The Old Man and the Sea

Unfortunately, again, it's been a long time since I last posted (6 weeks); however, I think I can effectively scapegoat college applications.

Either way, here's a poem I composed in my free time; I don't know if I should finish it because it's trying to capture the feeling that Santiago must have felt while trying to catch the Marlin.

The Old Man and the Sea

An Adaptation of the Namesake Ernest Hemingway Novel

In between, there is a sea.

Eighty-four days in peril, I give up hope.

I drown without a single plea.

Drown into the depths of melancholy.

My livelihood decays.

With only one fish in sight.

To her, there is a path; no, more of a maze.

As I chase her, I set these seas ablaze.

It is a struggle, a massive one.

But victory is vivacity.

So I shall do what I have not done.

It is far from over, as seen at Bull Run.

Past memories return.

From when her bites ravaged my flesh.

My ashes will soon be in an urn.

This fact I seem to spurn.

Back at land, I will find more success.

But Manolin still reveres my ventures.
His aspirations I will not suppress.

I lie; I pursue the fish to ease this yearning I possess.

Now I have managed a gash upon her with my harpoon.

My lust causes her excruciating pain.

Though she continues as if she were immune.

With the strength of a ferocious typhoon.

A relationship has been built.

One burning with love and hatred.

But the days wither, and I begin to wilt.

Persisting are feelings of longing and guilt.

Guilt of what? Of lust?
Certainly, that is man’s greatest weakness.

For vanquishing her trust?
They have told me to do as I must.

The Right (or Privilege) to Vote: Bestowed on September 26

The Arab World Revolutions: probably one of the more significant events that we are able to see unfold in our lifetimes. It's something that truly doesn't happen; the French Revolution only happened once, the Revolutions of 1848 lasted at most 3 years, and a repeat of the Russian Revolution probably won't happen either. It's as if the former generations are not only setting the course of a government straight for themselves, but inevitably, the many generations who will come after them.

Saudi Arabia now joins the rank of Jordan, Libya, Egypt, and many others. To King Abdullah's fortune, this revolution hasn't been violent; if anything, it's progressive evolution. Women now bear enfranchisement privileges.

Forget the fact that one of the world's most oppressive religious theocracies rarely has elections and that it will still take several years for women to practice this newly bestowed right; rather, celebrate. Personally, it seems like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is trying to avoid foreign intervention and a violent coup d'etat like has happened elsewhere. Women, for example, were detained for rebelling against the government earlier this year by driving cars, something not permitted under Saudi Arabia's strict legal code. Initially, I was surprised that the arrests did not instigate any foreign intervention, but the Wall Street Journal quickly reminded me of Persian Gulf oil wells.

Nonetheless, the fact that women can vote is progress, and it likely avoided bloodshed seen in other Middle Eastern countries. Some say it's not enough progress, but in a country that still uses sharia in its legal system, you can't ask for much more this year.

Now I'm just pondering whether voting is a right or a privilege; is it something we take for granted in the West? I guess that answer can be found during the next Saudi elections after 2015 where we can see if women exercise their new voting powers. [Actually, even if the rest of the world is indifferent to voting, we won't really know if this is the case in Saudi Arabia, because I would assume that women would be too afraid to vote for the first time for fear of what the government may do.]

By the way, when are the next elections King Abdullah?

Obama's Bailout - And how it saved us

"The Bailout", a phrase that signifies taxpayer money given to a company as a loan, primarily under the first term of President Obama.

I see the outlook of an American; why do these companies, which have caused substantial harm to the American economy, be given millions of dollars? News agencies frequently report to the public that these funds are used to pay off high-level executives; from that standpoint, the American taxpayer is being cheated.

CBS Nightly News reported tonight about the ongoing controversy surrounding a failed solar company, Solydra, that was given $500 million. Hastily, Republicans point the finger to the White House, seizing this opportunity to strengthen the image of their party and weaken that of the Democrats. Seems as if Americans are still angered over corporations using their taxpayer dollars.

However, the stimulus package that was passed back in January of 2009 certainly was beneficial. Though there may be occasional, disappointing failures (and in this case, a $500 million one), many American companies would not be able to stand if it weren't for President Obama. And American companies mean that at least some American workers will be employed, extremely necessary given the fact that we are facing unemployment at twice the natural rate.

Bank of America, headquartered in Charlotte, received this government loan and was able to fully pay it back. This bank allows the economy of North Carolina to thrive and was on the verge of collapsing like its sister Wachovia (bought by Wells Fargo). Evaluate the situation: American banks such as Lehman Brothers have collapsed, and other companies are in dire need of money to continue operations. Contrarily, I understand that the common citizen will be irritated by this demand and even mistrusting of both the government and these corporations.

The bottom line is that had some of these companies not been given this money, they would have failed, which would have led to the unemployment of more Americans. Furthermore, foreign companies would have been able to gain more market share in the American economy; if we look at just banks, I'm sure that Barclays, HSBC, UBS Group, Credit Suisse, and Deutsche Bank wouldn't mind having their American counterparts eliminated.

To me, it seems as if what the American government did was extremely interventionist, directly opposite of what Adam Smith suggested in his Wealth of Nations. But hey, like mercantilism, maybe heavy intervention from the government is the only way you can keep the economy of a country alive at times? 

Standardized Tests...and why they're pointless

Well, I should start off by saying that they certainly aren't pointless, and to a degree, have the potential to segregate accomplished students from not-so-accomplished students. But why are students mandated to take these exams for nearly all top-tiered colleges and universities?

It makes sense; school grades cannot be "standardized" throughout the country, and only a standardized test administered throughout the nation can do so. But this raises a few alarming questions:

Why must it be the SAT or ACT? 
Studies have consistently shown that the SAT and ACT are relatively poor predictors of college success. There certainly are many instances in which a scorer has a sub-par GPA but near-perfect scores and vice versa; so who is more "ready" for college?

Of course, high school grades have shown to predict college success nearly three times more accurately than the SAT or ACT can. However, several other standardized tests also have the capability to estimate how well an individual will do in college, and in my opinion, much better than the SAT or ACT. Take the SAT Subject Tests for example; this exam, still administered by the CollegeBoard, will measure knowledge in a particular subject area. Essentially, a student will learn the course content in a high school class and subsequently take the test, thus directly measuring how much the student has retained.

Critical thinking cannot be compared to knowledge in any regard, which is why I believe the SAT Subject Tests are the best exams currently available to high school students. Though the SAT or ACT may measure the capacity to learn (and I'm sure they don't), isn't it ultimately what you've learned what matters? Just a thought.

Why are these exams privatized?
For the 2011-12 school year, I noticed both a spike in the price of the SAT and ACT at rates higher than inflation. I understand that both the CollegeBoard and American College Testing companies are not-for-profit organizations; however, what is generally disregarded is that these companies operate as corporations seeking a profit and compensate their employees with high paychecks and bonuses...the children of employees even have their college tuition paid for.

It isn't so much the prices that bother me, but more so the amount of power that the CollegeBoard wields. For example, CollegeBoard administers the Advanced Placement (AP) exams, and though the International Baccalaureate (IB) system of Britain can be considered a competitor, it is regularly not offered in American high schools.

Inevitably, the price must deter some testers from taking the exams multiple times, something that is truly unfortunate. I do understand that disadvantaged students are allowed two free attempts, but I am also aware that many of my peers have taken the SAT or ACT nearly four times, something impossible for these disadvantaged students.

The United States government may not possess the resources to administer a federal standardized test (and if it did, it would have the efficiency of the USPS), but I do believe that there should be stricter regulations that the CollegeBoard and American College Testing companies should be subjected to. Preventing obvious oligopolies would be a start, even for not-for-profit organizations.

Responsibility - The July 2011 Mumbai Terrorist Attacks

In retrospect, I missed many substantial events that occurred during this summer, and I'll try to cover as many of them as I can this first week.

Mumbai, India; a city with a population 20 million and one of the financial hubs of Asia was rocked by a series of terrorist attacks on the evening of July 13, 2011. In the global spectrum, I will say myself that this was truly a small occurrence; unfortunately, it's also small enough to be overlooked. When compared to an attack such as 9/11 that ended almost 5000 lives, 26 is just a fraction.

If this had been any other city in the world, I probably would have been indifferent this attack, just as many others have already forgotten about it. But two things changed this: I have lived in this city as a child and 26 is a number that is too easy to visualize.

Unlike 9/11, you can easily picture a room full of 26 people, and it's extremely disturbing if you imagine all of those people dead. You soon realize that such a loss of life not only impacts you directly, but the parents, siblings, children, friends, and other relatives of those 26 people. How can you measure such a catastrophic event in the number dead then? The loss of those 26 citizens in July of 2011 probably left hundreds of others distraught. Nearly ten years later, I now understand the true impact of the September 11 attacks on the United States; not only did it emotionally damage hundreds of thousands of people, it left an entire nation of 300 million with an unforgettable mark. The impact of terrorist attacks is insignificant to an individual unless one has been emotionally scarred or has their security compromised. The former has a more prevailing pain, but the latter is what we can eradicate together.

Moving past this point, I remember several days in the aftermath, many were complaining how the government of India had failed to protect them. Terrorism is something that only the government can protect you from, after all, because ordinary civilians do not possess the resources to combat such calamities.

What we quickly forget, though, is that the government is simply a body of citizens looking for the betterment of a particular jurisdiction. The Mumbai police force is one of the most efficient police systems in the world; in fact, throughout the entire situation, many didn't realize that one of the three bombs was disabled within six minutes of discovery. It's easy to scapegoat someone, but it's more difficult for us to individually take accountability for what occurred. How well could you manage a city of 20 million, a population nearly 2.5 times that of New York City? And speaking of NYC, I clearly remember that the Times Square bomb plot in 2010 was foiled not by a government body, but by a vigilant citizen.

There certainly is room for improvement; the 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement covers many of these problems riddled in government. But in response, I ask one simple question: how can you expect your government to be flawless when you yourself are flawed? Traffic violations, littering, tax evasion, bribes...the list won't end in India.

And for the North Carolinians: it's illegal to throw a plastic bottle in a trash can. Don't worry, I didn't know that until a few weeks ago either.

The government is as perfect as you choose to obey the laws, no matter how minor they may be. Take responsibility, and don't scapegoat the government, regardless of the situation.

Return from an Unexpected Hiatus

I'm a bit disappointed that I failed yet again to keep up with this blog during the summer; however, academic opportunities such as Summer Ventures did occupy my time, and it still would have been extremely difficult to post entries.

Nonetheless, I am proud to say that some of my blog entries have inspired my peers to delve deeper into some issues; the post hoping for a unified India and Pakistan, for example, spoke to some Korean friends directly, who are now looking for a unified Korean peninsula. That was the initial purpose of the blog, as well as to inform and entertain. 

For the start of senior year, I do plan on posting at least once a week without interruption. Now that I'm home, back in gear with school, this shouldn't be too much of a problem. Plus, I really don't want to miss out on the copious amount of recently transpired events which have changed history; the 2011 England Riots and the Libyan Revolution to name a few of the many.

Also, to prove that I wasn't being completely lazy over the summer: 

The Efficiencies of Various Suncreen Products - A collaborative paper putting sunscreens in different light.

Implications of the One Child Policy

Gendercide, first termed by author Mary Anne Warren in 1985, is the mass killing directed toward a specific sex. Having said, the definition should unfortunately be altered to the mass killing directed towards females.

Several years ago, I had the notion that the one-child policy initiated by the Chinese government was a brilliant idea without any dire consequences. It was the solution for the country with the world's largest population and was expected to bring unprecedented success.The repercussions of the enacted policy are only now being reported, showing the sheer ignorance of Chinese authorities and the naivety of the rest of the world

Prior to reading about the magnitude of the issue, the most I had thought was that several men would lack brides throughout their lives. If anything, this was not an issue of global dimensions, as in the long run, it would benefit the nation; fewer couples would be present which would result in lesser children. Negative feedback if you'd like to call it.

Also to our misfortune, the current situation of the United States economy can partially linked to the one-child policy, as well as violence throughout other parts of the world.

So after a little bit of digressing, let's get back to gendercide. It's the phenomenon that's gripping China and other parts of the world. It's essentially the greater pressure and desires placed on the Chinese to have a male child with families often going to great (and unfortunate) lengths to achieve this. Biologically, humans are more likely to have a boy than a girl, and this ratio is expected to hover around 103-106:100; this is because boys are slightly more likely to die in infancy than girls and helps balance out the potential gender gap. However, this ratio is often exceeded, and the only possible way this can occur is through human altercation.

Personally [and for ethical reasons], I will avoid the measures which are taken to achieve a male heir, but what I have discovered is extremely horrifying. But there are astounding results that are worth mentioning as a result of this phenomenon.

Research conducted in Asia has indicated that the prevalence of gendercide increases as wealth and education also increase. Furthermore, the one-child policy has negative implications on the economy; not just of China, but that of the world. Certain areas in China that have a bride-price have seen families over saving. Overall, this is the reason that China can fund the debt of the United States; Chinese over-saving combined with US over-spending is a deadly combination.

So to be succinct about it, the consequences of gendercide extends far past what one would contemplate. 

The Caste System

More often than not, I've been asked what caste I was born into by the naive American, and furthermore, how it has affected my life.
 
Now there are two main problems with this:

1. I don't care what caste I was born into, even if I knew.
2. If I'm in the United States, I think it's a safe bet that it isn't affecting my life.

But there are those who truly are curious about the rigid social structure of ancient India. Unfortunately, I myself don't know much, but what truly does irritate me is that the caste system is still portrayed as a prevalent feature of modern Indian society. And though I will acknowledge that there is some presence, it should also be acknowledged that this presence is limited, and discrimination based on caste has been illegal for quite some time.

There are certain things that societies are ashamed about, and countries will often take efforts to reverse some of these actions. For example, any denial of the Holocaust in many European countries is considered illegal. Even the United States has had it's share of embarrassment: slavery, discrimination, and many other incidents. India is no different; the government is attempting to put remnants of the caste system behind it, and to compensate, quotas have been created to ensure that those of formerly lower castes have reserved seats in the most prestigious universities, etc. To clarify, it's just the Indian variant of an affirmative action program.

My only hope that is that education on international affairs in the United States will improve. I would assume that this caste system outlook is exaggerated just to make the United States look more "forward thinking", inevitably making the rest of the globe "backwards". Granted, I can't say that the U.S. is the only one doing this; every nation will do this to make themselves look better.

I was also asked if the caste system does not allow those of the lowest class any social mobility (with the presumption that the caste system is widely prevalent). My answer is simple; the caste system still exists in India to a degree, just as remnants of racism still exist in the United States. Is the homeless African American  who had been subjugated to racial hatred just a few decades earlier any different?

Savaged

Many people around the world travel to nations to experience native culture; one would travel to Japan per say, to see samurai brandishing their nihonto (sword), or possibly a traditional Maori haka dance in New Zealand. But lately, it's been hard to come to terms with the fact that these are all fake performances; these travelers are generally paying millions, if not billions of dollars to keep the beloved tourist industry going.

What if we had the opportunity to travel back in time and see the world before European colonization? The African tribes would be living in peace, and those 12 million Africans that were sent to the New World would never have had to endure the pain of the Middle Passage. Maybe the Aborigines would still flood the Australian mainland and not a single white man would have stepped foot on their native lands.

It's hard to imagine such a world. I think to myself everyday if such accomplished foreigners would be in the West had the Europeans not colonized the rest of the world. Granted, it's a trade off; a more modernized and globalized world that has lost its cultural touch.

Before you're drawn in on what Europeans would call noble savage (that's for another day), let's sidetrack a bit...

Why did this colonization happen and how is it currently portrayed?

Many say it was because Europe had just experienced a technological revolution and had a craving for luscious material goods such as spices and gold; thus, they were seeking passage to Asia. With the European might, lands such as Africa, India, Indochina, China, and the rest of the world were slowly taken over; why? Because clearly these natives lacked the technological advances that Europe had. I mean, as far as I see it, this is just a euphemism for calling the rest of the world stupid. 

For example, it was Europeans that invented the printing press in 1454 (Johannes Gutenberg), and even more recently, Henry Ford with the assembly line in the 20th century. Did anyone do a background check? The Chinese and Koreans were using block printing nearly 400 years earlier and the Japanese had derived an assembly line system in the 19th century, later termed as kanban.

So maybe the West didn't invent everything that they claim, but one thing that cannot be denied is that they are the first peoples to bring the entire world together as one. Before the Europeans, there wasn't one single group connecting all the continents.

Back to why it is claimed this emerged in Europe: currently, it is stated in history that the Europeans were experiencing a boom, known colloquially as the Scientific Revolution, and that other civilizations fell behind in technology. However, many fail to see that places such as South Asia, the Middle East, and East Asia were just as advanced, but yet, never resorted to colonization. For all these geographic entities, there is common unifying pattern: they either already had a systematic, peaceful method of trade or had sufficient amounts of their own natural resources. At this point, Europeans were in constant need of raw materials, and violence and warfare were the main tactics used to acquire their "necessities".

Was the globe colonized because places outside of Europe did not have the same level of advancement Europe had? In my opinion, not at all. Europe was just desperate for raw materials and was trying its hardest (maybe not in the best way) for what it could lay its hands on. Other parts of their world already had their own systems in place, eventually brought down in many cases (one example is of the Arab ships that Vasco da Gama saw on the eastern coast of India in 1498). 

I take for granted that I'm in this country, and sometimes forget what my own people went through for me to be here. But having said, I try to look beyond what's written in the history textbook...because as always, history is written by the winners. Hopefully you'll look beyond your textbook too and realize how easily we're deceived by what we've been taught. After all, half of it may be a blatant exaggeration, and unfortunately, even a lie.

Icecold Soda

LONG TIME NO BLOGGING! My parents said I should probably blog at least weekly if I want to find success on this blog, but that's been difficult in the midst of AP Exams, the ACT, and SAT II's, thus the hiatus.

Today I'll just blog about what's on my mind and avoid any current events.

Don't they always give you ice when you visit a fast food restaurant? I mean, half the glass is full of ice and when it melts into your drink, it tastes nasty. Why do they do that? To save money, right? That's what I thought up till about last week, but now I'm starting to doubt it. A soft drink is pretty cheap to manufacture; maybe around $0.10 for a large drink at a fast food restaurant. I bet that ice is cheaper than soda since it doesn't have any ingredients.But I'm going to assume that the water of the ice is only slightly cheaper than soda because sugar and high fructose corn syrup aren't that expensive.

And the most expensive part of the ice - the freezing. So much energy is expended in actually trying to freeze ice, I believe that it may be worthwhile to only serve ice upon request. That way, the restaurant doesn't have to expend significant amounts of energy to constantly refreeze ice. I highly doubt that people are going to come up asking for ice in the first place. Granted, that ice maker would constantly have to be running, but a smaller variant can probably replace the one most places have!

I think in the next few weeks I'll try to calculate the amount of money that is saved if this effort is taken, and how it can contribute to the American economy - a few cents throughout the nation has the potential to change the GDP significantly.

The Royal Wedding and Other Extended Thoughts

The Royal Wedding between Prince William and Kate Middleton is undoubtedly the spectacle of the media planned for tomorrow, April 29, 2011. Millions are going to be watching the festivities in [rainy?] London tomorrow, possibly including myself.

And in all fairness, I was asking myself who has the time to be watching a wedding. I mean, to an extent, it's the same old thing, isn't it? A couple making vows and promising to love and take care of each other for the rest of their lives. A wedding between any other famous couple should theoretically be the same thing, in my opinion.

I guess I'm just watching it because there is nothing else on television. It made me think of the number of British monarchs who have been wed; all those years of the British Empire. From the Tudors to Stuarts followed by the Hanovers. Having said, Queen Victoria [and British colonization] wasn't that long ago. A bit scary sometimes when you think about how far we've come in just several decades.
______________________________________________________________________________

Apparently Arizona politicians are considering the removal of the memorial of Mr. Balbir Sodhi, one of the first killed in the aftermath of the September 11 event in the United States because he was believed to be Middle Eastern. The fact that the removal of a memorial [the commemoration of a deceased person], should not be tolerated. I guess it's reasons such as these that I'm ashamed of the actions of the United States.

Please sign the following petition to keep the memorial:

http://www.saldef.org/uncategorized/stop-arizona-from-removing-balbir-singh-sodhi-from-911-memorial/#more-4914

I really wished this would receive further media attention.

Migrants

The United States is the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. As citizens, we truly are presented with our rights (to an extent...and let's just say this decade, because I know this was not true about 30 years ago).

But do migrants really get the proper treatment they deserve? Not just in America, but in every industrialized country. After having watched the movie, Welcome, the enduring tale of a seventeen year old Iraqi boy trying to cross into the U.K. illegally from France, I truly am disturbed about the way the world treats such people. After all, they are the same as us, just born into a different country...and unfortunately for them, it's generally an impoverished or war-torn country. 

Personally, I believe that refugees crossing into the country who are benefiting the economy or country in a positive manner should be allowed to stay. Realistically, they never benefit the economy due to outward capital flow (migrants sending money back to their own country), but something other than shipping them back out must be done. 

My personal belief is that once an illegal makes it and isn't committing crimes, they should be allowed to stay. The main goal of the industrialized countries would be to prevent future illegal immigrants, but once the immigrants make it, just let them live their lives in peace.

NY Times and their Dough ($$)

Just like any other person, I read the New York Times in my free time; nice articles, nice thoughts, and they give you a better picture of the world. And to be honest, I was hooked; especially with the free application on the iPod Touch.

But the New York Times broke the bond. They started charging for the website! To be honest, I'm not sure exactly how much it is, but what I am sure about is that the rest of the world isn't going to pay for their news. I'd rather go to another website like the BBC or CNN just like any other person.

Readership v. Sales

Does it really matter? The NY Times obviously aren't popular right now, and readership rates are going to decline greatly. But one thing is for sure, they will profit out of this. And since when was the goal of a news company to have more readership, as compared to maximizing profits.

But either way, I refuse to pay $3.25 a week to use the application for the iPod/iPhone, and so will many other people. The rating for the app dropped from around a 4 to about 2.2 I believe within the week.

USA TODAY, all the way.

Religion

We still argue controversially about this topic; how my religion is better than yours? We argue about the history of these religions, the accuracy and whatnot, to the point where we are left in bloodshed.

But it goes without doubt to say that the fundamental values that all religions hold is identical to one another. Maybe a few slight variations, but all religious values look to the betterment of one another. To be honest, I know extremely little of Hinduism, what should be my faith; but I do know that it shares two things with most others:

1. The belief that humans are subordinate to some unknown figure.
2. To hold one's actions to a high standard for the benefit of oneself, as well the community.

What is the difference between Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or Zoroastrianism? The histories maybe...fundamentally, nothing.

Don't even get me started on the concept of missionaries...

Maybe?...

A Dream: A Unified India and Pakistan

A dream is a little more than just an imaginative world that has slight chances of ever coming true...or even impossible. But it's good to dream.

My dream is a unified India and Pakistan. One government working towards a common goal. As complex as the current state of these countries may be, how are the interests of two nations different? Adequate provisions for all citizens, little crime, and the prevention of illegal activities would suffice.

In my opinion, it's no more than mistrust in one another, combined with the Hindu-Muslim rivalry. But it should be possible [in a hypothetical world]; if the Sikhs can thrive in both India and Pakistan, why are we still reduced to this futile hatred?

That mistrust has led to both India and Pakistan pointing the finger at each other in every controversial matter; it's also led to bloody fighting before. Why, I still ask? Aren't we all brothers and sisters, created as one? We were taught these principles at one point or another, but we still don't act on them.

I know it won't happen...maybe in centuries to come, but we all know that it should happen. Merging economies, diplomatic relations, and other aspects of two competitive governments is just not being practical.

It ends when the peoples of India and Pakistan stop teaching their younger generations slander and libel of their neighbor. It's these new generations that will shape the world...but unfortunately it's not even this one in the 21st century.

A dream can be called a dream only if you have the will to aspire. For if you do not, it's no more than an dissipating illusion.

The Libyan Revolution: US Intervention & Wikileaks

I praise the action and efforts of the citizens of Libya fighting against the crude dictator Moammar Gadhafi. In such an authoritarian country, it becomes difficult to stand up to the government...and they've still managed even with the amount of violence the rebels have seen in Benghazi. They aren't well armed and have the courage to stand up against tanks and other advanced weaponry that the government is using.

"Action is necessary and we will not be acting alone," Obama said


It seems quite obvious that this isn't going to be direct military intervention [yet], but I personally condemn any American intervention in Libya; the effects from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq still hinder our country with excessive costs and burdens. Either way, even if the United States attends the Paris summit hosted by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, wouldn't the efforts be futile if the European countries are going to take action anyway? 


If this does eventually lead to direct military intervention, it is not the United States' position to invade Libya. It will be a waste of tax payer money [when that money should be used on healthcare and education], cost American lives, and may further damage the economy. 


I don't understand why these countries invade nations on the basis of humanitarianism. They've all supported their share of the wrong regimes and have initiated conflict before. The French armed the Hutus in the genocide in Rwanda and Burundi that almost wiped out the Tutsis; the US has supported terrorist regimes to counter the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan; they've even supported the Tamil Tigers in the Sri Lankan Civil War. On a darker note, who knows what these rebels might do with armaments and support from the West?


It's obviously all for oil. But is it really worth it? I bet there's more long term consequences. 


Another point that I want to stress is the effect Wikileaks has played. Initially it was condemned for the threat it could play, but it seems as if this was an overreaction. In fact, I think it's helped the United States. According to Stratfor, a global intelligence company, everything released by Wikileaks is vague, known to the public, and raw, unanalyzed data. In fact, news organizations such as The Guardian and the New York Times attempted to analyze this data...so doesn't that logically mean that these news organizations should get in more trouble? [Point of clarification: the unanalyzed data can only successfully be interpreted by the US Military]


Well, the news articles that "attempted to" analyze the data are thought to have been the trigger for the Middle Eastern revolutions...and so far, they've been in the United States' favor overall. In Tunisia, the United States did not want Ben Ali as the incumbent...the domino effect finally led to Libya where it may lead to the abdication of another leader the US loathes. So maybe Julian did a favor for the United States? 

Kyrie Irving...and Duke's Overconfidence

No doubt about it, Kyrie Irving is an extremely talented freshman guard playing for Duke, but is his return for March Madness over anticipated? As a loyal Duke fan, I'd like to see the Blue Devils win the whole tournament, but honestly I think Duke fans are getting a bit overconfident with the return.

Nike's made a special shoe for Irving to play, but honestly, he hasn't played a game in about three months and never with these shoes. Yes, he can condition in them, but it's never the same as actually playing...and adding on, how much comfort will they really offer?

"I think I had a high basketball IQ when I was playing," Irving said, "but now it's increased, tremendously."

He'll need a few more games before he plays to his full potential, and putting that "IQ" to the test isn't as easy as Irving makes it seem.

Things do come in three's though, so hopefully Irving's return isn't the third:

1. ACC Tournament Champions
2. #1 Seed
3. 2011 NCAA Champions???

My Final Four Picks:

Syracuse
Duke
Kansas
Pittsburgh

I'm trying not to be boring like President Obama's bracket picks by only choosing 4 #1 seeds in the Final Four...hence, Syracuse.

And for fun, if NCAA picks were done in terms of economics programs:

http://timothyjlayton.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/econ-bracket.jpg?w=1024

Inverse relationship between quality of econ program and athletic program?

So SMART

Info straight from MIT

The Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology. Singapore is using more than just its strategic location for this one. The country is devising methods to cope with rapid population growth in every way possible; they collect gutters to collect rain water, place very tight limits on loans for second homes, and slap high taxes on speculators who flip properties.

Intrusive? Maybe, but it's worked. Singapore recently saw a 14.5% growth with FDI growing 123%. They're called the Switzerland of Asia, but as SMART examines the "future of urban mobility", Switzerland may be the Singapore of Europe.

At this rate, I see the Singaporeans as the next New Yorkers, receiving contracts from places such as UAE and China, and American companies such as Proctor and Gamble. Probably not going to be the world's largest economy [I speculate China in 25 years], but definitely a mini-superpower.

Nukes for all?

For some reason, I always find it wrong that many nations refuse to provide Iran with uranium. Even if it is to make nukes [which it very well may not be], wouldn't that just lead to increased deterrence?

To clarify, if Iran possesses nuclear weapons, Israel [or any other country] would not fire their weapons for risk of being annihilated themselves...a concept coined as Mutually Assured Destruction.

Either way, Iran could only produce up to 2 nukes in their arsenal, whereas the U.S....thousands. So no fear, America would still have the upper hand.

In my opinion, if every stable country possessed nuclear armaments, then no country would be inclined to use them. Right now, since the weapons are concentrated in the most powerful countries, what if they are eventually used. Questions, questions..

Of course, it would reduce the political power countries like the United States have. The U.N. Security Council requires that in order to have veto powers, nuclear armaments are required. Now it's quite obvious that most states wouldn't want to give that up.

But hey, in the long run, we might not need to spend that much money on defense again if nukes aren't going to be used...given the fact that we spend more on the military than education.

Universal Healthcare

Life is considered an inalienable right [John Locke], coming from a man who so vehemently affected the Constitution. But yet over 200 years later, America still lacks universal healthcare compared to every other G8 nation. Of course, in a heavily capitalistic economy, such behavior is expected. One would be unwilling to pay for the life of another, as one should earn the privilege of healthcare itselft.

But people are naive to think that the insurance company isn't stealing money from them. As far as I see it, in capitalism, everyone goes for profit; so why wouldn't the insurance company? They, along with the hospital, would try to extract every penny possible, even at the expense of the consumer.

An HMO for example, pays doctors money to withold information from you. This way, if there is a problem, the insurance company would not have to pay for your treatment. And the irony: for witholding information, the doctor at the end of the day, receives a fat paycheck. To me, this is only a form of corruption. The American healthcare system needs to ostracise such corrupt behavior, and seriously should be reformed.

Universal healthcare does not lead to an unsuccessful economy, as many would argue.

Japanese Earthquake

This earthquake is huge and I'm honestly quite surprised that this is Japan's largest earthquake in recorded history. I always remember looking at little postcards of cartoon Asian villages being destroyed by earthquakes...might have been Godzilla now that I think about it. The good news is that it probably won't be as bad as the Indian Ocean tsunami from 2004 since most of the Pacific rim actually has tsunami warning systems installed. 

I think what, 300 people have died so far? Even if that number escalates past a thousand, it won't be as close to the devastation from 2004 or even the Haiti earthquake which well surpassed 200,000; tragic nonetheless though. Who would know that Mother Nature would use her fury today? I feel terrible for those people who lost their lives thinking it was going to be an ordinary day...now that's tough. And hell, enough force to cross the few thousand mile frontier of the Pacific Ocean. Part of me worries what is to become of us in 2012. 

The Deception of Education

I was once asked in an application to answer a simple, but deceiving question, "The Greatest Problem Known to Mankind". Now this is difficult. Honestly, ask yourself this. Where would YOU start? Global warming, women's rights, overpopulation; ultimately they are all linked together.

Let's take this a step backwards. What is man's greatest achievement? Okay, to clarify, I'm trying to ask the process that allowed humanity to progress so far. Education, undoubtedly. Without it, wouldn't we still be incompetent cavemen eating raw flesh? Education has led people to live longer, live more comfortably, and have more leisure in their lives. On the contrary, education is a death sentence.

Education is the root cause of all social problems. If I were to approach a Westerner and question them on whether or not socialism or capitalism were the better system, I would expect the latter. Why? Well, isn't that how we've been educated? From what I've learned, my teachers and parents have always denounced socialism. As if I've been guinea-pigged into thinking it doesn't work. In a way, this is what fueled Vietnam and the Cold War too, right?

People always go about what they've been taught and most fail to move past this. For example, the global recession struck in 2008. Most jobs were outsourced out of America, because these companies [IBM, cough cough] wanted "capital". Well, I'm sure capitalism is a winner now isn't it? That near double-digit unemployment rate is just the icing on the cake!

As education and development progress, so does the number of lives it takes. Just look at modern conflict. Back in 1800, we didn't have the capability to nuke someone, but now we do. That bias in education will undoubtedly cause more lives to be lost [just because socialism is definitely subordinate to capitalism] as time passes. That was a Cold War/Vietnam War/Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan reference to try to make it more obvious.

The solution obviously is not to stop educating, but to eliminate the bias. When we do, we'll be living in the ideal Utopia [let's try to make Thomas More proud].. No more wars and world peace. That's the hard part.