Not Your Father's Protest

One of the lasting impressions of the Occupy Wall Street movement that swept the country is the rather vapid nature of the protestors’ arguments and their inability to express their point beyond the slogans they yell at the top of their lungs. The Egyptian revolution that booted Hosni Mubarak from power have replaced his autocratic rule with two parties who have not shown the capacity or the ideological wherewithal to implement the democracy so craved by those in the streets. What is the reasoning for these two scenarios? It might have much to do with social networking.

The counter-culture movement of the late 1960s can be described in many ways, and has. However, the essence of the movement was a set of literature, discussions and an evangelist’s zeal to recruit and spread the message. Authors like Hermann Hesse, Jack Kerouac and Henry David Thoreau heavily influenced the movement, as did the eastern philosophies; each used to reject the predominant culture of the country. The movement also depended on group discussions to work through their philosophy. Whether gathered in salons or bars, the movement was dependent upon the person’s ability to express and explain his or her ideas. Lastly, the leaders of the movement were able to go throughout a campus or an area and make their point, argue against those who disagreed with them and string together cogent arguments. Personally, I think the counter-culture movement was filled with naïve and spoiled children whose arguments were Pollyanna but they studied, they read and had the capacity to make their point. Today’s social networking undermines what used to be necessary for protests.

Let’s take the example of Egypt. What best explains a movement to get rid of one dictatorship in lieu of two; two political parties that do not treasure or purport democracy or participatory government? Social networking and media are not a medium for an exchange of ideas but of slogans and chants. Yet, when one is speaking of ideas as complex and potentially dangerous as the protest against government, it would behoove activists to have a clearer idea and goal in mind than just removing a leader. I sincerely believe the reason for the elections of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi, if I’m to believe the rationale for the jettison of Mr. Mubarak, is due to a lack of a discussion and lack of consensus on what type of government they wished. While it may be true that the two groups are more connected to Egyptian values and culture, they do not express what the protestors said they wanted – a greater political voice, more say in the running of the government. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi do not represent a possible government that would tolerate too much opposition. Recent further unrest, I’m afraid, are a sign of things to come for the mis-represented Egyptian people.

In the United States, the voice of the 99% is as incoherent and divergent as one would expect from 99% of anything. They speak in slogans that are material for their posterboards. The vast majority of people at some of the larger protests do not seek the betterment of society but the destruction of the same. Indeed, their numbers suggest they are actually the 1%, if that. There is no literature or search for truth in these protestors. The fact that they are content with the slogans and mantras and signs suggest that the truth holds no interest. The protests and the gatherings are spontaneous in the worst sense of the word. They exist without an examination of the facts of their case. They exist without an examination of possible solutions. Indeed, these protests exist without much thinking at all. They were the product of “meet here” and “click like” if you embraced the idea of muddling up the works.

It is not that things are perfect or that a people do not have the right to want a better government. However, the organization of these movements lacks the information and forethought about what to do once they have grabbed the world’s attention. Social critic Neil Postman said, “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.” The egoism to demand change but the passivity that prevents study. Sound familiar?

The Death of Kim Jong Il

“For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings…
…for within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a king
Keeps Death his court and there the antic sits,
Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp…”
Richard II, William Shakespeare

Over the weekend, Americans heard the first word of the death of North Korea’s Kim Jong Il; the enigmatic, irrational, dangerous and bizarre leader of the “hermit” country. In his place, an even more mysterious figure, Kim Jong Un, to take the mantle of dictatorship. However, dictatorship does not begin to explain the depth of control exercised by the North Korean government. It is the level of control and the near brainwashed-like level of devotion that makes Kim Jong Il’s death so disturbing and so potentially dangerous.

Immediately, markets dropped throughout Asia, with South Korea’s market dropping the most as they stand in the shadow of the mysterious country. South Korea’s military, understandably, went on high alert. Japan and China must also be wary of what the death of Kim Jong Il must mean to the region, in particular and the world, in general. Increasing the concern is the size and devotion of the North Korean military – a million-strong force said to be the fifth largest in the world. While China has some influence on the country, it might not be able to control the series of events that could impact its neighbor.

There are two major areas of concern that many analysts are highlighting. The first deals the unpreparedness of Kim Jong Un. While in his late twenties or early thirties, there is not much thought that he is in a position to run the country without being some type of puppet. Who would be pulling the strings of the young marionette? There are rivalries that exist within the family, with the eldest son, Kim Jung Nam, safely in China, criticizing the order of succession. What makes him all the more intriguing is that he is a “reformer.” Would it be enough to bring North Korea from the cold should Kim Jong Un prove not ready for the bright lights?

The other area of concern lies with the three organizations within the government constantly fighting for influence and power – the party, the military and the Cabinet. According to the BBC, the military has seen a large increase of power and influence in the term of Kim Jong Il but each group has its hopes.

So, what do the surrounding countries and the U.S. do? First, I’m not sure how many messages of condolences will be forthcoming. Hard to express sympathy for one who is responsible for the utter destruction of the country’s agricultural sector, that has led to widespread starvation and poverty and ultimately, countless deaths. South Korea obviously has the most to worry about. However, its military might will not be enough in the event of a young ruler looking to display his feathers. This will bring the U.S. and its allies into the mix. To make matters worse, there is not a great deal that President Obama can do but to react best to a quickly developing situation. For Japan, its relatively small military will place it at risk should Pyongyang decide to instigate conflict. Russia has lost contact with North Korea, cutting off annual funds since the collapse of the Soviet Union. And so, if there is to be one country who stands at the greatest position of influence, it is China.

China has always viewed North Korea as the “crazy little brother” that they must protect. However, North Korea is already showing a troubling tendency. Shortly before the announcement of the death of Kim Jong Il, reports suggested several test rockets were fired along the east coast of the country. The biggest thing that the Americans, Koreans and the Japanese can do is to prepare militarily. Former ambassador to China under Barack Obama, John Huntsman, who is also a Republican candidate for president, has suggested the possibility for hope but the U.S. and the world community cannot count on that. There is simply not enough information to know for sure. Shakespeare’s Richard II was a character whose actions led to his destruction. Kim Jong Il’s actions destroyed a country and killed, potentially, millions. History abhors a vacuum and the united nations can only hope that what comes next is better than before. Hopefully.

No Virginia, the Government Does Not Have All the Answers

I was watching the news the other day and a story was being run on the state of the economy in Iowa. In an interview with a woman, she mentioned that she can no longer depend on the government because she no longer trusts the politicians. The reporter speculated that the sentiment was a dangerous sign for the future of effective government and suggested the anecdote represented a divide that must be bridged in government’s effort to fix the economy.

Yet, that was not the impression from which I walked away. During the 1992 presidential election campaign, President George H.W. Bush was debating Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton and Texas businessman Ross Perot and the three were engaged in a town-hall style debate – the first of its kind. During audience questioning, a young man posed a challenge in which he suggested that the government and the future president is like a parent and the American citizens were his children. The man asked what each candidate would do for his children. In the scope of presidential debate highlights, this does not get a great deal of play. However, it was a question that was and is symptomatic of some thinking today. From where does this attitude originate?

The short and easy answer is the New Deal. President Franklin D. Roosevelt put in place a series of programs that set up the government as instrumental in caring or providing for those who are in need. However, as transformative as the New Deal was to the power of the president in particular and of government in general, people throughout the 1940s and 1950s did not change greatly compared to those of the 1910s and 1920s. At the height of progressive and liberal governance, people were not swayed to surrender their notions completely. It was not until the 1960s, when arose a group of people mostly from affluent and comfortable families who crowded the streets and complained about the system that provided an unprecedented standard of living. The hippies were not just complaining about the war but rejecting the values that provided for their college tuition and allowed them the flexibility to protest rather than work for a living. A generation of spoiled brats began to radically change how government should operate.

President Theodore Roosevelt, in explaining his Square Deal three decades prior to his cousin’s presidency, suggested the goal was not to ensure success. How each man played the cards dealt to him was his affair. However, the government should ensure there is “no crookedness in the dealing.” The difference between equality of opportunity and the equality of success is dangerous to democracy. The government who looks upon the people as children is one that operates under a mindset of paternalism and superiority. By surrendering one’s own ability to care for themselves, as the questioner in the 1992 presidential debate was willing to do, we give the government way more power that it was ever intended and created to hold.

In the 1960s, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater suggested that a government big enough to give a citizen all he or she needs, is big enough to take it all away. So, perhaps the Iowa woman is right and historically more aligned with her predecessors a century or two ago. Why wait for the government? Why wait for people who are not directly connected to you and your family? Why wait for a monolithic institution that was never meant to answer the individual’s needs, only the country’s needs? The sooner Americans break their addiction and dependence upon the government and begin to depend upon their own talent and abilities, perhaps the better off we will be.

A Little Revolution Now and Again…

Egyptians have shaken off the dictatorship they long resented and have the political power they have long craved. Given the history of autocrats that have ruled the country since the Nasser-led coup in 1952, it is surprising that the Egyptians would vote for groups without much connection to and respect for democratic rule. The military has stepped in and commandeered the election process by suggesting that the elections were not valid given the unstable conditions of the country and the fact that not all members of Egyptian society are represented in the proportional parliament.

This is an interesting dilemma for the Obama administration. It abdicated responsibility when the Egyptian uprising began, content to lob condemnation of Mr. Mubarak from afar. Worse, after the uprising was complete, it did not see a role in helping Egyptians prepare for and conduct a proper election. Furthermore, with “Islamists” taking some two-thirds of the Egyptian parliament, the government could be in the hands of an organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, that many Western powers fear and do not trust.

The current military rulers, making up the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), is likely equally unsure about the Muslim Brotherhood and what its leadership would mean to the rule of the country, the upholding of its treaties and the threat it would pose to other countries. These threats would have to be defended by the military. Increasing the military’s unease with the recent election results is the connection between it and Western advisors over the decades.

What makes matters worse, if the West believes that the winning parties (the Muslim Brotherhood and the more conservative Nour Party) are ultimately dangerous to Egypt’s neighbors and the West’s allies, they have lost the opportunity to do anything about it. To some degree, when one pushes for democracy, you have to accept and deal with the results. Are these organizations good for Egypt? It is difficult to think so from afar but for ordinary Egyptians, they apparently think so.

The Muslim Brotherhood has had its collective noses pressed against the division between it and the power structure for decades. It has clamored for recognition and political power and now, it is on the cusp of having it. Yet, the military will not let it come easily. Will the measures of the SCAF turn the populace against the military? Will more protests and perhaps, riots, take place? If so, what role does the West play? If the U.S. and Europe come in on the side of the military, it will further ensconce our image as anti-Arab and pro-anything-that-favors-the-west.

From afar, it is difficult to trust the Muslim Brotherhood. Its intentions and its stance on Egypt’s long held treaties (more importantly with Israel) cannot be trusted. It has a record of speeches and declarations that stretches for the better part of a century that defines the organization. The Brotherhood will likely have its chance to rule and do so responsibly. I hope it rises to the challenge.

What’s in a Grade?

Since the time I began teaching, I was told of the wonders of the highly motivated student – the one who constantly strives to get the best grade. This is the student that knows the most and wants to know more. This is the student that offsets the ambivalent, disengaged one who clutters up the roll sheet and drags down the class as a whole. This is the student who will go on to achieve the greatest of all of his or her peers. As a teacher, I have many students who could be classified as highly motivated. However, the extent to which I treasure these students has waned over the years.

My attitude towards these students is never personal – it is professional. However, I have taught these students for sixteen years in high school, including three years at a local community college. In that time, I’ve come to understand the danger of these students. In Matthew 6:24, it reads that, “No man can serve two masters…Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” So it is with students. One can either achieve for knowledge or achieve for an “A” but one cannot do both.

The pursuit of knowledge is compromised by the government officials that seek test scores as affirmations of success. It is undermined by the school officials who stress that all of their children are headed to college – and certainly should be. It is undermined by parents who stress a letter as the highest level of achievement of their child. It is undermined by the teacher who constantly re-affirms that the grade is the most important goal. Lastly, it is undermined by the student who places their effort to achieve a letter over their effort to better understand something.

I teach Advanced Placement World and U.S. History classes. I have the grade-mongering students who will pore over the terms for each unit in preparation for a unit exam. In the interim, they will read and I will discuss the context – the history – of which the terms are a part. When I write up a test, I pose questions based on the terms but occasionally, as an experiment, I will ask questions based on the terms within the context. Because the grade-mongers see only the terms as the path to success on the unit exam, that is all they study and they will not go beyond. Therefore, they will nail the fact-based questions using information of the terms but to talk about the terms in context, they fail and are frustrated every time. The goal is not to completely understand the information but to learn what is needed to make a passing grade. The gaps in their knowledge are even more evident when I hold conversations for a test grade. My feeling is if they can carry on a five- to ten-minute conversation with me on a particular subject, then they know the information. They seldom show such knowledge. It is not a pursuit of knowledge these kids are concerned with; it is the perversion of the pursuit of knowledge of which they are guilty.

A colleague of mine and I have given much thought to what should be in place of grades. It is not enough to say, “We are not going to hand out grades.” At the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, they have a place called the “sweat room.” It is here that students await for their time in front of a panel where they will justify their earning credit for a particular field of study. Likewise, we would like to create a school where a student earns a “passing” or “failing” grade by speaking with a panel of three teachers and having to defend their knowledge. It is much more challenging and more comprehensive a process than the current grading system. On a practical level, this type of model is not conducive to the school system in its current form. Changes would have to be made. At present, as my colleague and good friend is fond of saying, high schools today are simply tools for universities and businesses – we help them by categorizing and labeling students to their benefit.

To some extent, it is not the kids’ fault. The blame lies with the government officials, the school leaders, the teachers and the parents. We are raising a generation of people chasing success and not chasing knowledge. There are those, both in and out of education, who have boiled the pursuit of knowledge down to future occupation or wage-earnings and I can’t think of a more depressing thought. The more we come up with fancy computer programs or various initiatives to find a way to motivate our kids to embrace the cult of success, the less knowledgeable they will become. Socrates worried about the student who depended upon outside sources as a means of knowledge and complained about those who, “will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.”

The Meaning of Bikkurim

When I hear people thank others, it can be automatic and without emotion or sincerity. For sure, others say it with a great deal of honesty and feeling; however, the expression of thanks is teetering on the meaninglessness of “how are you.” When we ask people this, we are often not really asking but using it as an expression of greeting. Similarly, the expression of “thanks” is done absent of the emotion and simply as a way to end a conversation or to transition.

In Deuteronomy, bikkurim was an expression of thanks by farmers providing a sample of the first crops to the local temple. This concept is not foreign to Christians as they are asked to tithe 10% of their income. In Islam, one of the five pillars of the faith is the responsibility of charity, zakat. By giving to those less fortunate or to those in need (or to God), we are showing thankfulness for that which we have been given. Additionally, this is not just an expression of thanks; it is the action of thanks. We thank God for a great many things – that the car started this morning, that our children are somewhat normal, that Baltimore defeated Pittsburgh. Most are likely things God could not care less about. For Jews, they gave thanks for every aspect of their lives. However, what makes the concept of bikkurim different is that it requires something more than an utterance. It requires action or sacrifice to show one’s gratitude.

This is not a unique aspect of Jewishness. The observance of Yom Kippur demands of its adherents to not only apologize but to make right a past wrong. So, with bikkurim, it is not enough to give thanks, but we must show it as well. These lessons extend beyond the dictates of the Jewish faith and serve as a challenge for all of us. I do not hold myself as an example of showing thanks. Like nearly everyone else, I fall short often in doing what I should but it does not make the lesson or its implications any less important or relevant.

During the Civil War and unimaginable suffering, Abraham Lincoln called for a national day of thanksgiving. At a time when many are economically suffering, I give thanks for my wife, my family and friends, the ability to do things that I enjoy and the job which provides the resources that make that life possible. I try and show thanks by honoring my wife and my friends, as well as putting my best foot forward at work and for my students every day. It does not matter that the things in my life that I’m most thankful for are also points of stress and frustration; so it is with the things we care about the most. So, show your thanks and revel in the annoyances of life. They reaffirm our priorities.

Et tu, Silvio

An end of an era has hit the Italian Peninsula. The continent-wide movement began with Greece when the American-born Greek prime minister, George Papandreou, paid for the sins of institutional corruption and tax evasions and was forced out of office. The former vice president of the European Central Bank, Lucas Papademos now has the happy pleasure of piloting a nation that does not seem to understand its culpability in the current financial crisis. The next ax fell upon longtime and beleaguered Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi. Unlike Mr. Papandreou, who was given only two years to fix an unholy mess whose origins date back to the beginning of the modern country, Mr. Berlusconi has been a part of a system that encourages the type of reckless spending and irresponsible fiscal policies that has brought Italy to the brink.

For most of the last decade, il Cavaliere has ruled Italy like his own fiefdom and has weathered enough political scandals to knock nearly any other world leader from power. In 1998, he was sentenced to two years in prison for bribing tax inspectors; he was acquitted (several times) of falsifying accounts; he named a topless model to a ministerial position in 2008; the next year, he was charged with cavorting with minors and a prostitute; in 2010, his “bunga bunga” parties that amounted to orgies came to light; earlier this year, he combined his 2009 troubles and was put on trial for supposedly paying for an underage prostitute. The most amazing thing about all of these allegations and crimes? They were not what drove him from power. It was the world markets.

For Mr. Berlusconi, it is not surprising how the last ten years unfolded for the man who began his career singing on cruise ships and specializing in television programming reminiscent of Telemundo, complete with dancing, half-naked girls. It is a question of dazzle to obscure the mess. The “dazzle” is numbers that seem, on the surface, to be adequate, including a paltry (by European standards) 8% unemployment rate. However, the devil is in the details, which include structural issues that have been worsening for decades and a government that is failing in providing basic services and creating a competitive atmosphere for businesses. Italy’s GDP in 2010 outgrew only Zimbabwe and Haiti. The country’s public debt is 120% of its GDP – as a comparison, the U.S. public debt is 62% of GDP.

This stands as fuel to a fire that Italy is experiencing with the rest of Europe – a growing jobless rate, particularly in the hard hit Mezzogiorno region. And conditions in the southern part of Italy are not even a new development, with the region in general and Naples in particular always the subject of castigation and dismay. The young people of Italy are fed up with a government that cannot get a handle on its own affairs or those of organized crime and are fleeing to greener pastures in the EU or elsewhere. As the young professionals leave, it exacerbates the already graying population that produces less and takes more. The government refuses to provide an atmosphere where businesses can thrive and unions will not allow for longer work weeks to increase production so as to offset higher wages.

Italy, in short, is a mess and like Greece, it is an institutional, historical mess. Mr. Berlusconi is one of the richest men in Italy and no doubt, will ensure that his fortunes and security remain intact. But the country he “led” over the last decade will suffer the consequence. The new prime minister, Mario Monti, can expect a great deal of support from a populace tired of his megalomaniacal predecessor. But with yields on Italian bond rates climbing to nearly 7%, it will not be easy to put together a government that can keep the Italian economy from going into the ditch. Mr. Monti will need to move quickly and ensure parliamentary support if he hopes to make long-lasting and beneficial changes. The continent and the world await news.