On being bothered...

                 In Fahrenheit 415, Ray Bradbury described a world that had done away with controversy. Books have been deemed harmful to society because present uncomfortable issues to consider. Instead of thinking and analzying, the society is contentedly distracted by the media and the "firemen" burn books so that people can remain content, unaware of the problems the world faces. The main character is a fireman who has had a change of heart. Guy Montag realizes that the ideas the books contain are valuable; that reasoning and independent thought are valuable. As he is passionately trying to convey to his wife the error of their ways, he makes a very astute statement. "We need not to be let alone. We need to be really bothered once in a while. How long is it since you were really bothered? About some thing important, about something real?" Montag has realized that being bothered is valuable. It forces us out of our complacency and spurs us to action.

Image source

          It has been a long time since I was really bothered about something. Maybe I just haven't paid enough attention until now, but I can say that the situation surrounding the Wiki-leaks controversy bothers me. It bothers me immensely. I spent the first few days after the leaked documents emerged being nothing but bothered, mostly just about the fact that there is so much dishonesty everywhere I look, and so little can be done about it. It felt like everything was fine until one news report came along and shattered the whole illusion of a functioning system. Suddenly it became all too clear how bad things have gotten--are getting--and how little world leaders really know about how to stop it. It felt like the kind of sensation the passengers on the Titanic must have experienced as they approached the iceberg, like the whole ship was about to go down. I don't think there is any choice but to be bothered when faced with an insurmountable situation; to know that something is terribly wrong but to have no power to change it. With little else to do that would matter, I began researching.
                

Image source

         
                 In the unlikely event that anyone reading has not heard, Julian Assange recently released thousands of confidential U.S. files onto the Internet via his whistle-blower website, Wikileaks.com. He was taken into custody in Britain on Tuesday pending questioning about unrelated charges. It is significant that the same charges were already brought and dismissed for lack of any supporting evidence in August. This, of course, has left many asking why he is being held. Meanwhile, activists for whistle-blowers and free speech have risen up against any and all entities opposing Assange and his work. Many suspect that the government has pressured various companies and websites to distance themselves from Wiki-leaks. So far PayPal, Amazon, MasterCard, and Visa have all severed contact with the organization, and as a result have been the target of boycotts and cyber-attacks waged by activists who feel that they are cowards and are bowing to government pressure. Assange has yet to be charged with any crime, but the suspected source of the information, 23 year old Pvt. Bradley Manning, is facing 52 years in prison. If convicted of treason, he is likely to be executed. One well known piece of information he is suspected of distributing is the footage of a shooting in which a U.S. helicopter team killed 12 in Baghdad, including two Reuter's staff members. The complications and controversies surrounding the leaks are too numerous for this blog, but there is a virtual ocean of information circulating right now.

Image source

                     There are really two dominant positions when it comes to the leaks. The first group criticizes Assange and believes that he should be severely punished for his actions. They point to the fact that he allowed the names of Afghan informants working to help the U.S. to be published. This has, undoubtedly, endangered these individuals who the Taliban now say will be pursued and tried as traitors. The lesser known fact is that Assange, prior to the release of the files, asked that the Pentagon help screen them and remove the names of anyone who could be put in harm’s way. The Pentagon emphatically refused this request. This may not be the Pentagon's job, but they did not even attempt to bring the issue to court to seek an order that he refrain from publishing. The Pentagon also claimed that they were not “directly” contacted by Wiki-leaks. This is true, they were indirectly contacted by the Times on behalf of Wiki-leaks. Many are calling this statement deliberately misleading, and understandably so. They also claimed that they had no idea how the Reuters agents in the helicopter footage were killed, despite clear documentation of exactly what happened. They claim that facts such as these are withheld because the public cannot handle them. Cannot handle them, or wouldn’t tolerate them? This is just one example of the inconsistencies the leaks have been revealing.

                    Many ignore the fact that Assange was given the documents by an outside source, and did not actually break any laws in obtaining them. This is much like what newspapers and journalists do every day. Some argue that Assange cannot be held at fault because what he did was, in effect, merely journalistic and is protected under the First Amendment. Not everyone realizes that the New York Times, The Guardian (U.K.), and other news agencies also published selected cables. There are those that call for a criminal investigation of the Times for writing about the leaks, but others argue that it is ridiculous to prosecute a news agency for reporting the news. There is no doubt that the U.S. government feels that what Assange did should be illegal, but so far they have not been able to find a law to clearly support that it was. As such, they are currently working to revise the espionage act, among other laws, to cover such circumstances in hopes it will help bring Assange "to justice."

Image source

         

                   Then there are those who support what he is doing. They are the ones that, like Montag, believe that democracy requires truth so that the people can make wise choices. Usually this group does acknowledge that certain strategic information must be kept secret and that not everything is appropriate for the public eye. Still, they are furious that the government appears to have been blatantly lying about various endeavors that they expect the tax-payers to fund. This is not sensitive information, just information that many suspect the government knew the people would not support if they were told the truth. They argue that his organization is the the only one indiscriminately revealing the truth about corporations and governments, while also providing the proof for viewers to see for themselves. This group also argues that although the U.S. claimed extensive damage as the result of a previous Wikileaks  release, the Afghan war logs, this turned out to be very over-exaggerated. In fact, despite a panel being assembled to go through and assess damages resulting from the leak, not a single case of endangerment to troops or the country was found. As of yet, no damage has been attributed to the recent release of U.S. communications, except perhaps a bit of political embarrassment.

  Image Source

                   How does this relate to censorship? It is not so much the controversy over the documents themselves that has me worried, as it is the lengths the government is going to in order to prevent others from seeing that information and the lengths activists are going to in attacking their opposition. Student bodies at two separate colleges have been warned by faculty that even discussing the leaked documents could jeopardize their career prospects, and federal workers have been told that reading the files is a crime, since they are still considered classified. As I mentioned previously, there are U.S. officials quite seriously suggesting that we charge a foreigner with treason, despite the fact that he is not a U.S. citizen, and then execute him for spreading uncomfortable truths about the institutions we place our trust in. There have even been suggestions from politicians that he be assassinated.

Image source

                I am bothered by how many are criticizing Assange for informing them that they have been misled without really considering the full story. Granted, his method might be questionable, but was there really another way to bring it to our attention? If I told you that your bank was periodically stealing money from your account, then proceeded to show you the evidence, would you ask the police to arrest me for telling you, or thank me and take your finances elsewhere? I do not believe that whether or not we agree with his methods is really the issue. At least I don't believe its the biggest one. We have been shown certain failings of our current leaders, and instead of using that information to make wiser decisions, we are calling for the elimination of the person who brought it all to light. Why? Because he has made us face our unpleasant reality? 

               Those who support Assange are beginning to harm their cause by becoming such a nuisance that the government will be all but forced to restrict them. One cannot recklessly harass banks and other large corporations and expect it to be ignored. I don't know what the result of such a conflict might be, but the possibility of the government placing new restrictions on the freedom we experience online does not seem like a very far-fetched response to the haphazard way many activists are currently using it. Did you know there is an encrypted file available as we speak that contains all the unreleased and unscreened files that Wiki-leaks has not yet published? It requires a password to access; a password that Assange has threatened to release if anything should happen to him. Hundreds of thousands of people have already downloaded this file. It is known as the poison-pill, or the "insurance" file.

                    I agree with Bradbury, there are times when we should be bothered….really, really bothered. Regardless of how you feel about Assange, one thing is undeniable. Right now the entire world is very bothered, and while I believe this is valuable, it could also prove to be dangerous if we don't start putting that energy to proper use. Some are rushing to shut him up so we can all place our heads comfortably back in the sand. Others are responding with attacks and deviance of their own. A few are pushing through the frustration and outrage to make something of what we they learned. The answer isn't to furiously take sides, it is to collectedly review the data and form a reasoned response. Only if we attempt to face the problem head-on, and with an objective view, can we ever hope to do anything about it. Both sides can agree that this is a major event, and it is likely to change the course of history. Now is not the time to stand by as an idle observer. There are those that would do whatever it takes to “burn” the message, as well as the messenger.  There are also those that have taken their outrage too far, and are indiscriminately attacking anyone they feel stands in the way of the “truth.” Both groups are completely missing the point. 

Image source

               Regardless of which side we feel is right, the outcome will impact all of us. If the extremists for free speech prevail, we may find ourselves in a world with little to no security left. If the group pushing for secrecy is forced into too defensive a position, we may find ourselves with even more restrictions on our freedom to obtain information. The situation has initiated the creation of new laws and the revision of old ones. If we are to have any impact on this process, we must educate ourselves and consider where our actions will wind up leading us. So, in answer to what I am doing about it. I am doing my best to read, to analyze, and to relay both sides of the issue in hopes that it make make a small dent in the rampant extremism that is so predominant right now. I am not an expert, but I have seen many cite "facts" that are unverified, assumed, or embellished. I do not claim to know who is right, but I hope to at least do my part to encourage objective thought. Extremism will not accomplish anything. Nor will hiding from the problems and waiting for them to go away. It is time to dive in and take charge of our future, before we wake up to find that Bradbury's fictional nightmare has become all too real.

Teach a child to think....

Source: www.shriearlyeducation.com

Imagine an entire society of expert problems solvers, who could easily identify sound reasoning and naturally base their decisions on intelligent analysis of every side of the issue. What if we all based our decisions on good reasoning, rather than on what our shows tell us is cool, or what big companies tell us defines success. 


Think of all the problems that could be solved if we were critical thinkers. Would violence in media be such a great concern, or would we immediately understand that what we saw was not to be imitated? For that matter, would we seek violent media if we truly grasped the dangers and negative impact of such behavior? Would consumers still be convinced that even bigger cholesterol-packed cheeseburgers were a good idea, or that they needed that shiny new car to be happy, despite the thousands of dollars they would need to borrow to make it a happen? What if people were just naturally reasonable?


Many of society's problems are the result of people not being taught how to think critically, at least not early enough. The sad truth is that many of us act impulsively, irrationally, and based on bias. Often we do not even realize the errors we are making. Is it any wonder many of our decisions bring about undesired consequences? I think the main reason critical thought is not more common is that it is not taught until so late in life. When I was in elementary school, logic was never even mentioned. We learned our math, and did our science experiments. Sometimes we wrote book reports about famous people, but we were never once asked what we thought about any of it. 


We were told what to think but never how to think. I cannot remember a single assignment that asked us to figure out how we felt about an issue, and more importantly why. It is shocking really, looking back on it now, as almost every assignment I have completed in college has required this. 

Source: www.createwithalan.blogspot.com

In college, we are asked on a daily basis to form an opinion and justify it. I have been in many classes with students who simply did not know how to think of any reasons of their own to support their views. They thought vaccinations were good because their doctor told them so, or that they should buy designer clothes because their favorite actress did. Some of these classmates were able to improve their reasoning skills, usually the young ones. Those who attended college before these skills were valued, and who were returning to school as adults, often expressed that they felt unable to change their thinking patterns. They were simply too ingrained by that point. I was fortunate enough to have two very analytic parents who taught me this way of thinking practically from birth, and I feel this is one reason that analyzing information is much easier for me than it is for some. As our society becomes increasingly complex, and with it the decisions we must make on a daily basis, it becomes even more important that we learn how to make the right choices. 


          Education has evolved quite a bit in the last couple of decades. Two new realizations have drastically changed the way we view learning. First, we have realized that early childhood education is vital to a child's ability to learn and thrive in the classroom. The key is to start young while the brain is still forming so that creativity and learning become reflexive. The ease with which we interpret various stimuli is based largely on if and how we were exposed to it as children. Whether or not we hear the intricacies in classical music or just a bunch of noise is linked to how much of it we heard when we were young. The brain is simply better at operating in ways that have been practiced since an early age. The same goes for reasoning abilities. Critical thinking is a habit that takes years of practice to form. If we learn to habitually look to whatever authority tells us what to think, it is very difficult to learn to think critically. Therefore, it is extremely important to teach reasoning early, rather than let bad thinking habits form that will have to be changed later in life. 

Source: www.paulhobson.com 

          We have also learned about education that reasoning skills do not come naturally, and that they are very important. We no longer view education as being limited to core studies. It is now commonly accepted that critical thinking should be taught, at least at a college level, as part of just about every degree program. In short, critical thinking is now accepted as an important skill worth teaching, but it is still largely neglected until adulthood. Since people learn more effectively at a young age, and since reasoning is such an important skill, it makes much more sense for it to be taught early than it does to wait until later in life when bad habits will inevitably need to be changed. Schools have been reformed to provide this training in upper level education, but primary schools and high schools are in need of extensive reform. 

Source: www.austhink,com

         The best way to view critical thinking is not as a subject in its own right, but instead as a way of viewing everything around us. Instead of teaching about objectivity, train it in every subject, model it in every activity. Cover various viewpoints in social studies class. Have students design their own science project. Just about every task can be made into an exercise in critical thought. I have never seen an argument against teaching reasoning to children, only concerns that it is not practical. There are many strategies for integrating reasoning as part of the curriculum for all grade levels. 

Source: www.shapingyouth.org

If we really want a society of effective, rational people, we have no choice but to change the way we train them. It is not enough for school to teach us the answers, we must also be taught how to find the answers. 


          As long as we are not asked to cross examine and evaluate the information we are offered, we cannot be expected to do more than accept what we are given, especially when the information comes from an assumed authority. After all, we spend our entire childhood learning to memorize what we are told, never questioning. Whether we realize it now or not, many of our poor choices would be obsolete if we were to begin questioning what we are told. We would no longer accept false promises of status based on ownership. We would stop thinking that our t.v. idols represented reality, and would stop trying to imitate them. We would begin basing our lives on sound reasoning and on truth instead of on media myths. If we really want to improve our society, we must begin by teaching our children how to think. 

Uncle Sam wants you....to shop?

As the war in Iraq was first getting underway, George Bush encouraged Americans to keep spending, and to try to enjoy life without focusing on the war. In 2001, the defense secretary at the time, told a press conference "We have a choice, either to change the way we live, which is unacceptable, or to change the way that they live, and we chose the latter." (Washington Post) The problem is, we did not have a choice. War inevitably demands changes from all parties involved, and as we neglected that fact the public and private defects grew and grew. To encourage people to spend, credit companies began cutting interest rates and handing out approvals to those who could never hope to pay. The credit companies started facing bankruptcy and the government went further into debt trying to bail them out. Meanwhile, citizens faced increasing debt and foreclosures. I have seen it proposed that when the recession began it was due to a fear based economy. What this means is that there was no great financial problem, but because people were afraid that there was, they began spending like there was. With the decreased cash flow businesses started closing, jobs were lost, and product values plummeted. 


However the recession came about, there is no question that we have found ourselves with too few jobs to go around, and often with too little cash to pay the bills and creditors. So is it patriotic to shop? First we have to define what we mean by the term patriotic. The Word English Dictionary defines the term "Patriot" as "A person who vigorously supports his country and its way of life." However, some definitions say instead that it is one who supports the nations interests, or does what is best for the nation. There is no doubt that consumption is part of the American way of life, so if we are to define patriotism as supporting the way of life of our country, I suppose we could say that it is patriotic to shop. However, when we consider the definition that includes doing what is best for one's country, the question gets a bit more complicated. What a nation does, its way of life, is not always what is best for it. So we must examine the context and the national situation. In our nation, we are currently trying to dig ourselves out of a heap of debt and many cannot even find work. Is it good for the nation for such people to have a consumer mentality? Shopping is a welcome distraction from the stress of everyday life, but it is only a temporary fix. When the government issues stimulus packages it is easy to be temporarily relieved, but to forget that the money will only last so long. The strategy behind stimulus packages seems to be lulling people into a false sense of security in hopes that it will motivate them to get out and invest wisely and develop a safety net, which in turn will contribute to a secure economy being built. This is rarely what winds up happening. More often, people find themselves using stimulus money to pay up various overdue bills and purchase trivial items that the recession has left them without. Once the money is gone, they find themselves taking out more loans and applying for more federal assistance. There is a phenomenon known as a bubble economy, which refers to an unsustainable economy based on artificially induced spending, or from items being sold far about their value and in large quantity. Artificially stimulating the economy can boost it for a time, but eventually the market will come crashing back down to where it began. This could very well lead to the kind of double-dip recession we are all hoping to avoid. Therefore, while spending is important, it is also important that we do not spend all at once, in a fashion that cannot be continued.  The economic stimulus increases demand for a short time, but once supply has increased and there is no longer money to go around, market values plummet and companies wind up having to cut wages and jobs to make it.


On the other hand, what is the benefit of shopping? Pete made some very good points in his blog about the necessity to spend in order to keep the economy afloat. It is indeed important for those with money not to hoard it. As I mentioned previously, a fear based economy occurs when people have enough money, but fear not having it for long and stop spending. Often this is based on a false assumption that the economy is going downhill, and the very act of people pulling their investments and stockpiling creates the very recession they fear. In the case of avoiding a recession, it is vital to invest and purchase. I also agree with Pete that if one is in the position to shop without creating debt, it is very important to consider where the merchandise is coming from. If an investment is to be made, should it be made in an overseas and successful company, or in a small business that needs some help to grow? The small business investment would create jobs, while the overseas investment will likely yield more money that can then be reinvested into the economy. Which is ultimately better for the economy? Clearly the question does not have a simple yes or no answer. Patriotism and the wisdom of spending depend on many variables. For one person, even during a recession, shopping might be the best thing they can do to help, while for others it might be the worst. Patriotic shopping requires that we consciously consider whether our purchases are truly helping the U.S. economy, as they might simply be creating more business to be shipped overseas, or creating more debt within our borders. 


For the sake of argument, we will use the most common criteria for being a patriot, and that is selfless support of ones country. This means doing what the country needs and not just what you want. What the country needs right now is investment in job security, more jobs created, and less outstanding debt. Because this helps the economy, and therefore the nation, is patriotic to spend in these areas. However, it is a mistake to broad-brush this problem and say that is is patriotic to spend no matter what the money is spent on. It is not patriotic to spend if the spending will create more debt for the nation to face later, because this is not in the nation's best interest. It is not patriotic to spend if if could lead to more foreclosures that will further reduce home values. It is not patriotic to take advantage of low home prices, only to find oneself making too little income to sustain the investment. The important thing about spending as a patriot is to consider whether the purchases will boost the economy for more than just a short time. Spending should be a goal, but savings and security should come first, because these actions will be more likely to facilitate permanent financial stability. Those who do not have sufficient savings, or might be at financial risk, would show more patriotism by holding onto what they have so as to reduce the chance of needing federal assistance just to survive. With savings and good money management, these individuals set themselves up to be able to spend more later, when it will not increase their level of debt. It was not the government debt that caused credit companies to require a bailout, it was individuals taking out loans they could not afford to pay off. It is very important that the people manage their budget wisely. 



The best answer here is that while it is important to keep people optimistic and encourage some spending, we must take care to spend in the right ways and at the right time. It is only patriotic to shop when the purchases made will not cause bigger economic worries down the road. It is not appropriate to spend and spend and spend in the name of economic growth without considering any consequences. To increase truly patriotic spending, the government should focus on issuing stimulus packages in areas that will create opportunities for permanent growth, like issuing better grants for first time small business owners. This would increase the work available and therefore the amount of money to be spent. Perhaps in the future, when job stability has returned for the majority of the nation's citizens and more of us have savings in the bank, frivolous spending and credit building can be encouraged again. What is patriotic changes depending on the needs of the nation. Right now, the most patriotic thing to do must be determined based on circumstances. For those who are well off and have no debt, the best thing is to spend in areas where it counts. For those without the funds available, however, the most patriotic thing is to take steps to build up financial security and reduce debt.  


Sources:



Bacevich, Andrew J. He Told Us to Go Shopping. (2008, October 5). The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/03/AR2008100301977.html on 22 September 2010.

Farrell, Maureen, & Lindner, Melanie. Where's The Stimulus For Small Business? (2009, February 24). Forbes Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/24/small-business-stimulus-entrepreneurs-law_stimulus.html on 22 September 2010.

Lillis, Mike. The Troubles With Bubbles. (2009, February 4). The Washington Independent. Retrieved from http://washingtonindependent.com/28899/the-troubles-with-bubbles on 22 September 2010. 

"Patriot." Word English Dictionary. (2010). Dictionary.com. 22 September 2010. Http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/patriot