Swiss Mistake

The recent news over the Swiss public's misgivings is a big  surprise. My perception of Switzerland had always been one of a content, well off society. Apparently I am mistaken. This is quite a blow against millionaires around the world seeing how Switzerland is a notorious tax haven. It's hard not to see the such an event as evidence of a possible Marxist style proletarian uprising. It's possible that this could lead to similar declarations of angst around the world. If a country like Switzerland, not exactly known for having a rebellious people; can go to such lengths then why couldn't the U.S. as well? If I was a corporate CEO anywhere around the world and was accepting a form of "Abzockerei", I would start looking over my shoulder. There have already been tensions over big name CEOs rewarding themselves and their cronies in the U.S. Surely the memory enragement over bailed out companies giving their executives massive bonuses during the '08 financial crisis has not yet faded? Although these tensions have simmered quite a bit I bet some major companies will be keeping their executive's paychecks away from the public eye until Switzerland has calmed down some.

Twitter IPO

The recent Twitter IPO has caused a lot of excitement recently and for good cause. It's now been a while since Facebook's dramatic IPO, and I think that played a big part in the stir surrounding Twitter. People were eager to compare the two entrances to the stock market and see who would come out on top. Although it is hard to compare at this point, considering that Facebook's stock has now matured a bit and Twitter's stock is still so young; it certainly seems that Twitter has some serious potential in the market. The stock skyrocketed after the IPO, and although it will probably taper slightly it will still be well above it's opening price. Twitter has been criticized for setting such a low initial price, which caused them to miss out on possible money. After watching Facebook's IPO I find it hard to criticize considering how much of a drop Facebook's stock experienced. I'd say Twitter had a much more successful entrance to the market, however I don't believe it will last. I never had much faith in Twitter's business model because of it's meager expansion opportunity. Twitter's network of social media is inherently single focused with its140 character messages, as opposed to Facebook which is takes a "jack of all trades" approach to networking. After the initial few months of trading, this could lead to several more disappointing quarters from Twitter and a drop in stock price. Only time will tell though.

Monster Cash

Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and the Chupacabra; some of the most recognizable pieces of modern folklore. Are they creatures simply myths that people have created to explain phenomena? Could they exist? Certainly the possibility exists that they are out there, and this exactly what the perpetuators of these creatures want you to believe. Even though only questionable evidence for these creatures has been found, millions still believe in their existence so wholeheartedly that the tourist industry has used them for years to attract business. In fact, these monsters are seen as important sources of incomes for the local tourist economies. Even though the chances of anybody visiting one of these spots and sighting a mythical creature are less than one in a million, people still have no issue making profit from the opportunity. Although we cannot definitively say whether or not some of these creatures exist, it is safe to say that people are being ripped off by this industry. Think of all the people each year who visit Loch Ness with a tiny glimmer of hope that they might spot a strange figure in the water only to leave with a hundred dollars worth of Nessie memorabilia. Although one could point the finger at the tourist industry, I think the blame should be more focused on the "monster hunters" and adventurers who feed the frenzy. Every time somebody tries to prove the existence of the Loch Ness monster or Big Foot, it stirs even more commotion around the subject and fuels even more tourism. At the end of the day though, I have admit that all of the mystique that the industry creates around these monsters is fascinating. Despite the moral dilemmas it is certainly entertaining.

Spy Game

The United States does not by any means claim to spy on its allies, which is why it is such big news that the NSA has been caught doing exactly that. Although president Obama has yet to speak about the alleged tapping of chancellor Merkel's cell phone, it is safe to assume that these allegations are true. After witnessing the massive breach of trust witnessed in the recent IRS scandal I am beginning to feel less and less secure about the United States government. Scandals like these make our government out to be a scruple less hound that has no reserves about lying through its teeth. Considering that Germany is a well established ally, world power, and has even shown interest in anti-spying pacts it is ghastly to consider that the NSA was eavesdropping on Merkel. I have never been one to trust shady, three-letter acronym, government organizations, (especially after binge watching a bunch of Burn Notice) and while incidents such as this reinforce my opinion even more; I wish I could say it surprised me. The simple fact is that the United States government has a serious control problem. If our government does not have control over anything, then it at least wants to know everything about it. This obsession is what causes international fiasco that the NSA and CIA have come to be known for. Perhaps if our officials could learn to trust our allies our government would not have made such a fool of itself. I highly doubt that this mistake will alter the U.S.'s policy on spying at all. Should an type of anti-spying pact be formulated I would merely expect our level of spying to be cut down, but certainly not extinguished. Perhaps I just like to think that our government in more conniving than it actually is, however I think the NSA would have trouble letting go.

Ethnic Riots and Russia

After recent riots in Russia, based on the premise of a man from the Caucasus region stabbing another Russian; it is difficult not to claim that there will be a significant impact in Russia. While this riot may have been relatively minor, it was fairly isolated and was quickly put down; it may represent feelings that have been repressed amidst the Russian population. This is not unlike ethnic/race based conflict that has been seen in other parts of the world. One example would be the Newark race riots of the 1960s which, although less minor, ultimately had a significant affect on domestic policy in the United States. Should more riots sprout up in the wake of this, we can certainly say that this issue has struck a chord in Russian society. Somehow the animosity between Russians and the various other migrants has to be put to rest. The only question is what type of role the government will take in ending this feud. As noted by Alexey Navalny. there is a laundry list of government institutions that could accept blame for this riot. So, if there is so much blame to go around, then is it possible to create effective, civil reform without uprooting the whole system? Based on the effectiveness of the United State's Civil Rights Act of 1964 there is certainly the possibility that legislation could help. The fact is though, that legislation, even with proper enforcement, will do little good unless the mindset of the people change. There is no doubt that the United States has become a more tolerant as a nation since 1964 which is why legislation was effective. In order for the tension to ebb, Russia must not only legislate against ethnic prejudices but also advocate a change in the mindset of the people. The Russian government could offer seats of power to select, elite migrants in order to improve trust between the natives and the migrants. Without a more tolerant and open-minded attitude, Russian officials will have no choice but to ban migrants. This scenario would be extremely disappointing and shed light on the current vulnerability of the human condition.

The Next Golden Age of Television

The past 15 years of television have been undeniably remarkable. In this time we have seen the redundantly loveable sitcom style of the 80s and 90s be tossed aside. Premium and standard cable channels everywhere are now airing long, intricate series based on complex characters that deal with deep-cutting societal issues. However, it is not hard to see that we are reaching an end of an era. With the legendary Sopranos long gone, and the end of AMC's Breaking Bad; it is not hard to tell that a change is coming. What exactly will this change encompass? Due to the immense popularity of HBO's Game of Thrones, I highly doubt that there will be a departure from the long, sprawling storylines that have come to be commonplace on cable. The way the shows are viewed will change. Since the demise of Oz, The Sopranos, and  Buffy the Vampire Slayer, more and more Americans have forsaken cable in lieu of a more convenient method: the internet. Netflix, Hulu, and various other streaming sites have become increasingly popular. This can be seen again by examining Games of Thrones; which has arguably the strongest underground following of any show ever. Among other accolades, it was estimated to be the most pirated show of 2012. Despite HBO's knowledge of this illicit activity it does little to shut it down because of the hype it creates around the show. Such easy access is key to determining television's new direction, because many of these shows are not even being viewed on televisions anymore. Without ratings and standards to adhere to, the internet allows for even greater creativity as shown by Netflix's recent original series' House of Cards and Orange is the New Black. While House of Cards makes use of the typical male anti-hero seen in The Sopranos and Breaking Bad, Orange is the New Black projects clearly where I believe TV is headed. The show's crudeness is on par with HBO and Showtime, however it's lead character, a woman criminal; is very new. Not to mention the scenarios that take place around her at an all female penitentiary. While still controversial, the internet allows Netflix and other production companies to put out whatever they choose for viewing without interference form cable companies. If Game of Thrones and Orange in the New Black are any indicators, then long, controversial plots viewed online are the next chapter in TV's history.

It is hard to believe that our government has been left no possible alternative than to shutdown. Understandably, the idea of breaching the debt ceiling is frightening as well, the idea that our government is technically "closed" at the moment is reassuring either. What I find most astounding is that Congress's salary has managed to be written into law, therefore Congress receives pay regardless of whether or not the government has shut down. Yet, it has not been written into law that congress must provide funding for our government. Political pressure is the only incentive Congress has right now to get the government back up and running, and scarily there are Tea party members willing to ride out a long shutdown just to make political gains. It should be criminal for politicians to use a shutdown as a negotiation strategy. At this time there are currently an extra 800,000 government workers who are unemployed, America's tourism industry is seriously hindered, and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention is stopping it's seasonal flu program. America is in a weakened state at the moment, and it is simply because Congress cannot pass a new stopgap that will not last even a year. What is the route of all of this chaos? The answer: A vast chasm in the Republican party. Several years ago the Tea Party mustered strong emotions from both Republicans and Democrats, and it still is doing so today. I don't believe that most Republicans believed just how serious the Tea Party was at the time of its conception, and it certainly has gown stronger and more conservative since then. Although I personally found myself agreeing with many Tea Party arguments, my personal opinion on the Party has shifted to one of disgust. Their cut-throat, uncooperative methods are not what America is looking for right now. This is a time where compromise is far more effective and achievable, and for Tea Party leaders to believe that the American public will put up with such extreme power plays is absurd. Americans will blame the Republican party for not being able to control their more extreme members, and they will take the blame for the shutdown. This will probably lead to the Republicans losing the House. Because of the Tea Party's efforts, I think it is safe to say that the Republican party will not being seeing very many votes in the next couple of elections.

Kenyan Mall Attacks

Nobody can deny the horror of the attack that occurred on September 21 at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya. Such incidents have unfortunately become common place in this tumultuous, religiously torn part of the world. The number of religiously based terror attacks that have occurred in Kenya over the past ten years is absurd, most of them perpetrated by al-Qaeda and al-Shabab. Many of the other incidents are similar to the mall attack; ruthless massacres in which there are many unarmed civilians of all ages. As noted by many survivors of the mall attack, it seems as though these attackers are being brainwashed from a very young age in order to carry out these killings. Now the biggest question is whether or not the United States needs to intervene in order to stop such horror, and the simple answer is no. The reality is that there is no way for the United States to intervene that would cause less damage. In the eyes of the extremists who committed these atrocities, the U.S. is perhaps the greatest enemy of all. If we sent troops or CIA operatives, they would only serve as a knew target. This would potentially endanger even more civilians. Frankly, the CIA doesn't have a very good reputation when it comes to taking down extremist factions either, and it is not particularly difficult to imagine a CIA sponsored coup ending in a civil war or a similar tragedy. The best thing the U.S. could do is to stay out. Even sponsoring a government from afar would do more harm then good, because anybody receiving U.S. aid would immediately become a new target. So, although it is very difficult to sit by and allow such tragedy to transpire, the United State's hands are tied.

Many Americans today are not wholly comfortable with the views of John Stuart Mill. A staunch anti-interventionist, Mill would see great fault with much of the United State's foreign policy regarding un-democratic nations. In his opinion, the billions of dollars that the United States has spent in the effort of installing democratic governments around the world has been fruitless.
In basic term, Mill "claimed that many societies were fit for representative government, but others, in their present state, were not; those peoples truly bent on self-rule, he claimed, would successfully fight for and achieve it" (Slatery, http://www.iop.harvard.edu/utilitarianism-and-neoconservative-conceit). Personally, I believe that this should become the stance of the United States. Attempts to instill democratic feelings in people overseas has been proven to be exhausting mentally, physically, and financially for America. Nothing proves this better than the ongoing "War on Terror." What was supposed to be a brief stint turned into an 11 year long endeavor. Had the Mill influence been infused early on, it is likely that the war could have been cut short especially when it comes to the effort put into democratizing Iran. The toll on America would have been far less great if we had left after the fall of Saddam Hussein, and now President Obama is considering engaging the United States into another potential political escapade. The current Syrian regime has taken an extraordinary amount of well deserved grief for it's use of chemical weapons on its own people. Despite such an atrocity, given the past decade of hardship and misfortune the U.S. has faced overseas, it is hard to believe that President Obama is considering re-igniting the flames of this fading fire. One cannot help but foresee what is to come if the U.S. intervenes. United States retribution will lead to a backlash from the Syrian government, a U.S. sponsored coup, and a new U.S. sponsored government. Somehow Obama seems to have forgotten the fact that doing exactly this in Iran was incredibly difficult. At this point Obama should observe Mill's belief and resist intervening. As proven by the past two years of Syrian civil war, the people of Syria clearly do wish for a democratic government however the only way for them to create a secure government is to establish it themselves. The entire political culture of Syria must change before they can achieve democracy. Iran's political culture was far from democratic when the United States was establishing a government for them, which is what led to riots and fraudulent elections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Iranian_election_protests). After this can the United States even claim Iran's "democratic government" a success? Take a look at the turmoil occurring in Egypt, a country must undergo such drastic change or turmoil in order for a democratic culture to exist. Now Egypt is revolting against the Muslim Brotherhood without any aid from the U.S. This sounds quite similar to the United State's own revolution. Such is the reason that U.S. intervention is useless. Syria must find it's political identity on its own, otherwise there will be backlash and greater conflict.

I found section five of Hutcheson's An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, to be incredibly insightful. His ideas about human community are vastly different from those of Mandeville, and in my opinion are more agreeable as well. When comparing the ideas of Mandeville and Hutcheson it is very easy to dismiss Mandeville for being a cynic. While self-interest certainly drives many people it can by no means account for every action and the level of cooperation found within a community. For these reasons I consider Hutcheson's argument to be stronger. It makes more sense that if people had been designed to work together than obviously community would come about very easily. If every person operated solely out of self-interest then there would be no way for a functioning government or economy to be sustainable. People need to be able to see the big picture otherwise the government would have an unprecedented amount of corruption, and corporations would fall apart due to unruly employees or mismanagement. When everybody works only for themselves it leads to riotous behavior. Hypothetically, let us say that employees at a major corporation wanted more money for their efforts. However, management refused to give the employees a raise because it would cut into their bonuses. The employees would strike, so management would bring in strikebreakers. With enough momentum, the employees would ask the government to provide them with protection from such tactics. This would lead to a bribe from the corporation and ultimately no government protection. Clearly this is incredibly chaotic and does not resemble the society we now live. Although this example does remind one of certain times in history, the point is that those time have been overcome through people working together not out of self-interest. The only logical way to explain this would to side with Hutcheson and agree that humans must have been made to work together through some means.

Plagiarism Exercise
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2010/04/06/196778/political-conflict-isnt-about-free-markets/?mobile=nc

1. I think this is very insightful. Where it goes wrong, though, is in concluding that there’s something “weird” about this inversion. I think if you look at political conflict you’ll see that attitudes toward property rights are really all over the map. I like the idea of allowing people to build more densely, which would be a form of strengthening property rights, whereas Cato’s Randal O’Toole doesn’t like this idea at all. The main difference between left and right with regard to property rights is simply that the right is invested in a lot of rhetoric about markets and property rights and the left is invested in different historical and rhetorical tropes.

2. I think this is very insightful. Where it goes wrong, though, is in concluding that there’s something “weird” about this inversion. I think if you look at political conflict you’ll see that attitudes toward property rights are really all over the map. I like the idea of allowing people to build more densely, which would be a form of strengthening property rights, whereas Cato’s Randal O’Toole doesn’t like this idea at all. The main difference between left and right with regard to property rights is simply that the right is invested in a lot of rhetoric about markets and property rights and the left is invested in different historical and rhetorical tropes. (Yglesias, 2010, http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2010/04/06/196778/political-conflict-isnt-about-free-markets/?mobile=nc)

3.   Yglesias claims that the right is more concerned about market and property rights while the left concerns themselves more with historical findings.

Yglesias, Mathew. "Political Conflict isn't About Free Markets," www.thinkprogress.com
April, 2010 http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2010/04/06/196778/political-conflict-isnt-about-free-markets/?mobile=nc

4. In his article, Yglesias claims that politicians on the right are willing to make inconsistent claims so long as they align with what best suits big businesses.(Yglesias, 2010. "Political Conflict isn't About Free Markets")