Friday, May 25, 2007
Who says today's music is lame...
All music should be done by Wierd Al, and in this format.
And for those of us that did our music listening in the 90s:
Wierd Al: Polka Power
Sorry for no new rants, some coming soon!
Abbot Chris
Monday, May 21, 2007
Friday, May 11, 2007
L'etats, c'est moi
A little international journey here at the Eremite, today we travel to the sun and wine drenched home of the Gauls, jewel of Charlemagne's empire, the birthplace of liberal revolutions (Edmund Burke correctly identified the American Revolution as a conservative revolution), the ever cultured nation of France. Recently, in a rather historic run-off, the neo-conservative Nicolas Sarkozy won the five-year term of president (and will take the reins from the impossibly venerable Jacques Chirac on May 16). The election was historic for two reasons, this marks the first time that there is a French president who was born after World War II and the first time a women was the prime contender for the seat (a Socialist even).
Well, this new finds the Eremite at a bit of a loss. On one side, I am relieved . One of Sarkozy's first statements was an explicit olive branch to the United States, one of the first since the diplomatic debacle over weapons of mass destruction, oil trade, and unilateral warfare that dealt a nasty blow to US-French relations at the beginning of the Iraq war. As New York Democratic senator Chuck Schumer said, "it would be nice to have someone who is head of France who doesn't almost have a knee-jerk reaction against the United States." Sarkozy's victory came despite the fact that Sarkozy's rival, the attractive communist Segolene Royal, directly compared him and his neo-conservative leanings towards "law and order" (some people charge him with being borderline fascist) with George W Bush. Does this mean that the French people, knowing the political climate in the United States, explicitly chose the candidate that would heal the rift? Are the French voicing a subtle support of U.S. foreign policy (ironic, perhaps George W's public opinion polls would be higher outside of his home nation)?
On the flip side, there is much about Sarkozy that raises cause for alarm. Despite his very Polish nom-de-familie, he proposes an increasingly restrictive immigration policy for the usually very open French borders (he states that France should not be the home for Europe's "miseries"). Sarkozy uses the rhetoric of conciliation and friendship with North Africa, but his proposed policies indicate a bit otherwise. North Africans were the major agitators in the recent riots that shook Paris last year, and North African immigrants make up around 3-6 million of metropolitan France's near 61 million inhabitants. Sarkozy's election was immediately greeted with rioting, partially due to his hard line stance against labor unions, with policies that would force public sector unions (which have an undue amount of power in France) to provide a minimum amount of service even during a strike. This may be quite palatable to any non-French who have been stuck in their hotel during a trip due to one of the many public transit strikes (this author included). Sarkozy leans on his mandate, 53% of the vote, as a clear sign that the unions should not (and cannot) resist his changes.
Certainly Sarkozy's popularity stems from the uncertainty, chaos, and unpleasantness of the last two year's riots. According to eye-witness accounts, even downtown Paris was shut down and barricaded to protect businesses from the violence. Similar to Bush's spike in popularity after 911, it may be that (in a trend that keeps up with historical precedent) France's voting citizenry moved decisively into the save and traditional arms of conservatism, which promises security and order (the people of France did this at least once before, and put in place Napoleon Bonaparte to pull them from the chaos of the Reign of Terror and the Directory). It certainly raises this author's suspicion that Sarkozy only openly criticized the Bush and the U.S. government's stance toward global warming rather than the human rights scandals (Gitmo, Iraqi prisons, phone tapping), the justice department scandals, the jingoism, or the deteriorating situation of the Iraqi war.
So what will five years bring for France? Only a few years ago, Le Pen was too radical, now the message has changed? Who knows, perhaps in five years there will be the social divisions that exists now in the United States, due to the polarizing between neo-conservatism and liberals? Will Sarkozy and his policies exacerbate the already stark socio-economic gaps, typically based on racial or religious (Muslim) divisions? Perhaps there will be a renewed strengthening of the US-French relationship, ushering in a rebuilding of the US presence in Europe? Or perhaps the French have fallen into a trap, choosing a familiar face to save them from social upheaval and terror.
If you know who this picture is... then you might get what I am saying...
Frankly, from the US standpoint, this is certainly the best way that the election could have gone. Certainly the current administration (and possibly the next one) would have little in common with the socialist Royal, who was openly hostile to both Bush and American endeavors.
Abbot Chris
Monday, May 7, 2007
The secret of creativity is knowing how to hide your sources
Albert Einstein said that. Seems my students might have taken a lession from that. As I am swamped with grading essays and preparing for tomorrow's midterm (not to mention my birthday), I will leave you with one of my favorite webcomics. It is certainly how every academic feels in seminars/meetings/conventions. Enjoy!
Abbot Chris
Abbot Chris
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Mail your packages early, so the Post Office can lose them in time for Christmas
Ah.. Johnny Carson, America's late, great, funny-man. How right you were. Today's rant is a more personal one, but none-the-less still an important look at a problem in today's society. That problem, true believers, is that den of corporate waste and corruption that is the United States Postal Service.
So a little introductory story is in order. My wife, who many of you know is a hypnotist, was awaiting a business DVD that had been shipped to her by one of her clients. The point of origin, in the same city, was around 7-10 miles "as the crow flies" away from our home (a much longer distance in real terms). We had nearly given up hope of receiving the package when, lo, a rather crumbled brown square arrived in the mail last week. The post mark was dated March 15, despite its arrival in late April, and it was rather worse-for-wear. Upon opening, we found that the DVD (worth $40) was cracked and splintered. My wife, being the very emblem of the "squeaky wheel" of proverbial fame, decided to file a complaint with the USPS in hopes of compensation. She was flatly told that "the USPS is not responsible for uninsured items and that she could continue to fill out a local complaint, by reimbursement would be out of the question." Intractable, the post office flatly told her that it was not their problem.
This leads me to my rant. The USPS is an independent establishment of the executive branch of the US government, not a government owned corporation (although it is run similar to one). The Postmaster General is a indirect presidential appointee (ironically the current one, Jack Potter, is a Bronx native and a Fordham University graduate) and is given the title CEO. The Postal Service has an executive committee and is structured in many ways like a for-profit company but it remains a the most well known and largest employing part of America's bureaucracy.
However, the sole practical purpose of the USPS is to deliver mail (packages and letters) in a reliable, secure, and timely manner. It is expected by citizens (who could be viewed as consumers) that their packages go from point A to point B in one piece. What purpose does it serve to mail an object that arrives at its destination broken? Not only does this waste consumer money and result in a net loss for both the object and the shipping cost, but it also wastes the postal service's resources in the time, wages, fuel, etc, that was required to unsuccessfully deliver that item. To tell a consumer that the USPS is "not responsible" for broken uninsured items is like Sony or Dell saying that they are not responsible for selling a consumer a TV or computer that is defective. If the USPS can not be held responsible for delivering mail safely, reliably, and in-one-piece, then what purpose does it have?
One could argue that there are a plethora of options for shipping packages, but this only belies the main problem. The post office has a federally granted statutory monopoly on the delivery of certain types of mail. Why? To make sure that the revenues of the USPS are protected in order for them to fulfil their mission. The government has altered the free-market economy for the very goal of making sure that the post office stays alive on the contingent that it is successful in its job. Faced with legislated dearth of options for sending normal "non-urgent" mail, what can or should the consumer do? Should we not hold the post office responsible for the times it fails? Should we not expect, nay demand, consistent, reliable, safe, and secure shipping services. Why should consumers have to pay extra for insurance that their mail will not be damaged? Should undamaged mail not be an expectation of "normal" stadard mail shippped by only a postage stamp? Any other corporation that provides goods or services for consumer consumption, the delivery (no pun intended) of a faulty product lies solely on the producer. This is especially so when one takes the philosophy that a money transaction is as good as an unwritten contract - binding the payer to the payee until a satisfactory service has been rendered. Should we let our government, even in its most mundane role of postal service, to be a flagrant contract breaker? I won't even go into the idea that taxes should ALSO be considered a contract between citizen and government that demands citizen representation in government decisions.
Of course this all comes on the wings of a looming postage stamp hike, carefully and subtly made more appealing by the post office's Star Wars campaign (did they honestly think that R2D2 post office boxes would make us feel better about the slow bleed of $.02 on each stamp). I will admit, those new mail boxes are pretty snazzy looking... but it becomes all the more ironic when you place your mail in them. Why? Because when R2D2 delivered Princess Leia's message to Obi-Wan Kenobi, it was undamaged and on time.
Abbot Chris
Monday, April 30, 2007
Grand Opening!
I just wanted to announce that the video game review section of the Electronic Eremite, The Eremite's Game Room, is now up and running! You can reach it either from the links to the side or from the hyperlink within this post. If you are interested in PC and Wii game reviews, or just in gaming in general, check it out!
The first review will be up shortly!
Abbot Chris
The first review will be up shortly!
Abbot Chris
Sunday, April 29, 2007
They who would give up essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither
The educated among us might recognize that quote from the learned master statesman and inventor Benjamin Franklin. This week, in the Introduction to Modern European History class I teach we are discussing the rise of the Nazis and the subsequent start to World War II. One of the points I try to convey to my students is that anyone, from anywhere, could agree to the rule of an oppressive and repressive totalitarian regime if certain political, international, and economic conditions exist. There is nothing special or inherent within the German psyche that makes them more prone to totalitarian rule than any other nationality. Arguments that blame German ethnicity for the NSDAP are as wrong-headed as the ones the Nazi's themselves made.
So what point am I trying to make here? A quick glance at the historical record, as far as European history is concerned, proves that near totalitarian regimes are not an aberration, it is, in fact, liberal democratic governments that are the historical newcomer. The Roman Empire, a strict hierarchy of Patrician, Plebeian, and Slave, where a powerful emperor ruled by decree (despite the remaining remnants of the senate providing resistance), is certainly an example of early attempts at total social control. The middle ages, while lacking some of the Roman legal and bureaucratic apparatus to keep social order, at least until the 15th century, still witnessed the rule of kings and lords (not to mention the Church) that came close to strict societal domination. Examples, like that of the reign of Philip the Fair in France (argued to be a proto-fascist by Malcolm Barber), or the Fourth Lateran Council, highlight times where centralized "state-like" entities used considerable force to keep their citizenry in check.
It is not until the 19th century that experiments with citizen-based rule came to fruition (no the French Revolution does not count, as it failed miserably and produced one of the most totalitarian rulers in the form of Napoleon Bonaparte). Even then, governments based on the tenants of liberalism have only slowly integrated all of their citizens within the government (Voltaire warned about the "idiocy of the masses"). Britain, the traditional bastion of liberalism (John Locke and John Steward Mill, anyone) only instituted universal suffrage in 1928. The United States, "champion" of "democracy" (technically speaking the U.S. is a democratic republic) only allowed ALL its citizens the de facto (rather than de jure) right to vote in 1964. So democracy, and a citizen chosen government, is a very new and relatively untested principle even in the 231 years the United States has been in existence.
So the question to ask is, does human society (at least Western society) have a natural proclivity towards totalitarianism? Is security, even a temporary variety, a major priority for most nations' polities? Even in the most democratic of nations, like the United States, security issues dominate the platforms of politicians at the expense of questions of "equality" and "liberty." For instance, in the 2004 presidential elections, issues like terrorism and gay marriage (posed as a "decadent" attack on traditional morals and values) were key points where ideas like universal health care (promoting equality in medical care), electoral reform (to make sure certain minorities do not remain disenfranchised), and criticisms of the Patriot Act remain strictly on the sidelines of the campaign. The current U.S. president proudly proclaims that he does not listen to public opinion polls (indicating that he does not alter his course of action based upon the reaction of the citizenry, a key aspect of democracies but not republics). Several scandals, such as issues regarding government surveillance and the torture of political prisoners arose and were answered with little more than muted protest by both citizens and the legislature. Whatever one's political view, the reaction to these scandals is certainly much more relaxed than in previous years (think about Nixon, civil-rights rallies, and even the Civil War as reactions to restrictive federal policies). So, the question to ask is, in times of chaos and trouble, particularly when an amorphous foreign enemy threatens, do people tolerate or even ask for, a more controlling central government?
Putting the horrors of genocide aside, from a social order and efficiency standpoint, totalitarian governments certainly rank highly. During the late 1930s, democratic nations feared that democracy could be at an end, faced with the consolidating economic, industrial, and military power of the fascist nations. As far as recovering from a faltering economy, mobilizing public opinion, and creating a near united public morale, the planned economy and nationalist fervor of Fascism is admirably effective.
Perhaps this is why humanity has to be careful. History has also proved that the greatest instances of violence, excess, and destruction arises from these very same totalitarian governments. In many ways, for these governments to work, pubic opinion must be mobilized against a common "enemy," real or imaginary. By distracting the populace with en ever escalating feeling of external fear and a possible fear of internal infiltration, central governments run rampant against all those that oppose them, leaving only loyal supporters, or those too frightened or distracted to fight against them.
Perhaps this is why certain aspects of present day create a cause for alarm. Increasing rhetoric of Muslim terrorists (a category both ethnic and religion based) that exist in other lands, but even more frightening, hidden within our towns and cities is becoming an omnipresent part of political discourse. Economic downturn had been masked by fear of the foreign, explained away as a result of an increasing border threat from illegally immigrating Hispanics. Politicians are calling for a recovery of America by and for Americans only, whatever this may mean. The government asks for more power of surveillance, and is often granted it, as a tool to fight these unnamed terrorists. Talk of building border walls are greeted with positive reactions, rather than suspicion (walls keep things in as well as out).
So how far should the American population let their government go? Politicians on both sides of the political fence expound these ideas equally, neither has a monopoly on the idea of a more powerful and larger centralized federal government. Ideas of federally controlled education (with mandates of adding religious based "scientific theories" alongside more well respected traditional ones) are the provenance of both sides. No side shares less of the guilt, both act irresponsibly at the expense of the American citizenry.
To sum up, how much security should American citizens be willing to ask for, if the price is a form of essential liberty? Is this a natural progression of human history in the face of uncertain times? Where do we go next, and what are we willing to accept.
Am I saying that the American government is full of closet Fascists? No! Am I saying that governments in a time of strife have historically chosen the easy route of repression rather than accommodation of an opposing viewpoints? Yes! Take that in spirit it was offered, as a general historical warning.
As a closing comment, I would like to remind my readers of a fact that many do not know or do not wish to acknowledge. In 1932 the NSDAP was legitimately elected in Germany, chosen legally (not through a coup or military takeover) to lead the government. The most totalitarian of rules can easily pass through even the most democratic electoral process.
Abbot Chris
So what point am I trying to make here? A quick glance at the historical record, as far as European history is concerned, proves that near totalitarian regimes are not an aberration, it is, in fact, liberal democratic governments that are the historical newcomer. The Roman Empire, a strict hierarchy of Patrician, Plebeian, and Slave, where a powerful emperor ruled by decree (despite the remaining remnants of the senate providing resistance), is certainly an example of early attempts at total social control. The middle ages, while lacking some of the Roman legal and bureaucratic apparatus to keep social order, at least until the 15th century, still witnessed the rule of kings and lords (not to mention the Church) that came close to strict societal domination. Examples, like that of the reign of Philip the Fair in France (argued to be a proto-fascist by Malcolm Barber), or the Fourth Lateran Council, highlight times where centralized "state-like" entities used considerable force to keep their citizenry in check.
It is not until the 19th century that experiments with citizen-based rule came to fruition (no the French Revolution does not count, as it failed miserably and produced one of the most totalitarian rulers in the form of Napoleon Bonaparte). Even then, governments based on the tenants of liberalism have only slowly integrated all of their citizens within the government (Voltaire warned about the "idiocy of the masses"). Britain, the traditional bastion of liberalism (John Locke and John Steward Mill, anyone) only instituted universal suffrage in 1928. The United States, "champion" of "democracy" (technically speaking the U.S. is a democratic republic) only allowed ALL its citizens the de facto (rather than de jure) right to vote in 1964. So democracy, and a citizen chosen government, is a very new and relatively untested principle even in the 231 years the United States has been in existence.
So the question to ask is, does human society (at least Western society) have a natural proclivity towards totalitarianism? Is security, even a temporary variety, a major priority for most nations' polities? Even in the most democratic of nations, like the United States, security issues dominate the platforms of politicians at the expense of questions of "equality" and "liberty." For instance, in the 2004 presidential elections, issues like terrorism and gay marriage (posed as a "decadent" attack on traditional morals and values) were key points where ideas like universal health care (promoting equality in medical care), electoral reform (to make sure certain minorities do not remain disenfranchised), and criticisms of the Patriot Act remain strictly on the sidelines of the campaign. The current U.S. president proudly proclaims that he does not listen to public opinion polls (indicating that he does not alter his course of action based upon the reaction of the citizenry, a key aspect of democracies but not republics). Several scandals, such as issues regarding government surveillance and the torture of political prisoners arose and were answered with little more than muted protest by both citizens and the legislature. Whatever one's political view, the reaction to these scandals is certainly much more relaxed than in previous years (think about Nixon, civil-rights rallies, and even the Civil War as reactions to restrictive federal policies). So, the question to ask is, in times of chaos and trouble, particularly when an amorphous foreign enemy threatens, do people tolerate or even ask for, a more controlling central government?
Putting the horrors of genocide aside, from a social order and efficiency standpoint, totalitarian governments certainly rank highly. During the late 1930s, democratic nations feared that democracy could be at an end, faced with the consolidating economic, industrial, and military power of the fascist nations. As far as recovering from a faltering economy, mobilizing public opinion, and creating a near united public morale, the planned economy and nationalist fervor of Fascism is admirably effective.
Perhaps this is why humanity has to be careful. History has also proved that the greatest instances of violence, excess, and destruction arises from these very same totalitarian governments. In many ways, for these governments to work, pubic opinion must be mobilized against a common "enemy," real or imaginary. By distracting the populace with en ever escalating feeling of external fear and a possible fear of internal infiltration, central governments run rampant against all those that oppose them, leaving only loyal supporters, or those too frightened or distracted to fight against them.
Perhaps this is why certain aspects of present day create a cause for alarm. Increasing rhetoric of Muslim terrorists (a category both ethnic and religion based) that exist in other lands, but even more frightening, hidden within our towns and cities is becoming an omnipresent part of political discourse. Economic downturn had been masked by fear of the foreign, explained away as a result of an increasing border threat from illegally immigrating Hispanics. Politicians are calling for a recovery of America by and for Americans only, whatever this may mean. The government asks for more power of surveillance, and is often granted it, as a tool to fight these unnamed terrorists. Talk of building border walls are greeted with positive reactions, rather than suspicion (walls keep things in as well as out).
So how far should the American population let their government go? Politicians on both sides of the political fence expound these ideas equally, neither has a monopoly on the idea of a more powerful and larger centralized federal government. Ideas of federally controlled education (with mandates of adding religious based "scientific theories" alongside more well respected traditional ones) are the provenance of both sides. No side shares less of the guilt, both act irresponsibly at the expense of the American citizenry.
To sum up, how much security should American citizens be willing to ask for, if the price is a form of essential liberty? Is this a natural progression of human history in the face of uncertain times? Where do we go next, and what are we willing to accept.
Am I saying that the American government is full of closet Fascists? No! Am I saying that governments in a time of strife have historically chosen the easy route of repression rather than accommodation of an opposing viewpoints? Yes! Take that in spirit it was offered, as a general historical warning.
As a closing comment, I would like to remind my readers of a fact that many do not know or do not wish to acknowledge. In 1932 the NSDAP was legitimately elected in Germany, chosen legally (not through a coup or military takeover) to lead the government. The most totalitarian of rules can easily pass through even the most democratic electoral process.
Abbot Chris
Salve, amici!
Welcome! Having read my good friends' blog, I decided, "why deprive the world of my infinite wisdom (rantings) and well lettered prose (ravings), will the world not benefit from my professional and well-mannered commentary?" No, it probably won't... but that's not the point. Anyway, they say these blogs are cathartic, and Lord knows I could use some way to blow off some steam.
At any rate, the mission statement here at the Electronic Eremite is to provide my readers with thought provoking statements and interesting factoids that will hopefully provoke some response. Being "in exile" from my homelands with my wife, this blog should provide friends, both old and new, with a place to hang out and chat, debate and argue, and just plan laugh. I am a pedagogue by trade (no this does not mean something illegal or dirty) and so there will certainly be some book learnin' to be had from visiting this site. Hopefully, we all come away feeling happy and better educated.
Anyone who knows me will also attest that I am a video game fanatic (read addict). So the Eremite's second mission is to provide others with the benefit of my addiction... er... experience, with a wide variety of games. Hopefully, the reviews I post will be helpful to others making a decision whether or not to spend hard earned money on a potentially worthless product. Let me take the fall for you, why have a self-destructive habit if it can't benefit others?
So hopefully the Eremite will be updated on a regular schedule. I am terrible at keeping up with these things, email, reading, dishes, acknowledging my wife's existence... but maybe a little discipline will do me good. Or this may be the last post I ever make... who knows!
Anyway, welcome to the Electronic Eremite. Have fun! Drink some coffee and have some cake, it's free. Just don't eat the pie... that is for the King. If the King shows up, just let him say his piece. Its best not to antagonize him, he can be unreasonable... well... all of the time.
Best Wishes,
Abbot Chris
At any rate, the mission statement here at the Electronic Eremite is to provide my readers with thought provoking statements and interesting factoids that will hopefully provoke some response. Being "in exile" from my homelands with my wife, this blog should provide friends, both old and new, with a place to hang out and chat, debate and argue, and just plan laugh. I am a pedagogue by trade (no this does not mean something illegal or dirty) and so there will certainly be some book learnin' to be had from visiting this site. Hopefully, we all come away feeling happy and better educated.
Anyone who knows me will also attest that I am a video game fanatic (read addict). So the Eremite's second mission is to provide others with the benefit of my addiction... er... experience, with a wide variety of games. Hopefully, the reviews I post will be helpful to others making a decision whether or not to spend hard earned money on a potentially worthless product. Let me take the fall for you, why have a self-destructive habit if it can't benefit others?
So hopefully the Eremite will be updated on a regular schedule. I am terrible at keeping up with these things, email, reading, dishes, acknowledging my wife's existence... but maybe a little discipline will do me good. Or this may be the last post I ever make... who knows!
Anyway, welcome to the Electronic Eremite. Have fun! Drink some coffee and have some cake, it's free. Just don't eat the pie... that is for the King. If the King shows up, just let him say his piece. Its best not to antagonize him, he can be unreasonable... well... all of the time.
Best Wishes,
Abbot Chris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)