Published Mar. 1, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here
The 2008 presidential elections are over a year away. The New Hampshire primary is still just a gleam in the eyes of the big wheels in Concord, N.H. But the infighting between presidential hopefuls has already started. This time, it's the firstround of the super-heavyweight title match between Democratic front-runners Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama.
It started — as does much of this country's popular drama — in Hollywood. Successful producer David Geffen of DreamWorks SKG organized an invitation-only, star-studded fundraiser for presidential hopeful Obama. The fundraiser raised over $1 million, unsurprising given the support Obama enjoys from the deep-pocketed glitterati of America's movie capital.
Hollywood supporting a popular, charismatic Democratic presidential hopeful is not exactly earth-shattering, and is really not the major issue. You see, Geffen and the Clintons were pretty close back in the early nineties. Then came Monicagate, along with some other issues, and Geffen distanced himself from the Clintons. So no one was that surprised when Geffen openly supported Obama and not Hillary. What really got people's attention is what he had to say about Arkansas' presidential couple.
Essentially, Geffen called all politicians liars, and he further voiced his true unease at how he believed the former first couple of Little Rock, Ark., had lied. He then ran through a series of somewhat unflattering adjectives for Hillary, and verbally drop-kicked the Clinton political team. For more on this, see Howard Fineman's Feb. 21 column in Newsweek.
Hillary was not going to stand for this. Her team fired back almost immediately, calling on Obama to denounce the offending remarks, and also to give back the money.
Obama, certainly not one to be cowed, responded equally forcefully. His team highlighted Geffen's once-close relationship with the Clintons, and Hillary's coziness with a supporter who had publicly insulted Obama and his race.
Later, Obama also stated that he shouldn't be the one to apologize for someone else's comments.
After the initial volleys earlier this month, both sides have backed down from escalating the issue. Both Obama and Hillary are back to speaking, shaking hands, seeking face time and raising money. They both have better things to do than focus on some stray comments at one fundraiser, no matter how glitzy.
Even the initial broadsides from both campaigns were in a sense obligatory. High-profile Geffen is unabashedly Democratic. If a fellow Democrat's attack on Hillary couldn't be defended against, how would they fare against the precision attacks of Republicans come election season?
Obama's camp was certainly not unjustified in defending their candidate and his actions.
But then again, these were virtually automatic reactions to actions that were themselves pre-ordained by our political atmosphere, particularly when it comes to elections.
No candidate can afford to look weak in the eyes of the other party. Pacifying, satiating and neutralizing the fire of the opposing party is the driving force behind most actions of candidates, including the little bout mentioned above.
Did most people really care what one left-wing Hollywood firebrand had to say about a particular candidate? Not really.
Are his words really going to seriously change most people's opinions about Obama, Hillary or politicians in general? Not likely.
Do the camps of Hillary, Obama and virtually all candidates from both parties know this? Probably. Will this in any way stop them from verbally attacking, parrying and defending one another over relatively asinine comments? Not a chance.
Much of the verbose battles that are given so much focus during elections are really waged not for the benefit and attention of the general public but to guard against fire from opponents. The idea is to deny one's opponent any advantage in any area, which is a principle of war called security.
Inherently, there's nothing wrong with it.
Violation of this security would grant an opponent an opportunity to capitalize on a weak point and potentially destroy a particular candidate. That is something all candidates have the right to guard against.
A major downside to this is the deluge of political tiffs between virtually all candidates.
A new argument appears almost every day, and most of these are over some comment made by someone about something.
Granted some comments are genuinely misunderstood or misspoken, most of them are about such minute details or so blatantly incorrect that most people need no assistance to determine that said comments have no value.
However, politicians still respond to these comments because they must. They have to do so to make sure there is no chink in their political armor, no unprotected heel for their rhetorical Achilles. If they didn't, you can bet that their opponents would try their best to flay them alive. Again, the consequence is a deluge of endless debates, disagreement and discourse over virtually everything.
Who really pays the price for this? That's hard to say. One might conclude that the politicians themselves suffer the most. That's a fair assessment. But they're also in effect protecting themselves from themselves. I don't know if that qualifies as suffering. One might also say that it's the general public who bear the brunt of the pain, since they have to bear witness to these endless chains of rhetorical attack and counterattack. But then again, a large portion of the public is apathetic, either by nature or by sheer desensitization. They simply don't care to listen to these mini-arguments.
It's unclear who, if anyone, really suffers from these election-time verbal cluster bombs. It's also unclear what benefit, if any, they have for the general public. What is pretty clear is that they'll continue dropping.
Everywhere.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
MIXED FEELINGS ABOUT “ONE LAPTOP PER CHILD” PROGRAM
Published Feb. 15, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here
Starting this week, the famed “One Laptop per Child” project will start sending its first batch of ultra-inexpensive laptops to several poor nations around the globe. This groundbreaking project seeks to revolutionize education in developing countries by distributing durable, kid-friendly laptop computers to impoverished schoolchildren. The cornerstone of this program is the revolutionary $150 laptop.
The project is the brainchild of a group of professors at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Their vision is to reach 150 million of the neediest children of the world by 2010. By then, according to Reuters news agency, the price of the laptop is expected to fall below $100.
That price is a mere fraction of those of even basic consumer models sold in the United States.
The innovative technology inside the MIT laptops, however, belies the cheap price. They boast Linux open-source operating systems, hand-cranked battery chargers, multilingual keyboards and displays that can switch between color and monochrome. They also are equipped with wireless connectivity, pen-input capability and built-in video cameras.
The idea behind the project is for schoolchildren in developing countries to bridge the digital divide and use these computers to read e-books, shoot videos and otherwise exploit the power of the computer. Several nations are already slated to host pilot programs with this visionary idea before full-scale introduction in developing nations around the globe.
On the surface, this seems like a great idea.
A group of learned people from a very wealthy and computer-savvy country are using their knowledge and industrial might to help the children of poor nations enter the world of computers. Supplying quality machines appears to be a worthy effort to help those in need
The problem, however, lies not in the computers themselves, but in the manner in which they are to be implemented. In fact, that exact manner is vague at best. The laptops are designed to be used to perform a host of electronic educational tasks — making videos, researching on the Internet, etc. — that are commonplace in most any American school.
But the true strength of the American school system does not lie in its advanced use of technology. No, the true strength of our school system lies in things decidedly more low-tech.
It lies in didactic elements like trained teachers, solid school buildings, surplus school supplies and books.
As shocking as it is, most of the children who are slated to receive the laptops in question are lacking much of the above in their schooling. Virtually every nation on the list to participate in this program has a shortage of trained teachers.
Many of these countries' school buildings are decrepit, if existent at all. In some cases, there are not even books for these children.
The shortage of these very basic educational necessities is something no single piece of technology can overcome.
Therefore, these laptops become little more than toys for children who would still need a good education.
And expensive toys, at that.
It is estimated by the “Room to Read” charitable organization that a school serving 500 pupils can be built and maintained for only $25 per child. A library that can serve 400 children can be had for only $5 per child. That library can bring a large number of local-language texts for the benefit of its patrons. Given this, $150 for one laptop for only one child does not seem like such a sound investment.
All the more so because the concept is unproven. It took schools in the developed countries the better part of three decades to integrate technology with a well-established curriculum and stable school system.
The laptop project is trying to force that same integration almost overnight in areas where even school buildings may not exist, let alone curricula and supplies.
That's a pretty big risk.
But, like any big risk, it has the potential to be a runaway success — a true global revolution in educational technology. If successful, this project and its patrons will be bona fide heroes for underprivileged children everywhere. Children all across the world would have new educational doors opened to them and would benefit from technology like never before. The digital divide will have been spanned by some pretty big bridges.
It also has the potential, however, to fail miserably. The educational goals of the project may well never be met.
The thousands of laptops may end up being sold on the black market and gutted for parts for who knows what kind of device. It may very well leave the project in shambles and its patrons with no credibility. Poor nations already struggling with debt will be left reeling from millions of dollars of new debt, all from an essentially fruitless venture.
Still, the prize is too significant to not at least try this project out. To end it at its current state would be doing a great disservice. I say keep with it and hope for the first scenario.
Just don't be too surprised if the second scenario results instead.
Viewable Online Here
Starting this week, the famed “One Laptop per Child” project will start sending its first batch of ultra-inexpensive laptops to several poor nations around the globe. This groundbreaking project seeks to revolutionize education in developing countries by distributing durable, kid-friendly laptop computers to impoverished schoolchildren. The cornerstone of this program is the revolutionary $150 laptop.
The project is the brainchild of a group of professors at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Their vision is to reach 150 million of the neediest children of the world by 2010. By then, according to Reuters news agency, the price of the laptop is expected to fall below $100.
That price is a mere fraction of those of even basic consumer models sold in the United States.
The innovative technology inside the MIT laptops, however, belies the cheap price. They boast Linux open-source operating systems, hand-cranked battery chargers, multilingual keyboards and displays that can switch between color and monochrome. They also are equipped with wireless connectivity, pen-input capability and built-in video cameras.
The idea behind the project is for schoolchildren in developing countries to bridge the digital divide and use these computers to read e-books, shoot videos and otherwise exploit the power of the computer. Several nations are already slated to host pilot programs with this visionary idea before full-scale introduction in developing nations around the globe.
On the surface, this seems like a great idea.
A group of learned people from a very wealthy and computer-savvy country are using their knowledge and industrial might to help the children of poor nations enter the world of computers. Supplying quality machines appears to be a worthy effort to help those in need
The problem, however, lies not in the computers themselves, but in the manner in which they are to be implemented. In fact, that exact manner is vague at best. The laptops are designed to be used to perform a host of electronic educational tasks — making videos, researching on the Internet, etc. — that are commonplace in most any American school.
But the true strength of the American school system does not lie in its advanced use of technology. No, the true strength of our school system lies in things decidedly more low-tech.
It lies in didactic elements like trained teachers, solid school buildings, surplus school supplies and books.
As shocking as it is, most of the children who are slated to receive the laptops in question are lacking much of the above in their schooling. Virtually every nation on the list to participate in this program has a shortage of trained teachers.
Many of these countries' school buildings are decrepit, if existent at all. In some cases, there are not even books for these children.
The shortage of these very basic educational necessities is something no single piece of technology can overcome.
Therefore, these laptops become little more than toys for children who would still need a good education.
And expensive toys, at that.
It is estimated by the “Room to Read” charitable organization that a school serving 500 pupils can be built and maintained for only $25 per child. A library that can serve 400 children can be had for only $5 per child. That library can bring a large number of local-language texts for the benefit of its patrons. Given this, $150 for one laptop for only one child does not seem like such a sound investment.
All the more so because the concept is unproven. It took schools in the developed countries the better part of three decades to integrate technology with a well-established curriculum and stable school system.
The laptop project is trying to force that same integration almost overnight in areas where even school buildings may not exist, let alone curricula and supplies.
That's a pretty big risk.
But, like any big risk, it has the potential to be a runaway success — a true global revolution in educational technology. If successful, this project and its patrons will be bona fide heroes for underprivileged children everywhere. Children all across the world would have new educational doors opened to them and would benefit from technology like never before. The digital divide will have been spanned by some pretty big bridges.
It also has the potential, however, to fail miserably. The educational goals of the project may well never be met.
The thousands of laptops may end up being sold on the black market and gutted for parts for who knows what kind of device. It may very well leave the project in shambles and its patrons with no credibility. Poor nations already struggling with debt will be left reeling from millions of dollars of new debt, all from an essentially fruitless venture.
Still, the prize is too significant to not at least try this project out. To end it at its current state would be doing a great disservice. I say keep with it and hope for the first scenario.
Just don't be too surprised if the second scenario results instead.
WII REVOLUTION A BENEFIT FOR PLAYERS’ HEALTH
Published Feb. 1, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here
Kids play video games. This has been true since video games first came about, 30-some-odd years ago. Systems have come a long way from the monochromatic Pong era to the HD-capable, powerhouse consoles of today that wield more computing power than most computers. Likewise, games have improved from two schizophrenic dots chasing each other to today’s intricately plotted sagas whose graphics quality approaches that of movies or television.
All through this exponential explosion of technology, one thing had remained constant in the world of video games, how the games were played. It involved one to four players sitting, slouching, or at the most, standing with a controller in hand. Pressing the numerous buttons on said controller was the only way to get anything to happen in the course of the game.
All that changed forever on Nov. 19, 2006, the day the Nintendo Wii was released.
More than two months have since passed, which in the world of electronics is tantamount to about 2.1 years, give or take. That means that most of you have played Wii, or at the very least, have touched one.
You know, then, the key to the Wii’s runaway success is its revolutionary approach to game-controlling. The ubiquitous controller is now completely unattached to the console, and most of the functions once only available via buttons have now been replaced by simple motions.
Yes, motion. Just that.
Let’s say you want to, say, return a computer-generated serve in Wii tennis. Gone are the days of pushing one button for backhand and another for forehand. Hold the controller and swing it like a tennis racket, fore or back.
That’s all.
Wowza.
This revolution in gaming aside, the Wii is the opening chapter in a renewed row between gamers and game critics. Of the latter, there has always been a vocal faction. Granted, some of the rhetoric of these critics is ludicrous and just wrong. Video games do not, in fact, poison minds, kill brain cells or cause blindness, as some have claimed.
That said, staring at a screen for long periods of time moving only the fingers and the occasional wrist does not foreshadow glad tidings for one’s body mass index and cholesterol, among other things.
About that, there is no dispute.
This isn’t limited to just video games. People who spend long hours in front of computer screens are equally susceptible. The one crucial difference between these desk jobs and video games is that the holders of the jobs are adults. They’ve had many years to, potentially, live a more active life.
If, the argument goes, kids are exposed to the obvious pleasures of video games from an early age with no cap on playing time, they will develop unhealthy habits and a sedentary lifestyle. This couch-potato syndrome is much harder to shake off during the early years and can cause much more damage to little bodies than bigger ones.
Thus, health proponents of all shades faced off against video gamers and companies for many years. Although this has died down in the last few years due to the sheer popularity of video games, the Wii’s motion-sensitive controllers represent a definitive nail in the coffin of this battle.
That’s because Nintendo has hit the sweet spot between fun-loving kids of all ages and their more health-conscious parents. One has to seriously move around to play most Wii games for any length of time. And while this may not be on the level of, say, the Ironman Triathlon, it’s actually decent exercise.
And miles removed from sitting on a couch pushing buttons.
What prevents people from exercising more is the perception of pain and work. If one finds fun in exercising, it immediately becomes a more desirable activity. So while kids are busy chasing down stray ground shots in Wii tennis or sword-fighting in Zelda, they are actually having fun. That’s what they care about the most, not that they’re burning calories and (somewhat) increasing stamina.
Is this the ideal form of exercise for today’s digital generation of ankle-biters? Pretty darn close.
Granted, not every child has a Wii, and it is still possible to play the Wii sitting down.
But those who fully equate video games with sedentary obesity are steadily running out of steam in their argument. It used to be a tag line of sorts to “stop playing the game and go move around.”
Well, guess what? Now the only way to play the game is to move around.
I have nothing against the proponents of health and healthy practices. Their ideal is admirable. They must, however, be able to reach out to people better than the allure of video games. They were losing this battle already in the past few years.
In the form of the Wii, Nintendo has made sure the health promoters keep losing this battle while paradoxically advancing the very cause they champion. So a whole generation of video-game-loving kids will grow up not only happier, but a little healthier too. All thanks to Nintendo.
Now, if only Sony and Microsoft would get a move on, too.
Viewable Online Here
Kids play video games. This has been true since video games first came about, 30-some-odd years ago. Systems have come a long way from the monochromatic Pong era to the HD-capable, powerhouse consoles of today that wield more computing power than most computers. Likewise, games have improved from two schizophrenic dots chasing each other to today’s intricately plotted sagas whose graphics quality approaches that of movies or television.
All through this exponential explosion of technology, one thing had remained constant in the world of video games, how the games were played. It involved one to four players sitting, slouching, or at the most, standing with a controller in hand. Pressing the numerous buttons on said controller was the only way to get anything to happen in the course of the game.
All that changed forever on Nov. 19, 2006, the day the Nintendo Wii was released.
More than two months have since passed, which in the world of electronics is tantamount to about 2.1 years, give or take. That means that most of you have played Wii, or at the very least, have touched one.
You know, then, the key to the Wii’s runaway success is its revolutionary approach to game-controlling. The ubiquitous controller is now completely unattached to the console, and most of the functions once only available via buttons have now been replaced by simple motions.
Yes, motion. Just that.
Let’s say you want to, say, return a computer-generated serve in Wii tennis. Gone are the days of pushing one button for backhand and another for forehand. Hold the controller and swing it like a tennis racket, fore or back.
That’s all.
Wowza.
This revolution in gaming aside, the Wii is the opening chapter in a renewed row between gamers and game critics. Of the latter, there has always been a vocal faction. Granted, some of the rhetoric of these critics is ludicrous and just wrong. Video games do not, in fact, poison minds, kill brain cells or cause blindness, as some have claimed.
That said, staring at a screen for long periods of time moving only the fingers and the occasional wrist does not foreshadow glad tidings for one’s body mass index and cholesterol, among other things.
About that, there is no dispute.
This isn’t limited to just video games. People who spend long hours in front of computer screens are equally susceptible. The one crucial difference between these desk jobs and video games is that the holders of the jobs are adults. They’ve had many years to, potentially, live a more active life.
If, the argument goes, kids are exposed to the obvious pleasures of video games from an early age with no cap on playing time, they will develop unhealthy habits and a sedentary lifestyle. This couch-potato syndrome is much harder to shake off during the early years and can cause much more damage to little bodies than bigger ones.
Thus, health proponents of all shades faced off against video gamers and companies for many years. Although this has died down in the last few years due to the sheer popularity of video games, the Wii’s motion-sensitive controllers represent a definitive nail in the coffin of this battle.
That’s because Nintendo has hit the sweet spot between fun-loving kids of all ages and their more health-conscious parents. One has to seriously move around to play most Wii games for any length of time. And while this may not be on the level of, say, the Ironman Triathlon, it’s actually decent exercise.
And miles removed from sitting on a couch pushing buttons.
What prevents people from exercising more is the perception of pain and work. If one finds fun in exercising, it immediately becomes a more desirable activity. So while kids are busy chasing down stray ground shots in Wii tennis or sword-fighting in Zelda, they are actually having fun. That’s what they care about the most, not that they’re burning calories and (somewhat) increasing stamina.
Is this the ideal form of exercise for today’s digital generation of ankle-biters? Pretty darn close.
Granted, not every child has a Wii, and it is still possible to play the Wii sitting down.
But those who fully equate video games with sedentary obesity are steadily running out of steam in their argument. It used to be a tag line of sorts to “stop playing the game and go move around.”
Well, guess what? Now the only way to play the game is to move around.
I have nothing against the proponents of health and healthy practices. Their ideal is admirable. They must, however, be able to reach out to people better than the allure of video games. They were losing this battle already in the past few years.
In the form of the Wii, Nintendo has made sure the health promoters keep losing this battle while paradoxically advancing the very cause they champion. So a whole generation of video-game-loving kids will grow up not only happier, but a little healthier too. All thanks to Nintendo.
Now, if only Sony and Microsoft would get a move on, too.
CUBA EMBARGO CONTINUES TO SERVE LITTLE PURPOSE
Published Jan. 18, 2007 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here
For close to 50 years, Fidel Castro has been the face of the Cuban government. Even after transferring responsibilities to his younger brother Raúl, the elder Castro remains an iconic and authoritative figure. He led the transformation of Cuba to a one-party socialist regime after overthrowing U.S. ally Fulgencio Batista in 1959.
Since then, while maintaining a stranglehold censorship of the press and a tight grip on power, his government oversaw skyrocketing literacy rates, now at 97 percent, and health care.
Its infant mortality rate, shockingly, is lower than that of the U.S.
During that time, his government also nationalized all industry and commerce on the island, including the former holdings of American sugar and fruit companies.
This, as it so happens, is the root of the American trade embargo against Cuba, in place since 1961. Initially, it was intended as temporary retaliation against the seizure of American interests.
It continued to escalate until it reached the full embargo that was in place until 2000, when the U.S. Congress passed a law authorizing the sale of medicine and food to Cuba, to be used for humanitarian aid only.
This is one of the longest embargoes ever put in place by the United States, and it has numerous critics from disparate groups who claim the embargo has little justification, if any.
There are only a few nations with socialist governments left in the world. With the exception of Cuba ¬¬— and nuclear-happy North Korea — the United States maintains normal trade relations with all of them.
One of them, China, continues to be one of America’s most important trading partners, in terms of goods and revenue exchanged.
Even nations ruled by governments that the United States was openly at war with, such as Vietnam, now have normal trade relations with America. Cuba has never attacked the United States nor violated its territorial integrity. Indeed, it was the other way around, as shown by the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion of 1962.
Therefore, there is little basis for the embargo on the grounds of Cuba’s socialist, one-party government, as other such-governed countries have normal relations with the U.S.
Secondly, the embargo actually does not prevent the enrichment of Cuba from U.S. sources.
Many Cuban expatriates, particularly those with family still living in Cuba, regularly send remittances to their loved ones. It was so regularly done that the Cuban government legalized the U.S. dollar as a parallel currency to the Cuban peso. The dollar remained legal until 2004, when the Cuban government banned it to combat tighter U.S. restrictions.
Regardless of the embargo, thousands of Americans visit Cuba, many for business reasons. Their dollars, converted to pesos, continue to enrich the Cuban economy, effectively counteracting the embargo.
The embargo is lifted, temporarily, when U.S. humanitarian aid is sent to Cuba in return for Cuban agricultural products.
The embargo faces unending and almost unanimous international criticism.
The United Nations General Assembly regularly passes resolutions by calling on the United States to end the embargo. International ire is directed toward the embargo because parts of the statutes authorizing it also attempt to impact other nations’ interests.
Foreign ships, for instance, are banned from docking at U.S. ports within six months of docking in Cuba.
Furthermore, the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, which aims to penalize foreign companies that do business in Cuba, is considered contrary to international law as national legislation that aims to meddle in the dealings of two other sovereign nations.
Several of the United States’ closest allies and trading partners, including Canada and Mexico, have taken steps to combat this law and protect the rights of companies headquartered in those nations. Critics of U.S. foreign policy continue to point to this embargo as evidence of American bully tactics and attempts to literally try to regulate the world.
The embargo, then, has little justification on account of past history or Cuba’s system of government.
It attracts a never-ending stream of criticism from the United Nations, religious figures and even America’s closest allies. Last, the embargo really hasn’t done what it was meant to do. The Cuban government has never been brought to its economic knees.
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union readily stepped in to fill the trade void created by the embargo. After a few very desperate years immediately following the collapse of the USSR, the Cuban economy has stayed afloat thanks to a combination of economic flexibility and innovation. For example, thousands of Cuban doctors were sent to serve in Venezuela in return for Venezuelan oil.
The primary reason for the embargo surviving this long is strong lobbying from Cuban-Americans in the electoral-vote-rich and politically important state of Florida. Doing away with this embargo would remove one of the most glaring blemishes on America’s record of international cooperation and trade. U.S.-Cuba trade would likely remain as it does during the periodic lifting of the embargo — American food and medicines in return for Cuban agricultural products. A new market would be opened to American businesses which, according to numerous feasibility studies, stand to make huge gains from the potential Cuban market. Getting rid of a flawed embargo that’s not that effective seems a small price to pay to silence widespread international criticisms and to open up a vast new market for American businesses.
It ought to be done. American cigar aficionados would be the first to rejoice.
Viewable Online Here
For close to 50 years, Fidel Castro has been the face of the Cuban government. Even after transferring responsibilities to his younger brother Raúl, the elder Castro remains an iconic and authoritative figure. He led the transformation of Cuba to a one-party socialist regime after overthrowing U.S. ally Fulgencio Batista in 1959.
Since then, while maintaining a stranglehold censorship of the press and a tight grip on power, his government oversaw skyrocketing literacy rates, now at 97 percent, and health care.
Its infant mortality rate, shockingly, is lower than that of the U.S.
During that time, his government also nationalized all industry and commerce on the island, including the former holdings of American sugar and fruit companies.
This, as it so happens, is the root of the American trade embargo against Cuba, in place since 1961. Initially, it was intended as temporary retaliation against the seizure of American interests.
It continued to escalate until it reached the full embargo that was in place until 2000, when the U.S. Congress passed a law authorizing the sale of medicine and food to Cuba, to be used for humanitarian aid only.
This is one of the longest embargoes ever put in place by the United States, and it has numerous critics from disparate groups who claim the embargo has little justification, if any.
There are only a few nations with socialist governments left in the world. With the exception of Cuba ¬¬— and nuclear-happy North Korea — the United States maintains normal trade relations with all of them.
One of them, China, continues to be one of America’s most important trading partners, in terms of goods and revenue exchanged.
Even nations ruled by governments that the United States was openly at war with, such as Vietnam, now have normal trade relations with America. Cuba has never attacked the United States nor violated its territorial integrity. Indeed, it was the other way around, as shown by the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion of 1962.
Therefore, there is little basis for the embargo on the grounds of Cuba’s socialist, one-party government, as other such-governed countries have normal relations with the U.S.
Secondly, the embargo actually does not prevent the enrichment of Cuba from U.S. sources.
Many Cuban expatriates, particularly those with family still living in Cuba, regularly send remittances to their loved ones. It was so regularly done that the Cuban government legalized the U.S. dollar as a parallel currency to the Cuban peso. The dollar remained legal until 2004, when the Cuban government banned it to combat tighter U.S. restrictions.
Regardless of the embargo, thousands of Americans visit Cuba, many for business reasons. Their dollars, converted to pesos, continue to enrich the Cuban economy, effectively counteracting the embargo.
The embargo is lifted, temporarily, when U.S. humanitarian aid is sent to Cuba in return for Cuban agricultural products.
The embargo faces unending and almost unanimous international criticism.
The United Nations General Assembly regularly passes resolutions by calling on the United States to end the embargo. International ire is directed toward the embargo because parts of the statutes authorizing it also attempt to impact other nations’ interests.
Foreign ships, for instance, are banned from docking at U.S. ports within six months of docking in Cuba.
Furthermore, the Helms-Burton Act of 1996, which aims to penalize foreign companies that do business in Cuba, is considered contrary to international law as national legislation that aims to meddle in the dealings of two other sovereign nations.
Several of the United States’ closest allies and trading partners, including Canada and Mexico, have taken steps to combat this law and protect the rights of companies headquartered in those nations. Critics of U.S. foreign policy continue to point to this embargo as evidence of American bully tactics and attempts to literally try to regulate the world.
The embargo, then, has little justification on account of past history or Cuba’s system of government.
It attracts a never-ending stream of criticism from the United Nations, religious figures and even America’s closest allies. Last, the embargo really hasn’t done what it was meant to do. The Cuban government has never been brought to its economic knees.
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union readily stepped in to fill the trade void created by the embargo. After a few very desperate years immediately following the collapse of the USSR, the Cuban economy has stayed afloat thanks to a combination of economic flexibility and innovation. For example, thousands of Cuban doctors were sent to serve in Venezuela in return for Venezuelan oil.
The primary reason for the embargo surviving this long is strong lobbying from Cuban-Americans in the electoral-vote-rich and politically important state of Florida. Doing away with this embargo would remove one of the most glaring blemishes on America’s record of international cooperation and trade. U.S.-Cuba trade would likely remain as it does during the periodic lifting of the embargo — American food and medicines in return for Cuban agricultural products. A new market would be opened to American businesses which, according to numerous feasibility studies, stand to make huge gains from the potential Cuban market. Getting rid of a flawed embargo that’s not that effective seems a small price to pay to silence widespread international criticisms and to open up a vast new market for American businesses.
It ought to be done. American cigar aficionados would be the first to rejoice.
BOND REFLECTS GENERATIONAL VIEWS ON GENDER
Published Nov. 16, 2006 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here
Published Online Nov. 18, 2006 by Youth500
Viewable Online Here (link operational as of Dec. 19, 2007)
As you read this, you are less than 24 hours away from a smorgasbord of males of various ages (and some females, too) drooling over fast cars, faster women, perfectly cut dinner jackets, gun battles and ridiculous innuendo-laced one-liners.
This could be Singles Night at the Palms Las Vegas, any night in Atlantic City or, heaven forbid, your date this weekend. But no, I speak of the latest James Bond flick, to be released nationwide Friday.
This latest baby of MGM, called “Casino Royale,” promises to revitalize and renew the venerable 007 franchise. A new plot, revised action sequences and even a brand-new Bond actor have been introduced.
There has been much controversy regarding the actor, blonde-haired Daniel Craig, who is said to be too far removed from author Ian Fleming's original image of Bond. Even so, many longtime Bond fans argue that any change would be a welcome one, given that many feel the quality of films had dipped to abysmal levels.
Although the Walther-wielding super-spy continued to generate box-office dollars into the late 80s and early 90s, the acclaim and popularity of the movies were a far cry from the 60s and 70s.
A number of factors likely caused this. The concept of a suave, debonair secret agent risking all for queen and country, and washing it down with a vodka martini, does not get old: It's almost timeless in entertainment value.
Other aspects of the movies, however, were, and to some extent, are dated. Prominent among these is the portrayal of women.
The proverbial Bond girl (such as Ursula Andress as Honey Rider — pictured) is the personification of ideal femininity, or at least the circa-1965 misogynistic idea of femininity. In the movies, she was expected to not think for herself, to always need a strong man for her protection and to always look good in very little clothing.
This image was reinforced in repeated screen adaptations of the admittedly dark novels. Women that tried to follow their own path or tried and act independently almost always somehow found themselves in great peril, and thus needed the male presence of Bond to help them solve the problems they had caused.
The idea was that a woman simply could not exist intellectually and powerfully for her own sake. Everything about her was somehow tied to male figures.
It's difficult to lay blame solely on the writers and directors of the films, or even Fleming.
In the pre-feminism days of 007's genesis, the prevailing view of society was that a woman was a delicate creature best suited to stay at home and cede control to the men in her life. The first Bond movies were released at a time when feminism still hadn't taken root; it was still lumped together with other so-called radical movements.
Any movie seeking to profit on sheer entertainment value could not hope to do so by embracing a philosophy so far removed from mainstream society as gender equality. This is just as true for a movie centered on an alpha male type of character.
There is nothing wrong with movies reflecting society, as long as they do so accurately. What was normal and accepted conduct 40 years ago is very out of place, and even downright offensive, in today's world. Women have made great strides and are in almost every way equal to their male counterparts in all facets of society.
To the credit of the minds behind the Bond films, attempts have been made to reflect this on the silver screen. The last Bond movie saw, for the first time, an equally efficient female counterpart acting independently and, for a time, against Bond in her own extensive counter-espionage activities.
Unfortunately, that portrayal was within a royally bad effort that was the target of a plethora of complaints regarding production and presentation. The negative aspects of the film became tied to the portrayal of such an independent and prominent female character within the 007 universe, which was a very unjustified and unfair connection to make.
The brains behind Bond probably know that change in certain aspects of popular films is necessary if the films are to remain popular in the future. The persona and world of 007 are, however, so ingrained in the minds of the audience that major change would likely result in another complaint fiasco much like the last flick.
As paradoxical as it may sound, the thing to do is to reinvent the franchise completely, which is what has been planned for “Casino Royale.”
By removing the traces to the Bond of yore, all expectations and ideas regarding the old character are also removed.
Thus, female characters' behavior and ideas will not be readily compared by most moviegoers, as the older movies will seem different enough to be about a completely different main character. At least that seems to have been the idea.
It's commendable that a franchise as venerable and popular as James Bond has seen fit to introduce change to keep up with a more enlightened viewpoint. Before heaping praise too highly, however, the finished product must be seen.
If the movie is successful in presenting new viewpoints in a well-finished and engaging product, it will truly have succeeded in bringing the eternal Bond to a new generation of fans while reflecting the society that they call their own.
If it fails, the franchise will have begun the painful journey to eventually become nothing more than an anachronism in the years to come.
Viewable Online Here
Published Online Nov. 18, 2006 by Youth500
Viewable Online Here (link operational as of Dec. 19, 2007)
As you read this, you are less than 24 hours away from a smorgasbord of males of various ages (and some females, too) drooling over fast cars, faster women, perfectly cut dinner jackets, gun battles and ridiculous innuendo-laced one-liners.
This could be Singles Night at the Palms Las Vegas, any night in Atlantic City or, heaven forbid, your date this weekend. But no, I speak of the latest James Bond flick, to be released nationwide Friday.
This latest baby of MGM, called “Casino Royale,” promises to revitalize and renew the venerable 007 franchise. A new plot, revised action sequences and even a brand-new Bond actor have been introduced.
There has been much controversy regarding the actor, blonde-haired Daniel Craig, who is said to be too far removed from author Ian Fleming's original image of Bond. Even so, many longtime Bond fans argue that any change would be a welcome one, given that many feel the quality of films had dipped to abysmal levels.
Although the Walther-wielding super-spy continued to generate box-office dollars into the late 80s and early 90s, the acclaim and popularity of the movies were a far cry from the 60s and 70s.
A number of factors likely caused this. The concept of a suave, debonair secret agent risking all for queen and country, and washing it down with a vodka martini, does not get old: It's almost timeless in entertainment value.
Other aspects of the movies, however, were, and to some extent, are dated. Prominent among these is the portrayal of women.
The proverbial Bond girl (such as Ursula Andress as Honey Rider — pictured) is the personification of ideal femininity, or at least the circa-1965 misogynistic idea of femininity. In the movies, she was expected to not think for herself, to always need a strong man for her protection and to always look good in very little clothing.
This image was reinforced in repeated screen adaptations of the admittedly dark novels. Women that tried to follow their own path or tried and act independently almost always somehow found themselves in great peril, and thus needed the male presence of Bond to help them solve the problems they had caused.
The idea was that a woman simply could not exist intellectually and powerfully for her own sake. Everything about her was somehow tied to male figures.
It's difficult to lay blame solely on the writers and directors of the films, or even Fleming.
In the pre-feminism days of 007's genesis, the prevailing view of society was that a woman was a delicate creature best suited to stay at home and cede control to the men in her life. The first Bond movies were released at a time when feminism still hadn't taken root; it was still lumped together with other so-called radical movements.
Any movie seeking to profit on sheer entertainment value could not hope to do so by embracing a philosophy so far removed from mainstream society as gender equality. This is just as true for a movie centered on an alpha male type of character.
There is nothing wrong with movies reflecting society, as long as they do so accurately. What was normal and accepted conduct 40 years ago is very out of place, and even downright offensive, in today's world. Women have made great strides and are in almost every way equal to their male counterparts in all facets of society.
To the credit of the minds behind the Bond films, attempts have been made to reflect this on the silver screen. The last Bond movie saw, for the first time, an equally efficient female counterpart acting independently and, for a time, against Bond in her own extensive counter-espionage activities.
Unfortunately, that portrayal was within a royally bad effort that was the target of a plethora of complaints regarding production and presentation. The negative aspects of the film became tied to the portrayal of such an independent and prominent female character within the 007 universe, which was a very unjustified and unfair connection to make.
The brains behind Bond probably know that change in certain aspects of popular films is necessary if the films are to remain popular in the future. The persona and world of 007 are, however, so ingrained in the minds of the audience that major change would likely result in another complaint fiasco much like the last flick.
As paradoxical as it may sound, the thing to do is to reinvent the franchise completely, which is what has been planned for “Casino Royale.”
By removing the traces to the Bond of yore, all expectations and ideas regarding the old character are also removed.
Thus, female characters' behavior and ideas will not be readily compared by most moviegoers, as the older movies will seem different enough to be about a completely different main character. At least that seems to have been the idea.
It's commendable that a franchise as venerable and popular as James Bond has seen fit to introduce change to keep up with a more enlightened viewpoint. Before heaping praise too highly, however, the finished product must be seen.
If the movie is successful in presenting new viewpoints in a well-finished and engaging product, it will truly have succeeded in bringing the eternal Bond to a new generation of fans while reflecting the society that they call their own.
If it fails, the franchise will have begun the painful journey to eventually become nothing more than an anachronism in the years to come.
CHARITIES NEED MORE THAN CHECKS
Published Nov. 2, 2006 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here
For probably as long as humans have walked the earth, some form of charity has existed. Early on, it was likely motivated by survival, with abler members of clans helping out those in need to ensure a stronger clan overall.
Later, as political, social and economic systems became more developed, distinct social classes also came about.
With these classes, the differences between those more fortunate and less fortunate grew more and more pronounced. Whether as genuine aid, social façade or political maneuver, the poor received aid periodically from the richer upper classes.
This was especially the case among the religious: Most religions required, and still require, almsgiving of its members. Examples of this include tithing in Christian denominations and zakat in Islam. The great majority of religious almsgiving was done and is done in terms of money.
For the majority of people, donations make up the bulk of non-religious charitable activities, as well. It’s hardly a surprise, since donating monetarily is a very easy thing to do, provided one has sufficient funds. These donations can range from pocket change in a jar next to a cash register to multimillion-dollar gifts given by high-profile celebrities and anonymous donors to numerous causes and groups.
Believe me when I say that no charitable organization will ever refuse money.
Why would they? Their very existence requires capital. Even for an organization run completely by volunteers, permits must be purchased, and often liability insurance must be maintained.
For organizations that provide food and other supplies, the amount of money required increases exponentially. Everything they provide — every article of clothing, every item of food — must be obtained somewhere. More often than not, it is purchased on the open market, albeit at reduced rates.
Monetary donations are essential to keep charities functioning and useful.
There is absolutely no problem with these donations or those that donate in this way. On the contrary — they are to be commended for helping by doing what they can do. This should not, however, be considered all they can do. By no means is simply donating money an acceptable substitute for physically working with a cause.
The basic reason why monetary donations don’t work as a substitute is that the human element cannot be replaced.
Consider the example of Habitat for Humanity, a group well known for building houses for deserving families that cannot afford them. Even if an unlimited amount were donated in cash and goods for the building of a particular house, it could not be completed without people to build it.
Human beings, obviously, are the crucial part of any human endeavor, charitable or not. In the arena of charitable groups and alms, people, through their time and efforts, are what drive the benevolence.
People also make that benevolence more significant and meaningful. As helpful and essential as monetary donations are, simply writing a check to go toward relief in a hurricane-devastated area is not the same as physically bringing supplies and aiding in rescue efforts. If you can only donate, then by all means, donate all that you can.
If you can, however, give not only your money, but your time and strength as well.
Not only will you yourself be closer to the situation and individuals that you are seeking to help, but because of your personal involvement, you will also derive a level of satisfaction from your work that is virtually unattainable by simply mailing in a check.
The sacrifices made in earning and writing the amount on the check simply pale in comparison to those made in the course of donating physical efforts.
Charity has evolved, keeping pace with human advancements in society, economy and, of course, prosperity.
Because of both the large amounts of disposable wealth among the wealthier social strata and the ease with which virtually any cause can be supported, charitable activity is more dominant now than ever before in history.
Unfortunately, it is also arguable that most of that activity in our fast-paced, online-banking-infused world is of the monetary type. Of course that money is being well-utilized, but something very important is being taken out of the picture — the crucial human element.
It is this that gives meaning to sacrificing of self to help others, to give with open arms to a total stranger, to the sheer joy of volunteering.
And that is something a donation of money, no matter how great, will never be able to truly emulate.
Viewable Online Here
For probably as long as humans have walked the earth, some form of charity has existed. Early on, it was likely motivated by survival, with abler members of clans helping out those in need to ensure a stronger clan overall.
Later, as political, social and economic systems became more developed, distinct social classes also came about.
With these classes, the differences between those more fortunate and less fortunate grew more and more pronounced. Whether as genuine aid, social façade or political maneuver, the poor received aid periodically from the richer upper classes.
This was especially the case among the religious: Most religions required, and still require, almsgiving of its members. Examples of this include tithing in Christian denominations and zakat in Islam. The great majority of religious almsgiving was done and is done in terms of money.
For the majority of people, donations make up the bulk of non-religious charitable activities, as well. It’s hardly a surprise, since donating monetarily is a very easy thing to do, provided one has sufficient funds. These donations can range from pocket change in a jar next to a cash register to multimillion-dollar gifts given by high-profile celebrities and anonymous donors to numerous causes and groups.
Believe me when I say that no charitable organization will ever refuse money.
Why would they? Their very existence requires capital. Even for an organization run completely by volunteers, permits must be purchased, and often liability insurance must be maintained.
For organizations that provide food and other supplies, the amount of money required increases exponentially. Everything they provide — every article of clothing, every item of food — must be obtained somewhere. More often than not, it is purchased on the open market, albeit at reduced rates.
Monetary donations are essential to keep charities functioning and useful.
There is absolutely no problem with these donations or those that donate in this way. On the contrary — they are to be commended for helping by doing what they can do. This should not, however, be considered all they can do. By no means is simply donating money an acceptable substitute for physically working with a cause.
The basic reason why monetary donations don’t work as a substitute is that the human element cannot be replaced.
Consider the example of Habitat for Humanity, a group well known for building houses for deserving families that cannot afford them. Even if an unlimited amount were donated in cash and goods for the building of a particular house, it could not be completed without people to build it.
Human beings, obviously, are the crucial part of any human endeavor, charitable or not. In the arena of charitable groups and alms, people, through their time and efforts, are what drive the benevolence.
People also make that benevolence more significant and meaningful. As helpful and essential as monetary donations are, simply writing a check to go toward relief in a hurricane-devastated area is not the same as physically bringing supplies and aiding in rescue efforts. If you can only donate, then by all means, donate all that you can.
If you can, however, give not only your money, but your time and strength as well.
Not only will you yourself be closer to the situation and individuals that you are seeking to help, but because of your personal involvement, you will also derive a level of satisfaction from your work that is virtually unattainable by simply mailing in a check.
The sacrifices made in earning and writing the amount on the check simply pale in comparison to those made in the course of donating physical efforts.
Charity has evolved, keeping pace with human advancements in society, economy and, of course, prosperity.
Because of both the large amounts of disposable wealth among the wealthier social strata and the ease with which virtually any cause can be supported, charitable activity is more dominant now than ever before in history.
Unfortunately, it is also arguable that most of that activity in our fast-paced, online-banking-infused world is of the monetary type. Of course that money is being well-utilized, but something very important is being taken out of the picture — the crucial human element.
It is this that gives meaning to sacrificing of self to help others, to give with open arms to a total stranger, to the sheer joy of volunteering.
And that is something a donation of money, no matter how great, will never be able to truly emulate.
POINT/COUNTERPOINT: COAL-FUELED POWER PLANTS: THE RIGHT MOVE?
Published Oct. 19, 2006 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here
Point: Makes necessary power
As you read this, the government is considering plans to put more than one hundred coal-fueled power plants into place across 42 states.
Coal has been used since the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century as a fuel in factories and for steam engines in ships, trains and even some cars. For many years, it was touted as one of Earth’s natural wonders, its gift to mankind.
Then environmentalism was born and coal was denounced as a vile, murderous pollutant. It burned dirty, smelly and covered its surroundings with a black layer of soot.
The drive to replace coal as the fuel of choice found plenty of support.
Many of the plants added to the grid in the 20th century, therefore, were designed to be fueled by petroleum, wind turbines and water-powered generators in dams. Yet now, nasty, dirty coal is once again being considered to power the nation’s electric grid.
I have no problem with it.
The main reason that new power plants are being considered in the first place is an explosion in electrical use and demand. The population of the U.S. has surpassed 300 million, and people are using more kilowatts of electricity per capita than ever before. There’s only so much stress that the existing system can take before breaking down.
This was demonstrated dramatically in 2003, when seven states in the northeast and the Canadian province of Quebec experienced a multi-day blackout.
Some of the busiest cities in America, including Detroit and New York City, were plunged into darkness and untempered summer heat. All electrical activity was literally at a standstill.
This massive outage was initially caused by an overload-induced shutdown at a single plant. The North American electrical grid is so interlinked that the shutdown soon spread.
In the current situation of exploding demand, how quickly the much-needed electricity is generated is also extremely important. Since the power grid is already strained, power plant designs that take much time to construct and put into operation are not prudent solutions to our current predicament. This includes nuclear power plants and hydroelectric dams.
Environmentalists often tout wind farms as the energy method of the future, as it is powered by the natural, no-pollutant force of wind.
Wind farms, however, are notoriously expensive, and often require years of continuous operation just to recoup the costs of construction. And wind is an extremely variable force.
Even very windy areas will experience extended times of atmospheric calm.
This, of course, renders the wind-powered turbines inoperable.
Therefore, for maintaining a steady flow of efficiently generated electricity, wind turbines are of little use. This leaves power plants that rely on fuel oil to generate electricity.
Fuel oil is derived from petroleum, which is still relatively plentiful on the planet and inexpensive. The problem is that most of it is located in other parts of Earth — parts inhabited by countries with which the U.S. does not always enjoy the best of relations.
It is not the ideal source for a steady supply of energy-producing fuel. In times of actual or potential conflict, the supply of fuel oil should not be trusted to the very powers that the U.S. might be in conflict with.
Without this precious black gold of a fuel, the power stations in question cannot function, thereby bringing us back to the proverbial square one when it comes to alleviating the electricity supply dilemma.
So, where does that leave us with respect to coal?
Well, it leaves us with coal as our only viable option to fixing the problems that exist with current electricity delivery. Yes, I realize it’s a non-renewable fossil fuel. No, it doesn’t burn cleanly with water as its only byproduct. And no, it won’t make you feel warm and cuddly as a protector of the environment.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t advocate gas-guzzling SUVs, slash-and-burn farming, exotic hardwood dentures or any other form of wanton destruction of the environment.
It is important, however, to maintain a balance between environmentalism and common sense. The pollution that would be prevented by not using coal-powered plants would be more than made up for by the disruptions that the other types of power stations would cause.
For example, do you really think fish can swim through thick concrete walls in the middle of a lake to get to their breeding grounds?
Since virtually any power plant will have significant effects on the environment, we must choose the one fuel that will produce the greatest benefit for the greatest number. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is coal.
It’s nasty and smelly, but it’s also cheap, reliable and not stored beneath the soil of a country ruled by a foreign autocrat.
So, let the coal fires burn.
Viewable Online Here
Point: Makes necessary power
As you read this, the government is considering plans to put more than one hundred coal-fueled power plants into place across 42 states.
Coal has been used since the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century as a fuel in factories and for steam engines in ships, trains and even some cars. For many years, it was touted as one of Earth’s natural wonders, its gift to mankind.
Then environmentalism was born and coal was denounced as a vile, murderous pollutant. It burned dirty, smelly and covered its surroundings with a black layer of soot.
The drive to replace coal as the fuel of choice found plenty of support.
Many of the plants added to the grid in the 20th century, therefore, were designed to be fueled by petroleum, wind turbines and water-powered generators in dams. Yet now, nasty, dirty coal is once again being considered to power the nation’s electric grid.
I have no problem with it.
The main reason that new power plants are being considered in the first place is an explosion in electrical use and demand. The population of the U.S. has surpassed 300 million, and people are using more kilowatts of electricity per capita than ever before. There’s only so much stress that the existing system can take before breaking down.
This was demonstrated dramatically in 2003, when seven states in the northeast and the Canadian province of Quebec experienced a multi-day blackout.
Some of the busiest cities in America, including Detroit and New York City, were plunged into darkness and untempered summer heat. All electrical activity was literally at a standstill.
This massive outage was initially caused by an overload-induced shutdown at a single plant. The North American electrical grid is so interlinked that the shutdown soon spread.
In the current situation of exploding demand, how quickly the much-needed electricity is generated is also extremely important. Since the power grid is already strained, power plant designs that take much time to construct and put into operation are not prudent solutions to our current predicament. This includes nuclear power plants and hydroelectric dams.
Environmentalists often tout wind farms as the energy method of the future, as it is powered by the natural, no-pollutant force of wind.
Wind farms, however, are notoriously expensive, and often require years of continuous operation just to recoup the costs of construction. And wind is an extremely variable force.
Even very windy areas will experience extended times of atmospheric calm.
This, of course, renders the wind-powered turbines inoperable.
Therefore, for maintaining a steady flow of efficiently generated electricity, wind turbines are of little use. This leaves power plants that rely on fuel oil to generate electricity.
Fuel oil is derived from petroleum, which is still relatively plentiful on the planet and inexpensive. The problem is that most of it is located in other parts of Earth — parts inhabited by countries with which the U.S. does not always enjoy the best of relations.
It is not the ideal source for a steady supply of energy-producing fuel. In times of actual or potential conflict, the supply of fuel oil should not be trusted to the very powers that the U.S. might be in conflict with.
Without this precious black gold of a fuel, the power stations in question cannot function, thereby bringing us back to the proverbial square one when it comes to alleviating the electricity supply dilemma.
So, where does that leave us with respect to coal?
Well, it leaves us with coal as our only viable option to fixing the problems that exist with current electricity delivery. Yes, I realize it’s a non-renewable fossil fuel. No, it doesn’t burn cleanly with water as its only byproduct. And no, it won’t make you feel warm and cuddly as a protector of the environment.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t advocate gas-guzzling SUVs, slash-and-burn farming, exotic hardwood dentures or any other form of wanton destruction of the environment.
It is important, however, to maintain a balance between environmentalism and common sense. The pollution that would be prevented by not using coal-powered plants would be more than made up for by the disruptions that the other types of power stations would cause.
For example, do you really think fish can swim through thick concrete walls in the middle of a lake to get to their breeding grounds?
Since virtually any power plant will have significant effects on the environment, we must choose the one fuel that will produce the greatest benefit for the greatest number. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is coal.
It’s nasty and smelly, but it’s also cheap, reliable and not stored beneath the soil of a country ruled by a foreign autocrat.
So, let the coal fires burn.
Monday, October 22, 2007
IGNORE HOLLYWOOD: FOLLOW ONE PATH
Published Oct. 5, 2006 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here
Over the past two weeks, two movies employing actor Ashton Kutcher’s talents have been released. One is a drama/action flick with Kutcher playing one of the main roles. The second features the actor’s voice talents in a comedic animated feature.
While both films have performed respectably, the animated movie has easily outdone the live-action production.
Kutcher made his name in Hollywood as a solid comedic actor, the star of movies revolving around wondering where one’s car might be. In that vein, he was and remains successful, with numerous laugh-happy roles under his belt.
In the world of the small screen, he has gone on to produce several humorous television shows, in addition to his long-running sitcom work.
Kutcher is good at what he does.
As long as what he does is comedy.
As of late, he has forayed into dramatic roles, such as the aforementioned one. While name recognition and acting ability ensure that he does a decent job in these movies, they are generally nowhere near as successful as his comedic turns.
Without unduly insulting Kutcher or his career choices, this example can be said to be reflective of something more and more prevalent today — people trying to do too much.
This antithesis of specialization is most prominent in the entertainment field. It seems it is no longer profitable nor desirable to remain just an actor or just a singer.
Singers try to become actors, and actors try to sing. A modeling career is almost obligatory. Let’s not forget the clothing and fragrance lines. A personal restaurant is always good. And of course, there are the reality shows about, ironically, one’s life away from the spotlight.
In the process of pursuing these divergent ends, most entertainers’ resumes suffer greatly. This is due to a combination of overexposure and concentrating more on pursuits beyond their original one. Sadly, once glittering careers are often reduced to a shadow of their former selves, supported by a lifeline of celebrity endorsements and talk show appearances.
If this was a phenomenon limited to the arena of entertainment, it would not be so bad. This mantra of “do everything,” however, has trickled down to other areas of society as well. Particularly ominous is the infatuation and support this theory enjoys in the arena of education.
“Well-rounded” has transcended the label of buzzword and become something of a holy grail when it comes to college applications.
Each year, more and more high school students hear that it is not enough to simply have good grades. They must have musical talent, leadership experience, volunteer work, athletic skill and any number of other attributes.
While the pursuit of these multiple endeavors is beneficial and worthy, a very crucial point is missed by many in our multitask loving world — not all of these areas have to be mastered.
It is perfectly all right to specialize in one area, and maintain the others as hobbies or secondary pursuits.
In fact, this is a much closer model of the real world than one in which people are masters of all trades. True professional success is much more likely to come as a result of mastery of one skill rather than proficiency in many.
Let’s pretend that you’re about to undergo surgery to remove a tumor in your brain.
Would you even care whether your surgeon helped build an orphanage in Djibouti or could play the Brandenburg Concertos on three instruments while blindfolded?
No, you wouldn’t. As long as the surgeon was skilled with a scalpel and had thorough knowledge of neurosurgery, then it really wouldn’t matter what else he could or could not do.
This is just one example. In most any field, success and professional satisfaction are contingent not on wielding a plethora of skills all equally well, but on honing just the skills required for one’s particular arena.
By not focusing on other skills, one isn’t selling himself short, but rather is allowing himself to sharpen the skills that are truly important, the ones he cannot do without.
Take a lesson from the entertainers. Almost everyone that has tried to follow multiple career paths simultaneously has fallen into the trap and ended up with almost no career at all.
By all means, do anything and everything that interests you. But keep in mind that not all those things must be done to equally high standards.
Don’t let the pursuit of this facetious notion derail you from the path of your true niche, whatever that may be.
Let Hollywood be alone in its mistakes. Your true calling in life is much too great a prize to sacrifice.
Viewable Online Here
Over the past two weeks, two movies employing actor Ashton Kutcher’s talents have been released. One is a drama/action flick with Kutcher playing one of the main roles. The second features the actor’s voice talents in a comedic animated feature.
While both films have performed respectably, the animated movie has easily outdone the live-action production.
Kutcher made his name in Hollywood as a solid comedic actor, the star of movies revolving around wondering where one’s car might be. In that vein, he was and remains successful, with numerous laugh-happy roles under his belt.
In the world of the small screen, he has gone on to produce several humorous television shows, in addition to his long-running sitcom work.
Kutcher is good at what he does.
As long as what he does is comedy.
As of late, he has forayed into dramatic roles, such as the aforementioned one. While name recognition and acting ability ensure that he does a decent job in these movies, they are generally nowhere near as successful as his comedic turns.
Without unduly insulting Kutcher or his career choices, this example can be said to be reflective of something more and more prevalent today — people trying to do too much.
This antithesis of specialization is most prominent in the entertainment field. It seems it is no longer profitable nor desirable to remain just an actor or just a singer.
Singers try to become actors, and actors try to sing. A modeling career is almost obligatory. Let’s not forget the clothing and fragrance lines. A personal restaurant is always good. And of course, there are the reality shows about, ironically, one’s life away from the spotlight.
In the process of pursuing these divergent ends, most entertainers’ resumes suffer greatly. This is due to a combination of overexposure and concentrating more on pursuits beyond their original one. Sadly, once glittering careers are often reduced to a shadow of their former selves, supported by a lifeline of celebrity endorsements and talk show appearances.
If this was a phenomenon limited to the arena of entertainment, it would not be so bad. This mantra of “do everything,” however, has trickled down to other areas of society as well. Particularly ominous is the infatuation and support this theory enjoys in the arena of education.
“Well-rounded” has transcended the label of buzzword and become something of a holy grail when it comes to college applications.
Each year, more and more high school students hear that it is not enough to simply have good grades. They must have musical talent, leadership experience, volunteer work, athletic skill and any number of other attributes.
While the pursuit of these multiple endeavors is beneficial and worthy, a very crucial point is missed by many in our multitask loving world — not all of these areas have to be mastered.
It is perfectly all right to specialize in one area, and maintain the others as hobbies or secondary pursuits.
In fact, this is a much closer model of the real world than one in which people are masters of all trades. True professional success is much more likely to come as a result of mastery of one skill rather than proficiency in many.
Let’s pretend that you’re about to undergo surgery to remove a tumor in your brain.
Would you even care whether your surgeon helped build an orphanage in Djibouti or could play the Brandenburg Concertos on three instruments while blindfolded?
No, you wouldn’t. As long as the surgeon was skilled with a scalpel and had thorough knowledge of neurosurgery, then it really wouldn’t matter what else he could or could not do.
This is just one example. In most any field, success and professional satisfaction are contingent not on wielding a plethora of skills all equally well, but on honing just the skills required for one’s particular arena.
By not focusing on other skills, one isn’t selling himself short, but rather is allowing himself to sharpen the skills that are truly important, the ones he cannot do without.
Take a lesson from the entertainers. Almost everyone that has tried to follow multiple career paths simultaneously has fallen into the trap and ended up with almost no career at all.
By all means, do anything and everything that interests you. But keep in mind that not all those things must be done to equally high standards.
Don’t let the pursuit of this facetious notion derail you from the path of your true niche, whatever that may be.
Let Hollywood be alone in its mistakes. Your true calling in life is much too great a prize to sacrifice.
HELP YOURSELF BEFORE TURNING TO COURTS
Published Sep. 21, 2006 in "The Oklahoma Daily
Viewable Online Here
A few days ago, a woman was attacked by a neighbor’s dog in Tampa, Fla. There’s nothing unusual about that, as attacks by vicious dogs are an unfortunately common occurrence.
The standout of this story is that the poor woman, instead of simply wilting under the force of the hundred-pound Rottweiler’s bites, fought back. She took matters into her own hands and actually bit the dog. And the dog immediately released her arm and retreated.
The amusing and heroic elements of this allegory also bring with them a somewhat symbolic element, with respect to the abuse of the legal system.
Our society seems to generate ever-increasing numbers of lawsuits. There’s nothing inherently wrong with lawsuits, because they are an integral part of the judicial system guaranteed by the Constitution.
America’s founding fathers knew that in any pluralistic nation, there would be disagreement between people. Thus, they designed a mechanism to settle those disputes in a civil manner with the rule of law.
Those founding fathers, however, probably did not foresee the sort of lawsuits being increasingly filed today.
For example, there have been a number of lawsuits seeking damages from fast-food chain McDonald’s for making their food so addictive. The claimants argue that this addictive property made them unable to resist the fatty foods and, as a result, they became obese. In other words, McDonald’s should pay for serving good-tasting food that their customers kept voluntarily returning for.
Now, I’m no authority on the legal codes of this country, but from a logical standpoint, customers suing a restaurant for its food being irresistibly tasty is truly baffling to me. Particularly when the lawsuit demands several thousands of dollars (if not more) as compensation.
Well now, why should it stop at McDonald’s? The cow that the burger patties came from is also to blame. The estate of the obviously dead cow and the rancher that raised it should also be made to pay for their parts in this fat-laden odyssey. And let’s not forget the fries that were likely super-sized by the disgruntled customers. Aren’t the potato farmers and the suppliers of the fry oil to blame also? Should they not also add their apologies (in the form of dollars, of course) to the settlement the plaintiffs seek?
No. In fact, this sort of lawsuit in its entirety is flawed. This is why almost all have been thrown out in courts.
That’s all fine, but by the time they were thrown out, these lawsuits had wasted the time and resources of the courts they were heard in. Almost all courts around the nation are severely strained and have a solid backlog of cases. Baseless cases such as the aforementioned only aggravate the existing difficulties by adding to the courts’ workload and diverting resources from cases that actually have a valid basis for existing.
And what is truly disheartening is that the McDonald’s illustration is just one example.
There has been a deluge of these cases in recent years. Examples include parents suing a cheerleading coach for failing to appoint their young daughter squad captain and coffee shops being sued because their cups did not clearly indicate that the coffee contained within was indeed hot.
The story of the dog-biting woman from Florida illustrates two virtues which are crucial to lessening the number of these frivolous and laughable lawsuits.
First, simply exercising common sense would ensure that these lawsuits remain exactly where they should — deep inside the recesses of the minds of those who are thinking about suing. Secondly, and more importantly, one should take steps to address one’s own grievances.
I’m not advocating vigilantism, but rather I’m saying one should do exactly as the dog victim did: Work to improve troubles in a meaningful way.
Instead of suffering the dog bites and playing the role of helpless victim later, she used the human attributes of reason and rationality to improve the situation for all those involved, the dog included.
Does she have reason to sue? Definitely. Will she? Possibly.
If she does, will the fact that she actually fought off the dog add to her credibility? Absolutely.
This is the crucial piece that many money-hungry plaintiffs in our sue-happy society often overlook.
Before automatically dialing the nearest attorney of flexible standards, we should think about what we ourselves can do to improve our situation.
Everything is simply less complicated that way.
Viewable Online Here
A few days ago, a woman was attacked by a neighbor’s dog in Tampa, Fla. There’s nothing unusual about that, as attacks by vicious dogs are an unfortunately common occurrence.
The standout of this story is that the poor woman, instead of simply wilting under the force of the hundred-pound Rottweiler’s bites, fought back. She took matters into her own hands and actually bit the dog. And the dog immediately released her arm and retreated.
The amusing and heroic elements of this allegory also bring with them a somewhat symbolic element, with respect to the abuse of the legal system.
Our society seems to generate ever-increasing numbers of lawsuits. There’s nothing inherently wrong with lawsuits, because they are an integral part of the judicial system guaranteed by the Constitution.
America’s founding fathers knew that in any pluralistic nation, there would be disagreement between people. Thus, they designed a mechanism to settle those disputes in a civil manner with the rule of law.
Those founding fathers, however, probably did not foresee the sort of lawsuits being increasingly filed today.
For example, there have been a number of lawsuits seeking damages from fast-food chain McDonald’s for making their food so addictive. The claimants argue that this addictive property made them unable to resist the fatty foods and, as a result, they became obese. In other words, McDonald’s should pay for serving good-tasting food that their customers kept voluntarily returning for.
Now, I’m no authority on the legal codes of this country, but from a logical standpoint, customers suing a restaurant for its food being irresistibly tasty is truly baffling to me. Particularly when the lawsuit demands several thousands of dollars (if not more) as compensation.
Well now, why should it stop at McDonald’s? The cow that the burger patties came from is also to blame. The estate of the obviously dead cow and the rancher that raised it should also be made to pay for their parts in this fat-laden odyssey. And let’s not forget the fries that were likely super-sized by the disgruntled customers. Aren’t the potato farmers and the suppliers of the fry oil to blame also? Should they not also add their apologies (in the form of dollars, of course) to the settlement the plaintiffs seek?
No. In fact, this sort of lawsuit in its entirety is flawed. This is why almost all have been thrown out in courts.
That’s all fine, but by the time they were thrown out, these lawsuits had wasted the time and resources of the courts they were heard in. Almost all courts around the nation are severely strained and have a solid backlog of cases. Baseless cases such as the aforementioned only aggravate the existing difficulties by adding to the courts’ workload and diverting resources from cases that actually have a valid basis for existing.
And what is truly disheartening is that the McDonald’s illustration is just one example.
There has been a deluge of these cases in recent years. Examples include parents suing a cheerleading coach for failing to appoint their young daughter squad captain and coffee shops being sued because their cups did not clearly indicate that the coffee contained within was indeed hot.
The story of the dog-biting woman from Florida illustrates two virtues which are crucial to lessening the number of these frivolous and laughable lawsuits.
First, simply exercising common sense would ensure that these lawsuits remain exactly where they should — deep inside the recesses of the minds of those who are thinking about suing. Secondly, and more importantly, one should take steps to address one’s own grievances.
I’m not advocating vigilantism, but rather I’m saying one should do exactly as the dog victim did: Work to improve troubles in a meaningful way.
Instead of suffering the dog bites and playing the role of helpless victim later, she used the human attributes of reason and rationality to improve the situation for all those involved, the dog included.
Does she have reason to sue? Definitely. Will she? Possibly.
If she does, will the fact that she actually fought off the dog add to her credibility? Absolutely.
This is the crucial piece that many money-hungry plaintiffs in our sue-happy society often overlook.
Before automatically dialing the nearest attorney of flexible standards, we should think about what we ourselves can do to improve our situation.
Everything is simply less complicated that way.
HOLIDAYS ARE LOSING MEANING
Published Sep. 7, 2006 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here
By the time this is printed, the short week will almost be over.
For that short week, we can thank the enterprising spirit of the American worker. At least, that was what Labor Day originally commemorated. The first Labor Day celebrations were full of parading workers’ unions, speeches and celebrations for workers’ families. Since then, though, things have changed.
Granted, some of these changes have been undoubtedly for the better. The annual Labor Day Muscular Dystrophy Association Telethon, a relatively recent addition, raises millions of dollars every year.
Most of the changes, however, have simply contributed to make this celebration of hard work and fruitful labor into an ironic smorgasbord of lethargy and unproductiveness.
For most people, the most significant aspect of Labor Day is that it offers an extra day’s respite from classes and work. The most profound and widespread celebration of this day may be reveling in a few more hours of sleep. And let’s not forget the killer sales at Best Buy and the mall. There’s nothing wrong with relaxing and shopping. But there is a problem with forgetting the original reason and significance for the holiday. That problem is all the more serious because it is not limited to just Labor Day.
Unfortunately, there are a number of holidays whose commemorations are getting farther and farther from their original intent. In some cases, certain holidays are not even being celebrated. To be fair, there is merit in some of these holiday boycotts.
An example is Columbus Day. Many Native Americans take much offense (rightly so, some would say) that a man who they see as the primary reason for the eventual decimation of their people would be commemorated. Thus, in some areas, Columbus Day is celebrated with a minimum of festivities — if any at all.
However, there are no such controversies surrounding several other holidays fading into obscurity. Examples include Flag Day and Veterans’ Day.
Flag Day commemorates the choosing of the first American flag. Old Glory, the red, white and blue, the very symbol of the United States known the world over, was adopted on this day. And most people don’t even realize when that day was.
Veterans’ Day is an even more meaningful holiday: it highlights the sacrifices and achievements of American veterans in all wars, regardless of outcome or public popularity. The holiday is intended to be a commemoration of the men and women who readily sacrifice for the defense of their country and fellow citizens at a moment’s notice.
Shamefully, outside of military bases and VFW posts, the celebrations of this solemn holiday are extremely limited, if existent at all.
Both these aforementioned holidays were once very widely celebrated. However, most of us today would be hard-pressed to even name the months that these once widely commemorated celebrations fall in.
Often, the only clue of the days of these holidays is a lack of postal service and a brief announcement on the local news. This is disheartening in and of itself, particularly since these holidays each have such a special significance. Even more foreboding is what this suggests could happen to today’s popularly celebrated holidays in the future.
Considering that Veterans’ Day and Flag Day were once so popular and well-known, one can’t help but wonder if this foreshadows the demise of more holidays. Particularly jarring is the idea that a holiday is only remembered for its material associations — extra sleep, cheaper shopping and so forth.
The reason and emotion behind the holiday, its true substance, seem worthy of remembrance only in the context of those things.
So, without the requisite sales and mass turkey dinners, are our children’s children destined to celebrate Thanksgiving like much of our generation celebrates Labor Day?
That is, concerned only with the extra sleep, and not at all with what it commemorates.
And is Fourth of July only to be known for sales of fireworks and hot dogs sometime in the future?
I sincerely hope not, because it’s not a pretty picture.
While Flag Day and Veterans’ Day may never regain their once-popular and widespread commemorations, we can, and should, prevent this from happening to other holidays in the future.
When you find yourself with no classes on a weekday, think about why that is. Think about whose accomplishments or what commemoration allowed you to not have to listen to lectures or not take a test that day. Think about the significance of that day in history. And finally, take time to remember that day’s date for the years to come.
Oh, by the way, Flag Day is June 14, and Veterans Day is Nov. 11. You’re welcome.
Viewable Online Here
By the time this is printed, the short week will almost be over.
For that short week, we can thank the enterprising spirit of the American worker. At least, that was what Labor Day originally commemorated. The first Labor Day celebrations were full of parading workers’ unions, speeches and celebrations for workers’ families. Since then, though, things have changed.
Granted, some of these changes have been undoubtedly for the better. The annual Labor Day Muscular Dystrophy Association Telethon, a relatively recent addition, raises millions of dollars every year.
Most of the changes, however, have simply contributed to make this celebration of hard work and fruitful labor into an ironic smorgasbord of lethargy and unproductiveness.
For most people, the most significant aspect of Labor Day is that it offers an extra day’s respite from classes and work. The most profound and widespread celebration of this day may be reveling in a few more hours of sleep. And let’s not forget the killer sales at Best Buy and the mall. There’s nothing wrong with relaxing and shopping. But there is a problem with forgetting the original reason and significance for the holiday. That problem is all the more serious because it is not limited to just Labor Day.
Unfortunately, there are a number of holidays whose commemorations are getting farther and farther from their original intent. In some cases, certain holidays are not even being celebrated. To be fair, there is merit in some of these holiday boycotts.
An example is Columbus Day. Many Native Americans take much offense (rightly so, some would say) that a man who they see as the primary reason for the eventual decimation of their people would be commemorated. Thus, in some areas, Columbus Day is celebrated with a minimum of festivities — if any at all.
However, there are no such controversies surrounding several other holidays fading into obscurity. Examples include Flag Day and Veterans’ Day.
Flag Day commemorates the choosing of the first American flag. Old Glory, the red, white and blue, the very symbol of the United States known the world over, was adopted on this day. And most people don’t even realize when that day was.
Veterans’ Day is an even more meaningful holiday: it highlights the sacrifices and achievements of American veterans in all wars, regardless of outcome or public popularity. The holiday is intended to be a commemoration of the men and women who readily sacrifice for the defense of their country and fellow citizens at a moment’s notice.
Shamefully, outside of military bases and VFW posts, the celebrations of this solemn holiday are extremely limited, if existent at all.
Both these aforementioned holidays were once very widely celebrated. However, most of us today would be hard-pressed to even name the months that these once widely commemorated celebrations fall in.
Often, the only clue of the days of these holidays is a lack of postal service and a brief announcement on the local news. This is disheartening in and of itself, particularly since these holidays each have such a special significance. Even more foreboding is what this suggests could happen to today’s popularly celebrated holidays in the future.
Considering that Veterans’ Day and Flag Day were once so popular and well-known, one can’t help but wonder if this foreshadows the demise of more holidays. Particularly jarring is the idea that a holiday is only remembered for its material associations — extra sleep, cheaper shopping and so forth.
The reason and emotion behind the holiday, its true substance, seem worthy of remembrance only in the context of those things.
So, without the requisite sales and mass turkey dinners, are our children’s children destined to celebrate Thanksgiving like much of our generation celebrates Labor Day?
That is, concerned only with the extra sleep, and not at all with what it commemorates.
And is Fourth of July only to be known for sales of fireworks and hot dogs sometime in the future?
I sincerely hope not, because it’s not a pretty picture.
While Flag Day and Veterans’ Day may never regain their once-popular and widespread commemorations, we can, and should, prevent this from happening to other holidays in the future.
When you find yourself with no classes on a weekday, think about why that is. Think about whose accomplishments or what commemoration allowed you to not have to listen to lectures or not take a test that day. Think about the significance of that day in history. And finally, take time to remember that day’s date for the years to come.
Oh, by the way, Flag Day is June 14, and Veterans Day is Nov. 11. You’re welcome.
COLUMN: NO SIDEWALK, BUT SAME PROBLEMS
Published Aug. 24, 2006 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here
"Where the Sidewalk Ends” is the title of a book of Shel Silverstein’s poetry. As of late, it’s also a good description of the western side of South Oval.
Where there was once a well-trodden sidewalk, there are now new patches of grass squares. The old asphalt has been completely redone, and all traffic is now to use the new surface.
Since that part of the oval has always been off limits to anything larger than a golf cart, all traffic there is either on foot, two wheels or the occasional golf cart.
While the new road surface is undoubtedly much improved, I am not so sure that it’s a good long-term traffic solution.
I hate to delve into the hard-science-major part of my brain and drag out quantitative comparisons so early on, but here, I must.
The old system of a sidewalk and the road simply had more usable surface area.
As the sidewalk in question was about 1,000 feet long (according to Google Maps) and most sidewalks are about four feet wide, 4,000 square feet of usable concrete have been done away with.
A less usable area means that traffic is more congested. This does not bode well, as traffic has not decreased at all.
In addition, not only did the old system have more space, it was better organized as well.
Most pedestrians, me included, used the sidewalk. Perhaps this was a result of the same innate mental guardian that makes me look both ways before crossing streets.
Whatever the reason, for the most part, cyclists had the road surface to themselves and this worked out well.
Pedestrians could travel at a comfortable pace, and not have to worry about bikes bearing down on them. Bike riders, in turn, could travel faster without having to look out for oblivious pedestrians blocking their path.
That’s no more. The more spacious, better organized South Oval of old has been turned into one all-purpose thoroughfare. This freshly-resurfaced, single swath of concrete is now used by all forms of traffic. Based on first-hand observations over the past few days, this is less than ideal.
The fault for this, though, rests on no single group.
Many pedestrians see the new road as one giant sidewalk, and feel free to walk in groups of five or six abreast in the middle of the road. This effectively blocks most of the road for any bikes and the ubiquitous opening-week golf carts.
Some of those vehicle operators, however, feel that the new road is solely their domain. This results in high-speed runs and weaving maneuvers worthy of the Tour de France. Keep in mind, though, there are no pedestrians on the course of the actual Tour — and for very good reason.
So where does that leave us, the bikers and pedestrians of South Oval?
I would say that the old layout was a much better one. However, we can’t undo what has already been done, so we’re stuck with the new road. I wouldn’t really recommend simply using the other side of the oval — unless you particularly enjoy dodging buses and inhaling diesel fumes.
So, the thing to do seems to simply heed the advice of many a crossing guard and elementary school hall monitor: watch out for other people.
If you prefer walking, think of those on bikes. Keep in mind that it is much easier and safer for you to stop and turn on your feet than someone balancing on two thin tires and a bunch of metal tubes. There’s a good reason that bike helmets have been invented and walking helmets have not.
If you’d rather pedal, then keep in mind that most pedestrians want to you to crash into them just as much as you want yourself to crash into them. They’ll move out of you way given proper warning, especially from behind.
We all have to conscientiously share and use this newfangled path, whether we like it or not. So do just that — share the road. And spread the love.
Viewable Online Here
"Where the Sidewalk Ends” is the title of a book of Shel Silverstein’s poetry. As of late, it’s also a good description of the western side of South Oval.
Where there was once a well-trodden sidewalk, there are now new patches of grass squares. The old asphalt has been completely redone, and all traffic is now to use the new surface.
Since that part of the oval has always been off limits to anything larger than a golf cart, all traffic there is either on foot, two wheels or the occasional golf cart.
While the new road surface is undoubtedly much improved, I am not so sure that it’s a good long-term traffic solution.
I hate to delve into the hard-science-major part of my brain and drag out quantitative comparisons so early on, but here, I must.
The old system of a sidewalk and the road simply had more usable surface area.
As the sidewalk in question was about 1,000 feet long (according to Google Maps) and most sidewalks are about four feet wide, 4,000 square feet of usable concrete have been done away with.
A less usable area means that traffic is more congested. This does not bode well, as traffic has not decreased at all.
In addition, not only did the old system have more space, it was better organized as well.
Most pedestrians, me included, used the sidewalk. Perhaps this was a result of the same innate mental guardian that makes me look both ways before crossing streets.
Whatever the reason, for the most part, cyclists had the road surface to themselves and this worked out well.
Pedestrians could travel at a comfortable pace, and not have to worry about bikes bearing down on them. Bike riders, in turn, could travel faster without having to look out for oblivious pedestrians blocking their path.
That’s no more. The more spacious, better organized South Oval of old has been turned into one all-purpose thoroughfare. This freshly-resurfaced, single swath of concrete is now used by all forms of traffic. Based on first-hand observations over the past few days, this is less than ideal.
The fault for this, though, rests on no single group.
Many pedestrians see the new road as one giant sidewalk, and feel free to walk in groups of five or six abreast in the middle of the road. This effectively blocks most of the road for any bikes and the ubiquitous opening-week golf carts.
Some of those vehicle operators, however, feel that the new road is solely their domain. This results in high-speed runs and weaving maneuvers worthy of the Tour de France. Keep in mind, though, there are no pedestrians on the course of the actual Tour — and for very good reason.
So where does that leave us, the bikers and pedestrians of South Oval?
I would say that the old layout was a much better one. However, we can’t undo what has already been done, so we’re stuck with the new road. I wouldn’t really recommend simply using the other side of the oval — unless you particularly enjoy dodging buses and inhaling diesel fumes.
So, the thing to do seems to simply heed the advice of many a crossing guard and elementary school hall monitor: watch out for other people.
If you prefer walking, think of those on bikes. Keep in mind that it is much easier and safer for you to stop and turn on your feet than someone balancing on two thin tires and a bunch of metal tubes. There’s a good reason that bike helmets have been invented and walking helmets have not.
If you’d rather pedal, then keep in mind that most pedestrians want to you to crash into them just as much as you want yourself to crash into them. They’ll move out of you way given proper warning, especially from behind.
We all have to conscientiously share and use this newfangled path, whether we like it or not. So do just that — share the road. And spread the love.
LEARN TO LEARN FROM OTHERS
Published May 2,2006 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here
Viewable Online Here
The human race is constantly progressing in its accumulation of knowledge. Since the discovery of fire by the cavemen to Roman law to Renaissance architecture to modern medicine, the sum total of human knowledge is astounding in breadth and depth.
This knowledge has been and continues to be gained in one of two ways. The first is by individual minds deducing and inducing ideas from nature. Newton's now-famous gravity experiments illustrate this.
The second way, the more important way, is by transferring and enhancing knowledge among people and groups.
Consider the idea of inoculation, which was used to counter smallpox. It was first developed by a Turkish physician, but shot to prominence when successfully employed by an American doctor.
I call the second aforementioned method more important simply because if more people are involved, it follows that the knowledge gained will usually be greater.
This is all the more important given the diverse and disparate groups of people on this planet. The population of the planet has well surpassed six billion, and the growth shows no signs of slowing down.
Those six billion souls occupy every corner of the planet, at least some of the time. In the time that they are there, they undoubtedly acquire knowledge about their surroundings.
They have to because that knowledge stems from every facet of life. Thus, generally speaking, humankind is always learning because humankind is always living.
If all this knowledge was transferred and shared in the way that inoculation was, the amount of learning amassed by cooperative learning and would truly be indescribably massive.
Or, in simpler terms, as long as people in one part of the globe had knowledge of something, it would only be a matter of time and interaction before all humankind shared in its knowledge.
There is, however, one major obstacle preventing the success of the above scenario. It is man-made, baseless and completely preventable.
I'm speaking of the evil of prejudice. Throughout history, and unfortunately even today, people have thought of others as inferior, based on things such as lifestyle and skin color.
Some of that inferiority is tangible, such as the level of technological sophistication or military strength.
However, such material deficiencies should never be held to be indicative of a shortfall of useful, advanced knowledge. Consider the following:
The first permanent English settlement in North America, Jamestown, Va., refused to adopt Native American farming methods.
Such "primitive" people obviously could not know anything that English gentlemen didn't, or so the thinking went.
That most of the settlers nearly perished from a lack of food simply underscores the sheer fallacy of such a pretense.
Even in more recent times, such prejudices have persisted. Indigenous tribes, living in numerous areas, employ natural remedies and folk treatments.
These were derided as unscientific voodoo-esque practices by many in the scientific community well into the 20th century.
Recent research, however, has shown that a great many of those remedies actually have the potential to stop many deadly diseases that have plagued humans for centuries.
Just because these tribespeople have never seen the inside of a lab or a doctor's waiting room does not mean that their medicine is any less potent or innovative.
Indeed, some of their previous detractors are now using their knowledge of the natural world to forge new and powerful treatments to serve all people.
Humans are much the same, no matter where or how we live. We look similar, overall. We have the same needs.
Most importantly, we are always trying to better our lives. We are continually learning new things to do just that, both consciously and unconsciously.
Given all these glaring similarities, something as heinous and baseless and prejudice is simply counterproductive.
Not only does it belittle others unfairly, but it also keeps their accumulated knowledge from being put to widespread good use because of a false belief of its inferiority.
So when it comes to people, what they wear, how they live and where they live should not be of paramount importance.
What truly matters is what they know, and how that knowledge can be used to improve the lives of all humans.
'REALITY' TELEVISION USUALLY NOT WORTH WATCHING
Published Apr. 19, 2006 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
For the vast majority of Saturdays between the ages of 8 and 11, I was up at 6 a.m.
Watching those morning cartoons was the highlight of my week.
As I got older, school, activities and, well, life, began to take up more of my time.
My trusty Panasonic 20-inch became more and more a mirror in a fancy plastic box. Now that I'm older, I realize that television programming has never been near the zenith of human achievement.
Even then, in the last few years, it has inched ever closer to rock bottom, if you ask me. The little television I watch, and used to enjoy, has become permeated with substandard wastes of camera time.
What vile vehicle has brought the boob tube to such abysmal heights? I give you the reality show.
"Survivor" was arguably the first of the modern breed. It was actually somewhat decent entertainment. Then came copycats like "The Amazing Race" and "Big Brother."
With each passing iteration of these shows, quality dropped lower and lower. This downward spiral continued until now such shows as "Fear Factor" and "The Bachelor" serve as primetime viewing.
The actors in the shows may be average people, but the situations certainly are not.
Think about it. How often are you on a small island playing asinine games for water? Have you tried to get your father married off to women half his age?
Even on a much simpler level, consider this: Anytime a camera crew is present, no situation, no matter how natural, can be called reality.
The so-called "reality" of these shows is nothing more than a contrived amalgam of sketches designed to garner ratings.
Not that there is anything wrong with contrived amalgams of sketches. It's what all TV programming is.
It's not because of this that I decry reality shows. Here is my main beef with so-called reality TV: It's not reality.
These shows are about as far from most viewers' realities as PBS is from Cinemax.
Well, why not just drop the reality-show moniker, and just call it a "show"? That only solves half the problem.
The shows in question are hardly quality entertainment. Granted, networks have the right to broadcast whatever shows they like, as long as there are no violations of decency standards, a la Janet Jackson.
However, being an opinion columnist, I must relay what I think of the aforementioned shows.
In a word: horrible. I'm not a prude when it comes to my entertainment. I don't expect every show I watch to reinforce family values or enlighten me in some way. I'm open to meaningless entertainment.
But seriously, I don't see how people being compelled to eat insects and horse innards constitutes entertainment in any form. My tolerance for entertainment is pretty broad, but I really don't like it to kill my appetite and make me gag.
And call me old-fashioned, but isn't finding a fiancee supposed to be a romantic affair, and not a TV smorgasbord of speed-dating beauty queens?
Basically, calling most of these sorts of shows "entertainment" is insulting to the very ideal of my entertainment.
So there you have it: "Reality shows" certainly aren't reality, and in their extreme forms are borderline repulsive.
So, why are they broadcast in the time slots previously occupied by traditional sitcoms, dramas and such?
The answer lies in the copycat nature of much of the telecommunications sector. Given the runaway success of the original "Survivor," suddenly every network rushed to produce reality shows.
In that rush, the thought and foresight that went into planning "Survivor" was not apparent. Therefore, the new shows had little of the entertainment and none of the originality of that show.
As a testament to this, most of those copycats were canceled after just a few seasons, while "Survivor" has continued, now in its 12th season.
So, where does all this leave me, the disgruntled viewer? It leaves me imploring networks to not develop new reality shows.
The concept has been overdone, and the only shows continually succeeding are those that were the original pioneers.
More importantly, it leaves me asking you, my fellow viewers, to not give the rating-chasers any reason to justify creating any more shows.
If you really want reality, just turn off the TVs and go outside.
UOSA CANDIDATES MODELS OF POLITICAL CIVILITY
Published Apr. 5, 2006 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here
Your first clue was probably the barrage of signs standing at attention in the grass.
Viewable Online Here
Your first clue was probably the barrage of signs standing at attention in the grass.
Or maybe you grew accustomed to being handed some kind of vote flyer every time you passed Dale Hall.
In any case, unless you were staging a one-student sit-in within the confines of your room during the previous week, you're likely aware that the UOSA presidential election recently took place.
As with all elections, the preceding campaigning was done tirelessly by candidates and their legions of supporters.
From the aforementioned flyers and signs to chalkings and individual handshakes, virtually every campaign tactic possible was used.
There was one notable exception, at least in the public arena. Nowhere was there any negative campaigning or mudslinging to be found.
Being a well-regulated campus, this is as likely due to OU rules as it is to candidate decency.
No matter what the reason, it is not there, and that is to be commended.
Look around at virtually any election of consequence at any level of government.
Almost guaranteed, every candidate will precede it with a campaign that paints every other candidate in a negative light.
Many will say this is a necessary part of establishing oneself as the best candidate. To this I cannot agree.
While it is necessary to establish superiority over the other candidates, this method of negative campaigning is not the way to do it.
An ideal election is one in which the voters choose the best candidate.
However, due to the maelstrom of mudslinging that characterizes current elections, most voters do not receive enough credible information to determine who is the best candidate. Instead, most simply vote for the person who appears to not be the worst.
This method of simply picking the "least of the evils" is not what a democratic election ought to be. But because of the rampant smear campaigns, it has emerged as the only way.
Indeed, I would go so far as to say that these campaigns have played a significant role in the increasingly negative image of the political system when compared to previous decades.
The main force behind this is probably the general voter's view of most negative campaigns.
A propensity to attack competing candidates while not highlighting one's own campaign generally gives off a lack of confidence in that campaign.
And if the candidate himself does not believe in the value of his platform, then why should the voter?
While not all politicians practice negative campaigns, the vast majority of them unfortunately do.
This election season, count the number of negative ads each candidate sponsors, and you'll see what I mean.
With each negative ad they run, the candidates get closer and closer to the increasingly popular caricature of shady, conniving, opportunistic baby-kissers.
The UOSA candidates certainly aren't such people. They are running simply because they want to be a larger part of this university, not because their livelihood will benefit from their potential office.
As clich? as it may sound, the candidates are truly running their own campaigns.
As such, they cannot shift blame for bad decisions or unfavorable campaign stunts on to party strategists or bellicose campaign managers.
Each candidate really is only representing him or herself.
Whether a candidate had your vote from the very moment of announcing his or her candidacy, or someone won your vote through long hours of campaigning, each stood as public examples of political civility.
They did their best to portray themselves favorably, but stopped well short of sullying their opponents' names.
Whether you particularly cared for any of the candidates or not, I hope you at least enjoyed the campaigns of each ticket.
In our modern democratic system of party strategies, focus groups, multimillionaire donors and ultra-active PACs, it's pretty safe to assume that campaign civility is likely seen nowhere except on South Oval.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
WAL-MARTS NOT SO WELCOME
Published Mar. 22, 2006 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here
You need to buy milk, paper towels, bananas, socks and blank CDs. Oh, and your car needs an oil change. Where do you go?
Viewable Online Here
You need to buy milk, paper towels, bananas, socks and blank CDs. Oh, and your car needs an oil change. Where do you go?
For almost all of us, the answer is the same -- Wal-Mart. It's probably the only place where you can get all of those things taken care of under one roof.
For convenience, Wal-Mart cannot be outdone, particularly in supercenter form. Consumers flock to the stores attracted by the one-stop shopping experience.
This has been extremely profitable for Wal-Mart. They each have the giant parking lot, huge white backlit letters, a squadron of carts and septuagenarian greeters. Some call this uniformity a strong business identity, while others disparage it as commercial sprawl that eliminates smaller competitors.
This sort of controversy is more and more prevalent, particularly in recent years. While most municipal governments welcome the commerce and tax revenue that comes with these 24-hour retail juggernauts, the stores have their share of detractors. In addition to allegations of work force exploitation and immigration violations, the chain has been accused of driving down property values and having large negative impacts on surrounding areas.
I always believed that last assertion to be hard to substantiate. It just seems like a far-fetched claim by people intent on keeping blue-vested employees away.
However, a chance look at a Wal-Mart construction site has made a believer of me, at least partially.
The site is located in Edmond, at Interstate 35 and 15th Street. I hadn't been in the area in some time. As I crested a hill, I found myself staring at a number of dirt piles, each several stories high.
To say it ruined the neighborhood view is putting it mildly. What had been old-tree woods sheltering a quiet neighborhood now looked like an open-pit mine from the former Soviet Union.
Everything within a few hundred feet was covered with the red dirt.
The ever-present wind carried it into the streets and neighborhoods unfortunate enough to be located close to the site. Normally immaculate cars would look like they had just run the Baja 1,000 after simply driving by the site on an especially windy day. And the construction has only just begun.
I'm not naive enough to automatically label something bad because of some dirt, but consider the forthcoming traffic issues. The parking lot of this future supercenter, like all such lots, will have spaces enough for several hundred vehicles.
During certain times of the week, that lot will be very close to full. That will likely triple the number of cars present within 1,000 feet of that intersection.
And all those cars will have to leave sometime. When this mass of vehicular insanity pours out of the lot, it'll be lively driving to avoid fender benders on those two roads.
Adding to the plate of problems is the fact that this Wal-Mart will be open 24 hours a day, meaning that nighttime will not bring respite from traffic, noise and the potential crime that exists at any major retail location.
Most of these residents fought (understandably so) for more than a year to prevent the construction of this Wal-Mart. Ultimately, however, the city authorities and Wal-Mart prevailed. Not only do the residents have to live with the store almost literally in their back yard, but they didn't really have much to say in the matter.
As much as we want to believe that democracy exists in all things, Wal-Mart didn't have to convince a majority of residents to let them build. They didn't have to ask anyone but the city council, which numbers about 10.
In the end, the promise of increased revenue and commerce won the day.
Wal-Marts bring a huge number and variety of goods at reasonable prices. However, they radically change the characteristics of the area they occupy simply through excess. The store in question will be no different.
Most shoppers probably won't care about the negatives, though. They'll just be glad it's not their neighborhood that Wal-Mart moved into.
KEY CARDS BAD SOLUTION
Published Mar. 1, 2006 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
--
For most of us, the single most important piece of plastic in our wallets while we're on campus is the ubiquitous Sooner OneCard. Without it, many people can't eat. And now without it, many people can't sleep either; well at least not in their own rooms if they live in Couch Center.
As of late, all the main entry doors and most of the hall doors on each floor have had card readers installed. Those hall doors are also always locked. Obviously, this means that if you don't have your card with you, you're not getting to whatever's on the other side of that door. Furthermore, even if you do have your card, unless you live on the hall that you're trying to get into, you're still out of luck. The reader will decree your card invalid and issue an edict in the form of ominous beeps banning your entry.
So, your girlfriend lives on the eighth floor of Couch, and you wanted to surprise her with a quick visit? Guess what, unless you have a co-conspirator open the door from the inside, she doesn't get to see your lovely face.
Joking aside, I understand the premise behind the key locks. They do make the halls more secure and swiping is easier than using a key. Security and convenience are good things, at least in concept. The caveat is you can't do things halfway; that ruins it. Right now, the Couch entry situation is definitely stuck squarely in limbo.
Here's what I mean. You can't get into your hallway or even the building sometimes without your card. But you still need your key to get in your room. So you need both your key and your card to have any hope of making it back to your pillows at night. Granted, it's not that hard to force yourself to carry key and card at all times, but it is still nonsensical in principle. It's all the more so considering the old system worked pretty darn well.
Until February, all the doors had operational key locks. Your room key would also open your hallway door and the entry doors to Couch Tower. There was one key for everything. It was a simple, effective, almost fool-proof setup. The only way you could cause a problem for yourself was to lock your keys in the car.
However, Housing and Food Services is a bureaucracy, and like all bureaucracies, readily fixes things that are not broken. That fix also generally makes things worse, a scenario many feel is descriptive of the key/card fiasco. There's not a clear answer to why this done only at Couch, or really why it was done at all. Perhaps we will never know.
It's unfair to harp on Housing and Food Services without acknowledging that their operations are for the most part logical and problem-free. So maybe this current situation is just a stop-gap, a stepping stone to some grand scheme.
Perhaps in the future, all doors will have card-readers installed. Then keys wouldn't be needed at all. The OneCard really would become what its name claims it is.
However, until that day comes, the residents of Couch are stuck in the current situation of doorway drama. The only way around it is just to make sure you carry both key and card anytime you walk out of your hallway or Couch Center, especially after 10 p.m. or so. This will ensure that you'll be able to get back to your room for the night. Otherwise you just might end up finding out how many real friends you have in Walker Tower.
OLYMPICS, NOT U.N. SHOW GLOBAL DEMOCRACY
Published Feb. 15, 2006 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Viewable Online Here
Published Online Mar. 8, 2006 by USC Center on Public Diplomacy
Viewable Online Here
(link operational as of Dec. 19, 2007; see bottom of target page)
Viewable Online Here
Published Online Mar. 8, 2006 by USC Center on Public Diplomacy
Viewable Online Here
(link operational as of Dec. 19, 2007; see bottom of target page)
Last Friday, the world's finest winter sports athletes gathered in northern Italy for a celebration of physical prowess, sportsmanship and global camaraderie.
The 2006 Winter Olympics opened in Turin with a lavish opening ceremony. The next day, the actual sporting events started, and the television smorgasbord of adrenaline, podiums and over-excited announcers began with no delay.
While watching the ceremonies and competitions, I realized something. The Olympics are the ideal that global democracy should aspire to. For those mortified by the thought of distinguished politicians and diplomats trading in pin-striped suits and briefcases for ski poles and bodysuits, let me explain.
According to the official Web site of the XX Olympiad, there are more than 2,500 athletes from 84 countries participating in this year's games. However, the tiny contingents from the unlikeliest of countries are the ones that illustrate my point.
The world's first glimpse of such a team was that of Jamaica's bobsledders in the 1988 Calgary games. While "feel the rhythm, feel the rhyme" was being immortalized by movie cameras, several small nations began forming Winter Olympics teams.
Any athlete who meets the qualification standards can represent his or her nation. Thus, in this year's games, athletes from such unlikely nations as India, Venezuela and even the Saharan nation of Algeria are competing with the rest of the world's best as equals.
If only our diplomatic institutions were as successful. The United Nations is quite similar to the Olympics in its professed spirit of equality. During its heyday in the Cold War, the U.N. was seen as the bastion of diplomatic equality: a global check against the spread of tyranny by any means.
In this function, it performed well. But the U.N. has never given equal representation to all member nations.
This is most glaring in the Security Council, the highest decision-making body. Only five permanent members (China, Russia, France, the U.K. and the United States) have veto power. The rest of the 10 are elected and replaced every two years.
The "Big Five" have the power to block any proposal from passing. This was perhaps necessary when two giant superpowers needed a check against one another, but not anymore. Today's world is much less polarized, with the developing countries in the middle holding most of the world's population and an increasing percentage of its wealth.
Under the present system, almost 180 countries at any one time are without much of a say over U.N. military actions. Unlike in the games, they cannot send their best, no matter how similar in ability, to the same global stage with the powerful nations.
So, what should be done? There is no simple answer. The U.N. was born at a time when a small group of superpowers had aligned themselves into two very clear alliances. However, the world has changed since then, and a body as large as the U.N. simply can't be expected to change more than 50 years of practice in less than a decade.
To put it in perspective, it took the International Skating Federation almost four years just to put a new scoring system in place after the vote-trading debacle at the Salt Lake City games. Here, we're talking about completely restructuring how 192 countries work and debate about almost every issue there is. That's hard to do.
The easy way out isn't really an option either. The U.N. can't simply dissolve. It is too embroiled in peace-keeping the world over. If the U.N. were to cease its existence, most of the resolved conflicts of the past half-century would flare back up. This is especially dangerous given more countries than ever are now nuclear-capable.
The most desirable option, in the best of diplomatic traditions, is one of methodical compromise. Proposals to extend permanent membership status to more countries have been hinted at, but never officially put on the agenda. It's time to speed that up.
Granted, the issue of skewed representation will remain, but it will be a step in the right direction. Based on the success of that, more equalizing steps should be explored.
The problem will not solve itself; it needs the continued attention of the world's nations.
Surely a body that has produced such successful programs as UNICEF, WHO and the WFP can solve this problem concerning its own makeup. It must do so, no matter how difficult. Otherwise it will lose all credibility as an organ of global diplomacy.
The world is only getting more belligerent, and the U.N. will continue to be needed for many decades to come. The Cold War-era hegemony that is the current system is an anachronism that must be done away with. The U.N. was once beyond reproach as a representative body. Due to massive changes in the global political landscape, that is not the case. However, it is not beyond repair.
Allow me one last Olympics analogy. The U.N. right now is like a veteran athlete from a small nation with a legacy of strong performances. The competition is getting tough, and it is starting to falter.
It cannot retire quietly, as it has created too big a following. The only way for it to remain effective is through focused, grueling work to bring it back into the shape that made it so celebrated.
A day will come when there is a new benchmark for global equality. It may not come in time for the next Olympics, but make no mistake, that day will come. It has to come; the very future of human diplomacy depends on it.
'DIGITAL DIVIDE' WIDENING
Published Feb. 1, 2006 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Available Online Here
Available Online Here
A steely, straight-ahead gaze. A little swing in the steps. Occasional head-bobbing and (thankfully) silent lip-synching. These are the telltale signs of a personal concert in progress. Look a little closer and you'll
almost certainly see earphones in the music enthusiast's ears, usually of the white plastic variety.
What was once the sole province of techno-gurus and audio geeks has become an almost ubiquitous sighting in the last year or so, stemming from an explosion in the sale of MP3 players.
The aforementioned earphones and the players attached to them are probably a more common sight on college campuses than in any other specific environment.
OU is no exception. Take a look around the South Oval next time you walk to class and count how many you see. You'll run out of fingers and toes before you run out of earphones to count.
Owners and proud users of MP3 players can likely rattle off at least five reasons they never leave home without their prize devices. I should know; I'm one of them.
They're indispensable on long trips and in the gym, for blocking out construction and loud neighbors, too. And they certainly help make that long walk up to Catlett more entertaining.
However, I believe that this practice is contributing to the erasure of important things from our college experience. A good portion of chance run-ins and good conversations with friends simply don't happen because of our personal music bubble.
When rocking out to Green Day, the ears are busy processing music and will likely miss the greeting of a buddy you haven't seen for weeks.
In all likelihood, your buddy probably wouldn't even bother yelling your name if he gets a glimpse of the headphone cords. Would you want to yell after someone who doesn't even hear you?
While this is a minor issue, it merits discussion, if as nothing more than a preamble to what I feel to be a more serious issue.
OU has a huge student body, with an equally large number of personal causes and convictions. This turns the South Oval into a hotbed of student activism, with a plethora of groups striving to be heard.
These demonstrations are meant to pique student interest and motivate action. The crucial factor is actually getting the students to hear the message. Here is where musical ignorance manifests itself more significantly. While some of the more spectacular demonstrations certainly compel passers-by to stop and listen, the more plebeian protests usually aren't that lucky.
When confronted by a small group of sign-carrying orators and chanters on the way to class, most people's reaction in the digital-playlist world of today is to sidestep and simply turn up the volume on their players.
I've been there both as witness and guilty perpetrator. Granted, some protesters are downright offensive in their tactics and language, but before the widespread popularity of music players, there was nothing to prevent their rhetoric, no matter how grating, from at least reaching our ears and minds.
We have the right to disregard any message or messenger as we see fit, but these music players are rendering many of us deaf to these voices, effectively making us discard their message without even considering its merit.
These protests are an essential part of the governance of OU, which is in effect a microcosm of the larger institution of the nation as a whole. While a direct correlation is hard to produce, it's undeniable that ignoring small but essential parts of the governmental machine at this stage in life will have an escalating negative effect on an already politically apathetic populace later.
MP3 players have fast become indispensable parts of college students' lives. They undoubtedly have their advantages -- hence their popularity. However, they are the harbingers of some negative practices, as well.
As the vanguard of a population that is concerned with the self to a greater extent than arguably any past generation, we are being made even further isolated from our physical and intellectual surroundings at least in part by our heightened and extended use of our music cocoons.
I don't mean to berate or belittle the legions of portable music lovers, as I am one myself. I'm trying to simply draw attention to an aspect of our playlist-filled lives that is not entirely rosy. If after reading this, you don't agree at all, that's perfectly fine. It's your right to do so.
I just hope you read it with your 'phones out of your ears, so you can at least consider the arguments that reached your mind without having to compete with your personal soundtrack to life.
COLLEGE WINTER BREAK A BIG CHANGE FOR FRESHMEN
Published Jan. 18, 2006 in "The Oklahoma Daily"
Some people would say that college has been less enjoyable than high school. For most, however, high school pales in comparison. But no matter which camp they are from, almost everyone would agree that college is different from previous schooling.
Some differences are pretty obvious, such as living within sight of many of your classes or having classes in separate buildings all over campus. Others are more subtle, like having a different state of mind or being more mature -- some of the time anyway.
As numerous as said differences are when classes are in session, it was a little surprising to encounter them during break, as well.
There are actually quite a few things that distinguish the schoolchildren's Christmas break of years past from the college students' winter break.
I suppose the first would be the name. Regardless of our high school's official term, most of us called our two-week reprieve from lockers and classrooms simply "Christmas break." However, on the OU campus, it's rare to hear that name; "winter break" seems to be the preferred term.
Perhaps this is a realization of the religious diversity of OU students; some regard Dec. 25 as simply the day after Dec. 24 and don't remember ever decorating a tree.
Or maybe this is just because this college vacation is much longer and far outlasts the traditional Christmas season.
Getting past the name, said break is different because it is just that; a complete break from classes. Unlike high school, there are no projects to finish, no papers to write and no finals to worry about in early January.
That last one will ring especially true to those of you fortunate enough to have gone to school in the Oklahoma City area during the last two or three years. It seemed there was more to do over break than when school was actually open.
The college winter break is a welcome change. It's nice knowing that first semester is done, finished, with grades finalized and recorded and, more importantly for some, that they have no effect on second semester grades.
The college break is undoubtedly a better deal for students. Now break is exactly that -- a vacation.
Almost all of us have close high school friends that are attending other, often far-away colleges. The only time we can hang out with them is during long breaks when they are home again.
This is a far cry from high school where we likely saw each other most every day, in and out of school. Thus, winter break serves as a mini-reunion with old friends at favorite hangouts.
This is made all the better by the length of the break. Twice as many days means twice as many parties, movies, Hornets games, whatever.
Although it is true that good friends can pick up right where they left off, it is a bit unnerving knowing that this reunion will probably be the last time everyone is together in one place until spring break, or even summer.
As a freshman, I call the dorms "home" during school. As such, I have to pack up everything I might need during break and cart it home with me. Most other freshmen are in the same boat.
Students living at home or older students living in their own apartments need not worry so much about this. But, for those of us that carry clothes, laptops, perishable food, etc., back to wherever home is often feel that second semester is a brand new school year.
A large part of this is that moving everything back once the dorms open in January brings back repressed memories of the chaotic August move-in day and hefting all your belongings up several flights of stairs because the elevators were slow and crowded.
A combination of all of these certainly makes this, my first winter break in college, feel different than any high school Christmas break.
Perhaps this is because of my first semester experiences in a new, much larger environment. Maybe it's because I saw close friends for the first time in months.
Or maybe it's simply because I had enough free time, thanks to the longer break, to actually reflect on why this break was different. Whatever the reason, it definitely was different.
This brings up the first point, in terms of college and high school, does different mean better, or worse? Many of you likely have your own answer to this, either from the experience of multiple years in college or from some epiphany somewhere along the way.
If you ask me, when it comes to my winter break, different is definitely better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)