Notwithstanding, if anyone of college- age is reading this and wondering whether to stay in Maryland and work/intern in Washington, don’t do it if, a), you aren’t accustomed to long commutes;  b), if you’re not a morning person and if your job requires you to be there by 7-8AM; and c) if you don’t have your own car.  If you don’t have your own car, the commute is death, and public transportation (except the Metro stops, which require commutes in and of themselves) doesn’t work on the weekends. I recommend Hostelling International, where I stayed after my hosts went on vacation. The address is:

1009 11th Street, NW; Washington, DC 20001. 

 Telephone: (+1-) 202-737-2333

They serve breakfast, have a pool table on the 1st floor, attract people from all over the world and have a 50 INCH LCD 1080i TV on the second floor. And you can generally meet interesting people in hostels. It’s nothing like the movie, of course.

At the moment, I’m in Barbados, and will be for at least 2 more days. I haven’t seen my grandparents in a while (8 years to be exact), and sort of want to catch up with them.

I have to get off now, but I’ll be back later on in the month. Good night, everyone!

My article today, appropriately, is on this very subject: the value of experiences in human development. At one point in my life I was convinced that one could learn everything simply by reading and researching. While this is true to some extent, it’s not completely factual; humans, being mobile and creative beings, need to pursue their interests to live wholesomely. That is, experience—whether positive or negative—is necessary to the purpose of positive human development. To illustrate, we can take the example of the reclusive individual. As animals can only develop as is appropriate to their respective species, so must humans interact to develop. Reclusive behavior, depending on the intensity thereof, can slow one’s development of social skills necessary to progress in life.

I went to Washington for three reasons:

1) To gain a firsthand understanding of the influence of non-governmental organizations on the legislative process.

It’s hard to understand how national policy is developed without actually seeing the process itself, you know?

2) To break away from the everyday college grind for a semester.

To be sure, I love college. I wouldn’t be there otherwise. However, I wanted to experience what real life in my profession was like. Hence, my decision to leave for a semester.

3) To find out why foreigners, to varying extents, dislike the “Washington Consensus”.

I understand that the researchers at DC policy firms, and the legislators that support them, are literally experts in their respective fields, and deserve—and indeed, have—my utmost respect. However, it seems that in recent years other countries have come to increasingly dislike the overall nature of the policies set out by Washington. In my first week in Washington, I visited one of the leading policy firms in DC to hear an expert talk on the recommended course for the Obama Administration to take following its establishment. Throughout, I slowly became aware of an underlying and quite significant preoccupation with America’s image in relation to the subjects raised—subjects concerning Middle East policy, human rights issues and nuclear disarmament. From this one could infer that some of America’s leading policymakers might be afflicted with what some students have come to call “resumé syndrome”—doing things, either wholly or partly, for the sake of appearance, instead of or only in part for their utility to US citizens. One might also contend, however—and quite rightly—that the current administration’s recent initiatives and pursuits, which, of course, must lend themselves to the guidance of policymakers of both the left and right—including the closing of Guantanamo Bay and the initiation of a nationwide community service program to pay off college debt—are indicators that citizen well-being doubtless matters to US policymakers, and likely more than the US’ image. Still, the fact that such a preoccupation exists within some of the nation’s leading policymakers, even in spite of Obama’s election—though doubtless the majority do not express this with the fervor of the previous administration—might be slightly unsettling to some. Nonetheless, the past 8 years, combined with my experiences in Washington, have given me somewhat of a better perspective on why Obama has pledged to “change business as usual in Washington.” The Obama Administration’s recent pledges to increase and improve positive interactions and relations with countries it was previously hostile towards is an indicator that things are indeed improving. Before Obama’s election, however, as we all remember, Washington politics were, in some ways, going towards the exact opposite direction of the current Administration. In some ways I understand why US policymakers are concerned with improving the nation’s image. However, positive actions lend themselves to positive outcomes, and certainly engender respect within others. The United States only need trust in the current administration’s positive intentions, yet still hold it accountable for any behavioral deviations from said intentions. It’s highly unlikely that the Obama Administration will repeat the Bush Administration’s mistakes—however, those interested in politics might be well served by involving themselves in whatever way as would help to further decrease this possibility to zero.

You think you’ve heard about Washington’s  inauguration preparations? Unless you’re living here, you seriously have no idea. Half of Capitol Hill has been sequined off for construction, and there’s a large build effort going on at the Capitol. The White House is enlisting over 5,000 volunteers for the Day, and the entire city is already packed. In addition, I saw Obama speak live yesterday. That in itself was AMAZING!!!!

I think it’s great that we’ve elected—and will soon be inaugurating—an African-American president. It’s not just because I’m of the same ethnicity that I’m saying this, but because of the possibility that it will change global comparisons of ability to color, and related comparisons. How is it, one might ask, That a country whose majority, for a good part of its history, attempted to withhold the rights of an entire people, now has chosen to elect one whose race was the object of said oppression? To answer this question, I would simply cite a combination of public dissatisfaction with government in its usual incarnation, a desire for (yes, you got it) a change therein, and a realization that ability is not related to color, or to sexual orientation, or economic status, etc. Though it is my only my opinion, and therefore subject to error, Obama’s not doing a bad job so far. He’s brought in economic officials from the Clinton administration and kept R. Gates as Defense Secretary, which, I feel, is a fantastic move: he’s kept the one person able to give Democrats express knowledge on the most vital aspects of our Middle East campaign while simultaneously ensuring, mostly anyway, that the Democrat-ruled Congress will be able to pressure him out of any decisions otherwise detrimental and/or contrary to both American public interest and the White House’s goal of putting pressure on Afghanistan to find Osama bin Laden and destroy al-Qaeda–not on Iraq, whose only major benefit to American interest is its vast quantities of oil, the use of which is progressively contributing to the spoiling of the Earth’s environment (but that’s a story for another post). The mere fact that I’m alive to see this happen gives me hope for the future. Though, whether Obama will be able to shoulder the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression whilst simultaneously searching for an alternative, yet mutually favorable, conclusion to America’s conflict with the Middle East is yet to be seen. Let us hope.

“Now, if someone messed with your stuff, you’d throw a fit too.”

Whatever. We went to A&F and I found out that the coat I wanted in Large was sold out. Fine, we left. Much later, after we got home, I went to finalize the iPod deal I’d won on eBay, only to find that, suffice it to say—despite the contrary this morning—I no longer had the funds to do so. Naturally, I flipped. And then I thought about what my father said.

Let me get a bit personal. I’m just as religious as the next guy, alright? I hold a basic belief that there does exist a force of some kind that holds a good deal of influence over a lot that goes on everywhere. However, I’m very rational, and I can usually find explanations for most of my experiences. Yet, for some reason, I found this to be a very interesting coincidence. Bible Chapter Exodus, 20:12 states:

“Honor your father and your mother so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.”

I presume that many of you raised Christian in one capacity or another throughout your life has experienced that little pang of guilt that comes from, you know, displeasing your parents or unintentionally (or maybe intentionally, lol) insulting them in one way or another. Now, at the time, I didn’t feel guilty about throwing my stuff over my father’s things in his car—and trying to tell him afterwards why his aggravation was unwarranted—but after I saw this discrepancy, and remembered his words, I felt a bit creeped out. I wonder: does the Golden Rule (or, the Boomerang Effect) in Matthew (Do unto others as you would have others do unto you) truly apply to life? My question, of course, stems from a supposition that people usually interpret that quote as encouraging of good deeds and general goodness in life. Yet, I think that, while general definitions of good and bad seldom differ, individual and personal definitions of good and bad almost always do. My father’s definition of courtesy—something coming from a notion of good behavior towards others—given his behavior, can very well said to have induced him to react as he did. While this inevitably implies that his definition of courtesy might differ from those of many others’, it still holds true that his personal definition of courtesy likely influenced his reaction. I wonder, though, if the “Rule” applies to individual definitions of good, rather than general perceptions of good and bad. James 4:4 reads,

“Whoever shall be a friend of the world is an enemy of God.”

This implies that biblical doctrine disfavors the adoption of general, that is, popular, opinions and views on morality and life. This, then, might also suggest that popular perceptions of good and bad are, according to said doctrine, incorrect. Though the Bible does indeed say that God loves all people equally, I’m inclined to think that God would favor religious people more in his consideration of those going to heaven, hell or in-between—as, since man, according to the bible, was constructed in God’s “image”, it follows that our perceptions must be similar, however little, to His; and, since I, as a human, think this way, it follows that said perception is similar to that experienced by God. And, to anyone thinking this, I’m not saying I’m God, lol. I’m not self-absorbed or anything like that. But, really, would God favor very religious people more than less religious people? And, moreover, if said religious people were offended by someone violating their personal rules of courtesy, would the Golden Rule come into effect? Would said violation spark the activation of some karmic principle inducing reciprocal action on the violator? I don’t know. Honestly, I really never think much about religion unless I have no other way to explain something, but my dad’s statement rang true tonight. In a religious context, I wonder if the Boomerang effect applies in relation to personal definitions of good and bad rather than universal ones. In that respect, could anything that insults or negatively affects anyone have reciprocal karmic effects on the human source of said insult or negative effect? Something for spiritual readers to think about.

In other words,

behavioralism =

with

on the inside.

Yeah.

So, anyway, that Cold War. I really don’t know why it ended. Gorbachev, with his sweeping reforms of perestroika (economic and political restructuring), on the one hand, shocked the entire region into economic and bureaucratic destabilization; on the other, with glasnost, destroyed the political capital of the entire Communist party. Seems that when an incredibly corrupt, secretive and criminal government lets loose its secrets to its terrified, hungry and angry citizens, things tend to go wrong. Complete undermining of the Communist Party’s power, increasing governmental delegitimization and ultimate dissolution of the entire USSR, to name a few. All painful and very, very expensive—for the Soviets, anyway. They lost everything.

Could the Cold War happen again? True, Russia and the former Soviet republics still aren’t in as high economic straits as the US currently is (but that’s not saying much nowadays), but with Bush publicizing plans for a missile defense system to be placed in Europe and Medvedev threatening to fire short-range missiles at—no, I’m sorry, near Poland—and with Russian paranoia already escalating in reaction, could history possibly repeat itself? Top five causes factoring into the Cold War’s development: security-related paranoia, tension, hostility, postwar environment, and lack of honest diplomacy (arguably detrimental if used, yes, but with the Cold War, you never really know). Let’s see—pre-emptive war (“If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” Guess who said that? I’ll give you a hint, he can’t talk with or without a teleprompter), Russian officials perpetually intense distrust in US defense and overall security claims, sustainedly negative US-Russian relations since the alleged end of the Cold War in ≈1991—if you believe your professors, all you PoliSci majors out there; if you don’t, you could say it’s still going on, just with Russia trapped in the 90s and the US trying to understand why—Obama’s attempts to pull troops out of Iraq, and Bush’s total refusal to “negotiate with terrorists.” Hopefully I’m wrong. I’m just a PoliScier, trying to make some sense out of the world. It’s not like I’m reading about this stuff in painstaking detail or anything.

Oh, wait.

_______________

Well, pre-finals week is upon us. Right now I’m up doing one out of my six (yes, 6) papers, four of which are due next week—one of which is supposed to be ten pages long, and which I HAVEN’T EVEN STARTED YET. Though, I must admit, ten-page papers are easier than people think. All you have to do is do five single-spaced pages, and then double-space them. Sigh. I guess it’s a psychological thing. ¯\(O_o)/¯

Speaking of school, the nearing prospect of paying off my student loans are increasingly encouraging me to take up alcoholism (kidding, kidding). At my university, tuition’s been going up by 3% per semester even since before I started attending. Yes, we’re a private school, and, yes, since we’re not funded by the state, we’re supposedly tuition-funded (tell that to all of the names of the donors immortalized in our  sidewalks’ bricks), but, seriously? Seeing as how food prices have increased by 8% since my freshman year (last year), and as how I’ve only seen two new programs emerge since then, I don’t really know where it’s all going. Let’s do some math here. If every student paid, for purposes of accuracy, about $40,000.00 per year, during the year of my entry (2007) , and there existed a total student body of ≈4,000 individuals at that time (not including graduate students), the total undergraduate student tuition paid at the end of last year comes out to $160,000,000.00. If increased by 6% by the end of this year (likely, given the economy’s state)—factoring in the number of students leaving per semester for various reasons (for our purposes, let’s say 30 per semester) this total will increase to ≈$262.666.666.67 aggregate tuition paid by the student body at the end of this school year.

For the record, this isn’t that much. Harvard’s endowment (34 billion) just dropped by 22% (8 million), leaving it with only, roughly, six (6) billion dollars—78% of its endowment—left to use for 35% of its operating budget. Their tuition is about $46,000.00, and they’re cutting spending and programs. Ouch. The NBER said that the current “recession” started in 2007. Ouch again. In a world where Harvard University, the wealthiest university on Earth, has to cut spending and programs, where does the steadily increasing tuition of a school with an annual tuition of about $40,000 go? Development? Probably not. Self-sustainment? Necessarily.

Always thinking,

Hadid

It’s official: McCain and Palin have once again fallen below Obama and Biden in the polls. In recent reports issued by CBS and the New York Times, Obama now leads McCain by five percentage points, at 48 to 43 percent public support, respectively (±2 %). It might be well explained by the relative lull in political festivity since the convention; polls taken directly after the convention showed a two-percent discrepancy between McCain and Obama, favoring the former. Since then, however, many women have taken umbrage to the GOP’s female pick. A double focus group session consisting of married and unmarried Clinton-supporting Nevada women echoed this, saying, “Once she started mudslinging… it’s the same old crap as other politicians. McCain used her to get the women’s vote”, and, “She comes off pretty cutthroat.” Though all of the women in these two groups agreed on Palin’s excellent speaking abilities, none of them defended her anti-abortion stances, to which many have reacted with shock and even anger. Major news outlets will continue to update their polls throughout the week. The upcoming Presidential Debates, however, will largely determine the course of the election henceforth.

But, in all seriousness, having made one, I enjoy the prospect of managing this thing—this creative outlet for my mind, which, though active and very vocal, has not spoken beyond its container’s hometown and college campus.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a space of human thought. 

In an age of satellites, spacecraft and space stations, how truly can the sky still be considered the limit?