Boston 3/25/13

We walked the Freedom Trail, a type of red brick tourist road that winds through much of Boston Proper and Bunker Hill. Then we did the all-time tourist thing and climbed a really tall building to look down on the places we just left. But looking over all those half-streets and crooked lines, ancient houses and modern sports complexes caused this feeling of connection.

We spent the rest of the night in a normal local Irish bar in Davis Square listening to traditional Irish music, huge smiles on our faces. I'm in love and I'm ready to move in. Every step made me fall one step further down the rabbit hole. This city is where I belong, goofy accents and all.

Boston 3/24/13

We just got in the city and this place is amazing. I just walked outside a moment to get a pillow for tonight and I was struck by some incredible feelings.

This place is incredibly quiet. For the sheer mass of people and compacted buildings, this city is absolutely silent. It's eerie. Cars barely pass by and there's no obnoxious rattle of busses or trains. There's no constant commotion. We're six blocks from Tufts University, a three minute walk from Davis Square and the Red Line and there's not a sound to be heard.

It also hit me while walking down a winding footpath how old this city really is. Houses and buildings and restaurants are crammed one on top of another through labyrinthine roads that have no apparent beginning nor end.

And then finally I realized why it was so silent. It's because it's so old. And then it hit me that this is the loudest city I have ever been in. 400 years of history is shouting out of every wall, from every street lamp and street. I walk side by side with some of the greatest American minds. I see passing coaches lot with lanterns, Puritans trying to survive a cold winter, men in their finest rushing to the old meeting house, and others carrying rifles to wars off an encroaching army. Every silent moment of this city is filled with a memory. It occurs to me that that feeling is what draws me to this city. Why I knew the moment I considered it that this city would be my home. I've never felt so nostalgic for times gone by, nor at home in a city moving in both directions: continually forward and back in time. The rustic vibe of this town becomes electrified by sundown, but that old world charm never goes away. In fact, maybe tomorrow I’ll go take a walk with Benjamin Franklin and John Adams: I hear something is brewing across the pond.

Review: House of Cards

I've just finished season 1 of House of Cards. I feel a bit numb inside. These two facts are related.

House of Cards, if you haven't heard about it (shame on you), is a political drama about a House Majority Whip that is not given what he was promised. Passed over for the Secretary of State position, Frank Underwood, a ruthless, calculating, and demanding politician, begins to exact his revenge on those who wronged him.

From the first five minutes of episode 1, I was hooked. Within those five minutes, you are introduced to everything you need to know about Frank. A dog is struck by a car and Frank, getting ready for a black tie event, comes out of his home to comfort the dog. Or so it seems. Frank then directly addresses the audience, staring straight into the camera and issues a few lines on what he calls the two sorts of pain. The first sort makes you strong. The second is only suffering. He despises this type of pain. Then he kills the dog.

These breakaway speeches occur throughout the series, lending narratorial insight into events and Frank's thought process behind a certain action. Plus, every line is expertly crafted to emulate with ruthlessness and is incredibly quotable. The cutaways are profound and leave viewers questioning the integrity and honor of Frank as a politician. The portrayal of Frank as such a controlling legislator who is drawn between his own ambitions and those of his constituents (a company named SanCorp) is much different than the conventional textbook definition of a legislator.

House of Cards is jarring. The phenomenal casting and acting for the show continues to surprise. Frank is joined by his wife, Claire, owner of the non-profit Clean Water Initiative, Zoe Barnes,a reporter looking for a break, Peter Russo, a US Representative battling alcoholism and drug addiction, and a multitude of other similarly ambitious or morally tainted characters. The interplay between characters, and mostly their manipulation by Frank, is creative and at times left me wondering what was about to happen.

Frank Underwood is just another character in the growing list of modern anti-heroes we all want to hate but come away sympathizing. When Frank is passed over for the Secretary of State position, I sympathizes with him; yet, he didn't want my sympathy. He immediately began scheming. He blatantly explains the weaknesses of sympathy. Frank is a man consumed and motivated only by power. Nothing else matters. Cleverly, throughout the first season, until the last two episodes, what exactly Frank is scheming for never becomes apparent. Instead wings of this house of cards topple, one by one, until nothing stands in the way of Frank and what he wants.

I easily finished this series in a week and cannot wait for the second season. This is the best show I have seen in a very long time. House of Cards has blown open a (fictional?) view of Washington that we can only hope is not true. House of Cards is riveting, jarring and at times uncomfortable. House of Cards will challenge you to figure out the mystery of Frank's ambitions. House of Cards will tempt you, asking if you can truly trust the narrator.

If you do only one thing today: watch House of Cards.

In Defense of Knowledge: The People

I find the use of democratic power by "We, the People" a sobering, yet amazing phenomenon to view.

For example, I happened to wander into Madison, WI during the protests against Governor Walker two years ago now and saw the fervor in everyone's eyes. There were college students who spent their nights sleeping on the floor of the capital building practicing their rights to protest peacefully against something they believed was wrong. I watched the news and read the articles about a movement to recall Governor Walker swept the state and then blew up in the media. Wisconsin became the epicenter of  nationwide look at the Republican party and urged for intense transparency into the emerging hyper-conservatives that have grown in popularity and number.

Split down party lines, the response to these events was ferocious. All over the state, it turned into campaign season all over again. Plenty of attack ads, myriad of bumper stickers, lawn signs, billboards, NGO involvement and so much more. Those who had voted for his opponent in the original governor race were out with double the stickers and double the signs, while most of his supporters went out and supported him by not adding to the mess. Personally, I think many of them realized something that many had not. Almost all of the people who voted for him to begin with wanted his policies to go through, so they would ultimately vote for him again. No amount of attack ads or pro-union signage would change their mind. Ultimately, those people were right; Governor Walker continues to be governor of Wisconsin despite a recall attempt and disagreement from 49.9% of his constituents.

Jump forward to December of 2012 when a sudden rash of media attention brought to light the growing "epidemic" of gun violence in the United States. Walking outside that same Wisconsin capital where thousands had gathered around chanting and protesting with signs and marches were about 500 men and women carrying "Don't Tread on me" flags and openly carrying hunting rifles and pistols. Nationwide men and women organized to protest and protect their 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms while the other half of the nation solemnly stood in a circle holding candles in a vigil for the victims of Sandy Hook and the multiple other locations of violence.

However, it is important to note that the candlelit vigils in remembrance of those lost are occurring on a daily basis. Gun crime claim (based upon CDC information from 2005-10: the most recent statistics) on average 33 Americans per day. Nationwide there are 33 candlelit vigils being held in honor of people killed by a gun every night. Every night hundreds of people are gathering in remembrance. Every year (when new senators, representatives, governors, mayors, council members, aldermen, presidents, etc. are elected) several thousand gun owners clamber shoulder to shoulder to fly their flag and hold their guns.

The end result is that no matter how many people do or do not die from this issue, not to mention the countless other life takers, people will continue to gather to either side of this issue. Notice: I said either side of the issue. That's what we are all lead to believe, that there are only two strict sides to this argument, 1. gun restraints that will ultimately take all guns from gun owners, and 2. continually less strict gun regulations that will kill every innocent American. It is important to, as I recently heard, "think sideways." A citizen must (for it is their prerogative to be an informed voter) understand that no issue in government, or life, is as simple as yes or no. A rational decision is not made solely by saying yes or no. The debate is not abortion or no abortion, or guns or no guns. We must understand that a government official is fighting just as hard to keep their job as you are; to that end, no law of extremes would ever be passed. As I like to think, the phrase "politically correct" comes from the politicians themselves.

If there is only one thing you leave this post with let it be this: think sideways and never constrain your thought to binaries: there are always more than two answers.

In Defense of Knowledge: The Press

I can think of no better way to depict the collapse of modern day news with the ever increasing use of sensational and popular focused journalism than to share a recent video I find fascinating. It's the famous John Stewart appearance on Crossfire in 2004 where he details that the show (and by trade most mainstream news media) is "hurting America". The joking quickly turns to an intense conversation on the media's role in the America public's mind. Any comment I could possibly make about the media's portrayal and continued radical sensationalism towards sensitive subjects (or any subject in general) can be explained and has already been said by Jon Stewart here. Continuing my fanning of Jon Stewart atop the politically charged news mountain, while being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly in May of 2011 about a (trivial) matter concerning artist Common appearing at the White House during National Police Week, Stewart opens up discussion about banning assault weapons as being the true means of celebrating and doing something to reduce gun crime and save the lives of police officers. The point here being that sensational news is willing to grasp onto minor nitpicky details to get headlines like "President Obama spends time with Cop Killer Sympathizer" instead of talking about the real issues: reducing gun crime and death numbers. Unfortunately the particular audience that O'Reilly is aiming towards, politically speaking his constituents, are looking for such sensational news, so no outcry results.

It is of course also necessary to not focus solely on the Newton, Connecticut victims, but give attention to those that have died before and after the terrible event. A crowdsource activity (found here)between Slate and twitter handle: @gundeaths has started to compile incomplete statistics on gun deaths that have occurred since the Newton tragedy. I mean to point out this article because of its futuristic appeal to the audiences of world. Twitter has started to take over social media, statistics of Twitter mentions surpassed Facebook mentions during the Superbowl the other night. It's incredible to think of the power behind a mere 140 characters, but once you do, you begin to reevaluate the reasons behind hour long news programs that aren't rapid fire run downs of the news, but repetitions of the same second-, third- or fourth-hand news regurgitated over and from all of the affiliates. Twitter is now the go-to site for digestion and dissemination of information across the world. Outcries of support were thrown onto the internet in the Middle East during the several protests that occurred throughout the past few years and it has slowly crept its way up behind Facebook, and now beyond. Larry King used to take questions on his show from Twitter. Modern day news shows have started to lean upon the social media revolution occurring everyday because they know that soon enough, they will be surpassed by the power of our own words. A national network of interconnected points of view is a powerful thing to share the stage with. Soon the finely suited newscasters will (and are as we speak) be replaced by plain clothed everyday Joes running around the world with a smart phone in hand. Newscasters and their slow moving vans are dependent upon traffic and weather, giant cameras are unwieldy and need time to set up. A man or woman walking down the street with Twitter, iMessage, or Facebook open on their iPhone will, within three seconds, have their camera open, snapping pictures or live tweeting some of the most major events, usually before news organizations know about it. This is the media revolution, this is the social media revolution, this is the evolution of news.

In Defense of Knowledge

Since the devastating events of the Sandyhook shooting several weeks ago the government, NGOs and the people themselves have started speaking out and clamoring for change. The prominent democratic view currently is a series of strict gun control laws that will presumedly inhibit more massacres like Virginia Tech, Aurora, Colorado, Sandy Hook Elementary, the mall shooting in Oregon, and the countless other massacres that occur on a daily basis. Nongovernmental Organizations like the NRA are doing what they do best, feeding spun information to the public (mostly their constituents), just as the democrats and republicans are battling in the House, Senate, and press. The press is, as always, spending an undue amount of time on these massacres, potentially instilling a sense of stardom associated with them (to be explained later). Finally, the people of this fair democracy are also sharing their opinions in a multitude of ways. Posts of pro- and anti-gun images and literature litter social media. Rallies are occurring throughout the states, men and women exercising their right to bare arms and free speech are marching on their state capital waving "Don't Tread on Me" flags. Then there is one of the newest developments: the government conspiracy video that has exploded on YouTube, reaching over ten million views.

Every time I see our democratic institution work on the political, private, and personal level, I am overjoyed. To see all of the actors of our government flexing their muscles and being proactive in what they can do and say is something rarely seen. Very few times does this nation ever experience a tragedy that is able to grip all spectrums of life, moving people who not normally are activists to participate in their government. Aside from my own beliefs, I am glad to see all cogs of political life in progress.

Unfortunately, a byproduct of all of this involvement in political institutions leads to the sullying of information networks with falsified information, conspiracy theory, and misdirections cause by these main political actors: the press, the government, NGOs and the people.

Complacency and Stagnation: The Demise of Man

All you must do to see the slow degradation of Man's mind is to listen, only for a moment, to someone near you. The slow slip of Man into stagnation shows up in the momentary groan you make when someone makes the all-too-familiar trite comment they've repeated for years. The ease of Humanity to find comfort in those commonalities and phrases show a lack of expansion of the mind, a lack of growth, and importantly, a lack of wanting to grow.

(un)Growth: The Loss of Risk/Reward

 Children ordering chicken nuggets at McDonalds, chicken tenders at Olive Garden, or chicken crisps at Red Lobster are perfect examples as well. Some may commend people for knowing what they like and sticking to it, but it raises the simple question: how do you know what you like is indeed the thing you will like most? The person who remains stagnant in their desire for a burger or a desire for french fries everywhere will never get to know the delicious flavors of Middle Eastern food, they'll never try expertly-crafted sushi and they'll never have the gumption to enjoy exotic fishes served in exotic ways. The astounding fact is, once again, that not only will people not enjoy these things that they may enjoy more, they revel in the fact that they aren't enjoying something new. People are completely complacent with where they are or what they want without ever choosing to expand that.

Think of this little experiment as a social metaphor. From the age of childhood we decide that we like something, therefore, we will continue to get that something because it makes us feel good. We learn that experimentation could result in us not liking something, a risk that has high reward but high consequences. Instead of risking it and having the chance to experience something amazing, Man takes the easy route and follows the same path he did before. By the time we reach adolescence we have compiled a comprehensive, yet small, list of things we like, the list of dislikes based solely on the fact that these things are not the things we like. (As an aside, the setup of a binary system where one side is only revealed to be the negation of your side is also an archaic means to view life: you=not me; they=not us; red=not blue; good=not bad). The insistence of Humanity to not recognize shades of gray in their decision making process shows a fundamental lack of what epistemology actually is. The idea that there is a single absolute knowledge of the world is fine, if you base your view of the world solely upon your interpretation and nothing more. Unfortunately, this is not realistic; your image (especially in the twenty-first century) must be compiled from myriad options and vantage points. Look at the division of news networks. There is a red news, a blue news, an off-blue news, and an off-red news. Stagnancy believes that you can view one and receive all you need to know. Knowledge (and therefore growth) states you must view them all. Knowledge dictates that you must view all points of view, growth dictates you must interpret and understand those views. In order to grow you must do something that many people fear and rebel against: you must think.

Loyalty: The Death of Innovation

Many minds exist solely for taking-in and subsequently ignoring information they receive. The minds that rely upon the easy way of "chicken nuggets" or referring to your childhood as "walking up hill both ways" are the culprits. Those who lack the originality (and therefore effort) to move beyond these commonplaces only serve to solidify the measures in place that reinforce the behavior of the commonplace. Current business practice relies upon the notion of gaining loyalty over the more important virtue of innovation. Your product only has to be good enough to be considered "reliable". It doesn't need to excel, it only needs to do its job well enough to be viewed as usable and good. So many counter-measures are in place (especially in this country) where innovation is sacrificed at the point of reliability. People stay with a specific car company out of the nostalgia of their first car (which seemed great in retrospect), so why should they go elsewhere and take the risk?

For example, a person who has dealt with the same building contractor for decades and built up a wonderful friendship, needs to have a new office building constructed. One day a new up-and-coming contractor offers a new type of construction (which is stronger, longer-lasting and cheaper) to the prospective client. Instead of following the course of innovation, the client follows the course of reliability and loyalty even at the cost of his business. In ten years, the building with sub-par construction will fall, and the client will explain it away as an "act of god" or that "the building needed to go anyways", using complacency and pushing the responsibility away from the only party who deserves it: himself.

This type of decision making that sacrifices innovation at the sight of reliability and comfort is the plague upon this nation. In fact, to call such an act "decision making" is to falsely state that someone does something by consciously weighing all (or at least some) of their options before choosing. Instead, under the current philosophy of choice, the decision seems already made. Equal weight, time, or thought is never given to all sides. Thus, Humanity continues to slip back into a complacent and stagnant lifestyle that refuses to grow with the growth of knowledge.

The flame of inspiration and innovation is being put out in the rain, the intuition of Man is to stomp it out for fear of change when they ought to shelter it and strengthen it. Innovation is not something to fear, innovation is a process and a philosophy that should be followed and nursed, but not blindly followed.

Above all, the blind following of any philosophy, innovation or stagnancy, is the evilest of ways. Thought should rule over your lives, situations should be dissected to see their workings and consequences should be fully explored.

May the flame of innovation, inspiration and reason remain ignited and burn strong, for it is in the most dire danger, now more than ever.