Immigration Crisis: What You Need to Know

Refugees from Syria are walking on foot to get to Germany because Germany is the one European state that seems excited for more immigrants. This is perhaps because their population is currently declining while the population of many other European nations is rising.

England offered up asylum for 20,000 people. Germany laughed and said they were ready for 500,000 every year for several years. Well done, UK. Your number looks kinda small. Apparently Germany doesn't need any help.

Hungary has offered police escort for the migrants on their border to help them get to Germany and Austria.

Perhaps what you really need to know is that these migrants have been travelling for a while, even though the media has just reported it. (Thank you photojournalists for making this a news story in the first place.) They are running from Syria and the unrest there for their very lives.

What they desire is peace, protection, and security. Maybe even a chance to start a new life outside of a civil war. And that's what you need to know.

In other news, I said the words "Civil War," so now I'm thinking of Captain America 3.

Also, how about them Bengals? Then again, it was the Raiders. Time will tell.

Hodge-Podge of Randomness

As I opened this new post, I noticed my serve told me I have written 221 posts, and I was like, "Yay, I like that number." Now hopefully, my audience is geeky enough to realize why that is a big deal.

But this is not a day to talk about the virtues of the world's favorite highly functioning sociopath because he actually isn't very virtuous. Oh, and it has nothing to do with politics and culture in America today.

In other news, actually relevant to American culture, the sport of legalized violence is starting up in two weeks. AND I AM SUPER EXCITED! Because I like football despite the fact that it really kind of is that whole legalized violence thing. Yeah, whatever. Also, concussions are kinda bad. Really bad. But I refuse to play it for that reason.

Of course, that doesn't mean I'm free from concussions. I have seen a member of my debate team last year who got a concussion while on a debate tournament. Of course, that was because she was recovering from a concussion, and we had an fender-bender. The whiplash did not do her well.

Now if that doesn't float your boat, TV series news seasons should begin pretty shortly, and I think that's pretty swell. It's time for another season of Castle, Doctor Who, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., and Doctor Who. Oh, I already said that one didn't I? If anyone has any idea on how I could get my hands on the first three episodes of Agent Carter, I would greatly appreciate it.

In a completely different section of the world, the presidential campaign continues to bore its way on. I know, I'm not supposed to have this attitude as the beacon of stay informed at all costs, but it's far too early to know anything that's going on in the race. And I really want to get more involved when I have to worry about fewer candidates.

But there are some interesting tidbits. First, South Carolina is requiring those on the primary ballot to rule out running as a third party. A very good political move for the Republicans; this ensures that Trump must agree to support the GOP nomination if when he doesn't win the candidacy. Of course, one can and maybe should question the legitimacy of keeping someone off the ballot as a form of political manipulation.

Also, why is no one covering the Democratic race yet? It seems that even as Hillary Clinton's credibility with the media consistently gets worse, no one wants to cover any of the better options (admittedly many of those aren't better options, but there are definitely a few) that the Democrats actually have. In a world where liberal media reigns supreme, this is actually quite shocking as it seems disadvantageous to the party's chances next November.

And finally, can we just take time to acknowledge that football season is about to start?

Speculate! Speculate! Speculate!

So much rampant speculation. So any conclusions jumped to. So much talking, so little knowledge to back it up. But whoever notices.

Today, as I was having difficulty deciding on what to write about and thought about how easy it would be to choose a topic if I decided that it didn't matter if I knew anything about it. And I honestly wonder now if other writers on the internet even care, especially blogs.

So you know, I have a commitment to truth, and I would rather not lead people astray by not accurately checking information. Admittedly I am a busy college student, whose opinions are not entirely set in stone, so I can't guarantee everything.

But I do wonder (and given the nature of this post may I emphasize that word a little bit more) just what other sources do. It seems enough of a warrant (especially given the other possibilities of misinformation) to maybe not just trust all the information that you read all the time.

So some examples of speculation from the mundane to the serious that might just make you think.

Stana Katic hasn't signed a contract for the next season of Castle, so she and Nathan Fillion are obviously not getting along on set...

Jeb Bush was the frontrunner of the Republican candidacy, so he obviously was going to win the nomination. That certainly looks so certain now. right?

Or just think about any time that a crisis occurs, school shooting, terror attack, or anything else, there is so much talk about what we don't know, and before long, we're talking about the causes of an incident we don't even need.

Whatever Happened to Ukraine?

Let's face it. The world is a huge place and a significant amount of importance happens every single day. There is no way that a news source will cover everything that happens throughout the entire world.

That's all commonplace, but I think we all tend to think a little warped about the effect that this actually has on the news. 

Because here's the thing. We tend to believe that an event simply has resolved itself to a new equilibrium if the news stops reporting on the unrest in the area. For instance, there was a ceasefire agreement in the conflict of Ukraine and Russia, but we heard reports early on that tension still remained and that the ceasefire was extremely fragile. 

Then the IS story was stressed in the news because it's kinda a big deal, so we stopped hearing about the conflict along the border of Ukraine. As we stopped hearing about it, we obviously stopped thinking about it entirely, and may even believe that it has simply stopped being an issue. 

I have posted in the past about keeping up with secondary sources to discover the truth about the news stories that are being presented, but what about doing research on issues that were in the news, but now are no longer? Do we continue to follow them to the full resolution? Or do we just let the news tell us that this other story is more important because it is more immediately dangerous and we all know danger sells? 

Yeah, so I don't think that's a good idea. I don't think we should let the news determine what we are interested in from current events around the globe. Unfortunately, we can't know everything about every culture in the world, but we should ensure that our extensive knowledge is not dictated by the coverage news sources provides.

If you were interested in the Ukraine crisis and the plight of those people when the news was covering it, you should still be interested in it now, and be looking to see what is happening as that progresses. 

Amusing Ourselves to Death

According to Neil Postman in his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, with the transition from a print culture to a television culture, American discourse in all of the relevant and important fields have had significant decreases in quality.

The printing press emerged as a primary means of publication within the 18th century. With the printing press, information could be disbursed in an efficient manner. However, this information was not useless or amusing trivia, divorced from any meaningful context.

On the contrary, the information was provided with clarity and enough analysis for the reader to weigh upon and reflect on that which he was learning. Indeed, the medium of the printed word was specifically conducive to critical thinking. When you read, you set the distractions down to meditate upon what you are hearing.

Postman specifically argues that the medium of the printed word provided a basis for a culture “inclined toward rational argument and presentation, and therefore, made up of meaningful content.” It is easy to see how this applies to the medium of the printing press itself; however, Postman argues that the typographical culture had implications beyond that of just the printed word.

To illustrate, the Lincoln-Douglas debates involved spoken words that read much like any printed type of the era, with sentences that rival the length of many modern day paragraphs. Perhaps more surprisingly, these debates were almost always longer in length than most sporting events today. In one instance, on October 16, 1854, Lincoln and Douglas debated in a formal, organized manner for about 7 hours, with Lincoln and Douglas each giving one speech that was a good three hours long. I sincerely doubt that any human being could fill three hours worth of time without addressing arguments from a logical perspective, and the record does indeed show this to be true.

Contrast this style of debate with our televised debates today. Today, the candidates would be lucky if the entire debate lasted anywhere close to the three hour slots allotted to one speech of a Lincoln-Douglas debate. Furthermore, the points we see brought up usually lack in logical analysis, but rather involve clever slogans or carefully designed rhetoric. I will refrain from mentioning how the debates have grown informal, with candidates interrupting their opponents to gain more speaking time, or even laughing at the arguments their opponents are making.

But Postman would argue this is not the full fault of our politicians, but is also at least in part due to the fact that television is not conducive to rational discourse. As aforementioned, when you look to read, you put aside all distractions. But this is not the case with the television.

Rather, the television is something that you listen to while you make dinner, build a TV cabinet, or write a paper. Very few people make it a habit to sit down to meditate upon the discourse offered by television.

But those who do are not much better off as their focus will be diverted as the programming goes to commercial or moves onto a new topic. This “Now...this” phenomena as Postman calls it, creates a tendency to pursue knowledge for its own sake (or for the sake of entertainment), rather than to enrich our lives. In the end, all televised discourse is purely for the sake of entertainment.

But just as other forms of discourse modeled the printing press, so too do other forms of discourse in our day today model themselves after the television. This can be evidenced in the written word. Compared to the zenith of the printing press, our newspapers (both printed and online) and books are not as conducive to logical analysis as they are in the past. Indeed, they are shorter, more conversational in nature, and generally more superficial. Even Amusing Ourselves to Death is written in a way where it could easily be read out loud as a speech live or on television. The watering down of discourse in America is spread across all mediums of the culture.

But there is a solution that we should consider important. Actually spending the time necessary to fulfill adequate non-trivial information from the online news sources that we read. Yes, I did say online news sources that we read. I would agree with Postman that the medium of television is not in any way shape or form conducive for discourse (but it does give us Doctor Who). One you find the information, take the time to something unusual for our culture, analyze the information to determine how it changes the way you are to live your life, whether that be through philanthropy, political activism, or a spiritual walk with God.

Ukraine: Speculation Reigns in American Media

Today, I wanted to write a post about the situation currently ongoing in Ukraine and how the United States efforts to put Russia into a box would ultimately play out. However, I have found little solid backing to make any speculation about this.

Yet I still find all sorts of speculation about the consequences of the actions. We already have articles discussing how inevitable World War III is....if Russia responds one particular way to the United States response to the Russian response to the events that are just now transpiring, of course! 

The harsh reality is that geopolitics is too complicated on this matter to be able to accurately predict. Those who try should not be a blogger or a simple journalist, but a highly-qualified (and I imagine equally high in salary) expert after doing much research on the topic. 

You see there seems to be this problem in the media. Somewhere along the way, it has become more important to simply say something than to share truth. It's probably because just reporting the same information that has already been shared is not exactly a highly marketable product. 

But does this excuse this activity? Of course not! It simply explains why this is the case. 

This is not what journalism should be. Journalism should be letting the evidence lead you, and if the evidence leads nowhere, then find a different topic to write about. For instance, when I found inadequate information for proper analysis on Ukraine, I found a different topic (for the most part). 

Since the media holds so much power, they have a responsibility to inform the people with integrity and not just provide blatant speculation for the sake of marketing to the people. 

Yet we all know better. The media will not in the near future change their protocol to honest reporting. Until the miraculous happens, we as citizens must examine all the analysis presented and evaluate the evidence therein. 

If we don't, we will fall prey to believing that Russia will cause World War III by attacking the United States after the United States enters the battle in Ukraine because of Russia's invasion, etc., etc, etc. If the dominoes start to fall, the press must examine the implications, but right now there are too many possibilities to consider. The press should focus any speculation on what Russia's response to will be, not the chain reactions it could cause. 

Let's not stress ourselves over all 9,673 possibilities (a rough estimate) that could come from this situation. As great Star Wars philosopher Qui-Gon Jinn said, 

"Until the possible become actual, it is only a distraction."

Bastiat's Conundrum: Communication is Key to Engaging Society

Not only is Frederic Bastiat a brilliant economist who wrote with extraordinary logical reasoning and depth, but also he clearly communicated to the layman. His works are not for the intellectual and academia, although I would hope both would appreciate his insights nonetheless. No, his works are written in a simple way that can communicate an introduction to economics for any layperson (including myself). Indeed Bastiat's most famous essay, The Law, is not a large conglomeration of economic jargon which only a few economics professors could decipher after a few years of study. On the contrary, it is a book that a high school senior could read and understand in about one or two hours.

So clear and profound is Bastiat's work, but he is little known. Evidently, being simple and clear is not a winning philosophy in the world of academia. As Donald J. Boudreaux explained in July, 2013,

"Bastiat was Keynes’s opposite in more ways than one.  Not only was Bastiat’s substantive economics poles apart from that of Keynes – and not only is Keynes, unlike the obscure Bastiat, still celebrated as one of history’s greatest and most influential economists – but Bastiat’s prose is always crystal clear, entertaining, and accessible.  As in the past, no reader must struggle to grasp Bastiat’s meaning.  But even professional economists must tussle with and tug at Keynes’s prose in The General Theory to uncover its meaning.  Reading Bastiat’s works and grasping his meaning gives no scholar any sense of accomplishment.  It's all so easy and enjoyable! The typical scholar’s conclusion, therefore, is that Bastiat was an intellectual lightweight.  That conclusion, of course, is wholly mistaken."

As sad as it is that scholars will write off Bastiat as shallow because of his clear and understandable writing style, we must be honest with ourselves and acknowledge that sometimes we think in the exact same way. If we can easily understand a point someone is making, we might be quick to assume that we already knew that point in the first place. But this is not necessarily true. A great communicator is one who can make a new and complicated topic seem like one you've known your whole life.

The more important takeaway from Bastiat's lack of renown though is a simple dilemma. It appears, that in our writing today, we have to choose whom we wish to engage, the scholars or the layperson. This conundrum, which I like to call Bastiat's Conundrum, is touched on in the Foundation for Economic Education article, "On Being a Catalyst."

In this article, Max Borders explains why instead of staying in an abstract world, economists should try to engage with people and persuade them to action. He uses the word "Catalyst" because in chemistry these are the substances that start a chemical reaction. He asks us simply what reaction to advance liberty are we starting by our words and actions. The best way for me to further explain his article is by letting you see the climax of his position. He writes,

"Being a classical liberal, the old way is seductive. We can spend our days sanctimoniously nitpicking other libertarians’ M.O.s on Facebook. We can craft our seamless syllogisms. We can write yet another journal article or whitepaper that will be read by friends who undoubtedly agree with us. We can rant and rave about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket. Or we can become catalysts."

Mr. Borders wishes economists to catalyze action among people, and indeed this is the key to the answering Bastiat's Conundrum. Being a catalyst starts by first deciding that it's the layperson who needs to be affected, not the academic scholars. Although I have nothing against academia (indeed, I oft had dreams of entering into such a profession myself), I must say that in bringing about real political change, what we need is the layperson on our side.

Liberty advances not based on the abstract works of academia unreadable by all but a select few, but rather through the actions of the population. The most obvious example is seen in the events surrounding the American Revolution. The Revolution was fought by a group of laypeople. The Boston Tea Party was executed by a group of laypeople. Thomas Paine's Common Sense was written for laypeople. It would be amiss to try to imagine an American nation "conceived in liberty" without these events. It wasn't the abstract works that made all the difference, but rather the common people who applied those abstract ideas in the real world.

Thus, the world needs more writers like Bastiat (and Max Borders), who are profound writers who know how to communicate and engage the world. But as Max Borders mentions, this is not enough. I'm sure Thomas Paine's Common Sense would not have been as impactful had he not suggested that America take specific action. It's time to engage the common people. It's time to persuade people to action. It's time to be catalysts.

Ignorance isn't Bliss; it's Carlisle

Clara: Say we actually find her. What do we say?
The Doctor: We ask her how she came to be. Whatever she is.
Clara: Why?
The Doctor: Because I don't know. And ignorance is... What's the opposite of bliss?
Clara: Carlisle.
The Doctor: Yes! Carlisle. Ignorance is Carlisle. 

In the 2013 Doctor Who episode "Hide", we are gifted with this charming exchange, in which the Doctor is very much annoyed about his ignorance over a matter that affects him nary a bit. (Since this blog has primarily an American audience, I would mention that Carlisle is a city in Cumbria, which apparently Clara and the Doctor don't like. Hmmmmm...)

Yet in America today, we seem far too content, even pleased, with our ignorance of areas that could drastically impact our everyday lives.  

For example, a few months ago, as I was preparing a speech about the Human Scavenging problem (by this, I mean the use of aborted fetal cells to manufacture commercial products) for my last year of competition, one of my club members (who will remain nameless to protect the guilty) distressed over how she "hoped it didn't advance" because it was "depressing." Admittedly, this practice is very depressing, but we can't turn a blind eye to the atrocities in our world. Rather, we must do something about it. To be entirely fair to her, when I said this, she did back down and say that "Ignorance isn't bliss."

But how is it we thought this way in the first place? How have we been programmed not to care about how little we actually know?

This isn't just an isolated problem. This is a problem rooted in our entire culture. We can get more interested in upcoming movies than the Obamacare fiasco. Our political awareness might be limited to nothing more than being willing to read a few political memes that usually just sprout rhetoric with no actual facts (or worse, downright lies). Indeed, I wrote this article starting with a quotation from Doctor Who because I knew I would be far more likely to get hits for an article about a fantastic television series than an article about politics.

This isn't just my circle of friends, who I believe to probably be better than most of America in this area. No, it is a widespread problem ingrained into our entire culture.

Michael Lofti over at BenSwann.com has twice compared Google analytics to show how America has reacted to recent shifts in pop culture vs. developments in crucial politics areas, (see here and here). Although admittedly, this is not a perfect means to study how people view the world, it is still an accurate measure to determine American involvement and to paint a credible picture of what that looks like. It's not a pretty picture either. In the first circumstance, when analyzing the reactions to Miley Cyrus' twerk compared to the impending threat of a military intervention in Syria, Lofti found that,

"On August 25th after Miley’s VMA performance her Google peak rating went from 67 to 100 in less than 24 hours. Meanwhile, during the same period of time... the peak search value for chemical attacks in Syria actually fell to a value of 3, which is down from a value of 4 only 24 hours earlier. The term “Syria” is valued at 56- averaging flat over the past few days."

Similarly, when contrasting how America responded to the finale of Breaking Bad versus the government shutdown, Lofti found simply,

"With so many lives being touched by a federal government shutdown, one would expect Americans to be alarmed and search for content related to the shutdown. On this evening Breaking Bad’s internet search volume (25) is 5x higher than government shutdown’s search volume (5). The next day (September, 30th) the letter from Obama’s executive office announcing the shutdown made headlines. However, Breaking Bad’s record setting traffic from the previous night also made headlines. Breaking Bad’s search volume (65) is 3x higher than 'government shut down' (21)."

So, our culture is evidently not very politically aware, but is that really a bad thing? Is there a reason why we can't just continue singing kumbaya and enjoy our daily dose of mindless entertainment? Sure, you can still enjoy your dose of pop culture, but it would be wise to take some time to become informed of the political processes that can threaten your liberties and the way you live your life (and even that entertainment you hold so dear).

A quotation attributed to Edward Murrow goes,

"A nation of sheep will soon have a government of wolves." 

This, my friends, is why we must be aware of the politics in our world. If we remain ignorant, we will be easily manipulated and tricked, and we will watch as our government is destroyed through political processes.

Controlling the media is the way that many different villains in the Doctor Who series I previously mentioned take over the world. This isn't just the fictional route to power though. In almost every authoritarian government, free speech is one of the first rights attacked.

We must stay informed. I don't mean keeping ourselves informed by watching the news. Unfortunately, there are problems in the media about reporting all the facts in an unbiased manner. Whether this is because they are intentionally pushing their own agenda or just trying to find a more entertaining story, we may never know. Regardless, we should doubt everything that any news source tells us (yes, even Fox News) and validate it with our own independent research and other news sources. Receiving well-balanced information from multiple sources is paramount to being informed.

We must realize that ignorance of important political moves in our day can be as the Doctor calls it, "Carlisle," no offense to the residents of that city (unless you're upset at the BBC). It makes us vulnerable to government lies and intrusion in our everyday life.