Inspired #8: In Closing

As the semester comes to a close, there were a lot of things to reflect on in policy that has helped me see issues from new angles. The rise sophistication of Internet technology will lead to question about privacy and online identity rights. Some will bring up the Bill of Rights. Others will point at the number of attempted hacking of government and corporation computers. Nonetheless, the Internet still provides a place for sharing like no other invention before its time. You can find videos, jokes, news, keep up with friends, and chat, all on Facebook alone. I find it amazing to think that it was not long ago that I was using dial up with the cliche dialing noise that sounded like you were losing service on a cell phone today.

How about those cell phones? The computer abilities on them are quickly catching up to those of laptops. While they cannot execute large software, you can still do all of your Internet surfing on there and share content like you would at your desk computer. It may be a little arduous to use at times, I see that it has passed the Internet in the touch screen user interface which more computers are using, including the ordering machines at Sheetz! If will not be long until nearly all devices are on a network, called cloud computing. This will create a new interactive web atmosphere where even greater potential for exploitation exists. Throw in virtual reality that will be mainstream use in chatting and video games, and you have a future where the web will dictate a sizable portion of everyday life. Conference meetings in virtual reality or at least Skype with a camera will become the norm.

Then there are a plethora of other daunting foreign policy topics. Each in some way has this utter doomsday scenario it seems. But, that might also have some bias in order to push policy through. The main point overall though is how unpredictable the future is. The best we can do is strive to create programs now that will maintain a stable livelihood of the country and attempt to repeat it such that people always live well. Is that not what policy is ultimately about anyway? Trying to make life better, safer, and with less effort? It is quite possible many different sides of an issue will be enacted as policies themselves at some points in our lives, only to be repealed by legislation advocating the other side. In ways, it is cyclical in nature but always interesting to watch unfold.

In conclusion, I would like to thank everyone for a good semester full of discussion, reflections, thoughts, and viewpoints. I personally like these type of discussion-based classes.

Have a great winter break!

Inspired #7: Keeping Streams Clean

Slaving away at a fluids class this semester has not made me fond of thinking of water, save when I eat dry cafeteria meat. Despite my school horror, I cannot see a world without water. Not only for the obvious reason of survival, but many things at home, in industry, in research, and many office coolers rely on a steady flow of water. When we were down in Washington D.C. for the CSIS exercise, the one presenter had the strong analogy of water. I'm a little fuzzy on the exact details, but I believe he said that if you had a gallon of water, one pint is fresh water and one drop is what we can currently use and drink.

So, that to me says a couple things. One, the glaciers and other fresh water sources are still out there, but melting the glaciers would have an effect on ocean salt content, which would affect many ocean life as a result. Plus, the change in ocean temperature would cool down water in the tropics where many fish make their living. The other thing this says is that there is a ridiculous amount of salt water. So, desalination in a moderate quantity is probably a safe practice that will likely become required, especially in regions with low amounts of fresh water like Southern California or Australia.

A quick survey of the EPA website shows how water contamination is a danger to health. Contaminants in water will get into both drink and food, causing illness, or possibly damaging body parts with significant exposure. Reducing the amount of aquatic wildlife will change the food chain, which might actually be a more covert consequence discussed less than illness. Changing the structure of the food chain can lead to less fish and animals that make up our diets. More people and less food does not sound like a bright prospect.

We have to stop throwing chemicals into the water supply. There is a finite supply of it until water desalination becomes economically feasible as evaporating water requires a lot of energy such that it is not cost effective to do. This is another practice caused by people that has led to negligence. While we are clever, we should not overlook the importance of this resource.

Looking back, the past few blogs to me seem like what I think are aspects of society that are not taken seriously enough, and ironically, a lot of it is the basics. Feeding people, having clean air, getting water, and balancing a budget are things that each of us are expected to do. Then why cannot governing bodies do a better job of them? It seems that mass production and our demand for technology has led to all of this. I am optimistic in people though. Yes, we may never always do it pretty let alone wait until the last minute to take action. However, society as a whole always seems to find ways around bugs like these.

Inspired #6: Electrifying our Cars

Doing the research for the policy brief, I have come to have a better understanding of where electric vehicles stand. Yes, at the moment, they are too expensive in order to be placed as America's car of choice. The Nissan Leaf costs anywhere from $27,000 to $30,000. While that may be a tad higher, it still shows that electric vehicles are at least in the wallet range of most consumers. It's not some Ferrari or anything of that sort. So then, why are they not that prevalent?

The answer lies in the fueling. How are you going to charge an entire car? There is potential with charging it at your home. The issue then becomes how do you fix it if it breaks? From my experience, electrical repairs are a lot more costly than mechanical ones. Also, there is a smaller share of the auto repairs market that does electrical work. Just drive around town and notice the vast difference between inspectors/ auto body shops vs. electrical repairs. Finally, there are a lack of charge stations, 5,000, compared to 126,000 gas stations in the U.S. So, you cannot really go on a trip without hoping to find a charge station along the way, unlike the steady supply of gas stations.

Despite the current drawbacks. The technology will only improve, and the repairs will be made simpler as people find ways to re-evaluate electrical systems. Over time, hydrogen fuel cells will become a probability and they can create the electricity needed for cars to move. So perhaps there does not have to be a huge influx of charge stations until the vehicle becomes more viable.

The ideal set up to me would be having solar panels in the deserts, wind turbines on the Rockies, and tidal turbines on the coast transporting electricity on the Smart Grid. Nuclear will offset the difference until solar takes over. From there, the electricity goes to charge stations or helps process hydrogen gas for fuel. Then the electric car would charge up or have a hydrogen fuel, both which would be clean. I guess market forces will decide which prevails after the electric hybrid car phase. Overall though, clean energy capture to transmission to vehicle paves the way for a fresh kind of air that has not been since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Inspired Post #5: Spending for a Balanced Check Book

The CSIS presentation highlighted the essential doom occurring in Europe, and the presenter seemed to be happy regardless of the gloom of her research. I recall reading this unfold over the summer as I sat in on lunch during my internship and seeing Greece go further into political gridlock with a begging hand out to the European banks. According to CitiGroup, a collapse of the euro would spark global depression and unemployment could possibly go over 20% as well. However, the currency will likely not dissolve so as long as Spain, Italy, or other large countries leave the Union.

This same tune is playing over here in the States where an essentially useless Congress bickers over how to balance the budget and cut the deficit. The lack of action though seems to come from political tactics rather than a major disagreement. I personally do not see any way this debt will be paid off at all in the short term, with that time period being defined as fifteen to twenty years. The government has made cuts that amount to a few trillion over the period of the decade. Unless if I am mistaken, that means there will probably be a good amount of future budgets still running a deficit, continuing to run up the overall national debt.

The bear in the room has been mentioned previously and that is the elderly. Retirement will cause an implosion of demand for Social Security and Medicare. The future of these social programs might have to dissolve. So, a growing debt coupled with more people the government owes checks to, and you create a financial mess that is entangling Capitol Hill, suffocating it.

As it stands now, the debt is at $15.1 trillion dollars according to the US Debt Clock. The push to spend more and more without creating a sustainable infrastructure has created an environment where money needs to also be spent to upgrade the foundation of our nation, but it is also at a time when saving and cuts must be made.

Interestingly, the exact same basic advice we are given as children to "always buy what you need, not what you want" or "a penny saved is a penny earned" are washed away by the tides of aging, especially when young adulthood is reached. Even the group of people entrusted to manage a country's cash flow have failed to not only not save, but build a debt that has made more front pages than the college football BCS national title game. Well..it came close at least.

People to me are closing using their hand to block their ears and singing catchy tunes to procrastinate attempting a solution to the problem, ignoring the chance of a depression. Having a balanced budget should be a priority, and any deficit one year must have a feasible repayment in a span of five to ten years. This does not contradict when I brought up investing in science as I think scientific investment pays itself off economically, and our government seems to be redundant in many ways. I remember researching for the policy brief and finding boards and agencies with very similar functions. Cutting the national IOUs, spending, and creating smart investments now is the best way forward.

Inspired #4: Scientific Stagnation

The United States has a contradictory relationship with science. In one respect, we brag about what we have done along with demanding that we must remain the leaders in innovation for the 21st century. On the other hand, the country has a whole has more interest in everything else than science. This can be proven by what people consider important or interesting to them. Our television shows people taking on 5th graders as something worth more of their attention than science. People do tend to neglect the impact that it has on their lives since most products in society is created from scientific ideas.

Although, we would still be able to advance despite the general apathy of people if it was funded properly and allowed for a breadth of ideas to have a chance at the spotlight. This is not the case. For example, according to a New York Times article, cancer researchers are forced to conform to research small but safe projects instead of potentially groundbreaking research. Similar to what we have learned in policy where donor of think tanks want secure and specific investments, the same concept applies to scientific grants. There is too much inherent risk of spending money on a project that can have no upside, even if that upside would be enormous.

Scientists are fuming over this. Scientific American published an article in May 2011 posing inquiries into this issue. They researched scientists receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health, and the result was that "the NIH grants last three years, end abruptly if they are not renewed and have very strict requirements—for instance, preventing scientists from shifting money from a project that is not working out to a more promising approach."

The funding agencies are looking to the traveled down path in order to create scientific advancement. This is a folly and will not allow the country to be the leader in the 21st century if it continues to stifle researchers. Many of them who must take up residence in a lab or university to make ends meet since their skills are not conducive to the business world. Combine that and the thorny U.S. patent system and banks giving less loans to start-ups due to the recession, and you have successfully bounded up plenty of potential that people may be able to offer.

Another constraint occurs in academia as young doctoral students will likely face an uphill battle. A study by Virginia Tech states that "But for many of today's graduate students, the future could not look bleaker". There is heavy competition for grants and a lack of opportunity for jobs requiring PhDs, and this is certainly the case due to the money aspect. Also in the study, Thomas R. Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, said that graduate students "...get a sense that this is a really frustrating career path,". Universities find it much cheaper to hire post-docs and graduate students than full fledged PhD researchers with tenure. Industry echoes a similar tune where they see PhD as demanding too much money. Why would you pay someone with a doctorate degree in theoretical physics when few jobs require that level of expertise? In fact in engineering, Master's degree holders make more than PhD holders while those with a professional license make out even better.

We have to stifle this before the country lags behind in science. Admissions to graduate schools should become in line with the market openings. The government should risk more innovation that can create new industries and hence jobs. Eroding science research wears down on new technology, so other countries can create the products first. Then we end up importing more than exporting. The future of national security rests with a stable scientific base since pure manpower is quickly becoming an archaic concept. If the the 21st century is to be another American century, priorities have to change.

Inspired #3: Starvation, Procrastination, and Action

In the presentations over the last two weeks, one fact that I was particularly surprised by came from the health group when they gave statistics on expenditures battling different physical ailments. HIV and other infectious diseases had a good share, but hunger was given a measley $3.5 billion, much less than those diseases. While they cannot be ignored, I find it hard to believe that hunger does not take a larger spot. It's not some vaccination research; it's merely a supply chain of food and sanitation to those in need. So, it may be cheaper to do hunger issues, but still, to think that our federal prison system costs almost 7 billion annually shows a propensity to locking people up over feeding others.

According to World Hunger.Org, there were about 925 million people in the world that were starving in 2010. The world population was about 6.85 billion at that time. A quick calculation shows that is 13.5% of the world population. That is nearly one in seven people that do not have access to a basic amenity of life. Despite our large population, there is still plenty of land on this planet, and, if need be, we can probably conjure up methods to improve crop cultivation if the need arises. Then, how are so many people not having a chance to eat? Predictably, most of these people are from impoverished areas or weather stricken regions that are in the most peril.

World Hunger.Org notes:

"Harmful economic systems are the principal cause of poverty and hunger. Hunger Notes believes that the principal underlying cause of poverty and hunger is the ordinary operation of the economic and political systems in the world. Essentially control over resources and income is based on military, political and economic power that typically ends up in the hands of a minority, who live well, while those at the bottom barely survive, if they do."

You must have seen those commercials claiming a small daily investment feeds so many poor people, and then you hear of Wall Street suits making mega million bonuses. I'm sure if people in these positions were willing to give up a spare yacht, this hunger problem could be easily resolved. That's too easy though. Let's create a foundation funded by tax dollars asking for donations from people who make several hundred every two weeks to end this world hunger thingy!

 Yet, that is where we are. Granted, there are numerous wealthy people who do contribute to good causes, it cannot be understated that many others have succumbed to a survival of the fittest drive that's dictated by monetary accumulation. To think that the one major fund only spends $3.5 billion is throwing a bone at the problem and is futile at best. By addressing hunger better, you ensure that their immune systems will be better, which would ultimately cause a reduction in other diseases. Without having to fight for such a bare necessity, they can throw their livelihoods and efforts toward more economically productive endeavors and create a health care of their own national scale in time. That way they can address infectious diseases themselves. Point in case, if we do not mitigate hunger, we will be open a threshold to other illnesses to pay for.

Inspired #2: Standard of Living and GDP

One theme that permeates policy, which not in a direct light, is the belief that GDP growth corresponds to a higher living standard. It is based on the idea that access to better health, education, and income creates a more better life. Generally, I will not cover it up and say that it does not help. The opportunities we are given as opposed to people in less develop worlds cannot be undercut. However, the quality of life always seems to be tied to materialistic viewpoints such as career, class, and living arrangements.

Investopedia defines this as "the level of wealth, comfort, material goods and necessities available to a certain socioeconomic class in a certain geographic area.". One particular area they highlighting was number of hours work, which is a large contributor to life quality. Yes, you can have lavish health and nice trips, but it is ultimately how you feel and reflect on the inside that enables a good life. Furthermore, investment bankers can make millions, but the 100 hour weeks is at the expense of time they could have with their children or just pure leisure.

However, it is not treated like this in policy context. Quality of life really boils down to the ole' GDP per capita, and this is an erroneous method to evaluate people.According to the New York Times, "mounting evidence suggests, however, that per-capita income is a less reliable measure of well-being when income inequality has been rising rapidly, as it has in recent decades." The inequality in wealth is very noticeable, yet I think that the emphasis on money has ripped at the fabric of the mental health of many.

Oh really? I proposed the amazing idea that money does not buy happiness! This is clearly a terrific point that will win Noble Prizes. But, on a realistic note. People are overworked. European countries has a leisure class attitude that has spilled over into today, so you see people relax right in the middle of the day. They relax for the sake of relaxing while a sizable number of Americans eat while working. In his book "The Joy of Not Working", Ernie Zelinski astutely points out how the large flux of Baby Boomers in the 70s caused a job shortage for such a large generation. So, people competed for jobs by working harder. The companies were too eager to take advantage of this mentality that has become stronger since the resilient work ethic of the 30s.

Students in college are a prime example: always on the move. Schedules filled up and darting from here to there, crossing many things off the list. But...is it worth it? Quality of life should be defined by satisfaction, not some economic measure that only analyzes resource constraints. Laboring for years on end, hoping for a happy ending underscores the time one spends now. Thus, work and the associated income is a poor measure, exception for one who is passionate about what they do. Along with basic economic measures, our thoughts, movements, and expressions as a culture should determine overall happiness. The Occupy movement outlines an underlying frustration that does not indicate a blissful homeland.

Inspired #1: Sound Bites and the Degradation of Culture

These events at Penn State have created a stirring in the nation that might have opened a Pandora's box of sorts. A coach at Syracuse has been accused of committing sexual acts against a minor just like Jerry Sandusky. What really bothers me is how the media has spun the Penn State scandal into air time for ESPN rather than sparking activism against actions like these taken against children. I recall watching the football game that lead to JoePa's 409th win, and that night came across an article discussing Sandusky. The closeness of the story breakout and this milestone was odd to me, but nonetheless it spread like wildfire. It began with the truth of a former defensive coordinator with 40 counts of child abuse, and it quickly turned into a talk about Joe Paterno. Never mind the District Attorney abandoning the case four years prior, despite have confessions by Sandusky.

Immediately, the media changed the tide of the story to forever envelope the former Penn State coach. Now, I personally think sentiments will soften over time, but still this incident right at the twilight of his career will forever tarnish his old school clean record. In hindsight, it is clear that he should have said something, but to throw the weight of this case on him is wrong. Sound bites to patronage Joe's connection undermines the crimes themselves and shove the victims into a dark corner with no regard given to their plight.

Borschgrave at CSIS remembered how back in 1949 there was a 49 word limit until they were to break into the meat of their news story, showing how journalism began to favor quick news even back then. However,

the proliferation of 24 hour media and especially online media has watered down any real investigative reporting to a mere cloud of speculation and opinions by famous people such as ThtDude342, xOgirlevery1<3xOx, or the insightful Rambo77.

Will news have any meaning in the future? There are many sides to any story, but the news stations filter out only the flashy parts and further add a bias beyond ethical practice. Then they package it in a pretty twenty word highlight reel story at the bottom ticker of the screen. Has our society sped up to the point where people would rather have gossip to speak about than more accurate accounts? Stories like Sandusky's atrocities will not progress true awareness about child abuse, but instead progress the story as Joe's folly. Victims swept under the rug for the sake of TV ratings money and ad revenue. How sad.

Around the Boardroom Table: CSIS

Kicking back and listening to people who work in the areas of national policy helped to clarify some things, create questions about other things, and overall create a summary of what has been discussed throughout the semester. The experience itself of being, in a way, in the shoes of these researchers was nonetheless a change of perspective from the trek of normal college town life. The Seven Revolutions presentation gave a quick summary of primary factors that may influence the future. The broadness of the topics such as "Economics", "The Nature and Mode of Security", and the "Challenge of Governance" not only allow for many specific issues, but the interesting thing I find is how so many things are a big player in how things will turn out.

The aging population will be a drag on change in the near future. The presentation by Arnaud de Borchgrave hinted at the possible collapse of social programs like Medicare due to the "insolvency" of governments. Not only will this encounter huge backlash from senior voters, but it will also create a new world where expectations of health care will change. According to Senior Journal, the amount of younger people who actually vote are far below those who need Medicare now or those who will need it by the 2020s.

This creates a potentially disastrous pitfall in the budget. Quite frankly, I am not expecting any form of government assistance with my health since relying on others to pad your back is naive. While there may be a universal system by the time our generation hits that age, I still think it is best to prepare for the worst case scenario. However, many upcoming seniors have been boggled down by widening income vs expenses disparity and have little money for retirement, so they will fight tooth and nail to keep programs that may drag on any financial recovery. Solutions to gracefully moving out of a collapsing Medicare program must be started now.

However, another thing we learned from hearing the speakers is their belief that the legislators are incompetent at trying to enact needed change until the issue becomes urgent. While this is to be expected of lawmakers paying dues to their donors while trying to keep their voters happy for the upcoming election, this political deadlock I believe has to be dissolved ideally (or at least dimmed a tad) to ensure that medical problems are addressed.

Cybersecurity is a topic that has been exhausted at this point, but I still want to comment on the irony that we did a simulation of a foreign cyber attack in Illinois, only to have one occur the next day in Illinois. Apparently, the one former IST 445H student we met had parts of her policy brief appear in future policy on Africa. Is the simulation a test to gather student input on upcoming policy issues, like ones that occur the next day? Perhaps, but most likely it's just a coincidence. It turns out that the cyber attack in Illinois on a water pump wasn't a cyber attack after all, but caused by a plant contractor traveling in Russia, not some foreign attack. So apparently, the Department of Homeland Security, which monitors cyber control systems, and the FBI don't believe in any Russian connection. Nevertheless, the timing of this potential cyber attack underscores how probable a future cyber assault is.

Despite the melancholic tone that has been swept through this blog entry and some of the lectures, I believe it will all come to pass. At any point in history, there has been the talk of impending doom, Armageddon, and the general attitude of "dang..where do we go from here?". Yet, after some bruising, people have emerged. Humans lack consistent quality reasoning abilities and have a plethora of emotional responses to events, so that does inevitably cause issues to boil the pot. However, there still is the basic idea of holding onto life that enables our societies to emerge from every problem, no matter how much we changed. The world is in flux always, and there will be always be ups and downs. Enjoy the ride and see the waves of time keep ebbing on.

Online Identity: Transparent or Anonymous?

     The Internet began as a frontier akin to the Wild West where the borders were not defined, the horizon clear, and the possibilities were endless. Today, there is the movement toward a more monitored Internet with horizons defined by country locations such as .us, .eu, .ca, etc. The possibilities though continue to expand and will become more prevalent as cloud computing begins to dominate. Think of pressing a touch screen in your kitchen to turn on your oven and monitor heat levels and perhaps even just working your can opener. While one could argue that the technology dependence may be getting too high, it is inevitable that most people will adopt these conveniences as they become more affordable. The main question is: will you be safe both from attacks and will your personal data be secure?

Obama back in 2009 stated the following:


"None of this progress would be possible, and none of these 21st century challenges can be fully met without American's digital infrastructure, the backbone that underpins a prosperous economy and strong military and an open and efficient government. Without that foundation, we can't get the job done.

This goes along with the discussions on cyber security in class. The government sees national security on the cyber front of such importance that, according to a New York Times article,

"A fact sheet released by the White House also promised that the United States would respond to attempted hacking “as we would to any other threat to our country." The one paper in class argued that it will be treated similar to a utility where protection of consumers is emphasized. Here, Internet Service Providers may be required to protect its consumers and businesses will be required to report hackings, but we see how that will be hard to do with the prevalence of lawsuits.

     However, I do not believe that this is not just a utility. Personal data online can include your accounts for those utilities, your banks, and perhaps the appliances in your house. Thus, it can be more dangerous. Alright, may not more than a nuclear meltdown, but stick with me on this one. Full transparency of this online identity, save important personal information, can enable everyone to know who is saying what, what they're doing, and create a safety net as people are less likely to cause trouble if they are "out in the open" in the cyber world. Despite this, it can also lead to stifling creativity and expression of true thoughts. It will also take away the ability to maintain multiple independent circles of contacts such as one account is for a music group, another is for sports, and so on.

     What can be the best solution? I agree that there has to be some regulation because the proliferation of getting viruses through any download is tiring. The endless ads are another nuisance, and companies should not be able to monitor your online habit. It's sad to think the ISP knows when someone's infected, but they let it slide by. As with most things in life, the solution has to be midway. Complete transparency could create an oppressed society because the ones with the fiber optic cables can still hide those in power if need be. ISPs and governments should be able to catch malware running across networks, but only after it has been confirmed as so and is listed on a public website, subject to scrutiny. However, intrusions into your personal life without your permission should not be allowed unless if suspected hackings occurred by you or someone else. There should be a strong judicial base in dealing with offenses to such infiltrations. So, overall transparency online should only be for safety reasons while allowing people to create anonymous accounts because "privacy means preserving the original sense of unlimited opportunity the Internet seemed to offer, as an unconstrained space for individual action."

Peace Through Threads?

     Yes, it has happened. Digital communication has far eclipse other forms of communication that even our State Department's diplomacy efforts have been reduced down to mere threads. Not only that, but they go right out and identify themselves on websites in countries that are suspicious of our every move. According to Nikos Christodoulides of the University of North Carolina:

    "The Internet can be considered by governments as a unique diplomatic instrument; through its proper use they can “advertise” not only their positions on different issues, but also promote their ideas worldwide. Such a function, if used in the right way, helps the embassy, and as a result the country that it represents, to create a positive image in the host country." (UNC Source)

     Ultimately, the question arises whether this was the "right" way. Based on the statistics from  Rachel's presentation, the image of the national had a negative disapproval rate of 68% after the Digital Outreach Team's efforts following President Obama's Cairo speech, which was done in order to reach out to the Arab world. Both failed. While the Outreach Team surmised that the conversation would steer toward Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Islamic groups, the natives of other countries instead fumed over U.S. imperialism in addition to the United States' support of Israel. 

     Does this mean that the efforts of the group were not effective? I would have to think so based off their inability to sway the rigid stances the Arab world to the U.S. How then can we possibly reach out? The sentiment toward our government is so negative that pigs will fly before they change their minds by talking with people with the State Department logo under their name. I am that sure that I used a cliche caricature to illustrate my view. For now, on a digital level, the Digital Outreach Team should a more covert tactic and reach out anonymously while providing truthful information. The kicker though is that they have to bridge gaps and appear to other readers that it is an Arab guy with a mild objection, not a government suit. 

    
     I believe that our actions have to change in order for there to be a shift in attitude. Personally, if I were a resident of the countries we attacked, I too would think that the U.S. is coming over to their country to change their culture and government, based on their ensuing actions. And now we are trying to mend the wound by building schools and nice little groceries stores. We should shift to more of a trade-only policy and stop going to war with them, or else they will naturally be hostile toward us whether you are willing to accept this statement or not. If someone, say China, attacked U.S. soil and attempted to replace forks with chopsticks, I am sure that there would be a strong and stubborn rebellion by us. International relations are akin to relationships where if someone hurt the other, there will be a time period before things return to normal. There is no quick fix for international relationships that we are accustomed to. Instead of bringing chocolate right away, leave them alone for a little bit, and then try your corny confectionery tactic.

The Cyber Battlefield

     Is what you're reading on the Internet real information? The lecture about WikiLeaks highlighted a factor that will influence the landscape upon which the world is transitioning to. There is an information struggle that has existed for as long as people have been around. Back in the day, a smaller Internet had less volume of webpages from which to access. I remember it being a lot easier to sort through what was valid, what was misleading, etc. However today, you sometimes have to comb through pages and use multiple search filters to try to get anything of decent value. The liberalization of thought through the Web has caused an influx of bias that eclipses reputable sources. So, how exactly did WikiLeaks complicate or improve the reliable information process, and what are the consequences of Assange's deliberate mayhem?

     According to NetCraft, there were only a a few million sites at most back in 1996, but today that has inflated to over 506 million.

     This shows that not only is there more information, but also a lot more people on the field. That raises the potential of people who have the ability to penetrate systems or disrupt networks. Enter WikiLeaks, who has managed to open a jar of secrets about the government and people from all over. Crowley in his lecture advocated a "zone of accountability", but nonetheless stated that a level of secrecy is necessary to maintain a safe society. So what is better? An Internet with all the secrets inevitably exposed as more people attack systems, or a more regulated Internet that puts down groups like WikiLeaks in the future yet preserves safety? Crowley said that exposures like these can inhibit international relations, harm the people mentioned in those documents, and create more narrow communication channels in the government. Thus, you already see a former representative of our government advocating closing up information flow. Yet, you do not want to everyone to see everything that was said, especially if some of it was "in the heat of the moment".

    Nonetheless, WikiLeaks is a bastion of no-censorship but with the tact of a young kid. They could have freed the information, but withheld or at least blank out names of spies and the like. However, I think names of more influential people should be kept, especially if they are elected by people. Sites like these are the watchdogs of freedom of information and trying to keep the filters down. These tailored Internet searches already complicate an already arduous time finding facts that are true and reliable.

WikiLeaks has created a fork in the road where the Internet will either open more up, like Facebook, or create walls. Ultimately, I think WikiLeaks goes a little too far with the lack of discretion in what they release. Some trade secrets should be preserved such as our top secret research or opinions in critical negotiations. Although, what comes out of it and why the government pursues them should be noted to people. So,  between the U.S. and other countries and its own citizens should be clarified. The good thing about WikiLeaks is that they get the media and hence the general public more interested in Internet censorship. People should be able to express themselves, but the Internet has to become a tool of information sharing, not secrecy, filtering, and tracking.

Seeds of Change or a Lobster in Water?

     When I see and hear of these movements, I notice the underlying frustration, the mental anguish, and the pilot light of hope for a better day. The Occupy Movement is a westernized version of the protests that occurred in Egypt and other Arabian nations, but much less violent, as would be expected of people of the West. However, the fact that many from various cultural backgrounds have been able to get behind a banner of some kind is remarkable in itself. Even though this banner has yet to materialize a unified vision outside of the 99% or big banks suck mentality, there are seeds of possible change have been planted; the question becomes: are we the flailing lobster just realizing the boiling water or is a possible systematic overhaul possible?

     
      Yes, the usual advocates of change and mostly shenanigans, Anonymous, is back at it (and apparently Scream is out before Halloween to protest too). Gladwell a year ago provided a harsh criticism about social media's influence on creating systematic change by stating:

      "...by lauding Internet organizing, we wannabe revolutionaries “have forgotten what activism is.”(Gladwell and Social Media)

     By essentially deflating the balloon on the party, Gladwell believes that the revolutionary mindset is just not there, and, at this point in time, I will have to agree with that sentiment. I do admit that I am quite surprised that this has grown internationally this quickly. The sentiment is there, but the protestors are not taking matters into their hands more. If they just let business go on and just sleep outside Goldman Sachs, I highly doubt Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of the investment bank, is going to give a hoot about it. People in the 60s were passionate to the point where rules would be broken and protestors would get into others' faces. People today still have the subtle belief that they are powerless and are hoping some group will change it all for them. So, they like the Occupy pages on Facebook and sit on benches outside buildings. Steps must be taken to walk the walk as well such as creating a vision and a plan of action for this vision.

     This Occupy movement can be seen as a flattener of sorts where the layman will get back at that mean ole' 1% and get some better slices of the cake. Morozov is pretty much a yes man for Gladwell by believing that change and equality cannot come just through the Internet, but, rather, people need to be unified and coordinate in person instead of relying on an Internet connection. He might even go as far to say that the corporations will engineer Internet propaganda to make the protestors look incompetent and lazy. Thus, the dark side of the Internet can reveal its ugly head. They do it with TV after all.

     Overall though, it cannot be argued that this is a step in the right direction. For years, people would complain to friends and family, and that was about it. With the advent of social media though, the statuses' and Twitter updates create an echo chamber for people to hear others and catalyze a movement. In a flow-like manner, technology like computers enable the social media which creates world-wide groups to correlate occupy locations and times. The ensuing globalization is created through this web of Internet groups, which is proven by the fact that 1,500 cities all over the world have been occupied. So, for now, the lax approach to this has been underscoring its potential. There has not been even 200 arrests during this whole event on Wall Street. So, while Occupy as it stands is futile in potency, I can feel the vibe of possible change over the horizon if a unified voice emerges.





   

Is the Appetite for Technology too Great?

     The question I pose in the title says it all: is the hunger for technological solutions more than we should strive for? What are the ramifications? But seriously, stick around for a bit. The Industrial Revolution and the Enlightenment brought new reverence for rationality and its subarea of science and the ensuing engineering. There are issues with this though and that is our growing digitization, lack of self-sufficiency, and allowing the technology itself to overtake our natural world. Are there solutions to these?

     We are now so immersed in the digital age that it is hard to think of the last time we went a whole waking day without technology let alone a week or longer. There is hearing loss with Ipods, thumb pangs with texting, and awful vision from looking at the computer screen (I can attest to that!). Facebook depression is another term the docs are throwing out there (Tech and Health). The lack of interpersonal communication is also evident; for instance, I sometimes have troubling making plans with people because all they do is text instead of meeting me really quick or making the phone call. I anticipate only a rise in those with a lack of social skills, especially when we have kids.

     As was said in class, technology is promoted yet rarely questioned. Does humanity ever question our use of technology in every facet of our lives? Sure, it is easier to just pop food in the microwave, but can you cook raw meet if you ever had to? How about growing your own food, doing household repairs, or making a fire that even a caveman could do! People always think technology will always be there, and I hope it is to a certain extent as well. However, warfare could cause people to be displaced without anything, and, if you think that disaster relief can save millions across a wide region, you might be disappointed. It is essential to build life skills in pure survival for you never know when you will need them.

     Now if we continue with technology as we have been, the above can occur. Nonetheless, what if we went faster, faster, and faster? The so-called technological singularity can occur where machines eclipse humans in intellect, and our advances in technology happen at a pace we have never seen before. I believe the human race will inevitably hit an information overload point, but the advances in robotics and artificial intelligence can help make sense of it all. However, I disagree with the people who believe the robots will take over. For one thing, a robot is only as smart as the code, and I don't anticipate a program malfunction will cause the robot to think: "kill all humans!". That is mere Hollywood speculation. More realistically, the machine will probably just not work, and the engineers will spend weeks trying to figure out why.

     Yet, I firmly believe we will achieve intelligence amplification of our own brains eventually, and thus more discoveries will occur. In a few hundred years (or less!), human-machine interfaces on the biological level will happen, but I personally hope that it will be within in reason and our humanity is not stripped down to a robotic persona.

      I will leave this blog with a question for you to ponder: what direction will we take? A future of technology enveloping every section of our life to an extreme, a moderate world with it used wisely, or some kind of retro let's-all-go-caveman style kind of movement? Personally, in addition with what I stated prior, I believe people will ultimately use it more in the middle. Remember, technology is neutral; it is the people who use it that give it the bias. It would be nice to take a more biological approach where we grow our houses (MIT Fab Tree). To kick back and blend with the world around us is truly soothing. To me, our society is akin to a child with a new toy. We are in the infancy of technology, and over time we will learn when it is appropriate to use it. However, that will not come without some growing pains!

Fuels of the Good and Dark Sides of the Internet

     We spent this week delving into the more malicious side of the Internet. Ideas like surveillance, identity theft, and censorship covered the verbal landscape, touching on areas in which the majority of Americans are particularly sensitive to. However, what is the overall force that is pushing initiatives such as these? How about the forces that drive expression, freedom of sharing, and anonymity?

     This debacle was inevitable.

      Throughout history, there has always been the basic power struggle between the rulers and the ones who adhere to their leadership. There was probably tribal leaders in the cave days who would punish members of the tribe who communicated with other tribes. Likewise, we have the shady North Korea, who casts a thicker overcast on their peoples' eyes than State College clouds.

     Entertainment is enjoyable. It can bring a divergence away from homework, and it can bring people together to bond in a game. However, people in our country tend to overdo it I think. According to Time Magazine, Americans spend over half their free time watching television and literally spend about $706 billion dollars on entertainment in 2004 (Entertainment Spending). That figure I highly doubt has changed with the improvement of cell phones, video players, video games, and music players.

       So these television screens and other entertainment are like the "bread and circuses" Dr. Tapia mentioned in class. When so many of people our age (of all ages really) take part in entertainment to such an extreme degree, do you really expect them to know how to interpret national issues when they have never done so before? It's like asking one who has been using a bike for their whole lives to now use a car with no practice. The identity theft instill a sense of fear of being online, so they will seek out for organizations to protect them, not before giving them their information! The surveillance will cause paranoia, so people will one day be afraid to surf the web on controversial things, thus being a kind of censorship in itself. The censorship where your search results are modified for you that we spoke of in class was interesting. Any kind of filter is indeed a censorship, and the Internet can be censored in a covert manner like this so people will not notice.

     Yet, there is also the side that yearns for freedom of expression and anonymity. In other words, it is what the Internet originally represented. It was a lower quality user interface because Google searches didn't tailor themselves to your interests and so on. Don't worry, the horror drowns me too. However, it created a sense of freedom to explore without any feeling of someone looking at monitor of what you are doing (well besides ISP personnel). I would think that most people want that kind of online environment. However, it is not in the interest of those who hold the influence right now. Censoring messages and keeping checks on people helps maintain the status quo, and those who benefit from the status quo the most are those having surf and turf on their personal yacht. Of course the RIAA will try to find people who share music files since they lose money out of their pockets! Keep the wage earners in line to continue to make money for your institutions; is this not like China? How else could you control over a billion people on a giant national landscape with the advent of the Internet?

     In the end, this struggle between Internet freedom and Internet control is a by-product of class struggle. Those in power would rather maintain current way of things as they benefit from it. People on the outside of power circles who like to find unique things and have a sense of potency at their fingertips that they lack elsewhere. The fact that you have a world's worth of knowledge and opinions right on a screen gives a feeling of insight. But, why would a ruling body want to hear contradicting opinions? Thus there is censorship and surveillance. A person's fingers can type to entertainment and education, but those same fingers can also block millions from exploring the Web.

Think Tanks of China

     Since we are in a kind of segue in the realm of debate, I decided to explore think tanks in China and  outline the major players in this up and coming country. The Brookings Institute did an analysis on them and stated that in 2009 China started to fund think tanks in ways not seen before in the country where the term "people" pervade every single propaganda idea. Specifically, they mentioned the emergence of a so-called super think tank:

    "In March the State Council approved the founding of a new think tank in Beijing, the China Center for  International Economic Exchanges (CCIEE)"        CCIE Home

      Now, the biggest difference between an American think tank and the CCIEE is that the Chinese think tank is essentially, as one would expect, closely tied with the government. Their scope is to be under the guidance of the National Development and Reform Commission. A closer look at their leadership shows how many of them were close with the upper echleons of Chinese leadership. You can see former governor's of provinces, people on the People's Congress, the chairman of the State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration, the Vice Premier of the State Council of China, and so on. 

                                        Leadership of CCIEE
     While CSIS may sport Henry Kissinger, these Chinese think tanks sport the majority of their leaders as political influentials over just scholars. However, CCIEE is close to the powers that are similar to how many think tanks are in the DC Area. According to Brookings,

        "CCIEE’s close ties to the Chinese leadership is its physical proximity to the levers of power—its current office is located only a few hundred meters from Zhongnanhai, the headquarters of both the Chinese Communist Party and the State Council."

     So, one would expect that the "research" that comes out of these think tanks will be more biased than the advocacy think tanks over here in the States. Since it's extremely close to the Communist Party, one can probably assume that the think tank will be used as a puppet to take blame for the party's errors as well as to promote whatever agenda they wish to address. Thus, it makes me wonder whether it is possible for China to ever have an honest think tank climate given the Commmunist Party's vice grip on the country as a whole. Nonetheless, it must be understood that these think tanks will be the big collaborators with our "Big Five" over here as well as competitors in the global plane of ideas.

     I stumbled across this video where a Chinese think tank is attempting to suggest that India should be divided as a whole, which is astutely pointed out is due to an inherent fear of the growing might of India's own economy. Even though there is pervasive poverty in the two countries, these countries are going to be heavyweights combating it out over many major issues in the far east for a long time to come. Let's hope they never go to war! Anyway, here is the video:

     In the ever enlightening comments that are from Youtube, one can see a flame war with the Chinese attacking the Indian report. I had a roommate who just came from China freshman year, and, every time we discussed India, he spoke of them in a negative light calling them "dirty" with negative body language to boot. Whether these neighbors don't like each other because of economic reasons or cultural, I am not sure. Overall though, I wanted to show how the Chinese will be using a think tank's research as a way to make political statements as time goes on. Will these Chinese think tanks induce more think tanks to take up the political voice with diluted research is something I am interested in seeing.

Green Think Tanks and Ideology

     The book dealt with rivalries in partisan ideologies, yet it never really delved into the other types of think tanks. Any since there are well over a thousand in this country alone, I decided to look into any that are of interest for their mission and possible future influence. While I am sure there are similar think tanks, I looked into a think tank called the "Tellus Institute".

http://www.tellus.org/index.php


     What piqued my interest is that the tone was remarkably different than the ideological think tanks with their banners of "go elephant" or "go donkey". While clearly a caricature, I no less mean that these constant struggles can be boring at times. Tellus is one that I believe can be influential in the future as there is some basis of their "paradigm shift". For instance, they are supporters of the so-called "Great Transition Initiative":

     "Critical to this transition is growing public awareness of the dangers ahead and the need to revise our ways of living – and living together – on this planet. In this, our time of choice, we need a vast movement of global citizens to carry forward a Great Transition."

http://gtinitiative.org/perspectives/values.html

     Their values for this outlook parallel those of many green and New Age movements. That is, the desire that humanity has sought since the Industrial Revolution must come to a close. That, instead of profit, the focus will inevitable shift to a global view while respecting Mother Earth. Some might dare say they sound like a bunch of hippies, and that...may be true. All humoring aside, this represents another by-product of the Global Warming and clean technology movement.

     In a more technical manner, the Tellus Institute publications is detailed on the site as follows:

      "About 300 selected publications are available here on scenarios, energy, water, solid waste, corporate responsibility, and sustainable development."

      So overall, their research is geared toward what one would expect of green think tanks. However, the dynamic that I find rather interesting is how they embed that worldview described earlier heavily. It goes as far to say that a removal of standard policy making must be made for their transition initiative to occur. Their mission statement creates interesting reflections on their research. Consider this flow chart:


     What's striking about this is that a think tank is going against the natural grain to be involved in the policy process, but they instead want a shift away entirely from that to their "eco-communalism" and "new paradigm". It also present a very black and white argument. Instead of creating a gray area between these paths, Tellus essentially believes that society will ultimate go to "business as usual", fear and chaos, or some Zen garden of sorts. Thus, Tellus is a rare long-term focused think thank that purports societal change in identity.

     This picture, while clearly being simplified, I believe should be more of a chain than having so many ends. First, they seem to think that the world whole has to be singing Kumbaya or something when most likely the world will become very interwoven with fragments not participating. There will most likely always be a North Korea in the world, and some countries will breakdown due to internal conflict at some points. Nonetheless, there can still be a solid chance that the world will become more eco-friendly and environmentally conscious. Tellus' aim is possible, but it will involve policy reform and some tears along the way. A shift in culture is painful since most prefer the status quo, and there will be setbacks even in a "New Age". Thus, I say it will be a chain more so than 3-6 distinctive endings.

     This link is really interesting. It shows their view on what happens in each scenario in different regions around the world:

 http://www.tellus.org/results/results_Indicators_NA.html

     Emphasis was placed on harmony with nature in a way reminiscent of the Native Americans. To me, people are too embedded in this electronic infrastructure. Millions of years we were woven with nature, yet now we cannot get off our computer (I know I can't until I get this blog done!). Some might argue its evolution, and I embrace it, but the idea that technology solves all is wrong for the foreseeable future. America as a whole has this innate appreciation for self-sufficiency, yet I doubt many could function without electricity. This kind of dependence is risky as now the light switch dictates collective sanity. I'm not saying do everything by the old-fashioned way but do appreciate that this planet is all we have. No magic worm holes have been found, and we can never get to another planet to survive as of now.