Why the U.S. Must Stand by Iraq

Guess what was on the news yesterday?  George H.W. Bush jumped out of a plane for his 90th birthday!  Well, as important as that is.  Something else happened too...ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Al Asham) has literally invaded Iraq from its stronghold in Sytria (yes...Syria, ring a bell?) and is now at the gates of Baghdad.  Yet of course, I doubt most even know that this is happening.  And of those that know, even fewer care.  I can at least understand why we would think Syria is none of our business, however now Iraq is falling, and I for one believe that we have a responsibility to the Iraqi people.  

We are the ones that went in and disrupted their country, unintentionally sparking a sectarian conflict and occupation that lasted nearly a decade.  Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have already died since we first invaded Iraq as the result of the conflict.  At the very least in return for that suffering we should deliver on the good we promised them, democracy.  They are an infant democracy struggling along, and it is simply unfair and inhumane to just let it fall apart, making all of the suffering of the Iraqis empty and meaningless.  Keep in mind that the U.S., while declaring independence in 1776, did not establish its current form of government until 1787... and that was after trying out one botched form of government, the Confederation.  We tend to glaze over that in the popular imagination of our country.  We shouldn't glaze over how difficult it is to get a democracy to work.  We should be in it with the Iraqis for the long run to ensure their democracy works...we owe them at least that much.

The Obama Administration is talking (which it excels at) about getting involved to help Iraq fought off ISIS.  According to President Obama, quoted by the Wall Street Journal, "Our national security team is looking at all the options."  All I have to say is I hope this is more than talk, and will actually be backed by action this time around.  This administration has already fumbled the ball with its red line...or maybe not so red line, on Assad's use of chemical weapons in Syria.  Then after Russia ceased Crimea from Ukraine the U.S. government imposed the most timid of sanctions.  And now China is flexing its muscles in the South Pacific, bullying its neighbors into sacrificing control over their sovereign waters.  China even started drilling for oil in the sovereign waters of Vietnam, and backed it with military force, even ramming one of Vietnam's ships .  

Current map of ISIS controlled territory (in red)

All this to say I am not too optimistic about this Adminstration's resolve, and I believe ISIS is probably banking on the U.S. doing nothing, or almost nothing.  Why else would ISIS so brazenly invade a country?  It is using conventional army tactics, and declaring itself as a state.  Well I will tell you why.  ISIS got its strength from the Syria conflict.  As the Syrian Spring turned into a blood bath, the rebel force that revolted against Assad slowly was overtaken by zealous Islamists that came from all over the Middle East to fight in the conflict.  There in Syria back in 2011 the rebels expected aid from the West, much like how the rebels in Lybia were assisted in overthrowing Khadafi, but no, no aid came.  The rebels soon turned to other less scrupulous sources for aid, including terrorist organizations.  The Syrians, and the rebels, learned a painful lesson, the West won't always be there to help, even when the cause was clearly just.  Likewise, Russia, China, Iran, and ISIS, all looked on, and realized that they could get away with alot more than they initially thought.

Hence why ISIS is now so aggressive in its tactics for overthrowing Iraq.  Whats even worse, is that Iran is contemplating getting involved to fight ISIS and back the Iraqi government.  If Iran helps and not us, we would be relinquishing our influence in Iraq to one of the least savory regimes in the Middle East.  Iran is a theocracy, supports the terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon, and until recently was trying to obtain nuclear capabilities.  This may be speculative, but its not a stretch to say that Iran may try to impose a Shia theocracy on Iraq modeled after its own.  In a nation as diverse as Iraq that would be a catastrophe, and could potentially lead to untold oppression agains the Sunni religious minority in the country.  

All of this is to say that we cannot afford to let Iraq fall.  It would be a moral and political disaster. Everything we did there, and all our soldiers sacrifice would mean nothing.  Politically it would just further show everyone how weak and tepid the U.S. is.  I mean seriously, if the U.S. won't take this seriously, what crisis will it take seriously?  Our friends, and enemies, will certainly be pondering that question.

The Price of Enlightenment: Debt

Something disturbing is happening in educations of "higher learning."  The "higher" things people are learning are not translating into marketable skills.  Many of are founding out their degrees are little more than proof that they are intelligent and dedicated, and they are paying a steep price for it.  Degrees are becoming more expensive, reducing the reward.  Meanwhile student loans are becoming more widespread, and a degree more and more necessary just to get an entry level full time job.  This all is coalescing into a catastrophe.

I was one of those that went into college and got myself a generic liberal arts degree.  I majored in history, with a minor in economics.  I did fairly well in school, but honestly was not quite sure what I wanted to do after school.  I do know one thing, almost everything I wanted to do out of school was out of reach.  I did not have enough education or high enough gpa for most of the history internships, and even if i landed them, what then?  They pay almost nothing, and the internship will most likely not land you any sort of history related job.  If I wanted to work in a museum, I would need to go to Gradschool.  I considered Journalism too...guess what?  Pays little, is extremely competitive, and you have no chance if you didn't major in Journalism.  I was little prepared for the realities of the job market.

The fact is I was young and naive, I will admit it.  I really should have done more research before deciding on a major so I can be prepared for a career.  Luckily for me, my parents were able to foot most of the bill for my education, so the student loans I do have are not terrible.  I can deal with them.  My job is good enough to allow me to pay them off.  

Nevertheless many are not as lucky.  Many graduated with liberal arts degrees, and did so mostly with student loans.  If I had done that I would be buried in debt right now, right out of school...nice.  Even worse, many out of school are still working in part time jobs.  They certainly are not making enough to pay for their loans...yet alone just living expenses.

All of this is to point out the ridiculousness of our student loan system.  It is literally setting up people for failure.  If your parents can afford to pay for it, then at least your bad financial decision did not ruin you.  However if you had to take tons of student loans...then its financial suicide to major in something that does not give you any practical skills that command a high salary.  You may not like this fact, and may object to the way I describe it, but I am just telling you the reality of how this is.  Anyone that must incur huge debt to go to school, should make dead certain their degree will pay for itself.

Many graduate college only to find themselves in a figurative 

"debtors prison."

This is why I cannot believe that FASFA is enabling young people, 18 year olds, many that are not mature enough to make good decisions, to commit financial suicide.  It would be one thing if tuition was being subsidized...but it is not.  FASFA is granting loans to young people to major in art, history, journalism, that no matter how honorable those majors may be, will never enable those young people to pay off their loans.  

This has to be changed.  And in my opinion, its simple.  Make the loans dependent on majoring in something with a high payoff, such as Applied health science, chemistry, computer programming, pre-med, nursing, finance, etc. etc.  Students in these majors should be able to pay off large loans far more easily.  Perhaps allow small loans for the other less lucrative majors, but don't allow students to burry themselves in debt to obtain them.  

The only downside to all this is of course that less people will learn to think critically about the society we live in.  I do regret that.  However there are cheaper ways to learn about these things.  People could easily form clubs online to learn about sociology or history or art, etc.  It would certainly be much cheaper, and still enlightening.  Not to mention I believe such a forum based approach will allow a much more democratic apporach than the typical authoritarian style most professors prefer.  Anyways I digress.  If you majored in liberal arts like I did, thats great.  Just don't expect huge financial rewards, and don't do it if you have to take on lots of debt.  

Jobs: "Something Forgettable"

"Jesus!"

"No....Its Just Steve."

Thats a line from the movie "Jobs" (you know, the one about Steve Jobs...).  While he says he is just Steve, the movie lifts Steve up on a pedestal as if he is some sort of tech messiah.  The movie is all tinted in a nostalgic glow, from the intentionally off colored video to the sound track.  You will definitely catch the fuzzies watching this movie, but thats not the only thing you will catch.  Look closely and you will see an all American tall tale, of a man who through his own willpower created a tech empire.  You will see all the ideals Americans cherish, from rugged frontiersman individualism, to relentless forward progress without ever looking back.  Yet at the same time this is coupled with the modern narrative of the egocentric prideful p
rivileged youth, that have been told all their lives they are special, and all of who wish to be Steve Jobs.  The movie offers validation to those that wish to rebel, that their rebellion from society does not have to come at a cost.  You can be yourself, and be ridiculously rich at the same time.

The movie opens up with Steve Jobs unveiling the Ipod, he tells his audience, "If you can touch the heart, its limitless."  Romanticized much?  I definitely think so.  Yes, I suppose you can say the Ipod touches the heart by giving the individual total autonomy in listening to whatever music he wants.  Nevertheless while the individual is empowered, its at the expense of his neighbors.  In my experience, Ipods are most often used to avoid interaction, to provide an emotionally safe bubble one can hide behind in unfamiliar places.  I will concede one thing to the movie...I suppose by addicting our hearts to Ipods he is right...the money certainly is limitless.

Near the end of the movie he says, "The people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones that do." Or perhaps he should have said, "Out of the many people crazy enough to try and change the world, I was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time, positioned to exploit trends already in motion to my advantage."  Alot longer but in my opinion more accurate.  Its true what he made changed the world, but its dubious that the technology he fostered would not have happened without him.  Its also funny how little credit the movie gives to his partners.  Nothing he did would have been possible without his geeky friend.  Their teamwork was essential, but ultimately Steve Jobs gobbles up all the credit.  Since he is the focus, everything is about him in the movie and what he did.  Its an interesting story, but the emphasis on his role distorts the big picture, necessarily making him out to be all important.

Despite the fact the movie worships Steve Jobs,  I think where the movie most shines is in what it reveals about us, and in particular about the young privileged class.  Steve Jobs often is found repeating the sentiments one would hear from many 20 somethings today.  Steve Jobs is always risking it all, a trait highly desireable amongst the coddled youth of today, who wish nothing more than to take a risk for once in their easy lives.  When he talks to the Dean at the school he attended, he states that a degree offers validation and job security, but that its not for him because he does not want to be part of the system, he wants to change the system.  In addition he states he does not want his parents to fork up tuition "to become something forgettable, like an electrician."  He wants to be a superhero, just like the rest of us.

The difference is that he does what most of us only dream about.  He drops out of school, then heads off to India and lives as simply as possible.  Again that is something I have wished to do.  Its something many young 20 somethings want to do.  Then when he comes back he is disgruntled at work because, as he states, "I just can't work for other people."  Something many of us coddled prideful youths can sympathize with.  We have been told our whole lives how special and important we are, and now we believe it and are offended when anyone dares to ignore us and undervalue what we do.  Afterall, its all about us.

The funny thing is that ultimately even the invincible Steve Jobs has to rely on the "something forgettables" like nerdy programmers and has to work for other people (his board of trustees).  He never would have gone anywhere if he was not able to convince investors to invest in his company, or convince stores to buy his computers.  Its funny because something we often forget, is that its the "something forgettables" that make this world tick.  The world can only afford so many Steve Jobs, the rest have to settle to being cogs in the machine, rather than making the machines. Steve Jobs had a dream and made it become reality. Yet for every Steve Jobs there are countless people that failed.  Indeed, even Steve Jobs failed, he was fired from his own company, before being brought back on years later.  Thats just one more thing we must remember.  We coddled privileged youths cannot have it all.  If you go the Steve Jobs route, it is likely you will fall on your face several times.  You will have to get back up and try try again, until eventually you succeed.

The fact is the movie romanticizes the entrepreneurial spirit, and deceives young adults into believing that we can have it all.  You can go to India, be a hermit, then come back and make billions, all while staying true to your hippy self.  You can fight the system, battle authority, and still come out on top.  The fact is that in most cases that is not true.  In most cases the outcasts of society stay the outcasts, and the squares stay the squares.  If you want to be the next Steve Jobs, go ahead and go for it, but don't expect victory to be easy or cheap.  You will have to sell most of your life to your dream.  You will have to delay gratification and NOT always do what you want.  And if you do become the next Steve Jobs, please do not forget about the "something forgettables" that helped you get there.

We Need to Wake Up!

He knew inside, deep inside, that something was terribly wrong.  Everyone kept scurrying about as if this was normal, but he knew better.  He knew they were all as good as dead.  He knew they were walking corpses, and that there was no turning back.  Yet he clung to the hope that he could save them.  He chose to believe that he could make a difference.  He saw a tall building, far off in the distance, the tallest in the land, and walked towards it.  He was determined to go to the top of that tower, and from there tell all who would hear what was happening.  He would proclaim the end of the world bravado, and wake everyone up to the impending doom.  Even better, he would offer the solution to save the world from its demise.  

He climbed 100 stories to reach the top, and looked down at everyone.  They all looked like ants from here.  Ants scurrying about from one task to the other.  However there was one crucial difference.  Ants work for eachother, while these creatures only worked for themselves.  They only worked for their own happiness, and unless they worked together this once, the world for sure would end.  Evil was prevailing while everyone looked the other way.  A tear rolled down his face as he contemplated this, but decided to face down the enemy head on anyway.  He looked out over the horizon, took a deep breath, and yelled out the truth for all to hear.  He yelled the truth for hours.  Before he knew it, it had been days. 

A week later he was exhausted, he climbed down the tower, hoping that people heard and decided to listen.  He opened the gates at the bottom of the tower and peered outside, and was aghast.  The sky was turning red, and a massive inferno was heading straight towards them, yet everyone kept going about their business.  It was disturbing to see, yet the inferno, while ghastly, was subtle.  Only slowly was it killing them.  However he thought for sure they must know.  He saw a man, and ran towards him.  He asked the man, "did you hear what I said from the tower?!  We must stop this!! We are all slowly dying! We will die anyday now!"  The man said, "Oh please don't bother me with that.  I don't vote."  He walked up to a woman and asked her.  She said, "You trying to tell me what to do? I don't have to listen to this."  She stomped away in anger.  He could barely believe his eyes.  People continued to live in revelry, and ignore the leviathan staring them in the face, waiting to kill them.  People chose not to care.  They chose to believe it didn't effect them.  

How can I or anyone make a difference if no one will listen.  I have realized no one will, or at least the masses never will.  The political machine has been rigged to minimize visible damage to the masses on one hand while raping them with the other.  Yet its all in secret.  Its actually very visible, but no one will take the 5 seconds to care.  What has happened to us!?  I watched a documentary on the Arab Spring in Egypt and was deeply moved.  The people were mobilized to take down the corrupt elite.  Yet here in America, we let the corrupt elite, the same corrupt elite that brought about the Great Recession, to rule the roost, as long as they give us our goodies.  Yet we really aren't getting anything.  Its a bit like giving you candy then stealing your car.  We apparently don't care, which is reflected by our voting record.  We choose to stay aloof from politics because they are all corrupt, yet its exactly that attitude that allows the corruption to run rampant.  I suppose we deserve the masters we have chosen.  Congratulations America, while you watch "The Real Desperate Housewives of New Jersey,"  "The Real Politicians of DC" will be watching and controlling you.

Why We Must Stop Assad

I watched the movie Hotel Rwanda recently, and it infuriated me.  The Tutsis and Hutus hated eachother in Rwanda, and a civil war broke out.  The Hutus decided to commit mass genocide against the Tutsis, murdering hundreds of thousands of them.  Nothing justifies such slaughter of life, and nothing justifies such an inept response by the West.  In the movie the West only sent in peacekeepers to get their own citizens out of the country, but did nothing to protect the Tutsis.  Also thats not just what happened in the movie, it happened in real life too, and America did almost nothing during the slaughter.  Bill Clinton would not deploy our troops, fearing the political backlash.  I am sorry, but the west needs to man up, its simple as that.  In certain cases, such as Rwanda and Darfur, the west should flex its muscles and defend the defenseless.  We have the wealth and power, and can easily do it with minimal sacrifice in real terms to ourselves...but no, the lives of hundreds of thousands of Rwandans apparently was not worth it.

I fear we are about to repeat history.  Once again, we are about to do nothing while a regime slaughters its people.  In this case, its Assad's regime in Syria, slaughtering his own people.  The People rose up against him during the Arab spring, and he responded with bullets.  Now, 3 years later, the war rages on, and his regime has attached his own people with poison gas, and has slaughtered countless civilians.  Yet still we do nothing.  We think it will be another Iraq.  However there is a big difference.  The slaughter in Iraq was a consequence of our intervention.  In Syria, its the exact opposite.  The slaughter will be a consequence of our inaction.  Iran and Russia are supporting, Assad, meanwhile we leave the rebels stranded, giving the Islamic extremists that much more ammunition.  What can help their cause more than to show to everyone that the West doesn't care?

I know I just wrote an article about government intervention...and now I am calling for intervention.  My thinking I must admit has not been consistent, but frankly I am starting to grasp that I do not really believe anyone's thinking can be perfectly consistent.  Since if you believe that government is necessary for something, then you are conceding, that at least to some extent, government intervention at times is necessary.  I believe that first and foremost, government intervention is necessary when there is life on the line.  Government exerts a monopoly on the use of physical force so that violence can be prohibited, punished, and hopefully reduced in society at large.  People whether in tribes or nation states agree to sacrifice the use of force to a governing authority because without it civilized social relations would not exist.  While some would argue with this point I believe the majority at least would agree. As a result of this thinking I believe that its imperative that when people are perpetrating violence, and human life is in danger, it is very much the government's role to provide a "safety net" so to speak.  Likewise, I believe its the international community's responsibility to provide a basic safety net for the most weak and vulnerable in this world.  When the lives of people in this world are threatened, its our duty as fellow human beings to do what we can to protect their lives.  As a result of this line of thinking, I believe its imperative that the international community (including the United Sates), intervene in Syria and put an end to the atrocities committed by Assad's regime.



P.S. Many of you jumped on the bandwagon to stop Kony, and at the time I did not believe we should.  But now my thinking has come around, and I agree.  However our support cannot be fickle and patchy and facebook trendy, it has to be real.

Government Intervention and its Consequences

Its funny how so many well meaning people constantly cry fowl over every injustice in the world, and continue to advocate the same solutions to everything.  The answer is of course, more government, everywhere, all the time.  It doesn't seem to matter what the issue is.  The instinctual reflex of everyone on the left is to advocate more government.  It is a constant frustration for me because government intervention of any kind always leads to its own problems.  The intervention in the market creates a distortion, which hurts people.  The market is then blamed for failing, and government steps in again to "fix" the market.  The whole thing becomes cyclical, with the inevitable result that the market becomes so disfunctional that direct government control is the only answer. Its about time that "government failure" be exposed, and not just "market failure."

Just look at the American economy, and you quite easily see the end result of these political "fixes".  Look at our last recession.  Which sectors of the economy were the most responsible for the crash?  housing and finance.  Which two sectors of the economy also happen to have been the most regulated?Housing and finance.  All sorts of real estate laws in the states lead to intense market distortions that guarantee restricted supply, and government intervention in finance guaranteed easy money to those that couldn't afford it, inflating demand.  One example was the strict building codes in California.  Few building permits were ever granted because the environment came first.  However noble this may seem, it meant that the supply of housing in California, since the 80's, has not kept up with demand.  This led to housing prices exploding in California.  This then led of course to liberals crying fowl that the poor could not afford decent housing...which was due to their policies.   The answer of course, was to force banks to give out easy money to people that could not afford it.  This then exploded demand even more, leading to a vicious cycle of rising house prices.   The book, "The Housing Boom and Bust," goes into this in great detail.

Now consider this, according to the Economist, California has the highest poverty rate when adjusted for cost of living in the United States, at 25%.  Its funny how time and time again, the states that are supposedly the most progressive are increasingly becoming expensive enclaves for rich enlightened liberals.  I mean if you are lucky enough to have a house in California, you are set.  Skyrocketing prices guaranteed your standard of living would go up.  Therefore the haves had no incentive to do away with the strict environmental regulations because it benefited them.  Meanwhile their less fortunate neighbors voted with their feet, to states where housing is far less regulated and cheaper.  Liberals constantly assume they care more for the poor, but the reality is despite all their best intentions, their policies are exactly to blame for the plight of the poor.

Another interesting example of how liberal policies have screwed over the poor is rent control.  Controlling rents, on the face of it, sounds like a wonderful way to guarantee affordable housing.  However in practice it restricts supply.  In fact it does worse than this, it destroys neighborhoods.  You think I am exaggerating, but I am not.  In New York City, there was a story from back in the 70's of a landlord that could not charge enough rent to even cover his operating expenses for the building.  It was absolutely absurd.  He took in less from rent than he had to fork out in utilities and property taxes.  As a result he never invested anything in upkeep and tried his hardest to get the property off his hands.  He even tried to give the property to the tenants, for free!  Guess what...they wouldn't take it!  It was cheaper for them to just pay the rent.  No sane person would invest in developing apartments in such an environment.  And guess what?  No one did.  People could not find places to live in the city, leading to exodus, and the neighborhoods that did exist declined into ghettos since nothing was invested in upkeep.  The ghettos did not just happen, they were the result of well intentioned policies that had disastrous consequences.

Where the government has not interferred, such as in the internet and technology, prices have fallen and the economy has prospered.  Where the government has heavily intervened, as in housing, education, and healthcare, prices have been increasing far faster than incomes.  Either by restricting supply or by inflating demand, the government has stimulated price gouging.  In the process the portion of the electorate the liberals supposedly care about the most, the poor, are hurt the most.  Yet continuously the market is blamed time and time again, without ever being given a chance to work in the first place.

Last thing before I close up, yes its true that perfectly aimed policies can have a positive effect on an economy.  I don't deny that.  However lets look at two things.  1) Humans are not omniscient, so its inevitable that a variable (out of the potentially infinite) we did not consider will rear its ugly head.  2) Its a stretch to think the politicians making the laws actually have an interest in making perfect policy.  What matters is winning votes, and the best way to gain votes is to create voting blocs that are dependent on you.  If people are self sufficient, then what need would there be for the politician?  However if your voters have something to lose if they don't vote for you, then they will vote for you, if for nothing else, to make sure the other guy doesn't take away their goodies.

Why else would democrats constantly oppose consolidating welfare programs (according to the Economist, there are 126 anti poverty programs run by the federal government, many of which overlap)?  They oppose it because there is a constituency for each program that fears losing their goodies, which not only includes the welfare recipients but the bureaucrats.  If you consolidated the welfare programs, then there would not need to be as many bureaucrats, which inevitably means less dependent government employees that will vote democrat (In an economics textbook I read in college, it showed that only 1 out of 7 dollars currently spent on welfare programs goes to a welfare recipient...where do you think the rest goes?).  The same goes for Republicans and funding the military.  Despite the fact that the growth in benefits and pay for the military has ballooned as a percentage of Federal spending on the military over the past 10 years, no Republican would dare lift a finger to cut any of it.  They, just like the Democrats, have a constituency that fears losing its goodies.

The point of this article is that government intervention has consequences, and they are often negative.  Things are not always as they seem.  Just because the intentions are good does not mean the result will be good.  In addition often the intentions are not good.  Often the elites know what they are doing, and do it because it keeps them in power.  I suppose one day it will be possible to make perfect laws.  However until then, I suggest that we keep government interference to a minimum, and let the market operate.

How Walkmans, VCRs, and Netflix Changed the World

Society is undergoing a social revolution. You probably have noticed, and have partaken, in this revolution.  The defining embodiment of this revolution is that stereotype we all know, love, and in some sense are...the hipster.  The defining characteristic of the hipster is a rebellion against the mainstream, whether it be music, movies, or walmart.  This rebellion is seen as fighting against "the man", aka, the societal elite, and propping up the "little guy."  This is done of course, by listening to obscure music that no one else has heard of, by watching movies no one else has heard of, and by shopping at stores...you get the idea.

The point I will be making is that this revolution is more than just hipsters.  They are just the most visible embodiment of this revolution.  However in reality its already touching all of us.  Technology has driven the way, introducing new platforms to digest entertainment, and as a consequence, none of us listen to music or watch tv the same as we did ten years ago.  Technology has also democratized the process of production, allowing a vast infusion of new entrepreneurs into the entertainment market.  Technology is transforming entertainment in a way we are just beginning to understand, for better or for worse.  I will not only argue that technology has created a new mechanism for absorbing entertainment, but that this new mechanism will inevitably result in the extreme isolation of individuals from society as a whole.

Before the 1980's, music was inevitably a collective experience, and so was television.  There was only so much music to listen to over the airwaves and tv shows you could watch.  Music wise, all you had was the radio.  TV wise, there were only a handful of channels.  This meant that the likelihood you had listened to the same music and watched the same shows as your coworker, friend, etc. was very high.  Likewise the likelihood that you watched the same shows and movies around the same time was extremely high because back in the day, you either saw it or you didn't.  Keep in mind, before the 1980's, vcr's did not even exist.  Yes there was "portable" music in the form of records, but even then everyone around you had to hear it, there was no tuning other people out.  The natural tendency of this arrangment was a naturally unifying/coercive element on culture.  Local dialects and cultures all faded and were replaced by the image of America we were sold by Hollywood.

This began to change during the 1980's.  In the early 80's vcr players and walkman's came out.  Vcr's meant that people could for the first time record shows and rent movies, therefore they could postpone watching a show or movie until a time more convenient for them.  This meant that the likelihood two people had watched the same episode at the same time declined, therefore reducing their common experiences.  For the first time, people were having to tell eachother, "Don't tell me what happens, I haven't seen it yet."  In addition the walkman allowed people to listen to music without other people listening.  This meant that they could listen to music without having to worry about what other people thought about it.  They could now listen to whatever they wanted, without any worry someone may overhear and judge.

The trend then accelerated with the dawn of the internet.  Pandora, Spotify and other online applications allowed people to explore literally any kind of music the world had to offer.  In addition you can do this from the privacy of your laptop, with your earbuds, isolated in your own little world.  Likewise applications like Netflix, Youtube, and Hulu allowed you to explore and view any type of video content you desired, again behind the protective castle of your laptop and earbuds.

In addition the means of producing entertainment have become more and more affordable.  Now fairly affordable applications such as Garage Band and Final Cut Pro...and Blogger, allow you access to most of the tools the professionals use, and even the hardware is dropping steeply in expense.  Now literally almost anyone can go and make their voice heard.

This insane expansion in technology means that anyone can listen to anything made by almost anyone. This inevitably is resulting in a disturbing trend of individual isolation.  I no longer can have any certainty you like any of the music I like, or watch any of the shows I like.  The only thing I know is that you have access to the infinite possibilities for audible or visual entertainment that I do.  Now the only things we can more or less guarantee is that we have both seen the same blockbuster movies.  Indeed, even that will become ever less likely, as people's tastes in entertainment continually moves farther and farther away from each other.

This trend is referred to in Academia as "Social Differentiation."  People are becoming ever less similar in opinions, outlook, and tastes.  Why?  People all now have infinite choice over what societal factors influence them and which do not.  So people actually have more power to determine their own identity than they ever have before, and they are taking full advantage of it, isolating themselves from everyone unlike them.  Even when we connect with others, we will more and more only connect with others in the limited ways we are the same.

If you dispute that people will naturally isolate themselves from those unlike themselves consider this.  It is uncomfortable to make yourself vulnerable to someone else.  If you don't know what someone thinks about something, you don't wish to reveal it most of the time.  Whenever we are with people we don't know, we tend to gravitate towards the things we can connect on.  Just picture when you attend a football game.  Whats the first thing you do? You find your team jersey and put it on.  Why? You put it on to indicate to others you are like them.  The jersey is your key to the team community.  If you see by someone wearing the same jersey, you both can bond over your common allegiance to the team.  Likely you will both spout your opinions about the quarterback, and list all the stats you know about the other team, and will forecast your teams' chances of victory.  Nevertheless besides that, you probably will not talk about much more because it wouldn't be safe too.  You disconnect yourself from them the instant obvious commonality ceases to exist.

The point I am making with the above example is that its natural to hide facts about ourselves we are not sure others will accept, and that we naturally only reveal select parts of our whole based off how much we trust them.  An online community makes this even easier, because now people can opt out of community with people at their work, school, etc., and find people online that are just like them...or at least like them in a limited sense.  Since there will be an infinite combination of types of people, it will be a futile endeavor for someone to try to establish friendships based off a coherent identity.  Thus people will have select "friends" that they know for select interests.  A person may have their board game friend, their Alternative-Electronic radio friend, their volleyball friend, and their Walking Dead friend, but they will no longer just have friends.  Gone are the days people just had a group of friends they did everything together, listened to the same music, and partook in the same activities.

Technology has ushered in a new social order that appeals directly to our individual impulses, creating an entirely new social order.  The old social order, in which the media exerted a uniting and coercive influence on culture, is long gone.  Now, media simply serves as a means of self expression in an increasingly culturally chaotic world.  The common culture Americans once shared is disappearing, and now we can only hope to sometimes connect to our fellow Americans, whenever our common interests happen to intersect.  In a sense, we are all hipsters now, lonely hipsters living just a couple yards from each other, yet having nothing in common.

Magic: the Economic Gathering

Friday night I played the card game, "Magic the Gathering," at a comic book store.  If you ever played the Pokemon card game back in the day, then you pretty much can extrapolate from that how you play Magic.  However if you didn't, all you need to know is that its a card game in which players customize the cards in their deck then battle each other.  Much like playing Pokemon back in the day, what makes Magic fun is the community.  You can talk tactics and the pros and cons of your deck with several other ardent Magic enthusiasts.  Also like Pokemon back in the day, the community is large so you can always find events to go to and people to play against.


While playing Magic my friend mentioned that another game Warhammer 40k, was dying out.  He said that people were quitting the game because its too expensive, plus the ever shrinking community made it less appealing than Magic, whose community was growing.  He probably was over exaggerating his point, but afterward I checked online and the spirit of the two communities seems to justify his attitude.  Warhammer fans tend to be disillusioned at the company that makes the game, and continually complain about how expensive it is.  Meanwhile Magic fans are more like rock star groupies, endlessly fawning over how awesome the game is.

This comparison made me question why Warhammer was failing lately while Magic keeps growing.  Warhammer more or less fits the conventional wisdom that physical gaming will be taken over by digital, while Magic seems to defy it.  There are three main factors in my mind that seem to be driving their divergent fortunes.   First, Magic better adapted to the digital age, preventing the exodus of younger players.  Second, the recent recession and its gut wrenching effects on middle class income destroyed demand for higher priced commodities.  Third, I believe that Magic the Gathering is what Economists would call, and don't take this the wrong way, an "inferior" good.  I will further explain in the third paragraph after this one.

What Warhammer 40k looks like...expensive.

In terms of digital adaptivity, Warhammer actually did adapt...but in a way detrimental to the physical game.  A Real Time Strategy game was released, "Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War," and it was very successful. 7 million copies of the game have been sold.  However the success probably came at the expense of the physical game.  In other words, instead of complementing the physical game it served as a substitute.  One, it did not take as much time.  In the physical game you had to customize your army and paint your pieces, which takes a huge time investment.  Meanwhile, in the digital game you are limited to only a fraction of the types of units in the physical game, plus all the "pieces" are already "painted."  Two, the game only cost around $50, while buying enough pieces to get started in the physical game, easily costs $200.  Thus instead of serving to draw people into the game, it probably drew potential younger fans away from the game, leaving only the most invested and hardcore Warhammerites in the fold.

Magic did not make the mistake Warhammer made when it released its digital version.  Part of this was unintentional.  None of the games that came out were smashing hits like "Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War," and therefore did not challenge the physical card game.  However one game did come out in 2002 that was a hit in the magic community, "Magic: the Gathering Online." (For more about games based off magic, check out this wikipedia page: Magic:_The_Gathering_video_games)  It was essentially an online format of the physical game.  In addition, people could buy digital versions of the cards online.  Since the format was the same as the physical game, and the costs and time involved was essentially the same, it served as a complement  rather than a substitute.  Releasing this version was a stroke of genius, because It opened the door for younger online gamers to get involved and they eventually became consumers for the physical game.

The recession also had a clear effect on physical gaming.  Since the recession gutted the middle class, the typical Warhammer gamer now had less income to spend on his super expensive army.  Since war hammer, like most collectible community based games, slowly fazes out older units and implements new rules that force you to buy new pieces to stay competitive, it became very difficult during the recession to stay up to date, leading many to quit the game.  In the comment section of this article  (http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/01/some-thoughts-on-gw-financials.html) a commenter summed this up nicely:

prices need to come down. People aren't buying the products - increasing prices and putting out a high volume of too-expensive, badly designed (rules) product won't get more people buying.

Meanwhile, Magic is fairly cheap by comparison.  You would really only need $30 to get started, and even though it can be an expensive hobby, as some players spend hundreds of dollars on it, the decision to spend heavily is a free choice after you start playing.  As one commenter said in response to this nbc article (http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/20-years-magic-gathering-still-going-strong-not-just-middle-8C11044163):

Yes if you want to compete at the events you have to spend money, but if you have friends or groups in your area where people already have a ton of cards and are just looking for casual play that is a blast too. They'll usually be willing to share or have built multiple decks and loan them out at a get together to have more people to play. Just a search on places like Meetup and see what's in your area.

Meanwhile, in Warhammer, its  a prerequisite to playing.  The high barrier to entry prevented many from joining the Warhammer community, and since new expansions and new rules force even veteran players to buy new pieces, the barrier to entry is consistently reapplied to its members, new and old alike.  Combine the lower purchasing power that came with the recession with the high and constantly renewed barrier of entry that came with Warhammer, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Inferior and cheap...sounds like my type of game.

Lastly, the difference in the nature of the goods dealt the final blow.  Magic is, I believe, an "inferior" good.  By inferior I mean that its the Little Ceasar's of collectible gaming.  An inferior good that has demand for it increase as people's income declines because money the consumer's would have spent on higher end goods is spent on lower end cheaper goods instead.  Thus when the recession hit, many people decided to opt out of investing in Warhammer and other higher priced games like it and decided to take up Magic the Gathering instead.

Now this can all change.  Assuming middle class incomes are restored in the future, Warhammer may regain much of its lost following.  In addition Magic the Gathering may lose a lot of its following as gamers with boosted incomes decide to take up more expensive "higher end" games instead.  Nonetheless I don't believe this will likely happen unless Warhammer can change itself structurally to appeal more to younger gamers.  Its high barrier of entry prevents most new potential players from trying the game out.  In addition young players, without a complementary digital entry point, may not consider it for that reason as well.  Therefore I think even as the the middle class recovers (assuming it does) Magic's relative position, compared to Warhammer at least, will continue to remain strong.  

The PhD Dilemma

I have been considering pursuing an Economics PhD.  However the more I have looked into it the more I have realized that the odds are heavily, and by that I mean HEAVILY, stacked against you that you will land a faculty job at a College as a Professor, let alone ever be tenured.  I am still weighing my options but I realize that a PhD very well may not be for me.  Many articles I read indicated that even if you went to a top notch school, your odds of obtaining a teaching job at a college when you finally finish your PhD program are slim.   There are bright spots.  Despite how hard it is to obtain a teaching job, those in the sciences have good opportunities in the private sector.  This unfortunately, is not the case in the social sciences, where you probably will not do anything directly related to your discipline unless you teach, or work at a think tank.  The unfortunate fact is that there is simply an oversupply of PhDs in the social sciences.  Thus there is insanely intense competition for the few jobs out there.  The average number of applicants for American history positions at colleges and Universities was 118 in 2011,  118!

While I studied this I started thinking.  I asked, what if this oversupply is not only affecting the poor penniless PhDs that are underemployed or unemployed, what if its affecting the whole institution of higher learning?  I had realized from studying up on it that it has been a persistent problem for several decades for there to be an oversupply of PhDs.  An oversupply of PhD's inevitably means that colleges, Universities, and think tanks, have an insane number of applicants to choose from for each position.  This of course meant that those institutions could probably find the "perfect" candidate more or less, and by perfect I mean someone that fits the mold precisely for what they want.

The best way to explain what I exactly I mean is to describe my own experience applying for internships at think tanks.  I applied to one think tank that is very conservative.  I submitted my resume and they prompted for my first interview.  The first interview went smoothly, but then came the second interview.  I put down on my application that I was interested in the politics of health care, and she asked me about that interest.  I foolhardily expressed exactly what I thought about it at the time.  I believed that government should mandate a standard policy that insurance companies must offer that would be the same across the board with every other insurance company (I didn't think it should be the only policy, just a benchmark for comparison).  I believed that this would help consumers better know what they were buying and which company had the best deal.  I drew off the life insurance market as the prime example of how this would work.  When websites opened up that allowed people to compare life insurance prices, the price of life insurance dropped because people could easily see which was the better deal. Since health insurance is more complicated, a standard plan should be offered as a benchmark to allow people to access the price competitiveness of identical policies.  I also believed there should be a basic mandate for catastrophic insurance.  This probably did me in for the internship.  I never heard back for a third interview.

Those types of internships, political internships, face stiff competition as well.  That stiff competition allows the institutions to be through going ideological purists, secular religious zealots, if you will.  The same, I believe, is happening to academia.  Its becoming a political game of saying all the right things to the right people, of stroking egos, and of hiding any misgivings you may have about the secular religion you have chosen.  After all, if you dare to misspeak and express doubt, then you won't pass the institution's litmus test, and will be automatically disqualified from consideration.

Indeed, while before achieving tenure gave a Professor security and then allowed him to go astray from the flock and think on his own if he wished, now only a very lucky few are ever given tenure, so now many Professors have to stress day in and day out that they might say something that will get them kicked out of the club.  The sad thing is that it was already unlikely that dissidents would be offered the job in the first place, but now the lack of tenure offerings guarantees that any dissidence can instantly be  squashed.

All of this combined means that there are tons of very smart people, but only the few that are the most narrowminded (in appearance at least) will ever be awarded a job as a Professor or on the staff of a think tank.  This is very unfortunate.  There is already plenty of arrogance in the ivory tower.  The ivory tower is notorious for viewing anyone without a PhD with disdain, as if the opinion of other's matters little unless they have a PhD as well.  This arrogance, coupled with narrow mindedness, could not possibly be a worse combination.  We have been seeing it openly on capitol hill, this pugnacious combination.  Behind the scenes, its been wreaking havoc in the ivory tower.


Here is one article I looked at that I highly recommend looking at if you are considering a PhD.  Its fine to go after it, but please, at least do your research first before jumping in to the fray.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/01/02/gains-history-job-market-may-mask-serious-challenges-those-seeking-positions

The Crisis of Inspiration

I have noticed as I have dived into videography and photography this last year that it has rejuvenated my more artistic side that laid dormant for several years.  I had strangled the artistic out of my soul out of an idealistic pursuit of political activism.  I wanted to pursue the truth and to make others aware of the truth, whatever that truth may be.  I wanted to be a part of the change in our society by bringing awareness of social issues to the masses and highlighting the hidden factors that cause these injustices. Most on the political left never look at these factors cause their political analysis is skin deep, and refuses to consider that laws they support could in any way contribute to that injustice.  Meanwhile most on the political right refuse to acknowledge the injustice in the first place.  I wanted to bring up these connections and force the public to consider them when forming opinions.

However while I still wish to do this some day, I have noticed that in the process I have denied myself a means of expressing myself.  When I started videography and photography, it forced me to embrace a side of me I had denied since elementary school, my artistic side.  Secretly it has always been there, for I have always been a romantic of sorts, but for whatever reason I didn't consider ever embracing the inner romantic, but instead denied it and turned towards "realism", or "pragmatism", or whatever you wanted to call it.  I had been caught up in our society's habitual cynicism and sarcasm.  Any time something emotionally inspired me I had to put it down, joke about, and beat the life out of it to prevent ever embracing the "useless" side of me.  Romanticism in all its forms was taboo to me, and I fought it at every turn and turned towards harsh facts instead.

Now that I have allowed the inner romantic to flourish, and to allow my creative side to express itself to the fullest,  I feel more complete as a person, and I believe ultimately it will complement my goals in life as well.  You cannot just engage people's brains, you have to engage their heart as well.  There is much beauty in the world, and many powerful stories that can inspire, and many songs that are pleasing to the ear, and many amazing landscapes that engage us on a far deeper level than mere facts.  While facts are very important, they are not the whole story.  Afterall, no one does something simply because its the "logical" thing to do.  Emotions drive us at our very core.  When deciding what our career should be, who we should date (and possibly marry), where we will live, where we will go to school, the illogical plays just as much a role, if not more of a role, than the logical.  We clearly do not base all our decisions simply on what will maximize our personal material benefit, and neither should we.

Now this does not mean we can simply ignore reality, I am not saying that at all.  Nevertheless there needs to be a realignment.  Our culture used to be highly optimistic and inspirational, with the American dream at the center of that.  However now that we know its a "myth", and therefore discredited and useless, we should simply discard it and instead tell people that have a small chance at doing something with their lives, that the system is stacked against them, and without external help they have no chance.  I just don't understand the point of that.  While I understand statistically its a myth, telling people the system is set up against you is setting them up for failure right from the beginning.  It would be better to be both realistic, and inspirational, than the dead callous realism that we have injected into our culture.  If efforts are directed towards inspiring people to achieve more, I believe they will achieve more.  While people who try something may and will fail, people who don't try at all fail by default.

All of this is to say that I have rediscovered the creative artistic side within me that I had kept in a cage, and that ultimately I believe allowing the artistic and creative to flourish along side the factual and technical will help me in my goals, and that the romantic outlook that corresponds with the artistic is just as necessary for people as the "realistic" outlook that corresponds with the factual.  I hope only that others are inspired to inspire as well, because at the core of our nation's problems is, I believe, a crisis of inspiration.