It is difficult to watch scenes of global terrorism. Real lives are lost in these struggles, but it is important to remember that this happens here and overseas. In a war, people die on both sides and our country is certainly responsible for its share of the dead in this one. What we should seek to fight is the eye-for-an-eye attitude that pervades global struggles of this kind. Better diplomacy is needed to affect positive change. By showing the most gruesome acts recorded on film, the video selection has great shock appeal. It is important though to realize that any fundamentalist Muslim resistance movement is nothing compared to the military might of the United States. By constantly placing ourselves in these foreign wars, the U.S. puts itself at a disadvantage in the realm of middle-east diplomacy. The worse our reputation gets in the area, the more we can expect violence to be enacted on U.S. citizens. It is only surprising that America’s position in global imperialism has only recently brought out violence of this sort. It is a situation of overflow; the dam has only recently burst on violence that had been suppressed through the function of highly authoritarian puppet governments. With new governments in the middle east that represent more closely the actual interests of the people (no matter how deplorable we might find these), a backlash can be expected as a matter of course. As the world becomes smaller through the function of globalization it will be important to have diplomatic recourse beyond the firing of missiles. You can not expect peace from another country if you yourself act in a militant way. Such thinking is utterly childish and reeks of the rhetoric of Bush. The “evil doers” and “evil empire” have infiltrated the otherwise happy and peaceful people of the east. It’s almost on the realm of star wars, that there could be a light side and a dark side a struggle. It is utterly laughable that cheap words such as these were manipulated in such a way as to sacrifice the lives of Americans in ways depicted in the video.

Rome wasn’t built in a day. How long did it take to fall once it overreached its ability to expand? How long can the United States maintain a controlling interest in every world conflict? These are questions to consider when we talk on the subject of global imperialism. The cost of maintaining U.S. bases abroad to support foreign U.S. conflicts must eventually outweigh the usefulness (if any) of being involved in any such foreign conflict. It is notable how the United States would hope to promote its latest and greatest in arms technology (guns, bombs, smart missiles, and fighter aircraft)—and of course what is the best way to do this other than a massive war? Also, the more the nation allows itself to be “drawn” into these wars, the greater likelihood that United States citizens will eventually become targets, just like the citizens of foreign countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Egypt. Arms proliferation is a unique and frightening reality in America’s expanding era of global control. The limits of war have never been adequately agreed to in the political realm—it has always been a case of might makes right. It is important to remember that dissatisfaction in the east with communism replaced capitalism…What is going to replace capitalism (as we know it) in the west after this system becomes less useful to both its adherents and opponents? Allies don’t help you the way one might hope in an era of nuclear proliferation. Israel has nuclear weaponry, but so do a handful of other new and old governments in the region. What is there to hope for by a conflict that draws in nation upon nation allied in opposition against one another? Another World War? Is this what is driving our economy—the capacity to become involved with and be superior in the destruction and death of other people in search of oil profits? On the final topic of honesty in journalism, it has always been the case that one has to make an effort to find the news. That’s one reason it is a paying career; it can be so cleverly disguised as to become something else.

Understanding the underlying dollars and cents that drive American politics is paramount to its conception as a whole. The industries which drive the political machine of U.S. government control an interest in their own survival—not in U.S. interests or the survival of the globe. When you create a self-perpetuating entity like this huge oil industry that cannot be stopped, it’s going to start thinking in its own best interest and not the best interest of the people. The fact that its political leaders cannot even control it is indicative of its veracity in the political spectrum. Can we allow our country to be manipulated by these vested interests to the point of irrationality? Is it safe to assume power should be meted out to these interests that were never elected by the people yet still manage to sway political power? The American people cannot afford to postpone decision on matters such as these. The people should begin to lobby for their own interests, the ones that no other interest group is going to protect—such as questioning the fairness of granting subsidies to industries that no longer need them.
Petitioning these lobbying groups is no longer effective. It is no longer feasible to affect change in this manner. Constituents need to create new highways to effectively orchestrate change amongst their local governments and political spheres. If even the President no longer has an influence in determination of any amount towards public policy, there is something flawed in the system of a populace who would elect him. To give the authority power, but no teeth, is to let the interests win and oil companies continue to dictate foreign policy. It is like saying, “well, other such unfavorable institutions exist such as cigarette companies and so on. In the end, one has to make ones own determinations... In the matter of granting a force-field of restraint around mother oil?: impractical at best. To who is this enslavement to the interests serving but the companies themselves that really are not hurting to tell the truth of the matter? And they can kill the electric car and kill alternative forms of power if it means a subsidy that is no longer economically viable in the state of our governmental institutions.

There will never be fairness in a capitalist system of government. That should be understood as given. Still, within this political system, some governments are able to manage things in a fairer manner than others. These nations tend to be those with socialist leanings. States such as these are able to maintain the freedoms of the west while creating a blanket of equalized social services, such as health care. The United States does not at this point in time feel that these social institutions are important. The health of the population is negligible, when considered against the desires of the “powers that be”. Those who contribute to the perpetuation of these irrational systems need to analyze the importance of government in their lives, and their relation to it. Is a system of government inspired by 265 years of “slave-ocracy” and later, what I would term the McDonald’s impulse, the idea of a society based on the well-run, enslavement franchise-policies of a decentralized corporation, beneficial to the common good of the people whom it serves? Is it any wonder that democracy does not flourish the way we think it should in a nation based on values and principles as influenced by traditional, American institutions such as these? Should not the model of ideal government be perhaps something else—an institution that serves the population equally with civil services such as fire protection, crime protection, the maintenance and new construction of roads and highways, and health care? When will we outgrow our myths of cherry trees and log cabins and approach the society of government in a similar way to that with which we do the society of education and scientific research? In this realm, myths become less valuable in light of empirical research and the research states that within this country, the government is not serving the needs of the people it claims to represent. How does one battle a mythologized institution such as a long-standing government established on the slave trade in the northern hemisphere during a period of time in man’s evolution as a species? That is the real question, and it never really seems to be the case that people get involved with its consequences and possible answers these days.

It's hard to argue with statistics, especially concerning group trends with rate changes of this magnitude. In some western countries, statistics on the religiously unaffiliated are experiencing change of a scale much greater than interest rates. Yet, we follow financial numbers religiously and do not concern ourselves with the question as to how well the institution of religion serves the modern western man and woman. When other social structures, such as slavery, ceased to make sense to these western countries they were progressively and violently taken out of being. I feel that something similar will happen with the institution of the church in an era of globalization. There will always be small sects I am sure, but it is simply much harder to deny the overall failure of this particular institution to fulfill the needs of its constituents. Human beings do not feel the need to be lied to in order to feel good about themselves the way they once did. After westerners first began to realize, through the media, the horrible fallibility of governmental systems during the cold war, the identity of the skeptic was born. If you are going to question the powers that be, why would you limit yourself to governmental institutions, when religious groups put a tax on the public just as high? Yet religions don’t build roads. They do, however, contribute to the starting of wars. Also, practicality of religion in the era of television and Hollywood becomes more and more extinct. People are simply finding other forms of entertainment that are less expensive and guilt-inducing than going to church services. Human beings, more and more, are finding better excuses to look at science for answers than religious doctrine. We no longer believe (for the most part) that the Earth is the center of the universe due to this growing trend. Also, emotions are not controlled by “Humors”, sickness is not to be cured by leaches, and Santa Clause never told the Easter bunny to abstain from “lifting anything heavy” on Yom Kippur. When these myths and oral traditions become relegated to the scrap pile they will be revealed simply for what they are: the superstitions of a particular culture in a particular area in a certain time and nothing more.

The man is making an advertisement for a crotch accessory. A video of this nature is something a non-white man would probably avoid from creating. What makes this video choice interesting is that he is trying painfully to avoid selling the product from any kind of sexual angle. He is sure to tell the audience that, “as I unbuckle my pants everybody will be safe”. Not only in the literal sense of him rescuing everyone in the case of danger through the use of his crotch-mounted handgun—the audience will not be exposed to the “dangerous” sight of male genitals as he unbuttons. The awkward pauses at anything that approaches a sexual comment can be seen to reveal that he is uncomfortable in his own sexuality. He is fascinated with the idea of men staring at each other’s junk, but also perplexed as to why such staring should occur. When trying to conceal this behavior and his video-making under the guise of “normal behavior”, a white person tends to exaggerate its normalcy. To a white person, behavior that would otherwise seem strange and indecent must have a perfectly valid explanation and that explanation is: gym shorts. Non-sequitur aside, a non-white would simply not make a video of this kind. Non-white people are less interested in concealing arms on their person, probably from the standpoint that it could be viewed as perpetuating a negative stereotype. Instead, this man chooses to conform to a different stereotype—that of the overcompensating bewildered white man. His video is about a concealing accessory and he tries desperately to conceal his own sexual uncertainty. He’s hiding his “weapon” from everyone’s prying eyes, but he is broadcasting this all on the internet for millions to see worldwide. A non-white would probably refer to the conventions of his own society in which videos of codpieces are unacceptable. In the white society they exist, but only in two forms: the very gay or the very straight. Where he fits in with society is neatly explained by the gym shorts. He is of the one, and not the other. He mentions that he may at some point be “wrestling” with this crotch holster on. Really, he is wrestling with where he must fit in the social and gender spectra.

The education system that we have become accustomed to has been outpaced by the needs of the people. Just as more and more people are seeking secondary education than ever before, people are becoming isolated from its goals and unable to have the access that they need. When this happens, thinking becomes homogenized and it does not surprise me at all that we slowly learn to think less and less creatively with more exposure to this. Rather than bring out new ideas, the system encourages absorption and regurgitation. Whoever can summon up the material taught as quickly as possible becomes rewarded and those who would formulate their new, groundbreaking ideas (as the ideas being studied at one time were) are discouraged from doing so as their education progresses. Conformity becomes compulsory at some point and beyond that it is sold as a commodity at the university level. The idea of medicating children to become more attentive is a problem I feel mostly because it promotes a medicated culture. We become less natural beings as we seek to correct things within us that give us uniqueness, if anything. One should learn to operate within the capacity of individual ability and not the group think of education. The more one surrenders ones free ideas to the institution, the more they become corrupted into something that already exists, because if it already exists it can be taught. But the kind of thinking we precisely need is the kind that hasn’t been thought yet. How do you test for something that hasn’t been thought of yet? Is there a test for originality? Clearly, the schools have failed in their supposed effort as places of thinking. They more closely resemble places that program thinking, like military academies or prisons. It is any wonder at all that once outside of the system, we can have anything innovative to offer. It is a fair judgment to think that it is time to rethink the notions of what qualifies as a valuable education system and to what approach we should align our thinking so that new ideas can help to fix some of the problems the old ideas have created in the world.

When entering this discussion on empathy, it is important to realize that though this emotion exists and can be found in every culture, it can be culturally suppressed based on factors such as race, religion, political party, and class. I fear it is a myth to assert that we can shape this impulse into a particular ideology such as eco-conservationism--not because such shaping does not occur, but due to the fact that it is almost beyond all control to attempt to steer the course of human events. The direction of things will surely change, but I feel it is much too early to gauge in which direction it will. To look at Haiti and say, “that is the natural inclination of man towards aid, assistance, and humanity,” belies the fact that we know enough to simultaneously look back at an event such as the holocaust (in recent history) and conjecture that man’s empathy (though it may exist) can be so horrifically corrupted and mutated by socializing forces such as fascism and racism as to be far worse than not having any to begin with, perhaps. For as much good that occurs in the world accidentally or otherwise, enough consciously reprehensible actions are taken by individuals every day so as to eclipse it. The fact that this inclination toward good will ebb and flow from one culture to the next reveals it to be more of an ephemeral human impulse directed by the same socializing factors which underline our collective living conscious. A better venue to understand the modern phenomena of globalization and its relation to political systems would be economics. Capital becomes the only means by which an individual can express himself and empathic principles fissure and break at the sight of things like rule-bending, bribery, murder, and suppression, which are provisionally felt to be profit-enhancing. It seems that compared with certain civilizations our growth is stunted by the unending search of profit in a depleting economy and a depleted planet. If there is such a thing as collective intelligence, then it follows that there is such as thing as collective stupidity by which it is measured. Perhaps we were just born into another era of it. Why must it be any different—because it is the most recent one?

This man’s story is particularly unfortunate due to the young age at which he had to face confinement. At 15 you truly are still finding yourself, and it is hard to imagine that you could understand the social and ethical implications of your actions. I am left wondering if the desire of the author to atone for the crimes that led to his confinement is not built out of a need to express the freedom to determine one’s own existence in the very absence of any form of physical freedom. The author of this text seems driven to come to terms with the choices he made as a child and their consequences. It must be very difficult for the human self to comprehend an event such as long-term incarceration. Knowing that the remainder of your life will not be up to you to decide--that it is to be affected on you must be a hard reality to stomach. The way the author deals with this I feel reveals the dichotomy of the human social condition: the individual’s need to feel that a free choice has been made but at the same time absorb oneself into an accepted social role. If there are but two identities remaining for the author for the rest of his life—that of the (repentant or unrepentant) criminal—it is no surprise that he chose one. Do the criminals who get away with their crimes feel compelled to elicit this same expression of forgiveness from their victims? If we can say that they do not often express this urge of atonement (thus turning themselves in), then it must be unrelated to murder itself but instead exist as a consequence of a life sentence in our prison system. If this is the case, the repentant urge could be viewed as the inability of the human self to express itself freely in the face of social groups. If you are facing a life sentence and most of your life has been spent behind bars there isn’t a lot you can do to express yourself, but you still need to know who you are. The phrase, “I needed to hear them tell me how I hurt them,” can be read a few ways. Did he need this confirmation from the victims to feel that he really is this person that society has said he is for the past 36 years? Is that how powerful social identities are to us?

This letter from an inmate impressed upon me the vulnerability of the human being’s free will in relation to traumatic events such as incarceration. The capacity to which we are each free can only be viewed within the social environments we must inhabit. Much of these are predetermined for us (race, class, gender, religion, geographic location) but what must be to a great extent more constricting than all of this is the complete surrender of your own will to that of an institution such as a prison for a long sentence. The nature of life is such that we do not notice a freedom we have been overlooking until it is taken forcibly away from us. We cannot therefore fully appreciate cause and effect in our own lives until after the fact. To what extent are we the controller of our destinies? Are we just a byproduct of our culture/class/ethnic community…etc? After looking at the reality of our worlds, it is clear that much of life is affected on us. Life choices are presented from a limited pool of career options and thrust upon the individual and a selection is expected to be made. If I don’t want to pick career choices ‘A’, ‘B’, or ‘C’ and instead choose ‘Z ‘or “none of the above” or omit a response entirely…one sees how freedom can be blamed for less than positive outcomes. The case of criminal incarceration is all the more troubling due to the fact that freedom is often the cause of the negative circumstances within which we come to find ourselves in life. Or perhaps some of those options were never presented due to poverty and limited class mobility. It’s very interesting that the activities the prisoner reflects on and misses the most are some of the most natural events we would perhaps overlook the importance of in our own lives. But when you can no longer recreate an activity you remember it must become extremely upsetting to your freedom of expression. I can appreciate how the mind finds the need to experience events through other people’s actions under these circumstances. Altogether though, the most overwhelming aspect of this account for me is the prisoner’s ability to still hope for the few freedoms he has left. This is representative to me of the most human desire of all: the desire for individual expression.