Clearly, the McCain campaign is getting a little desperate, if that wasn't obvious enough by the recent slew of negative attack ads: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/mccain-campaign-says-obama-is-playing-the-race-card/index.html?hp
Personally, while I admire his moral uprightness or whatever you want to call it, I think it's time Obama started getting a little dirtier, too. I mean, most people are pretty stupid and have trouble discerning fact from fiction, so the fact remains that smear campaigns work pretty well on the masses. But that's neither here nor there. What struck me about this article was this:
"The McCain campaign’s decision to make the charge now that Mr. Obama was playing the 'race card' comes as it has adopted a far more aggressive, negative posture towards Mr. Obama in recent days, trying to tar him as arrogant, out of touch and unprepared for the presidency with a series of statements by Mr. McCain and a series of negative ads – some of which have been condemned as misleading."
Think they meant to use that word?
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Y Not Gen Y?
My roommate came home yesterday fuming about a bad day at work (she interns for a global communications firm). During her vent-session, it somehow came out that her boss requires her interns and employees to back up all work and emails in two places on their computers, in file folders (massive file cabinets apparently crowd the office, transporting employees back to the 20th century), and on—get this—FLOPPY DISKS. What??? I don’t even remember the last time I saw a computer that even has a floppy drive, and the damn things barely hold any information. I understand the desire to back up important documents, but what good is it if the device holding them doesn’t work on 99% of computers? I was shell-shocked. I then told her about how my 40-something boss always prints out lists that he wants me to update and scrawls names all over to indicate which should be added or removed, rather than just emailing me the document and typing the names out, which would be quicker for both of us and much more legible. It’s little and picky, but it’s these small things, like printing out every document and creating manila folders for every tiny project, that waste so much time, often that of the interns and young employees. Of course, this sparked a conversation about how much more efficient everything will be when Gen. Y starts running the corporate world. Efficiency is our forte (Boomers call it ADD—and then struggle to fit floppy disks into CD drives), and it's key in this fast-paced world of split-second electronic communication.
Now, pages and pages and endless pages have been written about Generation Y (aka Millennials) and our stereotypical characteristics. My favorites are the articles about “how to manage millennials,” as if we are some strange and infantile breed of human being. Psychological research has been conducted on us en masse, and there seems to be an intense interest in what makes us tick, probably because we are the largest generation after the Baby Boomers and are about to inherit the world. So many stereotypes have emerged about our generation, and I’d like to evaluate some of these. Keep in mind that no one can ever generalize about an entire generation of people, and these opinions are based on my observations of my peers, who all attend high-ranking universities and look forward to promising careers.
1) We’re arrogant and self-assured, the result of helicopter parenting and constant praise as children and as adults:
I don’t know if arrogant is the right word… but I must agree that many of my fellow millennials are brimming with self-confidence. But this doesn’t mean we all strut around with our noses in the air. Like any generation, many of us do encounter humbling self-doubt, especially at that critical point when we are trying to decide what sort of career path is right for us to pursue. (I suppose you could say that we agonize over this so much because we all believe we’re special and destined to do something significant with our lives. But what’s wrong with aiming high and being optimistic?) On the other hand, while we admit we don’t know everything there is to know about our future careers and seek mentors to guide us through the process, almost everyone I have talked to complains that “real world” work is rarely challenging enough at the intern or entry level, even when one is unfamiliar with the industry. And no one is happy making copies or—ahem—compiling tons and tons of media lists (grrr) because we want to really learn about the business and believe we can do much more difficult and interesting work. Is this arrogance if it’s true? We are an unbelievably resourceful, quick-learning, and efficient generation. We don’t require much of a learning period, and anything we need to learn can be found on Google or by asking someone higher up. Many managers complain that their young hires expect to move quickly up the corporate ladder and tackle more challenging projects or else we won’t hesitate to move on to a new company, citing our pampered upbringings as the cause of such self-entitlement and disloyalty. Apparently, being motivated is a bad thing. With a stale economy and little job security, are we supposed to unhappily stick with work that insults our intelligence and wait to get fired? This is a fast-moving world, and there’s no time to spend years paying dues and wasting our intellectual capital. In a world run by Gen. Y, we will harness this enthusiasm and use it to its full potential.
2) We can’t take criticism:
This sensitivity to criticism is also attributed to doting parents and soccer team awards ceremonies that dole out trophies for every athletically-challenged team member. Now, I admit it: I don’t do well with criticism. I’m a type-A perfectionist and have never been good when it comes to hearing my work is sub-par. But as a generation, are we collectively bigger cry-babies than our elders? I’ve seen some crying breakdowns at school that resulted from that deadly combination of stress, fear of failure, and harsh criticism. But is that really something that defines our generation? Aren’t there neurotics and perfectionists and headcases in every age bracket? I guess I’m not really sure about that one. If anything, I’d say our generation is remarkably laid-back when it comes to handling large amounts of work due to our multi-tasking prowess and get more annoyed about having to waste time redoing a sub-par project than hurt by the boss’s criticism.
3) We're lazy and have ADD:
Just because we multi-task like it’s our job (which it should be) doesn’t mean we have a disease. Everyone has ADD; our generation is just over-diagnosed. Sure, we talk in short instant-messages and Facebook wall-posts, but that doesn’t mean we have half-second attention spans. When something interests us, we are just as capable of focusing as anyone. Which is even more reason to give us challenging, interesting work. Many employers complain that we are lazy and get bored easily. I'd bet that 90% of the time it's because we finish projects too quickly and are given mundane tasks that wouldn't hold anyone's attention for more than 5 minutes. I know that the times I resort to blogging and browsing the web at work are the times that I've finished all immediate projects and have only dreary long-term assignments that bore me beyond belief and will probably take half the time my boss expects to complete anyway.
4) We are stupid:
Mark Bauerlein wrote the book "The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30)” as a diatribe against Gen. Y. Doesn’t he know that complaining about the younger generation just makes him sound old? Newsweek wrote a smart rebuttal (http://www.newsweek.com/id/138536) that more roundly sums up our generation’s apparent ignorance. I agree that many of us are politically unaware, have little knowledge of history, and quickly forget the myriad of facts we learn in class once we pass the final exam. (As a history and international studies major, I take slight offense to Bauerlein’s claims and like to think I buck that trend a little bit.) But there’s a reason for this: Google. Everything we need to know is at our fingertips, so why bother memorizing it? Instead, we are programmed to cram our brains with skills and “fluid intelligence” that can be applied to a variety of situations. I hate to admit it, but that’s probably more useful in corporate America than knowing when the Battle of Antietam took place (1862), who Henry Clay was (The Great Compromiser), and when the Soviet Union collapsed (completely by 1991; note: not due to anything Ronald Reagan did or said) off the top of one’s head. And no, I did not look those up. My friends would have, but what difference does it make?
Now, I admit that some of my fellow Millennials that I have encountered are useless: lazy, bratty, whiny, ignorant, the list goes on. But that’s not something inherent to or particularly prevalent in my generation. After all, the ones doing the most whining right now are Boomers and Gen X-ers mourning the incoming hordes of eager, plucky Gen Y workers demanding more mentorship, opportunities, and challenges. Why complain when you can capitalize?
Now, pages and pages and endless pages have been written about Generation Y (aka Millennials) and our stereotypical characteristics. My favorites are the articles about “how to manage millennials,” as if we are some strange and infantile breed of human being. Psychological research has been conducted on us en masse, and there seems to be an intense interest in what makes us tick, probably because we are the largest generation after the Baby Boomers and are about to inherit the world. So many stereotypes have emerged about our generation, and I’d like to evaluate some of these. Keep in mind that no one can ever generalize about an entire generation of people, and these opinions are based on my observations of my peers, who all attend high-ranking universities and look forward to promising careers.
1) We’re arrogant and self-assured, the result of helicopter parenting and constant praise as children and as adults:
I don’t know if arrogant is the right word… but I must agree that many of my fellow millennials are brimming with self-confidence. But this doesn’t mean we all strut around with our noses in the air. Like any generation, many of us do encounter humbling self-doubt, especially at that critical point when we are trying to decide what sort of career path is right for us to pursue. (I suppose you could say that we agonize over this so much because we all believe we’re special and destined to do something significant with our lives. But what’s wrong with aiming high and being optimistic?) On the other hand, while we admit we don’t know everything there is to know about our future careers and seek mentors to guide us through the process, almost everyone I have talked to complains that “real world” work is rarely challenging enough at the intern or entry level, even when one is unfamiliar with the industry. And no one is happy making copies or—ahem—compiling tons and tons of media lists (grrr) because we want to really learn about the business and believe we can do much more difficult and interesting work. Is this arrogance if it’s true? We are an unbelievably resourceful, quick-learning, and efficient generation. We don’t require much of a learning period, and anything we need to learn can be found on Google or by asking someone higher up. Many managers complain that their young hires expect to move quickly up the corporate ladder and tackle more challenging projects or else we won’t hesitate to move on to a new company, citing our pampered upbringings as the cause of such self-entitlement and disloyalty. Apparently, being motivated is a bad thing. With a stale economy and little job security, are we supposed to unhappily stick with work that insults our intelligence and wait to get fired? This is a fast-moving world, and there’s no time to spend years paying dues and wasting our intellectual capital. In a world run by Gen. Y, we will harness this enthusiasm and use it to its full potential.
2) We can’t take criticism:
This sensitivity to criticism is also attributed to doting parents and soccer team awards ceremonies that dole out trophies for every athletically-challenged team member. Now, I admit it: I don’t do well with criticism. I’m a type-A perfectionist and have never been good when it comes to hearing my work is sub-par. But as a generation, are we collectively bigger cry-babies than our elders? I’ve seen some crying breakdowns at school that resulted from that deadly combination of stress, fear of failure, and harsh criticism. But is that really something that defines our generation? Aren’t there neurotics and perfectionists and headcases in every age bracket? I guess I’m not really sure about that one. If anything, I’d say our generation is remarkably laid-back when it comes to handling large amounts of work due to our multi-tasking prowess and get more annoyed about having to waste time redoing a sub-par project than hurt by the boss’s criticism.
3) We're lazy and have ADD:
Just because we multi-task like it’s our job (which it should be) doesn’t mean we have a disease. Everyone has ADD; our generation is just over-diagnosed. Sure, we talk in short instant-messages and Facebook wall-posts, but that doesn’t mean we have half-second attention spans. When something interests us, we are just as capable of focusing as anyone. Which is even more reason to give us challenging, interesting work. Many employers complain that we are lazy and get bored easily. I'd bet that 90% of the time it's because we finish projects too quickly and are given mundane tasks that wouldn't hold anyone's attention for more than 5 minutes. I know that the times I resort to blogging and browsing the web at work are the times that I've finished all immediate projects and have only dreary long-term assignments that bore me beyond belief and will probably take half the time my boss expects to complete anyway.
4) We are stupid:
Mark Bauerlein wrote the book "The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30)” as a diatribe against Gen. Y. Doesn’t he know that complaining about the younger generation just makes him sound old? Newsweek wrote a smart rebuttal (http://www.newsweek.com/id/138536) that more roundly sums up our generation’s apparent ignorance. I agree that many of us are politically unaware, have little knowledge of history, and quickly forget the myriad of facts we learn in class once we pass the final exam. (As a history and international studies major, I take slight offense to Bauerlein’s claims and like to think I buck that trend a little bit.) But there’s a reason for this: Google. Everything we need to know is at our fingertips, so why bother memorizing it? Instead, we are programmed to cram our brains with skills and “fluid intelligence” that can be applied to a variety of situations. I hate to admit it, but that’s probably more useful in corporate America than knowing when the Battle of Antietam took place (1862), who Henry Clay was (The Great Compromiser), and when the Soviet Union collapsed (completely by 1991; note: not due to anything Ronald Reagan did or said) off the top of one’s head. And no, I did not look those up. My friends would have, but what difference does it make?
Now, I admit that some of my fellow Millennials that I have encountered are useless: lazy, bratty, whiny, ignorant, the list goes on. But that’s not something inherent to or particularly prevalent in my generation. After all, the ones doing the most whining right now are Boomers and Gen X-ers mourning the incoming hordes of eager, plucky Gen Y workers demanding more mentorship, opportunities, and challenges. Why complain when you can capitalize?
Monday, July 28, 2008
shmales in the olympics?
Ok, so I try to keep things smart here, but I couldn't resist reposting this gem I spotted on the NY Times website: http://olympics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/lab-ready-for-sex-tests-for-female-athletes/
Apparently, shmales (so not pc...) might be putting the Olympics at risk of failure and embarassment (more so than inches-thick algae and black smog? Only time will tell...). According to the Times, gender testing has been taking place since the 1960s to ensure that male athletes from Eastern Europe were not competing as women, thus giving them an advantage (as usual, blame the communists). For this summer's games, the IOC has set up a gender testing lab to ensure that no cross-dressing cheaters unfairly snatch medals away from "real" women, a task that presumably requires such an elaborate laboratory due to the fact that many women athletes are jacked, and a man might not have much trouble blending in. It would seem that track and field is one of the most obvious targets of such testing, but aren't those tight little outfits enough of a test? I mean, if there aren't any suspicious bulges popping through the spandex undies they wear, can't we all just give the athletes the benefit of the doubt? Unless... ugh I need to stop thinking about this, and I especially need to stop writing about it.
Apparently, shmales (so not pc...) might be putting the Olympics at risk of failure and embarassment (more so than inches-thick algae and black smog? Only time will tell...). According to the Times, gender testing has been taking place since the 1960s to ensure that male athletes from Eastern Europe were not competing as women, thus giving them an advantage (as usual, blame the communists). For this summer's games, the IOC has set up a gender testing lab to ensure that no cross-dressing cheaters unfairly snatch medals away from "real" women, a task that presumably requires such an elaborate laboratory due to the fact that many women athletes are jacked, and a man might not have much trouble blending in. It would seem that track and field is one of the most obvious targets of such testing, but aren't those tight little outfits enough of a test? I mean, if there aren't any suspicious bulges popping through the spandex undies they wear, can't we all just give the athletes the benefit of the doubt? Unless... ugh I need to stop thinking about this, and I especially need to stop writing about it.
Friday, July 25, 2008
why i don't watch network news...
I just spent almost four hours stuffing hundreds of envelopes with issues of SI and Golf, an experience made more miserable by MSNBC's inane news coverage blaring on the TV. I tuned in to catch the end of Obama's press conference in Paris, which was followed by reminder of why I can't stand watching network news (and MSNBC is particularly bad; at least FOX is funny to watch due to its laughably blatant bias and some of the ridiculous things that come out of its "correspondents'" mouths.)
First, the correspondent kept asking the same question: do you think that Obama's trip overseas will hurt his campaign and show that he is elitist because he's dealing with foreign policy instead of talking about the economy? This question was posed to several interviewees as well as rhetorically, as if asking it ten times would reveal its profound depth and insight. Argh! Even ignoring the leading nature of the question (it calls Obama elitist and questions his connection the American people, and, repeated enough even in question form, drills these ideas into people's heads), it's still stupid content-wise. Obama can't take a one-week hiatus from mourning the economy and promising to fix it (something no president is capable of alone, anyway...) in order to discuss some of the most pressing foreign policy questions facing our nation? America's reputation among the European nations MATTERS-- to our economy and to our future endeavors abroad. What's going on in the Middle East MATTERS-- to our national security, economic interests, and the well-being of the world as a whole. Hearing the MSNBC girl blathering for an hour just made me angry that 1) the majority of Americans are probably too stupid to care about serious issues such as these, and 2) the media is feeding them with idiotic questions like that one instead of informing them on the importance of addressing ALL aspects of the future role of president, including foreign policy.
Next, they moved onto something even more ridiculous in its absurdity: the search for Obama's thesis-like paper from his senior year of college. What? Who cares what he wrote 25 years ago? It's not like it's going to be anything radical, as conservatives are hoping it will be. It's an assignment. No one turns in a fiery, scathing criticism of the government for a major assignment, especially not someone who is interested in a career in law or politics like young Barack. So why bother talking about it? Hypothetically, even if it were inflammatory and inappropriate it was written decades ago, and Obama has certainly had plenty of time to hone his political views since then. Obama's campaign aide was right when he called talking about it a waste of oxygen. Gotta love how the correspondent read that quote while discussing the issue and then continued blabbering on about it for ten more minutes. Kinda wish she had run out of oxygen...
First, the correspondent kept asking the same question: do you think that Obama's trip overseas will hurt his campaign and show that he is elitist because he's dealing with foreign policy instead of talking about the economy? This question was posed to several interviewees as well as rhetorically, as if asking it ten times would reveal its profound depth and insight. Argh! Even ignoring the leading nature of the question (it calls Obama elitist and questions his connection the American people, and, repeated enough even in question form, drills these ideas into people's heads), it's still stupid content-wise. Obama can't take a one-week hiatus from mourning the economy and promising to fix it (something no president is capable of alone, anyway...) in order to discuss some of the most pressing foreign policy questions facing our nation? America's reputation among the European nations MATTERS-- to our economy and to our future endeavors abroad. What's going on in the Middle East MATTERS-- to our national security, economic interests, and the well-being of the world as a whole. Hearing the MSNBC girl blathering for an hour just made me angry that 1) the majority of Americans are probably too stupid to care about serious issues such as these, and 2) the media is feeding them with idiotic questions like that one instead of informing them on the importance of addressing ALL aspects of the future role of president, including foreign policy.
Next, they moved onto something even more ridiculous in its absurdity: the search for Obama's thesis-like paper from his senior year of college. What? Who cares what he wrote 25 years ago? It's not like it's going to be anything radical, as conservatives are hoping it will be. It's an assignment. No one turns in a fiery, scathing criticism of the government for a major assignment, especially not someone who is interested in a career in law or politics like young Barack. So why bother talking about it? Hypothetically, even if it were inflammatory and inappropriate it was written decades ago, and Obama has certainly had plenty of time to hone his political views since then. Obama's campaign aide was right when he called talking about it a waste of oxygen. Gotta love how the correspondent read that quote while discussing the issue and then continued blabbering on about it for ten more minutes. Kinda wish she had run out of oxygen...
Thursday, July 24, 2008
one result of the trend toward later marriage?
Found this tidbit buried on the NY Times website: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/fashion/24skin.html?em&ex=1217044800&en=6daca065fa34f19f&ei=5087%0A
Bridal party botox bashes are amusingly representative of our enhancement-prone and youth-obsessed society, although it's sort of sadly pathetic that these thirty-somethings are resorting to the needle over someone else's photo op. I mean, does anyone even look at the bridesmaids? But the asian bride who requested that her friends get boob jobs with her is actually insane... I'd love to get inside her reality-challenged head and probe around for signs of intelligent life.
Bridal party botox bashes are amusingly representative of our enhancement-prone and youth-obsessed society, although it's sort of sadly pathetic that these thirty-somethings are resorting to the needle over someone else's photo op. I mean, does anyone even look at the bridesmaids? But the asian bride who requested that her friends get boob jobs with her is actually insane... I'd love to get inside her reality-challenged head and probe around for signs of intelligent life.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
oh god, i'm ugly and i didn't even know it
Fortunately everyone else is also blissfully deceived, ignorant of their own hideousness, or at least according to the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/science/22angi.html
Particularly fascinating to me is this passage: For that matter, humans do not necessarily see the face in the mirror either. In a report titled “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Enhancement in Self-Recognition,” which appears online in The Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Nicholas Epley and Erin Whitchurch described experiments in which people were asked to identify pictures of themselves amid a lineup of distracter faces. Participants identified their personal portraits significantly quicker when their faces were computer enhanced to be 20 percent more attractive. They were also likelier, when presented with images of themselves made prettier, homelier or left untouched, to call the enhanced image their genuine, unairbrushed face. Such internalized photoshoppery is not simply the result of an all-purpose preference for prettiness: when asked to identify images of strangers in subsequent rounds of testing, participants were best at spotting the unenhanced faces.
The rest of the article, which tells us that we incorrectly think the image in the mirror is equal in size to our actual self and gets smaller as we step back (the reflection is actually half the size of the actual body part and does not change size), is less interesting to me. But the scientific finding that we all think we're hotter than we actually are is both fascinating and hilarious. It lends a potential solution to the mystery of why people think they look ugly and unlike themselves in pictures (inevitably leading to several more futile attempts at capturing their alleged beauty): they are actually just uglier than they think. Unfortunately, this means I must be ugly, too, and knowing that I have plenty of company among the falsely self-confident is little solace. But there may be a solution to this worldwide invasion of ugly: put mirrors everywhere. According to the article, one study found that "subjects tested in a room with a mirror have been found to work harder, to be more helpful and to be less inclined to cheat, compared with control groups," and another discovered that "people in a room with a mirror were comparatively less likely to judge others based on social stereotypes about, for example, sex, race or religion." Great! We'll all be attractive, honest, efficient, fair, and politically correct if we just line our sidewalks and buildings with mirrors. As an added bonus, we could use those mirrors to generate and even store electricity using solar technology as per the latest developments. More important than solving the energy crisis, though, is the promise that I will once again feel confident leaving my house without a bag over my head. Hmmm, maybe I can qualify for a MacArthur genius grant with this...
Particularly fascinating to me is this passage: For that matter, humans do not necessarily see the face in the mirror either. In a report titled “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Enhancement in Self-Recognition,” which appears online in The Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Nicholas Epley and Erin Whitchurch described experiments in which people were asked to identify pictures of themselves amid a lineup of distracter faces. Participants identified their personal portraits significantly quicker when their faces were computer enhanced to be 20 percent more attractive. They were also likelier, when presented with images of themselves made prettier, homelier or left untouched, to call the enhanced image their genuine, unairbrushed face. Such internalized photoshoppery is not simply the result of an all-purpose preference for prettiness: when asked to identify images of strangers in subsequent rounds of testing, participants were best at spotting the unenhanced faces.
The rest of the article, which tells us that we incorrectly think the image in the mirror is equal in size to our actual self and gets smaller as we step back (the reflection is actually half the size of the actual body part and does not change size), is less interesting to me. But the scientific finding that we all think we're hotter than we actually are is both fascinating and hilarious. It lends a potential solution to the mystery of why people think they look ugly and unlike themselves in pictures (inevitably leading to several more futile attempts at capturing their alleged beauty): they are actually just uglier than they think. Unfortunately, this means I must be ugly, too, and knowing that I have plenty of company among the falsely self-confident is little solace. But there may be a solution to this worldwide invasion of ugly: put mirrors everywhere. According to the article, one study found that "subjects tested in a room with a mirror have been found to work harder, to be more helpful and to be less inclined to cheat, compared with control groups," and another discovered that "people in a room with a mirror were comparatively less likely to judge others based on social stereotypes about, for example, sex, race or religion." Great! We'll all be attractive, honest, efficient, fair, and politically correct if we just line our sidewalks and buildings with mirrors. As an added bonus, we could use those mirrors to generate and even store electricity using solar technology as per the latest developments. More important than solving the energy crisis, though, is the promise that I will once again feel confident leaving my house without a bag over my head. Hmmm, maybe I can qualify for a MacArthur genius grant with this...
Monday, July 21, 2008
thank you, fareed
Finally someone is tackling the popular notion that Obama's worldview is too naive with intelligent analysis. I've always admired Fareed Zakaria for his political centrism, his unique take on issues of foreign policy and international diplomacy, and his ample yet appropriate incorporation of history in many of his arguments. So, while network news anchors and political pundits spend the slow news days of summer asking the same tired questions about Obama's experience, I prefer to get the unique perspective and smart commentary that is seemingly so rare:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/147763
I, for one, was baffled by the vehement castigation that Obama received when he proposed a diplomatic approach to the issues in the Middle East. Well, I suppose I wasn't surprised that hawkish conservatives accused him of buddying up with terrorists, more just shocked that so many people ate up such a ridiculous argument. Fareed refers to Obama as a realist, a term more traditionally applied to conservatives until George Bush trumped all semblances of reason with his high-flying--and blind--idealism. While this fits with the media's current storyline (Obama's shift to the political center), it also goes a step further in reaching out to traditional conservatives and foreign policy realists, encouraging them to take a step back from the ideological games and errant tossing around of buzzwords like "democracy" and "terrorism" that too often rule our country's foreign policy decisions. Nothing is simple, and Obama's approach is much more reasonable than the GOP vow to protect America from an imaginary monolithic enemy embodied by conveniently chosen countries (this time, it's Iran that is funding all global terrorism and anti-US hate, apparently, and we should apply some muscle instead of talking...sound familiar?). According to Fareed, "Obama rarely speaks in the moralistic tones of the current Bush administration. He doesn't divide the world into good and evil even when speaking about terrorism. He sees countries and even extremist groups as complex, motivated by power, greed and fear as much as by pure ideology. His interest in diplomacy seems motivated by the sense that one can probe, learn and possibly divide and influence countries and movements precisely because they are not monoliths." This is exactly the knowledgeable, reasoned approach that Fareed himself has been advocating for years, and it is one that combines realism and hope rather that idealism and pessimism. And it's exactly what we need.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/147763
I, for one, was baffled by the vehement castigation that Obama received when he proposed a diplomatic approach to the issues in the Middle East. Well, I suppose I wasn't surprised that hawkish conservatives accused him of buddying up with terrorists, more just shocked that so many people ate up such a ridiculous argument. Fareed refers to Obama as a realist, a term more traditionally applied to conservatives until George Bush trumped all semblances of reason with his high-flying--and blind--idealism. While this fits with the media's current storyline (Obama's shift to the political center), it also goes a step further in reaching out to traditional conservatives and foreign policy realists, encouraging them to take a step back from the ideological games and errant tossing around of buzzwords like "democracy" and "terrorism" that too often rule our country's foreign policy decisions. Nothing is simple, and Obama's approach is much more reasonable than the GOP vow to protect America from an imaginary monolithic enemy embodied by conveniently chosen countries (this time, it's Iran that is funding all global terrorism and anti-US hate, apparently, and we should apply some muscle instead of talking...sound familiar?). According to Fareed, "Obama rarely speaks in the moralistic tones of the current Bush administration. He doesn't divide the world into good and evil even when speaking about terrorism. He sees countries and even extremist groups as complex, motivated by power, greed and fear as much as by pure ideology. His interest in diplomacy seems motivated by the sense that one can probe, learn and possibly divide and influence countries and movements precisely because they are not monoliths." This is exactly the knowledgeable, reasoned approach that Fareed himself has been advocating for years, and it is one that combines realism and hope rather that idealism and pessimism. And it's exactly what we need.
Friday, July 18, 2008
hello, world!
Well, ok, I guess my decision to create a blog hasn't caused much of a worldwide stir, so my greeting is laughably innapropriate. I'll give it a few weeks...
A little about me: I'm a California native living in NYC for the summer and doing the summer internship thing before I head to Madrid for the fall semester and finally make my way back to brutal Evanston, IL, and my junior year at Northwestern University.
I decided to start a blog for a few reasons. Firstly, it seemed like the thing to do. My job is really boring sometimes, and after running across Mark Cuban's blog (you know that has to be interesting) while making yet another media list, I was inspired to start looking up cool people I'd like to meet or emulate. It turns out, lots of them blog. Therefore, logic ensures that if I blog, I will become famous and all of my wildest professional dreams will come true. Secondly, I wanted a place to write down some ideas, thoughts, rants, etc.--not because I think people are interested, but because I like to write. Thirdly, I deleted my Facebook several months ago. I sensed that my Millenial narcissism needed an outlet now that I could no longer spend my days choosing which photos of myself best conveyed how attractive and fun I am, followed by endless public displays of my coolness in the form of wall posts on the pages of everyone I saw out the previous night recounting the epic proportions of our drunken awesomeness.
In my blog, I'll be taking a look at international affairs and domestic politics, as well as any interesting media tidbits that catch my eye for whatever reason and anything that I find amusing and think others might get a giggle from as well. Enjoy!
A little about me: I'm a California native living in NYC for the summer and doing the summer internship thing before I head to Madrid for the fall semester and finally make my way back to brutal Evanston, IL, and my junior year at Northwestern University.
I decided to start a blog for a few reasons. Firstly, it seemed like the thing to do. My job is really boring sometimes, and after running across Mark Cuban's blog (you know that has to be interesting) while making yet another media list, I was inspired to start looking up cool people I'd like to meet or emulate. It turns out, lots of them blog. Therefore, logic ensures that if I blog, I will become famous and all of my wildest professional dreams will come true. Secondly, I wanted a place to write down some ideas, thoughts, rants, etc.--not because I think people are interested, but because I like to write. Thirdly, I deleted my Facebook several months ago. I sensed that my Millenial narcissism needed an outlet now that I could no longer spend my days choosing which photos of myself best conveyed how attractive and fun I am, followed by endless public displays of my coolness in the form of wall posts on the pages of everyone I saw out the previous night recounting the epic proportions of our drunken awesomeness.
In my blog, I'll be taking a look at international affairs and domestic politics, as well as any interesting media tidbits that catch my eye for whatever reason and anything that I find amusing and think others might get a giggle from as well. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
