No more!

Well, midterms are almost over... yet there are still a few on the horizon... namely Thursday. Sigh. The last two days have been intense. I got back some of my midterms from the first bout and got mixed results. 85% in my Discrete Math course was a nice reward for hard work altho my latest battle with it will probably give a lesser value. My horrid 476 was BETTER than I thought... I got 50%. Yes, that's right. I'm HAPPY about it. My 90+% club friends (which I am NOT a member mind you) got a little lower than I did for the most part... save Andy with the best of our bunch. (shakes fist)

The EE450 (economics) midterm went well but I spent way too much time studying for it than was necessary. It cut deep into my 320 time and I'll be paying for that dearly. Hopefully I'll master the 476 for the next midterm on Thursday and pull up that course.

Here's hoping...

Until I get another chance to breathe...

The Leader of the Free World

Click here to see the most powerful man in the world.

Remember, he's the one in charge of policy decisions that involve millions of lives.

Sudden Passing Thought...

The war on terror is more important than it may seem on the surface. At first it appears to be a simple imperialist move by the United States that has massively destabilized the middle east. But I think that is somewhat shortsighted of the actual intention.

Our world is now 100% organized by the state system. Every piece of land on this earth is identified by a state it is part of. Why? Well, in your history class you will see that this was the best system we could think of to keep violence between people to a minimum. By using states, wars could be fought between countries and decided by the leaders of those states. This idea was quickly adopted following some of the most vicious wars in Europe which helps to make sense of why it caught on.

While some may be skeptical of the usefulness of states to prevent violence, it is easy to see that some states are much stronger than others and can take advantage of weaker ones. We call those states first world nations. The little guys they pick on are called third world nations.

Now for the interesting part. What do you call a group of people who don't believe in states? Terrorists. It's almost amazing how a small band of brutal murderers could gain such widespread attention in such a short time. The problem facing US strategic planners is simple yet troubling. How do you deal with an enemy that is not a state without admitting that the state system has failed?

You may wonder why this even matters. Well, again, for the US and other first world nations to be able to milk third world nations for resources and such, the state system must prevail. Otherwise, it will be much more difficult for them to do these extractions without being imperialists or empire builders. For all the times that the US disrespects the UN, it never talks about why the UN is unable to fix anything (besides the fact that the five nations on the security council are never able to agree...).

I simply propose a re-examining of the state system to see if it is indeed the best way to reduce violence in our world. I'm sure many ethnic groups in Africa and the Middle East would be very interested in such a study as it would possibly solve many of their grievances which perpetuate the ideology of the terrorists and add so many to their ranks.

This Alone

Could we be happy
If our enemy went away?
A new clean slate
But then just transfer our hate?
Like leaves on a tree
We fall out of favor
Unable to simply
Befriend our neighbor

A million eyes that never see the lies
A million voices will never sound again
This small world has never felt so big
Have you ever felt this alone?

Is being free
Merely a dream?
Impossible yet sought
While our souls are all bought
Traded and sold
Our lives revolve
Around a pile of gold
And yet we are so alone…

If this is the end of history
If this is the best we can do
Then I hope the end is coming
To wash away this bloody mess

The Debate: Part Two

Here is a short quote from George W Bush from last night's debate where he discusses the issue of the International Criminal Court. It is startling to read between the lines on his reasoning for not joining. Note the section in bold...

My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. Let me tell you one thing I didn't sign, and I think it shows the difference of our opinion -- the difference of opinions.

And that is, I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. It's a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial. And I wouldn't join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn't a popular move. But it's the right move not to join a foreign court that could -- where our people could be prosecuted.

My opponent is for joining the International Criminal Court. I just think trying to be popular, kind of, in the global sense, if it's not in our best interest makes no sense. I'm interested in working with our nations and do a lot of it. But I'm not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America.

Not only does that sentence not make any sense grammatically, but it devastates Bush's claim of being a peace keeping nation. How? Well, why would the US want to be popular in the "global sense" if "it's not in (their) best interest(s)"? I haven't heard this stated any better since I heard Noam Chomsky speak at the Orpheum. The only reason the States will go and do something is if there is some benefit to them. Is this wrong? No, of course not. Every country does this. The point is, let's cut through the bull and be honest when we talk about foreign policy. Let's look at what the US stands to gain from having a permanent military presance in Iraq.

I think it begins with the letter O...