Defending The Weak and Fighting Injustice; When It's Convenient

"In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility -- I welcome it."- John F. Kennedy

         We've heard presidents all throughout history espouse this idea that America and the world has a moral obligation to fight the evils that haunt our civilizations, from genocide, to oppression, to famine, to corruption. George H.W. Bush is quoted as saying "Yes, the United States bears a major share of leadership in this effort. Among the nations of the world, only the United States of America has both the moral standing and the means to back it up. We're the only nation on this Earth that could assemble the forces of peace. This is the burden of leadership and the strength that has made America the beacon of freedom in a searching world". Bill Clinton echoes the same sentiment- 'We cannot build our own future without helping others to build theirs". Now, George W. Bush- "America is a Nation with a mission - and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace - a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman". Anybody who has any reading comprehension skills can tell you, all of these quotes have a common theme. It's the idea that America, has the moral obligation to help defend the weak against tyranny, fight oppression abroad, battle injustice, and further enhance freedom around the world, not only for the sake of humanity, but for our own future. It sounds pretty idealistic and if somebody had read only what the presidents listed here said and what others in leadership positions in America have said about our duty to uphold this kind of moral righteousness and ideal of leadership, they would probably say these American leaders are some pretty noble guys. I just want to dissect this a little bit for my own research, and answer a few questions. When is it necessary to intervene to protect these ideals? When have we and when haven't we? What were the circumstances that surrounded these interventions and the variables that either prevented us or enabled us to deploy such complicated military missions to subdue our enemies and lift our moral fiber?

         As most of the world knows at this point, America has recently intervened in Libya, a largely Arabic nation that happens to hold the largest oil reserves in the continent of Africa. It's leader is Muammar Gaddafi, a vicious tyrant who was implicated and convicted in the Pan Am airline flight 103 bombing in 1988, killing 259 people on board and another 11 on the ground. His oppressive rule and terrorist past leads me to believe he is a ruler well worth taking out. His people live under an oppressive regime with virtually no political rights, and his government is not scared of using brutal force to subdue any political unrest. After the political upheaval and protests began, a rebel militia group formed to defend the civilians against Libyan aggression and to take out Gaddafi's government. After taking several key cities and town, opposition forces attempted to gain more ground and headed towards Tripoli. From there the Libyan governments began using their air force to severely weaken the opposition, setting them back and killing a number of rebel fighters and civilians. 
        With calls from the international community, various governments, human rights organizations and the rebel fighters themselves, the United Nations passed resolution 1973, which authorized member states of the UN to protect the civilians and rebel fighters from Libyan air strikes through the use of military measures. This seems to me to be one of the first times in recent years we as Americans have used our military force in a way that has actually defended freedom, fought injustice and preserved humanity. With this being said, this seems to be a 'just' war, but with all the extenuating circumstances like our involvement in two other Arab nations with which we are currently using massive military operations to further our own interests in, our domestic economy's own problems, political unrest as the growth in wealth disparity continue and protests rise up around the country, is it in our interests to intervene with all these other problems looming overhead? What makes Libya of such dire importance that America and the rest of the world have no other obligation but to intervene? Barack Obama in his speech said "We knew that if we waited one more day, Benghazi - a city nearly the size of Charlotte - could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world. It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen.". This was very clever. His use of metaphor, comparing Benghazi to a populated and sophisticated city like Charlotte, North Carolina, is a way to conjure up an image of such an attack to a town like that right in our backyard. He has successfully created this mental bridge in which we are to view the Libyan people and cities as citizens and cities like our own, and therefore, it is our undeniable duty to defend against such injustice and slaughter.

           What I'm going to say right now is that this is morally right and I wish our country would do this more often. Fighting on the behalf of democracy, helping delegitimize dictatorships, and promote liberty and freedom for all. Instead of justifying baseless wars on such loosely organized and gathered intelligence like America did with Iraq, we are instead doing something which actually holds some merit when it comes to our professed beliefs of defending the weak and fighting injustice. America's allegations that Saddam had attempted to obtain enriched uranium from Africa and the minute probability of weapons of mass destruction hidden in Saddam's factories was just an excuse to intervene in a sovereign nation for an array of special interests. 

A mass field of skulls in Cambodia

            But what about all the other world's problems America and everybody else so obliviously ignore? Darfur? Cambodia? The Armenian Massacre? These are just a few examples of governments that have not only endorsed, but carried out and encouraged the mass extermination of a certain race of people and virtually nothing was done or even talked about by the international community. What about oppressive regimes like Burma? Iran? Even Saudi Arabia, which has some of the worst human rights records against women and criminals, with beheading in the town square still a legitimate death penalty. Nobody is calling for the intervention of these countries. Nobody is crying for regime change and military operations to overthrow these terribly oppressive governments.

          It seems to me to be all circumstantial. Our interests lie here, so we go there. Libya has large oil reserves and also happens to be experiencing a humanitarian tragedy, so lets kill two birds with one stone. Darfur has a desert and a bunch of impoverished tribal societies, and a large scale genocide has wiped out thousands. The sectarian strife has become so potent that Darfur is spiraling into a failed state, but our interests do not lie there, for there is nothing to gain. Vietnam had the Vietcong, a communist revolutionary group bent on overthrowing the government and imposing communism. Our government had very strong interests to protect there; to contain the spread of communism around the world. When vicious ruler Pol Pot in Cambodia began slaughtering his own people which ended up resulting in 2 million left dead, the only country that intervened was Vietnam, which left a stalemate and the eventual occupation of Cambodia by Vietnamese forces. Nobody in the international community blinked an eye.

United Nation Peacekeeping Operation in Congo

         So what does this mean? Does this make us amoral and hypocrites? Are we wrong and are we just greedy, resource grabbing, imperialistic opportunists? Or are we merely choosing our battles wisely as to what will not benefit only us, but the world. In my opinion, I believe it's both. While I do believe there are those that are in this game to purely reap the benefits and rewards out of intervening and occupying a country, whether it's political power or economic power, there is also the underlying message that we do want to preserve freedom around the world and that for the sake of humanity have an innate and unyielding duty to fight these injustices. The only problem I have is America shouldn't tout freedom and democracy for all, then only fight the fights that are convenient to the shareholders and political forces. Don't veil greed and imperialism with the flag. Instead, we should be more pragmatic, objective, and real with our rhetoric. Our president is one who does not tout his patriotism, but rather his pragmatism and his diplomatic character. "It’s true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right.". Finally, some honesty.

Signing Out- John Thomas 

Iran; How Religious Extremists Hijacked Democracy and How The Youth Are Taking It Back

 "Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day" - Thomas Jefferson

President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad making a speech in front of a tv screen showing Ayatollah Khomeini's fac

         Iran's present condition is one that worries the international community, with its large scale abuse of human rights, complete disregard of women's rights and harsh theocratic rule. Iran's hegemony over the anti werstern/anti american ideology is one that affects not only the United States but the world. Their goal of achieving nuclear enrichment facilities which could lead to the possible distribution of nuclear weapons is worrisome.
         The autocratic regime has had a strong hold over this country that thirsts for democracy, as we have seen with the protests in 2009, which came about as a result of the highly contested presidential election between incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi. This comes after a wave of anti government protests swept across the middle east starting with Tunisia. But as many would note, we've seen this same type of mass uprising against the government in Iran back in 1979.
          The revolution of 1979 had its goal disposing the western backed dictator Shah Reza Pahlavi, whose strict and harsh rule left millions impoverished and left the religious community alienated. His attempts at westernizing a country at the expense of the religious right came with a heavy price; a mass uprising inspired by the charismatic and prophetic Ayatollah Khomeini, who at this point was exiled in France due to his criticism of the regime. His call for adherence to religious authority and moral righteousness left many people left many nostalgic for an Islamic based government that would serve its people. His words struck a chord with many inside Iran and it led to an uprising which was met with brute force by the Shah, but eventually led to his disposal and exile from the country, bringing forth an Iran that would be ruled under Khomeini and his religious extremists.
           The outcome was disparaging with a suspension on the constitution, the enactment of shari'a law and a complete and total make over of the "democratic" government of Iran under the Shah. This ushered in an era of untold pain and suffering for the Iranian people, especially when it came to women and free speech. Women were now forced to be garbed in the burqa or fear retribution by government thugs known as the Revolutionary Guard. People who dissented against the government were thrown into prisons, often tortured, beaten and sometimes killed. Those who committed adultery were sentenced to gruesome death sentences, such as stoning or torture. These wide scale abuses have sent shock waves through Iran and have left a once peaceful nation in shambles.
           As a new generation tries to identify itself in Iran, what values do they hold dear? What do they want the future of Iran to be and what type of Iran do they want their children to grow up in? While the government will tell you its people despise all things western, we have seen a growing discontent with the regime and a call for a western style democracy that respects its people and serves them as well. With Iran having one of the largest populations in the middle east with 70 million people, we see almost a third living in squalor and poverty, while another third are dying from starvation and disease. This once prosperous nation was well on its way to democracy until western backed forces in 1953 deposed of the pro democratic prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq and installed the dictatorship of the Shah, who would protect American interests domestically and internationally for the funds and aid he received while in power. Mossadeq's fervent nationalism, and his attempt to share the profits which were exploited by the British owned Anglo Iranian Oil company led to his downfall. Time magazine in 1952 called Mossadeq the "George Washington" of the middle east for his attempt to bring the fortunes of their natural resources back to his people and expel foreign influence from the country. He was seen around the world as a revolutionary who fought for the good of his people and had only his nation's best interests at heart. This however did not sit well with many in the British government, who saw a large part of their tax revenue come from the Anglo Iranian oil company, and saw this as a threat to their stronghold over the resources and political control in the middle east.

Protesters bearing images of Mossadeq at the 2009 'Green Revolution'

          Although Mossadeq is long gone, and the true democratic reforms first enacted by Prime Minister Mossadeq have since been disposed of by the theocratic regime in present day Iran, the ideas, values and spirit of Mossadeq's vision for a democratic, secular Iran still lives on. His belief that the Iranian people were a culturally sophisticated, intellectually articulate and aware people that could live under a democratic government free from foreign influence to pursue an autonomous, purely Iranian path is one that the current youth in Iran still remember and strife for.
          The 2009 protests now known as "The Green Revolution" saw these ideas that have been locked away underground come to the surface, as people chanted for the overthrow of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khameini and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's brutal government. Masses of people filled the streets, pleading for democracy and waving Mohammad Mossadeq signs entitled "We still remember". This mass uprising came at a price, with hundreds being killed and injured by the Revolutionary Guard and Basij, and hundreds more being prosecuted, imprisoned and blacklisted.

          Even though this mass protest was quelled only after a few weeks, its message still lives on, and its leaders lay dormant waiting for the next opportunity to rise against the government.
          When a man in Tunisia named Mohammad Bouazizi, a poor vegetable seller in the town of Sidi Bouzid, 190 miles south of the capital Tunis, lit himself ablaze in protest of the dictatorship ruling his country and the governments oppression of the impoverished people like himself, it reverberated through the Middle East with irrevocable results. From Tunisia, to Egypt, to Algeria, to Lybia, to Syria, to Jordan, to Bahrain and all over the region, calls for reforms haunted the political elites of the Middle East.
          Iran's people took advantage of that momentum. The Green Revolution sprung back up, calling for Ahmadinejed's brutal regime to be overthrown and an installation of a true democracy. The protests were met once again with violence and brutality as tear gas, armed police and thugs intimidated and even maimed protesters. Deja Vu it seems.

People fill the streets of Iran in the 2009 protests

          So what does this mean? Where will Iran be in 10 years? 20 years? 5 years? Nobody can tell for sure. These types of revolutions can not be planned, they just happen. Without warning, a spark is ignited that fuels the outrage and anger of millions, leading to mass uprisings. We've seen this all too often throughout history, and there are those that have resulted in bitter consequences, like the Bolshevik Revolution, and those that often shape and change history for the better like the French Revolution.
           Iran's 1979 revolution is an example of a revolution that led to dire consequences and the installation of an oppressive, religiously fundamentalist regime that has gripped power for over 30 years.
           It's this new young generation's job to ensure that their children don't live under the same tyranny and oppression that they did. They must come together and unite as a country against the regime. This generation is enlightened to western ideas and values, but they do not necessarily want to become westernized- they just want freedom. Freedom is what all men desire, except those that desire to rule. Another revolution is in the works. It's only a matter of time before this government sees its demise and true reforms and secularization begins. All we can hope is that this next revolution isn't hijacked by an even worse force than the one that hijacked it in 1979.

Signing out- John Thomas

American Exceptionalism and Globalization at Odds

""One of the great attractions to patriotism - it fulfills our worst wishes. In the person of our nation we are able, vicariously, to bully and cheat. Bully and cheat, what's more, with a feeling that we are profoundly virtuous."- Aldous Huxley

  

             

              As a child growing up in America, all I ever heard was how great America was. How our country was the defender of freedom, how people were fleeing in mass numbers to come here due to our economic prosperity, our almost limitless freedoms and our endless opportunities. Now all this being said, America is a great nation with so much to offer. Our economic size is virtually unmatched to this day, our military might decimates the next 27 countries combined (26 of them being allies) and our social liberties and freedoms are still unheard of in many places around the world. With all this being said, America is a great nation with much to offer and has done much in its history to combat tyranny and injustice. 

             So as you're reading this you're probably saying, so what's the problem? The problem here is our pride. Our ignorant, blind, narcissistic pride. We believe no other nation on this planet has what we have, that our greatness is unmatched and that we, and only we are the sole defenders of justice. Hence, this gives us the right to do what we want, take what we want, and act any way we want because we are 'God's chosen people'. We only do things out of the interest of the greater good, I mean hey, if God is behind us, we can't be wrong, right?

              This blind American Exceptionalism has been espoused by presidents, politicians, philosophers, and theologians alike since the founding of our country. This, along with its roots in religious dogma of a nation chosen by God, we have grown into an arrogant, explosive and impulsive country, doing as we wish and please with almost nobody stopping us. Even stating that we've done something wrong, or unjust in the eyes of conservatives makes you an 'American hating liberal'. Just because you recognize and understand history and its consequences does not make you an American hating liberal, rather it makes you a pragmatic, understanding and sympathizing human being. 

              This American Exceptionalism, as terrible as it is, was alright considering the world only had one super power after World War II due to the decimation of Europe. It was easy for us to slip into the pompous snob like attitude and condescending view towards the rest of the world. Of course, I mean, if it wasn't for us, Europe would be in shambles, and that's when we became the world's standard. Everything from currency, to culture, to technology, to trends, America was the forefront of the world's progress. The world in a sense became Americanized, and as this began to happen, so did something else. Globalization, with an American touch, of course. Our culture has penetrated the furthest reaches of the globe, of course any change would portray a distinctly American tint. But here's where the problem came in- when people started realizing that America isn't infallible, nor is it the greatest nation on earth.

             The collapse of the financial market in 2008 originated in what is the heart of global capitalism; America. People around the world before this collapse viewed America as having the most advanced and intricate economy in the world to the point where if America collapsed, we'd all collapse. But once the rug was pulled out from under America in the form of a financial collapse, America's fallible nature came into clear view. America's dominance over the global market came to a screeching halt, as insecurity swept through every other nation as whether or not to invest in American capital and business. Suddenly, America's legitimacy as the world's greatest power was tarnished. As Fareed Zakaria says in his book "Post-American World", "If the Iraq War and George W. Bush's foreign policy had the effect of delegitimizing America's military-political power in the eyes of the world, the financial crisis has had the same effect of delegitimizing America's economic power".
             Everywhere from military power, to political power, to economic power we have truly been undermined. The rest of the world blames us for its problems, and sees America as the country that is perpetuating the problems around the world. Our irresponsible and erratic nature have left many countries disenchanted with America and this is being reflected in America's lowest rate of tourism  from other countries in decades. This is leading the world's leaders to follow suit, and they have begun molding and shaping their own identities, without America's approval.

             Today, countries around the world are calling the shots without us. Peace treaties are signed and made without even the thought of what America thinks about it. Economic deals and trade agreements are produced and America's signature is nowhere on the contract. Governments around the world are less likely to depend on America for their capital or ideas, but are looking to countries like China and India as a place to invest or find new innovation. Basically, America is that celebrity that was just ousted for going bankrupt because of its scandalous behavior and bad habits; now nobody is calling America to play the starring role in the next Hollywood hit.

            Just because America isn't the main star in the film doesn't mean they can't play a role. They are still directing the script in some ways, and do edit the final shot. After all, we still have legitimate power around the world and are still well respected, with a large portion of the world having a positive image of America. The difference here is that America is no longer alone in directing, editing, producing and starring in the movie; there are a few new actors in town with completely new styles that audiences apparently love.

            One of these actors is China. In a period of almost 30 years after coming out of a harsh oppressive dictatorship under Mao Zedong, China's economic growth has increased 10% every year since the death of Mao. Their city of Shanghai alone has nearly the same GDP and economic output as America. Not only this, they are investing in the developing countries of the world that will definitely be big players in the future- Africa, Latin America, the Middle East. They are setting their stakes in the ground in places that will one day have the capacity to stand on their own, and will become more prosperous than we could fathom. China's quick and smart investments around the world have given the rest of the world a positive outlook on China, lending China credibility and legitimacy. China's winning the race in globalization, because they are much more humble than we are. They understand that there is a whole other world out there worth investing in, and they know exactly where to invest.

            America has become too lazy, arrogant and fickle to be bothered with the rest of the world. I want to say we've become isolationist in a sense, but the only way we've retracted from the world is mentally, while we still maintain physical intervention in everybody's affairs. Instead of making use of our soft, diplomatic power, we are still 50 years behind everyone and still running around thinking the way of gaining respect is by showing them the might of our armies. Respect out of fear is what is warranted, not respect out of admiration. We do not want to be admired, we want to be feared, and in this global age, that's not going to help. It's respect, admiration and humility that we need to give to other nations before we expect them to do the same for us.

           The rest of the world is moving ahead, whether we like it or not. We as Americans have to either jump on this wagon or forever be left behind as the bloated arrogant superpower who couldn't smell his own indignity. We have to learn how to diplomatically, not militarily, engage our enemies and learn how to work together to create a more harmonious world rather than make the world become more like us. It's this egotistical mindset that has made us a hated enemy, and has made us a punching bag for terrorists and organizations everywhere. America is used as a scapegoat to further terrorist's and anti-western group's own political agendas and in the long run this can only hurt us and leave us with the reputation of the world's bully.

       Compromise is not weakness; rather it is strength.

            This is why American Exceptionalism and Globalization are at war with each other. We hear those on the right saying we shouldn't talk to our enemies, this is America and what we do is right. After all, everybody wants to be just like us right? On the contrary. The rest of the world is coming in and filling up the void we've left in the wake of the financial crisis. Where a country needs something, other countries around the world are coming in and providing it. We are no longer the sole care taker of this world, and we must comes to terms with it. We can't tackle everybody's problems and we are no longer the savior nor were we ever. We were the world's one and only super power and in many respects we still are. This time around though, we're not the only super power and we have to learn to accept that. We have to step aside and let somebody else come in and save the day. Let another country bear the burdens of impoverished lands, war torn nations and economic downturns. Only through the use of multi-lateral negotiations, agreements and missions we can not only advance ourselves, but the world. America can not only do it on her own. Of course, America will always be there to help, but America is no longer alone, and until American Exceptionalists can come to terms with such a reality, we'll be living in this America Only fantasy.

Signing Out- John Thomas

Transparency, Truth and Treason; Wikileaks and It's Aftermath

"To radically shift regime behavior we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed. We must think beyond those who have gone before us and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not." - Julian Assange

          In November 2010, Wikileaks, the website founded by Julian Assange and his team, began to release over 250,000 classified state documents that were leaked to them by a disgruntled pentagon employee. What ensued was a political witch hunt, with words like espionage and treason being thrown around like it was confetti. Julian Assange was later arrested for an alleged account of rape in Sweden. His arrest for a different crime led to calls from the international community to have him extradited to the United States and be tried for treason and crimes against the state. 

        What most of these lawmakers and politicians don't understand is that Assange can't be tried for treason in the United States, because he holds no allegiance to the United States; he's an Australian citizen. So how can one commit treason, which is the act of betraying your country and harming its national security, if he does not belong to the country which is trying to prosecute him for it? The United States has no jurisdiction over this individual. It's a bit ridiculous and brings up the question, is what Julian Assange did necessarily illegal? Should Assange even face charges for operating the website which swears itself to do the very thing it did? Is it really Assange who is the criminal, or is it Bradley Manning, the one who illegally uploaded the information onto a cd entitled "Lady Gaga" and leaked the information to Wikileaks the real criminal? How is it the State Department could have such a lack of security that a simple low level army soldier could walk away with what was deemed "classified" and "highly sensitive" information?

           So that brings me to this question- who is to blame? The State Department? Manning? Assange? None of the above truthfully. The people who are to blame are the sensationalist politicians who through the use of hyperbole have exaggerated this event to be of such utter significance that Assange, the messenger, should not only be arrested and tried for treason, but some even call for his execution. When I hear these things I can do nothing but cringe at the idea for there are so many holes in this story and Assange is the one who is hardly to blame. 

            First we will start right off the bat with this question. If this information was so critical to national security, why was it on a random computer in which any low level official or soldier had access to? Also, why was it so easy for this guy to upload the information with nobody else even monitoring the computers for what people were doing. I'm not calling for the outright monitoring of all computer systems at any level, but if there is classified information deemed "highly sensitive", I'd imagine there would be a bit more oversight as to who had access to the computer and the surveillance of what that person on the computer was doing.

            Second, why is it that the messenger, Julian Assange the one being prosecuted intensely for this, when Manning, the guy who made Assange's leakage of the information possible not the main player in this story? All you hear is that Julian Assange has committed treason, he's threatened national security, he's undermined our position in the world... If so, hasn't Bradley Manning done the exact same thing, if not worse? Where's the persecution of this guy? I'm sure legal action has been placed upon him, but I see no politicians screaming and crying for his execution. It seems to me that all this is a political witch hunt, in order to stop the man who has defended and has been a proponent of the right to freedom of press and speech. If it were not for people like Julian Assange and the team at Wikileaks, how could we hold these governments accountable? It's because of Wikileaks and media organizations like these that governments fret and have to actually play by the rules, rather than abide by the old corrupt ways in which governments around the world used to normally operate.

            Third, has anybody seen the diplomatic cables? Most are childish at best, and only show the lack of professionalism we have in our State Department. The cables are basically the diplomats making fun of other world leaders, like the cable where President Sarkozy was viewed as a self absorbed, arrogant and erratic president. It's purely gossip, and shows how almost frivolous it is that politicians are freaking out that Sarkozy knows what we actually think of him. Imagine that... honesty for once.

            Other cables showed the two sided policies of countries like Saudi Arabia, which publicly befriends Iran, but behind closed doors is quoted as saying "cut the head off the snake" and calling for preemptive strikes against Iran in regards to Iran's attempts at nuclear proliferation. Now while these types of cables are more serious and can jeopardize relations between countries, I see this new found openness as beneficial to the world. This new transparency and accessibility of information which otherwise would have been kept secret is keeping these politicians and nations honest, providing accountability for their actions. Meanwhile we're fed that what Assange done has undermined national security.                                                                   
          The only thing undermined is their ability to undermine us.

            Now, I'm not saying any and all information should be declassified. Of course there is highly sensitive information that the government keeps under lock and safe for good reasons. This is the kind of information that's really scary, and if released could be detrimental to the world. At the same time though, in this new age of openness and globalization, we should be looking towards new ways of defining diplomacy. Instead of being two faced and making back room deals, we should be working together, in an open and transparent way of communication and dialogue between nations. Now this idealistic type of society is far off in the future, but it's never too early to start working towards such a world.

            Now for all these political trials that Assange will be put through, we should applaud Assange for his work at undermining corruption and providing transparency and truth to our world. Without people like him we'd be much less informed, therefore less prepared. It's time for our government and governments around the world to adapt to these new technologies such as Wikileaks and Google which can access and obtain information at lightning speeds. Whether or not they'll adapt in a way that will create a more open and transparent dialogue between nations, or find better ways to hide their information remains to be seen. Whichever one, hopefully sites like Wikileaks will be around to keep these officials on their toes.

Signing out- John Thomas

Introduction

            I've started this blog to have an outlet for my political beliefs, ideas and opinions. Before I go on to state what my goal is by creating this blog, first I want to explain a little bit about myself. My name is John, I'm a 21 year old college student who is majoring in Political Science with a concentration in International and Foreign Affairs. I'm an aspiring writer and hope to one day work for the United Nations or some kind of international organization either writing reports, designing policies or surveying the area in which I am assigned. I specifically want to study the Middle East because I see it as a land with so much potential yet is cursed by it's own wealth and opportunity. It's also one of the most misunderstood places on earth, and I believe if we're at war or have a large stake in this region it is important to understand it's history, people and culture. Most of my blogs will concentrate on stories about the Middle East but will not be constrained to just that. I hope to tackle American domestic issues as well, also any other security and justice, human rights, economic, or pressing issues around the world. Besides writing about politics I also write poetry, play the drums, study philosophy and I'm a science fiction nerd. My idols consist of writers, philosophers, political scientists, economists, science fiction writers, musicians and poets.

         I hope that by starting this blog this can be the stepping stone I need to get into the political arena and have my voice be heard. I'm a pessimist and have a disdain for most bloggers, because blogging to me is a narcissistic way of expressing your opinion that you believe other people should follow. It's like the talking heads you see on any news network, they're just trying to sell their ideology to you, aka themselves. It's marketing your own self interest in a way that appeals to others. I'm not here to tell you what to believe or how to think, rather I'm here to not only share my personal beliefs and disseminate information, but to further my own understanding of my political mantra and values. Writing these things out free hand is a good way to understand what you think because just like the art of poetry, it just has to flow. Without the flow, the work becomes too processed and overdone, leaving it bland and meaningless.

        When people read my work, I hope they walk away with some sort of knowledge they didn't have before, or maybe a different perception on the situation, or shape their own political conscious as a result. For those who disagree I welcome the criticism as I am still learning myself, and any one who opposes or argues my point of view will only strengthen my view in the end. It's those that have the strength to recognize people's differences and be able to reflect upon himself through those differences that become great leaders, not arrogant 'know it alls' like we have in the current political environment. To them compromise is weakness, and their way is the only way. To me, that is the least democratic thing possible and in this country we are meant to work together to move forward, not to stand still or reverse. 
         Take America Back? Let's move it forward. Let's move the world forward in this ever changing and globalizing world, to better the future for ourselves and our children. Mediums like the internet allow the messages of the once unheard minority to be widely disseminated across a broad spectrum, and even fosters the development of subcultures. The internet encourages new ideas to be put forward and for easy organization of the masses to carry out a proposed goal. Revolutions have been made through this new social media, and ideas are being exchanged at ever increasing rates. This is why I've decided to create this blog, to join in on this community of information sharing and idea exchanging. Without a voice, we as a society have nothing. 
          While we see ever growing unrest around the world, widening wealth disparity, nuclear proliferation, new state and non state actors, environmental disasters, oppressive regimes, new waves of social media and government transparency, and the rise of once third world countries to act on the global scene, without espousing a conventional wisdom, we do live in interesting times. While every century and generation has its challenges, these challenges are unprecedented, but so are the tools used to overcome them. We as a society must wake up and see the global hegemony of corporations that manipulate our governments behind closed doors, or the wide spread human rights abuses committed by many countries ranging from the most impoverished, internationally isolated countries like Burma, to some of the largest and most prominent nations on the global scene like China. It's these issues and more that I hope to challenge, and I hope that you as a reader can gain a sense of understanding about the events that unfold around us, and the connections that can be made between each of them. 
          I hope that my readers can agree, disagree, counter act and dispel anything that I write. For those that agree with me, I thank you. For those that disagree, you're more than welcomed to argue your point. For those that want to doubt and naysay, you're only perpetuating ignorance and hostility which is exactly the opposite of what is needed in such critical times. It's the holier than thou attitude and the self righteous radicals that tend to impede progress, and it's these people whom I hope can one day join pragmatic people in a civil discourse, but until then we can do nothing more but to listen, but not take too seriously. I hope you enjoy my future writings, and become a follower of my blog.

Signing out- John Thomas