was echoed all around the blogosphere.
What everyone takes for granted is that compromise is inherently bad. Audi, cowed as they are into purity by the menacing bark of compromise, surely themselves must compromise. They must compromise on safety, or else their new A3 would look like a tank. They must compromise on speed, or else the engine would comprise 95% of the car. They must compromise on aesthetics, or else the car would be made from fine designer leather inlaid with diamonds. They must compromise on profit, or else the car would cost millions. And so on and so forth.
Compromise is essential to good design. As yours truly wrote a couple months ago, complete inclusion without constraints only guarantees poor design. If everything is attempted, nothing is done well. While my previous post was about computer makers, the same is true with auto companies. The former might create an operating system so feature-packed that it is unwieldy, while the latter might create a car that is too expensive, too heavy, or too powerful.
"Compromise scares us too" makes a good ad line or Twitter hashtag, but fails as a design philosophy. Lets hope that Audi is less scared of their Doberhuahua than they claim.
I'll leave you with this tweet:
That dog commercial should've been a US Congress commercial #compromisescaresus
— Logan Johnke (@LoganJohnke) February 3, 2014
Testing My Nerves
The beginning of February is here, and with it an end to the six-month-long experience euphemistically referred to as the college application "process". It is no mere process: ordeal, perhaps, or crucible. Perchance baptism by fire. It is filled with essay after essay demanding to discover, in no more than 150 words, why one particular college is your perfect fit, or how the paper you wrote as a sophomore has radically altered your perspective on education, or what you wish to achieve from college, or a place in which you are perfectly content. As a person who dislikes writing about myself, spending half a year writing, interview, and collating information -- all about me -- was hardly fun.
Still, in reality it could have been worse, especially when compared to the experiences of other young people. In Asia, students are groomed for college entrance exams almost from their day of birth. Chinese parents often move to different cities to better advantage their children in the college process (scores on the Chinese national college test are measured relative to the strength of one's province or municipality).
South Korea's college system is almost entirely based on the results of the College Scholastic Ability Test. The all-day exam covers English, Korean, science, math, and more at a college level and largely determines the future prospects of students as entrance into a prestigious college is a guaranteed path to advancement in the Korean economic and social system.
On the day of the exam, trading is suspended at stock markets, mass transit authorities add additional capacity, the police force deploys 4,000 motorcycles to ensure late students arrive on time, taxi drivers offer free rides to testing centers, government offices and businesses open late, and the national power utility deploys a team of 4,000 electricians to monitor all power lines leading to every high school in the country. During the English listening portion of the exam, in order to forestall complaints that outside noise interfered with students' ability to hear the listening tracks, the military ceases all live-fire exercises while Korean air traffic control authorities suspend all airport operations nationwide and order all inbound flights to circle above 10,000 feet. Concerns about cheating led the Ministry of Education to sequester the test writers in a remote and mountainous region of the country without access to electronic devices. The writers are not even permitted to tell their families why they have been called away from home. Even beyond academic preparations, students go to extreme lengths to ready themselves. One kid swallowed small amounts of cough syrup daily in the week leading up to the exam to prepare his body in the event that he became sick and actually needed to take cough syrup. Perhaps the Wall Street Journal's anecdote captures the national mood best:
Still, in reality it could have been worse, especially when compared to the experiences of other young people. In Asia, students are groomed for college entrance exams almost from their day of birth. Chinese parents often move to different cities to better advantage their children in the college process (scores on the Chinese national college test are measured relative to the strength of one's province or municipality).
South Korea's college system is almost entirely based on the results of the College Scholastic Ability Test. The all-day exam covers English, Korean, science, math, and more at a college level and largely determines the future prospects of students as entrance into a prestigious college is a guaranteed path to advancement in the Korean economic and social system.
On the day of the exam, trading is suspended at stock markets, mass transit authorities add additional capacity, the police force deploys 4,000 motorcycles to ensure late students arrive on time, taxi drivers offer free rides to testing centers, government offices and businesses open late, and the national power utility deploys a team of 4,000 electricians to monitor all power lines leading to every high school in the country. During the English listening portion of the exam, in order to forestall complaints that outside noise interfered with students' ability to hear the listening tracks, the military ceases all live-fire exercises while Korean air traffic control authorities suspend all airport operations nationwide and order all inbound flights to circle above 10,000 feet. Concerns about cheating led the Ministry of Education to sequester the test writers in a remote and mountainous region of the country without access to electronic devices. The writers are not even permitted to tell their families why they have been called away from home. Even beyond academic preparations, students go to extreme lengths to ready themselves. One kid swallowed small amounts of cough syrup daily in the week leading up to the exam to prepare his body in the event that he became sick and actually needed to take cough syrup. Perhaps the Wall Street Journal's anecdote captures the national mood best:
One foggy morning last November, officer Kang Jin-jin heard the distress call on his police radio: An 18-year-old girl about to take the national college-entrance exam had left her admission ticket at home. Mr. Kang dashed off to the girl's apartment, got the ticket from her father, and raced across town on his motorcycle, arriving at the school just in time for the test. "I had to ignore traffic signs and turn on the siren," he said. "It was a bit risky, but I tried my best."
Compared to this kind of pressure, our admissions system -- while tough -- is hardly excessive. What is most gratifying about the US system is that your life does not ride on a single day of testing. The compromise position of evaluating grades and test scores in addition to teacher (and sometimes peer) recommendations, extracurricular accomplishments, and essays helps provide a fuller picture of the student. In the end, it may also reduce the amount of work and stress involved as well. Thus, despite the fact that O'Hare remains as congested as ever on ACT Saturdays and 911 isn't available to test takers who forget to bring their Number 2 pencils, America's universities are tremendously well equipped with a wealth of information on each applicant. It is a compromise best for both the students and the schools.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
The Half-Year in Review
My blog reflection is available here. As it references other individuals by name to discuss their views and writing, I have made it available as a PDF only to those with a Glenbrook225 Google Apps account. Should anyone have issues accessing the document, please email me.
The Rumors of The Blog's Demise are Greatly Overdue
This blog is a blog about blogs. (How postmodern!) A recent post that has been getting some attention in the blogosphere (a term that itself deserves some discussion, but more on that later) proclaimed "R.I.P. The Blog!" It argued that long-form blogs have been eclipsed by services like Twitter or Tumblr as main sources of information and commentary.
That might be true, but I don't think it is an issue with the structure and form of blogs themselves. The rise of 140-character snippets reflects an increasing impatience with reading and writing, unrelated to the notion of the blog. (A parallel phenomenon is occurring with newspapers, of course.) Witness the rise of article titles written just to grab links. Popular web articles are increasingly filled with ads, GIFs, and memes, not interesting analysis and actual text. One of my favorite web blogs, Daring Fireball, covers technology -- without images. It is a pure-text blog, so it has to draw its readers solely through its incisive commentary and actually interesting links.
Look at the alternative: Buzzfeed, the world's favorite source of lists like Top Ten Vapid and Cringe-worthy Things I Saw on Buzzfeed Today! The blog as a form loses out to nonsense like this because the average web surfer glances at a page only momentarily before moving on. Our collective attention spans are so short that we find reading even a few paragraphs tedious.
Especially with the proliferation of blogs, it is hard to spend time reading each one in depth. I use feedly, an RSS reader, to keep up with all the different websites, online think tanks, and blogs that I read, but often over 200 articles pop up per day. It is impossible for me to read each one, so I skim the list of article titles, hoping to find something that catches my attention. I then skim the articles that I've opened up to see if I'm interested in reading them more closely. Out of the 200 original articles, I'll probably end up reading ten stories in depth.
Often, what will grab my eye is an article about something circulating on the internet (or the blogosphere). When something goes "viral," there are invariably the this-is-cool articles that follow, then the this-proves-how-sad-the-internet-is articles that come next, and lastly overly dramatic commentary about the topic of the original to-do. The blogosphere can often become an echo chamber for its own vacuousness.
That's not to say there aren't real blogs saying real things -- the author of the R.I.P. the Blog story noted that himself -- but they're often overwhelmed by the silliness. In the words of my sophomore history teacher, "The internet is full of diamonds...but they are buried in tons and tons of POOP."
That might be true, but I don't think it is an issue with the structure and form of blogs themselves. The rise of 140-character snippets reflects an increasing impatience with reading and writing, unrelated to the notion of the blog. (A parallel phenomenon is occurring with newspapers, of course.) Witness the rise of article titles written just to grab links. Popular web articles are increasingly filled with ads, GIFs, and memes, not interesting analysis and actual text. One of my favorite web blogs, Daring Fireball, covers technology -- without images. It is a pure-text blog, so it has to draw its readers solely through its incisive commentary and actually interesting links.
Look at the alternative: Buzzfeed, the world's favorite source of lists like Top Ten Vapid and Cringe-worthy Things I Saw on Buzzfeed Today! The blog as a form loses out to nonsense like this because the average web surfer glances at a page only momentarily before moving on. Our collective attention spans are so short that we find reading even a few paragraphs tedious.
Especially with the proliferation of blogs, it is hard to spend time reading each one in depth. I use feedly, an RSS reader, to keep up with all the different websites, online think tanks, and blogs that I read, but often over 200 articles pop up per day. It is impossible for me to read each one, so I skim the list of article titles, hoping to find something that catches my attention. I then skim the articles that I've opened up to see if I'm interested in reading them more closely. Out of the 200 original articles, I'll probably end up reading ten stories in depth.
Often, what will grab my eye is an article about something circulating on the internet (or the blogosphere). When something goes "viral," there are invariably the this-is-cool articles that follow, then the this-proves-how-sad-the-internet-is articles that come next, and lastly overly dramatic commentary about the topic of the original to-do. The blogosphere can often become an echo chamber for its own vacuousness.
That's not to say there aren't real blogs saying real things -- the author of the R.I.P. the Blog story noted that himself -- but they're often overwhelmed by the silliness. In the words of my sophomore history teacher, "The internet is full of diamonds...but they are buried in tons and tons of POOP."
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Compromising Rhetoric
Iran has been in the news frequently over the last weeks due to the breakthrough achieved in Geneva to halt aspects of Iran's nuclear program (in particular, enrichment of fissile material) in exchange for sanctions relief. Hundreds of pages have been written just over the past half-month about whether the deal is good or bad. The agreement is a veritable Rorschach test: some see Neville Chamberlain proclaiming "peace in our time"; others see Nixon walking on the Great Wall.
This blog is about compromises, and I wanted to examine how the language of compromise is present in our discussion of the deal. I recently read this interesting article about how President Obama is playing the expectations game. By stating that he believes the accord may fail and cause further sanctions, he is able to simultaneously please both hardline hawks and doves demanding diplomacy. The doves see statements like this as a feint to please hardliners and buy time for the negotiations to work. The hawks see it as an acknowledgement of what they see as weakness.
I personally see the negotiations as a step forward; after all, threats of military force have failed for the past decade. Now that the (somewhat) reformer Rowhani is in the ascendency, wasting the chance for rapprochement seems foolish. I'm glad, however, that the President is not overcommitting himself to diplomacy. After all, many of his recent public pronouncements have come back to haunt him. Look no further than his red "line" with Syria and "guarantee" that everyone could keep their insurance if they wanted to. Those statements became the story instead of real discussions about Syria and healthcare. I think the President has learned to be more careful with his public statements so that he has more flexibility down the line. It may seem obvious, but under-promising and over-delivering is always better than the reverse, especially since President Obama has no more elections to win.
So, peace in our time? Nay, they'd probably write something more like this: the Obama Administration sees the recent announcement of potential diplomatic discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran as possible and important, while still uncertain, steps forward as part of this Administration's goal of a peaceful future for both the American people and our allies and partners in the Middle East while not permitting Iran to gain a nuclear weapons capability that would be detrimental to the safety and stability of the region, including our good friend Israel. Somewhere in that decidedly un-quotable and un-sound-byte-able run-on full of legalese and technicalities linked together by excessive, improper, and unnecessary conjunction use was (possibly) something about Iran.
A statement released by Ted Cruz's office would no doubt read, "The best way to stop an Iranian nuclear weapon is to defund Obamacare."
This blog is about compromises, and I wanted to examine how the language of compromise is present in our discussion of the deal. I recently read this interesting article about how President Obama is playing the expectations game. By stating that he believes the accord may fail and cause further sanctions, he is able to simultaneously please both hardline hawks and doves demanding diplomacy. The doves see statements like this as a feint to please hardliners and buy time for the negotiations to work. The hawks see it as an acknowledgement of what they see as weakness.
I personally see the negotiations as a step forward; after all, threats of military force have failed for the past decade. Now that the (somewhat) reformer Rowhani is in the ascendency, wasting the chance for rapprochement seems foolish. I'm glad, however, that the President is not overcommitting himself to diplomacy. After all, many of his recent public pronouncements have come back to haunt him. Look no further than his red "line" with Syria and "guarantee" that everyone could keep their insurance if they wanted to. Those statements became the story instead of real discussions about Syria and healthcare. I think the President has learned to be more careful with his public statements so that he has more flexibility down the line. It may seem obvious, but under-promising and over-delivering is always better than the reverse, especially since President Obama has no more elections to win.
So, peace in our time? Nay, they'd probably write something more like this: the Obama Administration sees the recent announcement of potential diplomatic discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran as possible and important, while still uncertain, steps forward as part of this Administration's goal of a peaceful future for both the American people and our allies and partners in the Middle East while not permitting Iran to gain a nuclear weapons capability that would be detrimental to the safety and stability of the region, including our good friend Israel. Somewhere in that decidedly un-quotable and un-sound-byte-able run-on full of legalese and technicalities linked together by excessive, improper, and unnecessary conjunction use was (possibly) something about Iran.
A statement released by Ted Cruz's office would no doubt read, "The best way to stop an Iranian nuclear weapon is to defund Obamacare."
Monday, November 25, 2013
Fitting Facts with Faith
The Texas Board of Education has been creating controversy by considering creationism for the state's biology courses. It had met to approve a series of textbooks, but some groups inserted last minute changes into the proceedings, causing derailment of the approval process. For instance, a book by national publisher Pearson has been indefinitely delayed due to objections by Christian conservatives. However, this is not just a problem for Texas: the article notes that Texas's size (everything is big in Texas!) means that it can determine the content of books that publishers sell nationally.
The root of the problem is the age-old debate between creationism and evolution. I happened to read about the to-do in Texas right after watching a YouTube video of a debate between Richard Dawkins, famed atheist and Oxford biology professor, and John Lennox, a deeply religious mathematics and science professor also at Oxford University. What made the debate remarkable was that both men were firm believers in science, the scientific method, and evolution, yet had radically different perspectives on the existence and role of God. To use the terms of science, the variables of belief in empiricism and rationalism were kept constant, yet the dependent variable, religion, had fluctuated.
To me, Dawkins represented extremism: all science, no God. Lennox seemed like the other extreme, but in reality he was just compromise: science and God. Unrepresented in the debate was a third point of view that is being expressed by some in the Texas book controversy: all God, no science.
Two highly educated, well intentioned, and incredibly bright Oxford professors had seemed to demonstrate that there was real clash over the overlap of science and religion. It seems like often they are portrayed as entirely overlapping and mutually exclusive in the media or public discourse. Dawkins largely articulated this point of view. More surprising was Lennox, who opined that the two fields are indeed entirely overlapping, but also mutually consistent. His argument was that the tenets of science are the ones encouraged by his view of Christianity: proof by reason and argumentation. He asserted that atheism undermines science by failing to explain randomness that occurs in nature, for instance at the subatomic level.
Personally, I see evolution (or science more broadly) as a mechanism and God as an agent, so nothing about Pearson's new Texan textbook has me up in arms. Nevertheless, new ways to reconcile my faith with facts always fascinate me. I certainly do agree with most (but not all) of what Dr. Lennox said, but more significantly I was very glad to see that some middle ground can be carved out at all in this oft contentious debate.
The root of the problem is the age-old debate between creationism and evolution. I happened to read about the to-do in Texas right after watching a YouTube video of a debate between Richard Dawkins, famed atheist and Oxford biology professor, and John Lennox, a deeply religious mathematics and science professor also at Oxford University. What made the debate remarkable was that both men were firm believers in science, the scientific method, and evolution, yet had radically different perspectives on the existence and role of God. To use the terms of science, the variables of belief in empiricism and rationalism were kept constant, yet the dependent variable, religion, had fluctuated.
To me, Dawkins represented extremism: all science, no God. Lennox seemed like the other extreme, but in reality he was just compromise: science and God. Unrepresented in the debate was a third point of view that is being expressed by some in the Texas book controversy: all God, no science.
Two highly educated, well intentioned, and incredibly bright Oxford professors had seemed to demonstrate that there was real clash over the overlap of science and religion. It seems like often they are portrayed as entirely overlapping and mutually exclusive in the media or public discourse. Dawkins largely articulated this point of view. More surprising was Lennox, who opined that the two fields are indeed entirely overlapping, but also mutually consistent. His argument was that the tenets of science are the ones encouraged by his view of Christianity: proof by reason and argumentation. He asserted that atheism undermines science by failing to explain randomness that occurs in nature, for instance at the subatomic level.
Personally, I see evolution (or science more broadly) as a mechanism and God as an agent, so nothing about Pearson's new Texan textbook has me up in arms. Nevertheless, new ways to reconcile my faith with facts always fascinate me. I certainly do agree with most (but not all) of what Dr. Lennox said, but more significantly I was very glad to see that some middle ground can be carved out at all in this oft contentious debate.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Why Only Finding Half a Worm in the Apple is Best
I've been writing about politics and current events for the past few posts, so I thought I would turn to another passion of mine: technology.
In particular, I love Apple.
What particularly grabs me about them is their drive for their ideal of perfection. Witness the year-after-year thinning of the iPhone, for example. For years I've read Daring Fireball, a technology blog that I think is one of the best. (It is also stylistically terrific and therefore very much informed how I laid out the design for this blog.) Its author loves to say that Apple rarely innovates as much as it iterates; in other words, the second and the third iPhone or the third and the fourth iPhone have few differences, but the fifth is radically better than the first.
This is ironic, because most people associate Apple with words like "breakthrough" or "innovative." Rarely would you hear "slow and steady." Part of Apple's rationale, though, is that good design takes time, and so they must be careful with what they include in their products.
It is a highly ironic concept: compromise is the only route to perfection. An old article at Daring Fireball that I reread recently made this point very well. It noted that Microsoft has attempted to shoehorn as many random features as possible into the new Windows 8, with the result being that users found it bloated and inefficient.
Contrast that with Apple: in 2009, then Apple Vice President Bertrand Serlet announced the next version of the Mac operating system would have no new features. (Technology website Ars Technica quipped, "Read Bertrand's lips: No New Features!") Instead, Apple said they would be focusing on refining and refreshing the operating system to make it faster and more usable. The changes were reflected in tasks like booting up and shutting down which were up to 100% faster. Had they chosen to add dozens, or perhaps hundreds, of new components to the operating system, it is unlikely the Apple programmers would have been able to successfully refine everything else simultaneously.
All of this therefore begs the question of what to compromise on. The Daring Fireball article touches on this only in the broadest generalities. I'd like to go a bit further. Compromise must occur only after the possibility of doing everything well has been exhausted. (In fact, in the operating system example, I suspect Apple ended up just doing a version of this by sticking their new features into the subsequent operating system release. They perhaps needed more time, but Cupertino wasn't planning on giving up on its new technologies.) Once it is determined that some tradeoffs must be made, they must be made in a way that achieves the goal of the project. This seems simple and obvious, but defining what that "goal" is can be difficult. I think Apple has made it clear that perfection of the user experience is their corporate mantra. Other companies (for instance, one very prominent Korean electronics company with an industry-leading ability to copy others) seem to have no clear goal when they make a product other than that they might sell some phones if they copy-and-paste the iPhone and stamp a Samsung decal on the back.
As one final example, look at iPhone-era Apple. As this New Yorker piece rightly points out, much of Apple's success has come from understanding where it can ease (read: compromise) its grip on the user experience. For instance, third party apps (ones not developed by Apple itself) are allowed onto the iPhone via the App Store, but they are screened for quality and safety. Google, by contrast, set up the Play Store, an oddly-named free-for-all replete with viruses, iPhone app ripoffs, and phony applications.
Compromise shouldn't be a bad word. It is both necessary and sufficient for good design, something Apple has figured out. We'll see if their competitors realize it too.
In particular, I love Apple.
What particularly grabs me about them is their drive for their ideal of perfection. Witness the year-after-year thinning of the iPhone, for example. For years I've read Daring Fireball, a technology blog that I think is one of the best. (It is also stylistically terrific and therefore very much informed how I laid out the design for this blog.) Its author loves to say that Apple rarely innovates as much as it iterates; in other words, the second and the third iPhone or the third and the fourth iPhone have few differences, but the fifth is radically better than the first.
This is ironic, because most people associate Apple with words like "breakthrough" or "innovative." Rarely would you hear "slow and steady." Part of Apple's rationale, though, is that good design takes time, and so they must be careful with what they include in their products.
It is a highly ironic concept: compromise is the only route to perfection. An old article at Daring Fireball that I reread recently made this point very well. It noted that Microsoft has attempted to shoehorn as many random features as possible into the new Windows 8, with the result being that users found it bloated and inefficient.
Contrast that with Apple: in 2009, then Apple Vice President Bertrand Serlet announced the next version of the Mac operating system would have no new features. (Technology website Ars Technica quipped, "Read Bertrand's lips: No New Features!") Instead, Apple said they would be focusing on refining and refreshing the operating system to make it faster and more usable. The changes were reflected in tasks like booting up and shutting down which were up to 100% faster. Had they chosen to add dozens, or perhaps hundreds, of new components to the operating system, it is unlikely the Apple programmers would have been able to successfully refine everything else simultaneously.
All of this therefore begs the question of what to compromise on. The Daring Fireball article touches on this only in the broadest generalities. I'd like to go a bit further. Compromise must occur only after the possibility of doing everything well has been exhausted. (In fact, in the operating system example, I suspect Apple ended up just doing a version of this by sticking their new features into the subsequent operating system release. They perhaps needed more time, but Cupertino wasn't planning on giving up on its new technologies.) Once it is determined that some tradeoffs must be made, they must be made in a way that achieves the goal of the project. This seems simple and obvious, but defining what that "goal" is can be difficult. I think Apple has made it clear that perfection of the user experience is their corporate mantra. Other companies (for instance, one very prominent Korean electronics company with an industry-leading ability to copy others) seem to have no clear goal when they make a product other than that they might sell some phones if they copy-and-paste the iPhone and stamp a Samsung decal on the back.
As one final example, look at iPhone-era Apple. As this New Yorker piece rightly points out, much of Apple's success has come from understanding where it can ease (read: compromise) its grip on the user experience. For instance, third party apps (ones not developed by Apple itself) are allowed onto the iPhone via the App Store, but they are screened for quality and safety. Google, by contrast, set up the Play Store, an oddly-named free-for-all replete with viruses, iPhone app ripoffs, and phony applications.
Compromise shouldn't be a bad word. It is both necessary and sufficient for good design, something Apple has figured out. We'll see if their competitors realize it too.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Middle Ground in the Middle East
Negotiations are gridlocked, neither side trusts the other, both parties routinely condemn their adversary as evil, and the almost-daily op-eds proclaim a near-existential threat. No, this is not the shutdown. I'm talking about Iran.
With the election of the reform-minded President Rowhani, Iran has moved closer to a rapprochement with the United States. SecState Kerry and the Iranian FM met on the sidelines of the UNGA opening session. The President has lobbied Congress not to invoke another round of tough sanctions against the regime. Rowhani has declared his intent to work toward a new understanding with the West.
It seems like everyone is standing around the old proverbial campfire, holding hands, singing Kumbaya...except no one can find Netanyahu. Instead, he's on an idiom-doused PR push, giving speech after speech warning that "Ahmadinejad was a wolf in wolf’s clothing. Rowhani is a wolf in sheep’s clothing." And, Rowhani is "a wolf who thinks he can pull the wool over the eyes of the international community." Indeed, in one of the more clever applications of English idiom to nuclear weapons nonproliferation efforts, Mr. Netanyahu declared, "Rowhani thinks he can have his yellowcake and eat it too!"
PM Netanyahu is convinced this is a ploy, designed to distract the West and alleviate the impact of crippling American and European sanctions while maintaining Iran's nuclear program intact. His reasoning is not without merit: Rowhani tried similar stalling tactics as Iran's head nuclear negotiator a decade ago. Israel wants the US and its allies to keep the sanctions regimen intact and demand unilateral denuclearization. Any suggestion of deviating from that brings an almost Pavlovian response from Jerusalem.
On the other hand, Obama and the EU, feeling foreign policy exhaustion after setbacks and embarrassment on Syria, the NSA scandal, and Egypt, seem willing to do anything to reach a deal with Iran. The President no doubt realizes that a success on Iran would help substantially burnish his foreign policy legacy.
To me it seems neither side is behaving rationally. The Israelis can't realistically think Iran will ever unilaterally renounce its nuclear program in the absence of significant sanctions. Its whole raison d'etre was to provide a check against American or Israeli designs against Iran, and given the historical tension in the region, those won't dissipate overnight.
The flip side is that the Obama administration is having a peace-in-our-time moment. The reason the Iranians have come to the table (which is good and should be embraced) is the tough sanctions and hardline that Obama is taking right now. It is almost cliche to say, but Reagan's "trust but verify" should be the M.O. with Iran. Yes, we should sit down to talk. Yes, we should be prepared to grant concessions. Yes, military force and sanctions can't be the end game. At the same time, the concessions have to be linked to verifiable compliance with international standards regarding nuclear weapons production.
Part of the reason for focusing on compromises for this blog is that the seemingly rational and common sense solutions like "trust but verify" never seem to win out in Washington. It is possible that there is an element that I'm missing. Of course, as a 17-year-old high school student I'm not privy to classified information, state secrets, or NSA intelligence. (Note to NSA employee reading this post: The Fourth Amendment is overrated, I think Guantanamo is full of nothing but complainers, and everyone agrees the NSA should really have won the Nobel Peace Prize. Credit here.) Still, it seems like there has to be a better compromise between pragmatism and appeasement. I desperately hope Washington finds it.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Aiding and Abetting
The New York Times recently published a terrific article about Paul Kagame, current President of Rwanda. The author, Jeffrey Gettleman, outlined a serious moral dilemma for international aid donors. Kagame's regime is highly efficient, making the most of aid, cracking down on corruption, almost eliminating malaria, decreasing child mortality by 70%, instituting the first universal healthcare system in an impoverished country, ensuring political stability, ending ethnic divisions, bringing women into higher political office, and creating sustained 8% growth.
Despite these economic and societal advances, however, he has been ruthless in cracking down on dissidents, with opposition journalists and politicians finding themselves in jail or dead from a 9mm "car accident." Should Western nations and NGOs support the government, knowing that they are both helping feed poor children and also kill dissidents? One perspective among aid workers was, as the New York Times put it, that "Kagame was burnishing the image of the entire billion-dollar aid industry." His demonstrated results look impressive to USAID administrators sitting in their Pennsylvania Avenue headquarters, though they look far less so to the imprisoned dissidents.
However, the part of the article that resonated most strongly with me was a comment by Mr. Gettleman that "who can enjoy freedom of speech or freedom of the press when everyone is killing one another?" This does seem to be the right approach. In any contest between life and liberty, life always prevails. Starvation, war, disease -- these are terrible crimes that here supersede abstract rights principles. Death is the end. One cannot enjoy rights without life, and one certainly may not enjoy them from the grave. Life, no matter how bad, holds the potential to get better, to improve upon one's fundamental rights.
In a perfect world, of course, it would be great to be able to offer aid or assistance with strings attached or with funding for Rwanda's civil society and NGOs. The reality is that there is a dictatorial government that will use aid money effectively but will not likely enact any non-cosmetic reforms. The ball is squarely in the West's court: it can either give aid or not. The best choice seems to be to aid Kagame while pinching our collective noses that we are, indeed, aiding Kagame.
Thus far, this post may seem remarkably absolutist for a blog about pragmatism. What I mean to illustrate is that often even seemingly hardline positions are in reality about compromises. To send Kagame international assistance is a choice to prioritize among competing moral absolutes. The utilitarian would prioritize saving the lives of the people; the deontologist would reject any association with a brutal regime. Neither theory of ethics can be applied to international relations without considerable difficulty. Instead, each case must be taken individually. In this instance, Rwanda has come so far, and from so little, that it hardly makes sense to jeopardize that progress in the name of an elusive goal of individual rights that has little resonated thus far in Africa's political quagmire.
Despite these economic and societal advances, however, he has been ruthless in cracking down on dissidents, with opposition journalists and politicians finding themselves in jail or dead from a 9mm "car accident." Should Western nations and NGOs support the government, knowing that they are both helping feed poor children and also kill dissidents? One perspective among aid workers was, as the New York Times put it, that "Kagame was burnishing the image of the entire billion-dollar aid industry." His demonstrated results look impressive to USAID administrators sitting in their Pennsylvania Avenue headquarters, though they look far less so to the imprisoned dissidents.
However, the part of the article that resonated most strongly with me was a comment by Mr. Gettleman that "who can enjoy freedom of speech or freedom of the press when everyone is killing one another?" This does seem to be the right approach. In any contest between life and liberty, life always prevails. Starvation, war, disease -- these are terrible crimes that here supersede abstract rights principles. Death is the end. One cannot enjoy rights without life, and one certainly may not enjoy them from the grave. Life, no matter how bad, holds the potential to get better, to improve upon one's fundamental rights.
In a perfect world, of course, it would be great to be able to offer aid or assistance with strings attached or with funding for Rwanda's civil society and NGOs. The reality is that there is a dictatorial government that will use aid money effectively but will not likely enact any non-cosmetic reforms. The ball is squarely in the West's court: it can either give aid or not. The best choice seems to be to aid Kagame while pinching our collective noses that we are, indeed, aiding Kagame.
Thus far, this post may seem remarkably absolutist for a blog about pragmatism. What I mean to illustrate is that often even seemingly hardline positions are in reality about compromises. To send Kagame international assistance is a choice to prioritize among competing moral absolutes. The utilitarian would prioritize saving the lives of the people; the deontologist would reject any association with a brutal regime. Neither theory of ethics can be applied to international relations without considerable difficulty. Instead, each case must be taken individually. In this instance, Rwanda has come so far, and from so little, that it hardly makes sense to jeopardize that progress in the name of an elusive goal of individual rights that has little resonated thus far in Africa's political quagmire.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Zeno's Fallacy
In the 400s B.C., Ancient Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea proposed that traveling between two points was impossible because getting anywhere required getting halfway there, which required getting halfway to the halfway point, and so on. His conclusion, called Zeno's Paradox, was that there were an infinite number of points to traverse between two places and, since one cannot possibly walk an infinite number of steps, any and all movement was impossible.
Of course, the logical answer (proposed by Aristotle, no less) is that moving over an infinitely small distance requires an infinitely small amount of time. (In calculus speak, the limit as distance goes to zero proves that time also goes to zero.)
The point is that a series of compromises -- a series of steps to the halfway point -- can often be the only way to get achieve a goal. Hence the name of this blog: "Zeno's Fallacy." Many politicians, world leaders, clergy, economists, etc. seem to believe that only by sticking to their guns will they get what they want. The opposite is often true: failing to walk to the halfway point ensures you stay at square one, unable to ever advance.
In debates over big government vs. small government, evolution vs. creationism, and realism vs. liberalism, to name a few, people often fail to see any middle ground. Even as a high school student (or perhaps because of that), it seems like the compromises and the halfway points exist, yet no one wants to suggest them.
I hope to be able to discuss some of these issues here over the coming year. It seems like we're living through a pivotal time where key questions about politics, economics, and our culture are being determined; I'm excited to have the chance to blog about some of them. Keep checking back and so long for now.
Of course, the logical answer (proposed by Aristotle, no less) is that moving over an infinitely small distance requires an infinitely small amount of time. (In calculus speak, the limit as distance goes to zero proves that time also goes to zero.)
The point is that a series of compromises -- a series of steps to the halfway point -- can often be the only way to get achieve a goal. Hence the name of this blog: "Zeno's Fallacy." Many politicians, world leaders, clergy, economists, etc. seem to believe that only by sticking to their guns will they get what they want. The opposite is often true: failing to walk to the halfway point ensures you stay at square one, unable to ever advance.
In debates over big government vs. small government, evolution vs. creationism, and realism vs. liberalism, to name a few, people often fail to see any middle ground. Even as a high school student (or perhaps because of that), it seems like the compromises and the halfway points exist, yet no one wants to suggest them.
I hope to be able to discuss some of these issues here over the coming year. It seems like we're living through a pivotal time where key questions about politics, economics, and our culture are being determined; I'm excited to have the chance to blog about some of them. Keep checking back and so long for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)