EPIC Rage Against the Machine Marching Band Medley

Hey there.

Enjoy George Mason University play a little bit of Rage Against the Machine.

…

…

I’ve never wanted to break things while listening to a marching band before. This takes the cake. Killing in the Name of.

 

 

The Long Run

How do you defeat an ideologically-driven movement?
 
Why is it, for example, that in the world today, no government espouses National Socialism?  Why was there a second German war, but not a third?  Why is it that Nazi aggression is not a problem – or even a conceivable problem – in the world today?  Let us not imagine that it is because these were ideas that never commanded any popularity.  Hitler came to power, originally at least, through entirely constitutional means, and at the time, right-wing governments sympathetic to National Socialism.  The invasion of the Soviet Union was a multilateral effort supported, not only by Germans, but by Austrians, Romanians, Spaniards, Finns, Poles, Italians, and Hungarians, among others.  And yet, by the end of the war, Nazism had been repudiated by the German populace, every German government since 1945 has banned its advocacy, and no other world government has taken up Nazism, no matter how hostile to the United States or Western Europe.  What explains this?
 
The unhappy truth, or so I would argue, is that National Socialism was destroyed and renounced because, during the course of the Second World War, it became associated in the popular mind with death and devastation.  By the end of the war, with the Allies in Berlin, the message had been sent: if you espouse Nazism, your cities will be bombed, your countries will be destroyed, invaded, and occupied, and your leaders will be tried and executed.  It did not matter whether any individual German happened to support the Nazi regime: they became guilty by association.  The mere toleration of Nazism became associated with military retaliation on an overwhelming scale. 
 
Why, for example, was there no Nazi “insurgency” after the German surrender?  The reason is this: it was clear to everyone in Germany that if a discontented Nazi had dared to pick up a rifle and start taking shots at Allied soldiers, then the war would simply had been renewed and that disgruntled Nazi, along with everyone around him, would have been wiped out.  It should not imagined that every German was reconciled or happy with defeat and occupation.  But what they had learned was that the consequences of using Nazism as a weapon of resistance were infinitely more terrible than what was being resisted.  Militant fascism was renounced because it had become synonymous, for the average German, with complete defeat: as an ideology, it had been humiliated and discredited.
 
Imagine, then, the following scenario.  The United States announces a new policy: any village or town in Afghanistan suspected of harboring Taliban will be destroyed without discrimination.  Any village or town in Afghanistan that cooperates with the United States in suppressing the Taliban will be helped.  How many villages would be wiped out by B-52s before the Taliban would become pariahs, and people were chasing them out of town with pitchforks?  How long until the fear of American airpower became much greater than the appeal of anything the Taliban might have to offer, just as fear of the American Third Army had become stronger than fear of the Gestapo in Germany by 1945?
 
In reaction to all my talk of ruthlessness and total war, some will no doubt say the following: “But that is inhuman, what you are suggesting.  That we, the most affluent, educated society in world history should have found a better way of destroying our ideological enemies is only to be expected.  For, you see, it is we who are to blame for terrorism.  In its essentials, after all, terrorism is a grassroots reaction to social despair.  We are talking about societies where poverty is endemic, where tragedy and crime present constant threats, where lack of education creates intellectual vacuums for fundamentalist ideologies.  Of course such societies will breed the kind of discontent that will manifest itself in violent attacks upon those who are perceived to be responsible for the deleterious conditions, namely, the wealthy nations whose economic and political policies drive the forces of globalization.  Therefore, in order to root out terrorism, we must work to eliminate poverty and raise the general standards of human health and development in these countries.”
 
I reply: faced with a country whose rulers have ideological objections to every accepted method of human development and social modernization, be it the emancipation of women, access to modern medicine, birth control, secular education, open markets, freedom of religion and expression, democratic government – how is one to stimulate human development?  Other than a ruthless association of the ruling ideology with military destruction – the only method, so far as I can see, which has worked in the past – what is to be done?
 
War is organized murder: here, more than anywhere, one can least afford to be romantic.  One does not wage organized murder against people “for their own good.”  The Allies did not go to war with Germany to “liberate the German people from Nazism.”  They went to war with Germany in order to destroy whatever appeal Nazism had by imparting the idea that the only fruits of Nazism were complete defeat and humiliation.  Once that message had been sent, then Germany was democratized and made prosperous with Allied humanitarian aid. 
 
But then, we have become better than that.  We have become more civilized, more humane.
 
Let us only hope that the Taliban have as well.

Anonymous Writes Open Letter to Westboro Baptist Church: Promises Swift and Just Retaliation

~UPDATE~

Anonymous Denies Writing Letter to WBC

Read More, Here.

…

…

Took a while for this to get on the radar screen.

On February 16, 2011, “Anonymous”–self-proclaimed “hacktivist” who defended Wikileaks and who attacked scientology–wrote an open letter to the Westboro Baptist Church.

The Westboro Baptist Church, made famous by their hateful anti-homosexual propaganda, often protests at funerals of soldiers and homosexuals. Their website domain name alone (please don’t click it, we don’t want to give them the web traffic) www.godhatesfags.com is outright disgusting. Headed by homophobe and moron Fred Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church is the epitome of insensitivity and ignorance. Read the Anti Defamation League Report about WBC. If you aren’t familiar with their hateful protests, you might be familiar with their protest signs.

pretty sickening, right?

 

You can read the full letter, here. I’ve included the two most passionate and relevant sections, below.

…

TO THE CONGREGANTS OF WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH:

We, the collective super-consciousness known as ANONYMOUS – the Voice of Free Speech & the Advocate of the People – have long heard you issue your venomous statements of hatred, and we have witnessed your flagrant and absurd displays of inimitable bigotry and intolerant fanaticism. We have always regarded you and your ilk as an assembly of graceless sociopaths and maniacal chauvinists & religious zealots, however benign, who act out for the sake of attention & in the name of religion.

…

ANONYMOUS cannot abide this behavior any longer. The time for us to be idle spectators in your inhumane treatment of fellow Man has reached its apex, and we shall now be moved to action. Thus, we give you a warning: Cease & desist your protest campaign in the year 2011, return to your homes in Kansas, & close your public Web sites.

Should you ignore this warning, you will meet with the vicious retaliatory arm of ANONYMOUS: We will target your public Websites, and the propaganda & detestable doctrine that you promote will be eradicated; the damage incurred will be irreversible, and neither your institution nor your congregation will ever be able to fully recover. It is in your best interest to comply now, while the option to do so is still being offered, because we will not relent until you cease the conduction & promotion of all your bigoted operations & doctrines.

The warning has been given. What happens from here shall be determined by you.

WE ARE ANONYMOUS.
WE ARE LEGION.
WE DO NOT FORGIVE.
WE DO NOT FORGET.
EXPECT US.

…

Pretty crazy, right?

What do you think about this?

Is Westboro Baptist Church worthy of a swarm of hackers destroying their virtual existence? Would such an attack violate freedom of speech?

I’ll moderate the comments, below.

Subscribe to Appetite For M.A.D.!

 

Want Appetite for M.A.D. sent straight to your inbox???

Just Click “Subscribe to Appetite for M.A.D.” on the top of the right sidebar.

THEN click the verification link in your confirmation e-mail!

…

…

…Come on…

…

…

…It’s free…

…

…

…(and awesome)…

 

What In The (Arab) World?

I have to share this amazing interactive map from The Economist, outlining key data from all countries in the Arab League. This infographic is incredibly pertinent, considering the current events unfolding throughout the Middle East.

…

CLICK TO INTERACT

From The Economist: Click to Interact

…

This info-graphic lists the Country Leader; Median age of the population; Population aged under 25 (% of total); GDP per person; World ranking for Democracy, Corruption, and Press Freedom.

However, what I found most interesting, relevant, and perhaps enlightening was the “Index of Unrest“, where 100 equals “most unstable”.

Some info to take note: Yemen is operating at 86.6 “index of unrest”. Egypt is only at 65.7, and civil unrest led to a downfall of the Mubarak regime. Something to think about?

Enjoy, and comment if you notice a pattern or trend!

International Relations and Teen Mom 2: A Comparison

After debating with a colleague, whose opinion I greatly respect, over the merits of MTV’s hit show Teen Mom 2, I began to reflect on the reasons why I tune in every Tuesday. Maybe it is because I respect the teenage cast as they struggle to balance motherhood and an active youthful life, or maybe because of the relevance of the show to the field of international relations? As a student of international relations and diplomacy, I am constantly taught to analyze my assumptions of the world and current events within the international community. While analyzing my assumptions of the show, and the struggles of the cast members: Chelsea, Jenelle, Kailyn, and Leah, I realized Teen Mom 2 has an important contribution to the field of international relations.

When creating foreign policy, decision makers must first understand the nation in which the policy is aimed at. The first step in this process is to identify the form of government and governmental traits the nation possesses. Therefore, our first step is to identify the form of government in which each teenage mother is operating within.

…

Jenelle—Monarchy

Jenelle’s mother possesses absolute control over the populace, and as a result makes all decisions on behalf of Jenelle and her son Jace. Like in most non-democratic states, the citizens (Jenelle) are actively seeking a vote influencing influencing governmental decisions. However, the Queen of this monarchy does not believe Jenelle possesses the maturity to effectively understand Jace’s needs, and doesn’t believe Jenelle is quite ready to take the reigns of this monarchy. Will there be a revolution similar to the 1789 French revolution? Viewers already saw the violent uprising of Jenelle against her mother in Episode 101 ‘Nothing Stays The Same.’

Yet another tranquil encounter between Janelle and Mother

…

Kailyn—Socialist Totalitarianism

Kailyn and her son Isaac live under the totalitarian regime of Jo’s family. This socialist totalitarian regime provides Kailyn, Isaac and Jo with all of the necessary living provisions: transportation, living space, food, and even education. However, as we saw in Episode 103 ‘Change Of Heart,’ Jo’s parents command her to break up with her latest boyfriend, or face exile. Jo’s family provides the same necessities a socialist regime provides for a populace, but removes freedom of choice as an outcome. Kailyn seems fine with the current regime, as long as she is receiving the same conditions as the rest of her fellow citizens.

…

Leah—Republic

Leah and Corey make up a republic in which everyone, especially their twins Alianna and Aleeah, possess an equal vote in the governmental structure. Leah originally attempted to head the regime alone until Ali voted Corey into the administration and Leah willingly shared responsibility, when it was revealed Ali has a problem with her leg. Corey admits to running for office because of Ali’s medical needs and to fully support Leah’s mentally and emotionally through the process. Due to the recent success of this administration and the effective response to the voters requests, I expect both parties will be reelected in the future.

…

Chelsea—Anarchy

Financially Chelsea’s father provides for Chelsea and her daughter Aubree. Chelsea’s father also attempts to create a rule system, but these rules are never followed. For example; upon providing housing for Chelsea and Aubree, Chelsea’s father demands Aubree’s father (Adam) can never move into the house. In Episode 104 ‘Moving In, Moving On,’ this rule is broken and Adam moves into the house. There are many different leaders attempting to make the decisions for the populace in this situation, and no party has full control. As the struggle for power narrows, the audience remains curious as to who will retain full authority.

…

As you can see from my comparison of Teen Mom 2 and the field of international relations, ruling types are, to a certain extent, relevant. MTV’s hit show gives all viewers a look at how decisions are made on a personal level for the benefit of the infant populace. Obviously the same rules of government do not apply to these young families, but through this comparison all viewers are able to learn more about the structure of any government: people. So if you have not seen the show, I highly recommend you tune in. That is, if your government officials approve.

Dr. Taleb or How I Learned to Start Worrying and Hate the Bomb.



Reading about how Start III came into force on February 5th reminded me of a little thought experiment I had well over a year ago.

…

Many international relations scholars have attributed the past 60 years of peace between great powers to the fact that many of these states possess nuclear weapons. The catastrophic damage that could result from a  nuclear exchange between great powers makes policymakers risk averse towards any foreign policy action that could devolve into mushroom clouds peppering the globe. Such an assesment led to concessions made by contending sides that headed off a possible nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis, a cease-fire between India and Pakistan that assured that the 1999 Kargil war would remain a sharp yet brief conflict and, maintained the 1960 border clash between China and the Soviet Union a conventional and limited one. Some scholars like Kenneth Waltz have gone far enough as to argue that the way to promote world peace is to allow all states to acquire The Bomb. Following this logic would mean that if all states possesed nuclear weapons, it would lead to leaders limiting their aggresive tendencies and/or aggressive actions for risk of their states being completely destroyed in a nuclear war.

The leaders of the five officially recognized nuclear states (USA, UK, France, China, and Russia) however are not quite that generous to say the least. While these states, as signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty(NPT) signed in 1968, have professed commitment towards the goal of complete nuclear disarmament and have made steps towards that goal, prominently illustrated by Washington and Moscow’s recent ratification of Start III and it’s coming into force and Britain’s reduction of its own nuclear arsenal, they still maintain something of a monopoly of nuclear arms technology. A few states(who are non-signatories to the NPT) like India, Pakistan, and Israel have been able to break that monopoly. Ostensibly, these arsenals are regarded as one of their primary pillars of security. With these, they deter threats to their security by threatening overwhelming destruction in response to an attack.

Both these ideas undermine the current nuclear non-proliferation regime and the cause of nuclear disarmament stated in the NPT. Meant to lead towards  preventing a nuclear conflagration and lead to a more peaceful world,  through these lenses, disarmament would merely encourage aggression and lead to war between great powers as a result of the elimination of the possibility of catastrophic damage resulting from a nuclear war. Leaders of great powers utilizing a cost and benefit analysis would find the cost to be much reduced and become less risk averse. This does not mean that war would be inevitable if this were to happen, but it could lead to great power war becoming more likely. Absent nuclear weapons, the differences between the West and Russia over the Balkans, the competition between India and Pakistan over Kashmir and the territorial disputes between India and China would lead or would have led to a higher chance of war in these disputes.

From Dr. Strangelove

 

I was never too keen on nuclear weapons technology being spread across the world but I did find Waltz’s ideas logically sound. I also found the logic of deterrence somewhat compelling and generally agreed with the notion that the United States needed a nuclear deterrent. This however changed after I read Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s The Black Swan. In this book, Taleb lays out a theory that asserts that:

1. The events that really matter have paradigm-changing high impact consequences, are impossibly hard to predict, rarely occur and, lie beyond the normal expectations of history, science, finance and technology.
2. That the probability of these events are impossible to compute using current scientific and statistical models.
3. That people are blind to the previous two assertions, reject uncertainty and try to back justify their failure to predict phenomena by saying that they’re were all these signals that they missed.

While this book is mostly aimed at finance types, Taleb asserts that the Black Swan theory has wide applicability. In can be used to explain events like the rise of Google, September 11th and the fall of the Soviet Union. It’s not meant to be used as a way of predicting phenomena, but it does prescribe building resiliency against high impact shocks.

But for our purposes we’ll focus on the first point of Taleb’s theory. A nuclear weapon being launched in anger is a rare paradigm-changing high-impact event. It certainly was back in August 1945 when the only two nuclear weapons ever used during a war obliterated Hiroshima and Nagasaki, leading to a massive loss of life in an instant. Had the result of the Cuban Missile Crisis been a nuclear exchange, millions of lives would have been lost along with the fact that recovery from such an occurence would have been long and difficult. With the thousands of nuclear warheads in operation, the world can be destroyed many times over. States try to add a certain amount of predictability in how to use nuclear arms by establishing certain procedures. These procedures are as much about avoiding accidents as they are about making sure that they’re used effectively when there’s a need for use. These procedures are all about adding predictability. Considering the number of accidents that have occurred with nuclear weapons in spite of attempts to add predictability and structure to their management and use, predictability is an illusion. Conflicts also have a way of getting out of policymaker’s control. Where more states to acquire nuclear armaments, the probability of a nuclear incident whether by an accident or its use during a war only increases.

States could try to build more safety mechanisms into their nuclear delivery systems, add redundancies to add to their resilience from a nuclear accident. But the only 100% percent way of making sure that they’re truly resilient from such a thing is complete and total nuclear disarmament.

Maybe conventional war between great powers would occur if these all states were to get rid of their nukes. This would be horrifying. But it does not match to the devastation that would occur if there is ever a nuclear war as a result of an accident or intent of use. Efforts aimed towards nuclear disarmament must continue. Human civilization can survive a major conventional war. We might not survive a nuclear one.

Selfishness and Subjectivity: Are We Trapped In Our Foreign Policy Views?

 

The World According to America?

…

Last night while I was driving from a nice dinner out back to my girlfriend’s house, I was listening to NPR and heard this story titled “Israeli Youth Conflicted On Egyptian Revolt“. A young, Israeli post-graduate student, Ms. Freida Amitai, was asked about her emotions regarding the events unfolding in Egypt. At first, it seemed quite straightforward. You would expect an educated, Israeli student to be–among other things–very cautious when dealing with large dynamic regime-shifts in bordering states, especially when considering the anti-Israeli hostility in the region. Ms. Amitai said the following:

Ms. FREIDA AMITAI: I kind of feel sad for President Mubarak.

REEVES: You do?

Ms. AMITAI: Yeah.

REEVES: Why?

Ms. AMITAI: Because I have always felt that he was genuine and authentic with way of thinking about Israel.

It struck me as odd… something seemed off. Why would an educated, knowledgeable, and informed woman feel sorry for a man who ruled over Egypt under an outdated (and incredibly tyrannical) “Security Law” for three decades? Because it resulted in ISRAEL’s safety. Ms. Amitai continues:

I’m not sure Obama shares the same interests as us, the Israelis. It feels a bit weird that the American government decided so quickly to stay away from Mubarak.

This was the statement that really interested me. I immediately thought “Doesn’t she understand what a predicament the United States is in?” The United States has a plethora of their own interests in mind: national security, sales from arms deals, regional stability, human rights, a moral commitment to democracy, etc. I wanted to shout through the radio “you’re being so selfish!”. Though the United States does have a long-defined goal of protecting Israel, that isn’t–it can’t be–our top priority all the time.

Then, it struck me… she wasn’t being selfish. I was (…kind of).

Our entire existence is subjective. That is, our experiences, thoughts, feelings, memories, actions… are all self-centered and witnessed first-hand. Ms. Amitai has experienced several Intifadas, and the resulting deaths of close friends and family. She lives day after day under a constant threat of attack from her hostile neighboring states. Being Israeli, she obviously thinks of her country (made of up neighbors, friends, family, fellow citizens) as being not only a top priority for Israeli policymakers, but for U.S. policymakers as well.

Subjectivity

Likewise, I–being an U.S. citizen–feel that U.S. foreign policy statecraft should be based upon the goals of the United States (and no other nations). I naively expect–like many other U.S. citizens–that other nations should make decisions that benefit the United States, regardless of the cost to those other nations. Now I’d like to think of myself as objective, rational, and self-less… but like most human beings, I at times succumb to biases.

Was Ms. Amitai being selfish? Was I? I’m not certain. We have had two different lives in two very different countries. We want what is best for our friends and families, and even our nation. Perhaps it is a slight level of selfishness that drives our opinions and decisions, but that does not make it “right” or “wrong”. Just… different?

How, then, can we avoid biases and self-centered world views? We cannot possibly begin to remove ourselves entirely from the picture–to become an observer rather than an actor–to created perfectly objective, informed, and selfless policy. Perhaps it’s impossible to stop being selfish; to put ourselves in other people’s shoes.That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. You will never be able to fully understand another human being, let alone an entire country. That doesn’t mean you should retreat into your egos and narrow-mindedness.

The best we can hope for is understanding. Maybe that’s where true goodness comes from? Who knows.

…

…

…

…

R.I.P., White Stripes

In an upsetting announcement on their webpage–The White Stripes–one of the greatest duos in contemporary music, calls it quits.

The band writes:

It is for a myriad of reasons, but mostly to preserve What is beautiful and special about the band and have it stay that way.

An how. So out of respect, make today a White Stripes day.

 

“The White Stripes do not belong to Meg and Jack anymore. The White Stripes belong to you now and you can do with it whatever you want. The beauty of art and music is that it can last forever if people want it to. Thank you for sharing this experience. Your involvement will never be lost on us and we are truly grateful.”

 

You will be missed.

Eyes On Egypt, Eyes Off Iran

There is no question the social uprising in Egypt is controlling the media. Other international affairs have fallen to the back of the line since last week. Some may view the unending coverage of this historical uprising as a victory, others view the coverage as an opportunity. It is reported that the Iranian government has put over 80 prisoners to death in the month of January, 2011. As a point of reference, there are approximately 40-50 executions of prisoners carried out annually in the U.S. What motivated Iran to carry out this enormous amount of executions?

from scrapetv.com

 

Previously supported the by U.S., Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is in no way an ally to Iran. In part the overthrow of Mubarak’s regime reflects the Iranian uprising in 1979. Prior to the 1979 uprising, Iran was lead by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a known ally to the U.S. The Iranian executions might perhaps represent opposition to U.S. involvement in the Middle East, or perhaps a simple sign of strength. Whatever the reason may be, relations between Iran and other nation-states have been greatly affected.

One of the many individuals executed by the Iranian government was an Iranian-Dutch woman, Zahra Bahrami, arrested for trafficking illegal drugs. Bahrami was initially arrested in 2009 for participating in protests against the Presidential elections. The execution of Bahrami not only created international opposition, but lead Dutch governmental officials to postpone any political relations with Iran. The uprising in Egypt is not only revolutionary but nation changing, and absolutely deserves the front page of any media source. However, the execution of vast numbers of Iranian citizens and the burning of diplomatic bridges should also be met with international attention, especially because of the significance of these events to the entire global community.