A collision of thoughts

First Day in Paris

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 20:35:00 +0000

I finally got to Paris. This morning, the groggy and confused husk of a person I was, landed at the Charles De Gaulle airport. I suffered through the mess that masqueraded as a Passport checking line and found my way to the CIEE greeting party.

The rest of the day consisted of an impromptu tour of the neighborhood I'm staying in, a guided walking tour of the first and fourth arrondissements, and getting acquainted with the program. As I walked around, it was hard for me to accept that after so long, I eventually got here. Paris is completely overwhelming, yet in the most pleasant way possible. Since I need to take a reflective course in the fall on this experience, I will be blogging to keep track of my reactions.

Here are some pictures.

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 03:32:00 +0000

I've been playing this song all damn day. Nostalgia over video games I played as a child, ftw.

Happy New Year!

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 01:53:00 +0000

Happy new years! I find myself shocked to see we've reached the year 2012.

It isn't that I'm unaware of how calendars work. Instead, I'm shocked at what this year will bring. I'm suppose to spend this upcoming semester in Paris, my 21st birthday, and I'll start my senior year in college. There is also the messy unknown of the presidential election here in the US, but I figure that is a conversation for another day.

Most of all, I feel like this is my final full year before entering the 'real world'; before completely inheriting all the freedoms and responsibilities entrenched in it. And that utterly frightens me. Sure there is the excitement that comes from thinking about starting a career or getting my first apartment, but then I start thinking about how a career means and actual job or about how an apartment means bills the likes of which I've never had to deal with before.

And then we have the big question I appear to enjoy torturing myself with: will what I do be important? Of course it doesn't have to be, but I sure as hell would like it to be. I fully blame college for this desire - the more I learned, the more I saw the sea of anxiety that seems to engulf the world. I don't want to enter the working world, only to simply forget about all of it. Yet this is what the 'real world' seems to consist of - graduate college and work so that you're able to sustain yourself. Not much room for anything else.

I suppose that I'm getting ahead of myself. But hey, its fun to think about these kinds of things.

A Day With Google+

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 06:20:00 +0000

Do we really need another social media website?

Google apparently thinks so with their recent release of Google+.

I got my hands on an invite yesterday evening (through contacts on facebook, interestingly enough) and so far I'm quite ambivalent about it.

First of all, I enjoy the interface. It is clear and simple. Add to that the concept of circles (basically user-created groupings of your friends), and you have a recipe for something that might actually work. I loved organizing my hip and trendy contacts (all four of them) into categories. I've had issues on Facebook attempting to figure out how to hide particular posts from certain people, so this is just wonderful.

Another interesting aspect is Sparks, a feature through which Google recommends personalized content for any given interest. So a Spark called 'cycling' should provide information largely related to just that.

One extra bonus for me was the fact that it nicely integrated with previously googlized elements of my life, without feeling invasive (I'm looking at you, Buzz).

By far the largest negative was the fact that no one I knew was on. I'm aware of the fact that we're right now in a closed, invite-only test run, but damn it I need critical mass. Looking at my stream right now (Google+'s newsfeed), the last four posts have been from me... And there are only five posts total. Being connected to four people is boring and sadly, most of my Facebook friends are not early adaptors.

Which leads me to a previous ill-fated voyage of Google's infamously known as the Wave. Part of my problem with the Wave was that no one of importance in my life used the damn thing for more than a week or two. Add to that, we simply didn't know what to do with it. I really hope Google doesn't keep this recent endeavor in its crib for too long. If they do, it may very well suffer the same fate Wave did.

Year of the Black Republican?

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Thu, 20 May 2010 20:21:00 +0000

As 2010 is being dubbed as another 'Year of the Black Republican', I think it's time for me to re-evaluate my feelings towards this rather small demographic of black folks.

Let me be honest: black republicans aren’t my favorite bunch of black folks in the world. I do have a habit of viewing them with in a snide manner. However, I’m not completely sure I can run them through the mud like their more liberal counterparts do.

I do think that there is currently an opportunity for black republicans within the tea party and the Republican Party at large. The Tea Party, who have been branded – rightfully or not – with the label ‘racist’, are logically in the market for some black folks. Looking for recognition, it makes sense for politically minded black republicans to want to align themselves with the movement and their campaign. Yet, at what cost? I can’t fathom being positioned as a means for much limited ‘racial inclusion’ is really worth the support of any group, but then again I’m not a politician. It wouldn’t surprise me if many of the black republicans recruited end up being miniatures Michael Steele replicas. It would truly be a sense of poetic justice, but it would also make me even more frustrated than I already am.

There is one aspect to black republicans that I find interesting. They provide a necessary kick to Democrats, who seem to have taken the black vote for granted for too long. As much as I may be liberal, I don’t care for considered as a vote that’s already in the bag. I’ve often heard people in my community say that they are only remembered ‘around election time’, and as far as I’m concerned, they are correct. Should the Republicans gain ground in black communities – most likely those with well-to-do blacks. I don’t foresee people who live in places that rank lower on the economic scale jumping ship – hopefully the Democrats become more accountable and active in regards to their black constituents.

First Impressions on Kagan

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Tue, 11 May 2010 21:38:00 +0000

President Obama has recently decided on Elena Kagan, currently the Solicitor General, to be his nominee for the post Justice Stevens has on the Supreme Court.

I likely may not be the first to say this but here it goes: Could we please not have a bloodbath like we did when Sotomayor was nominated? When I first heard of Justice Stevens’ decision to leave, I felt the same political seasickness I’ve been feeling for a while now. The sum of my thoughts was: “here we are, Obama has another open seat to full and we’re going to just repeat the same battle from a year ago”.

However, with his nominee out in the open, has my seasickness has yet to be relieved.

First and foremost is her record, or perhaps lack of one. I agree with numerous other commenters who’ve said that this is a double-edged sword. On one hand, no one has a clear idea on how she’ll swing on the bench. We can guess that she’ll further Obama’s left-leaning agenda, but because she hasn’t been a judge, we don’t know much about her stance on certain hot button issues. On the other hand, there isn’t much to fuel the fire and brimstone that is bound to be coming her way.

Secondly, it appears that people on both sides of the fence like her. A good number of Republicans voted for her during her appointment for Solicitor General, so should they decide to bend the other way, things will get interesting as we watch them back track. Yet, spin that dime around and we have reports of folks from both parties who dislike the woman.

Of course, her lack of a paper trail and history with folks who aren’t of the liberal persuasion are on the list of reasons for why Obama picked her. I would imagine if I were him, I’d want someone who could possibly fly into the seat without being the target of so much flak. Given the political climate of recent months, the fact that we’re going into an election year – one that the Dems aren’t too sure they can pull out ahead in, and the precedent set for the treatment of Obama nominees, I wouldn’t want to waste too much time fighting another battle over matters like these.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s far too early for me to be comfortable with her. As her life gets pulled through the teeth of the media – of which I’m sure it will – I’ll pay close attention and choose where I’d like to settle. Until then, I’ll stay in my little boat and try not to lose my lunch.

Politics on Campus: How A College Club Talked About Politics

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:27:00 +0000

Sorry about the lack of updates, due to school. I'm having a great time, save for all the work. Speaking of work, this post is an ethnography I did for my Cultural Anthropology class which explored a club on campus's efforts to promote their political value and the contexts in which they did so. Without further ado, Enjoy!

Political activism has a special place in the hearts of American college campuses. Campuses often possess a young politically aware population, some of which band together based on common political values and create clubs. These clubs exist to help further the agenda of their designated affiliation. Nina Eliasoph, in her book Avoiding Politics, questions how much politically based conversation actually takes place surrounding groups that form around a set of motives. These motives then reflect themselves into politics. Susquehanna’s student group, the SU Democrats (SU Dems for short), operated in a free market-like system in which they had to remain mindful of the amount of support they could receive from the same body that funded other campus groups. This created a need for a different approach towards discussing politics. Existing in a closed community brought along a number of circumstances Elisaoph, in her otherwise brilliant account, didn’t get a chance to explore.

For this study, I attended five meetings from September to November, each lasting about forty-five minutes. I participated with the ‘Public Relations’ committee of the group that dealt with organizing how the group came into contact with the rest of the student body. I also participated in the various brainstorm sessions that semi-regularly took place.

The notion of a public sphere is important for understanding how the SU Dems came into contact with politics. Eliasoph’s definition of it is as follows:

“The public sphere is, theoretically, defined as the realm of institutions in which private citizens can carry on free and egalitarian conversation, often about issues of common concern, possibly welding themselves into a cohesive body and a potent political force. It is not just a closed, hierarchical workplace and not just family but is a third setting for conversation with three main characteristics: participation is optional, potentially open to all, and potentially egalitarian.”

[Eliasoph 1998:11]
Public spheres are forums in which people can discuss social issues that they feel are important to them and create a dialogue that can engage them in a larger scale of politics. Everyone in the community has access to it at anytime and, ideally, there is no power structure. Without it, Eliasoph argues, “democratic citizenship is impossible: there are no contexts to generate … relations to the wider world that democracy demands” [Eliasoph 1998:11].

Because the SU Dems is a group with a clear political identity, the first circumstance I looked into was how they either helped to foster a public sphere or muffle it. One method they used to create a public sphere was a large display they called the healthcare wall. Healthcare has been a pressing issue in US politics, and so the SU Dems set out to create a large poster that attempted to ‘clarify’ what they felt were myths put out by the political right. In addition to that goal, a significant portion of the poster was left blank with markers beside it to encourage students and faculty to chime in with their views on healthcare. By doing this, they effectively had people enter into a conversation (however anonymous it may have been) with each other over which no one had control. Eventually, the conversation turned into a debate with many sides protecting their own thoughts while pointing out what they felt were follies in others. Even if people didn’t put up their own opinions on the board, the public record of the conversation was still on display for all to read and consider.

However, the board was not without its problems. While people largely took advantage of the situation and used it as it was intended, some comments simply insulted those they disagreed with. I saw this as a potentially chronic complication of public dialogues; not all members of the community will view a conversation or even a debate as a critical thing that must be held. However, they can’t be effectively ostracized, especially in an anonymous environment. The best the SU Dems could do was press on and hope it didn’t happen very often. Though, those comments on the board showed that as a group, they didn’t prevent any measure of the student body from expressing itself – an impression I believe would help prove a measure of worth.

As the SU Dems actively created dialogue, they accidentally ended up stifling it among members, which happens to be the second consequence of the environment the group existed in. It wasn’t in the way they asked their members what they thought about a particular plan or idea; they did plenty of that. It was more in the manner of expectations. After a few meeting or so, I began to see how it was assumed that by being at the meeting, everyone present was already on the same political page. This assumption then meant that there was no need for discussing our own personal politics. No discussion meant no public sphere. No public sphere meant that our individual ideas were not challenged or developed.

Yet, it is comprehensible why things were like this internally. The proper goal of the group was to focus on affecting the political conversation of the campus as a whole, not the conversation between the twenty of us. Time had to be allocated towards accomplishing that goal and moving against the SU Republicans, who have been constructed as the opposition. There was also a need to make efforts clearly visible to the community at large to indicate that the group was being active; improving the political understanding of the members didn’t hold many opportunities for showing off.
The third element I noticed was the way the group had two different patterns when discussing issues publicly and internally. This relates to Eliasoph’s theory of the front and backstage behaviors of groups. For the volunteer groups Eliasoph was studying, they “created ‘front stage’ group contexts that made publicly minded conversation seem out of place and discouraging” (Eliasoph 1998:24). When members were not in a group, in their backstage dialogue they recognized that there was a problem with what they said front stage and spoke with politics un-divorced from the issues they aimed to fix (Eliasoph 1998:24).

The front and back stage concept changes for a group such as the SU Dems. Because they are rooted in politics, they can’t avoid speaking in that vein all together. Instead of the issue being how in the public eye, politics finds its way out of the conversation, it is how to go about publicly speaking about politics. As the group was designing flyers to compliment their work with the healthcare poster, a great deal of care was taken by the Public Relations committee (of which I was a part of) to select their words carefully. One member said that they were aiming to be a little snarky, while still being respectful. They were seeking the perfect balance between clearly stating their message and being aggressive towards dissenting students.

In open conversation within the group though, people were much less cautious about expressing their views. For example, during a discussion about the Republican student group’s kickoff movie night in which they were showcasing the movie “Gran Torino”, jokes went around about how they felt that was the best way to perpetuate the stereotype of the grumpy, old, Republican white male who doesn’t take kindly to minorities. One person even shouted out “Have fun with your racist movie night!” This was something that would have never been said out in the open air, but was more than okay to be said within the context of the group. There were no concerns about offending anyone backstage because everyone belonged to the same party and had the same rival. On a more public front stage, the rules of loyalty are gone and with it the protection it granted. You are much more liable to step on someone’s political toe and so treading lightly was a necessity.

As for the tension between being too forward and making themselves clear on the front stage, Eliasoph noticed a similar conflict in the activist group she studied.
“After about a year of meeting regularly, though, members began asking what was the relation between personal style and political ideas. The group explicitly discussed the conflict between looking respectable and expressing feelings, and tentatively decided that it was more important to ‘play the game’” [Eliasoph 1998:177].

The issue for the activists was how to be thought of as ‘respectable’ while discussing how they felt about their issues. The decision that ‘playing the game’ was of more importance meant that they saw how people had a number of expectations from groups like theirs. And in order to get what they want, they would have to do things to alter expectations. For example, as they went about figuring out a name for their group, they rejected names that would imply too much negativity and radical behavior or names that were ‘sappy’ [Eliasoph 1998: 177]. For the SU Dems, finding the balance between their extremes was playing the game; they had no third alternative to run to. Unlike the activists, if the SU Dems didn’t respect the values of all on campus, a higher authority could very likely stop them.

The SU Dems’ hierarchical structure is a fourth consequence of operating within the campus. Power was in many ways a clear top-down model. They had a president and numerous officers as most if not all the other groups did on campus. The times I had arrived early for the meetings, those in seats of power would already be inside the meeting space, discussing private business while those of us outside began to socialize. I also noticed how people reacted towards seating arrangements. When members came in for the meetings after the doors had been open, there were many who hesitated when they saw empty seats at the far end of the table. It was understood that the end of the table was where the officers and president sat and so no one wanted to cross a line of territory. Interestingly enough, there was never an incident in which any of us were actually told where we could and couldn’t sit; it was just an unspoken way of conduct. Had power been spread around, the hesitation people expressed when looking for a seat would likely not had existed.

The structure that was chosen for the group also helped to ensure things got done. As mentioned before, I was a part of the ‘Public Relations’ committee. During the second meeting I attended, everyone was asked to pick one of three committees to join (the remaining two was ‘Events’ and ‘Fundraising’) and focus their efforts within. Dividing the existing amount of manpower the group had was done in order to become more efficient with their time. Both the power issue and division of labor hint towards how the group was in many ways run like a business. The preference for this type of organization is a ramification of the school’s free-market. In order to stay alive the group has be active, and if the way their organization isn’t conductive to their goal, they’ll sink in the sea of other campus clubs.

After having studied in the SU Dems, I participated in a focus group, questioning a bunch of students and one faculty member to express their thoughts on how the school I did my research in lived up to their mission statement. The group made a clear dissention between the success of the academics and the extra- curricular (which would include the SU Dems). They said the extra-curricular clearly helped to prepare students for lives of achievement and leadership. And so, I asked about the free-market nature of the sea of campus groups and it was explained to me that such a system helped to ensure clubs followed the interests of the students at large. When people have lost the passion needed to keep a club alive, another that better fits the internal current replaces it. Basically the old give way to the new. This is the challenge for all campus clubs: how to remain relevant while at the same time retaining your collective values. The SU Dems merely shaped themselves in a way that does both – they fight for their right to exist (funding, members, etc) and push their political agenda. The resulting positive and negative effects on the discussions of politics in a closed system are never completely considered. Eliasoph was right to explore this matter – how people are able to relate to politics are important to understanding the development and sustainment of democracy, particularly within halls of academia.

Bibliography:

Eliasoph, Nina
1998 Avoiding Politics: How Americans Produce Apathy in Everyday Life. New York: Cambridge University Press.

One Month Down, Four More Years To Go

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:00:00 +0000

I still can't believe I'm a Freshman.

Honestly, it was rather hard to imagine myself as a proper college student in the months leading up to my arrival here, but now look at me. I'm running through the halls of academia trying to avoid being late for class, fostering newly forged relationships with people dramatically different from those I know back at home, seeing another side of America I've never intimately known before and guess what?

I'm having a ball.

While I'm fervently attempting to keep my head above water in terms of my course work (to which I must admit lazy days), I also am just as fervently striving to create my self-perpetuating niche - the people and environment that will allow me to play around and find new ideas.

But this means understanding what lies around me and concreting my plans. I'm so transfixed by this, that I even made myself a nice sheet of goals for the years that I'm here (the goals are separated by 1st year, 2nd year, and so on. Yes, I'm that serious). Do I intend to keep them all? Of course not. However, I know have a better visualization of what I want from my time here - I'll be damned if I let so much time out of my life go by with nothing but a diploma to show for it.

And I have already begun to take steps to realize those objectives. I've leaped at chances to expose myself to and reflect upon culture. So lets see what the month of October has up its sleeves?

One month down, four more years to go, eh?

Bring it on.

Interview w/ Cornel West on WNYC

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:38:00 +0000

I absolutely *have* to go read this man's memoir at some point in my life. And you should too.

Stormtroopers' 9/11

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:06:00 +0000

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

To Mac, Pc Users: Get Over It

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:11:00 +0000

I shall begin with a simple statement: I don't believe in participating in the argument between Mac and Pc users over which system is better. Each system has its ups and downs, thus it is up to the individual user to decide what their preference is.

I thought this mentality was simple enough to understand, but it appears I was wrong (as always). I really hate it when Mac and Pc users alike bash the other side due to their own 'horrific' experiences and/or lack of understand of the rival platform.

It seems that people fail to grasp that this one and only truth: All computers, regardless of its maker and the software installed on it, will at some point in its life time malfunction. The degree of the malfunction varies, but the statement stands true. Trust me. After seven years of repairing computers and a summer working at a repair shop, I've seen the hellish side of it. That pretty little Macbook Pro you've got there - most likely gonna be the bane of your existence. And to make things worst, you're probably going to be the reason for it flipping out on you.

There are so many elements that both sides like to nitpick at each other for - be it price, customization, power, whatever. The list can go on forever. The machine costs more than you would like? Don't buy it. You want more control over your machine parts? Go somewhere else and don't complain. Want a nice design? They pony up the money for it.

My own personal preference is the Mac. And that is perfectly alright. But I'm not one of those people who go around as if they're in a missionary in Africa and try to convert as many innocent looking folks as possible. Like what you like people - just don't impose and use that tone of not so repressed disgust when you encounter others who don't agree with your tastes.

If you do, well then, I pray your machine will blow up in your face one day.

A War For Your Soul

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:26:00 +0000

Thank you Google Reader and this site for bringing this to my attention. And its just perfect considering my previous post from earlier today. Anyways, hopefully this will drive my point home -- If it doesn't, then I don't know what will.

A War For Your Soul-regular version from Erisai Films on Vimeo.

On the N-word

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:19:00 +0000

This past Monday, my cousin and I were having a discussion on this particular word. I normally fall into the camp that believes that word shouldn't never be uttered. Let alone by the African American youths, and in come cases grown ass adults, that have made the word such a popular statute within our culture. However, my cousin made a rather compelling argument.

Me: What have I told you about using that word?
Cousin: Yes, I know. However, there are some black people that deserve to be called N*ggers.
Me: What?!
Cousin: Think about it. People who live around here - *waves hand indicating the rest of the block* - N*ggers. People who go to The Club - N*ggers. There are just some people who play the part, so they deserve the title. You're not a N*gger. I'm not a N*gger. But they are.

Took me awhile to get over that bit of the conversation, but when I thought more and more about it, I saw his point. There are those who just simply fall into the stereotypical atmosphere that the word creates.

Is this by any means right? No, but it is what it is. It is far more realistic to deal with the nature of the word than to just hopefully wish it away.

So then, seeing as how people are black folks are going to use the word from now to kingdom come, what does this mean for racial interactions? How can I say anything about perceived racism towards my race when I use a word that has historically been used to degrade my very people?

I couldn't, shouldn't and can't say a damned thing. I would be doing a lot more damage to my own cause than any little overzealous cop who, let's say, gets his kicks by pulling over as much black males as he can in a day. I would be perpetuating the very set of social norms that I say helps to confine me to - abstractly speaking - the hood.

I will now step off my soapbox - the point has been made. Before crying racial fowl - which DOES still exist - please look at your own habits and find where you are slipping up. Finally, here are reasons why not to be a n*gger. Especially a self-proclaimed one. Oh how I hate those...

Update: Click here for an additional video that drives the message right on home even more.

Favorite Pic of the Day

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:36:00 +0000

What Does It Mean To Be Educated? - Allegory Of The Cave

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 20:24:00 +0000

Every year, Susquehanna has an university theme that their summer common reading is centered around. The theme that I've been so lucky to come into school with is "What does it mean to be educated". At Orientation, we were all handed an anthology that promised to explore "how we learn from formal and informal educational experiences".

One chapter of the book is Plato's Allegory of the Cave. It is a dialog between Socrates and Glaucon in which they discuss the duties one who has escaped the cave has to his fellow brothers still in chains. Take this quote in which Socrates tells of what should be the State's goal with those who pursue an education:

Then, I said, the business of us who are the founders of the State will be to compel the best minds to attain that knowledge which we have already shown to be the greatest of all - they must continue to ascend until they arrive at the good;but when they have ascended and seen enough we must not allow them do to as they do now.

What do you mean?

I meant that they remain in the upper world: but this must not be allowed; they must be made to descend again among the prisoners in the den, and partake of their labours and honours, whether they are worth having or not.

In short, Plato through Socrates is saying that yes, our leaders should and must encourage those that are after an education. That is needed. However, once they reach a certain point, they must then be made to serve the greater populous - those that remain in the cave, instead of completely leaving them behind.

There we have our first question: Those that become educated -whatever that may be-, should they be forced to partake in something that benefits everyone? Or should they be left to do as they wish?

I believe that more often than not, those that are clearly educated have a way of flocking to positions that have varying degrees of 'public service'-ness in the job description. Senators, presidents, judges, doctors, cancer researchers, teachers etc - of all of these, the best of the best have been awarded an education and it is their job to do what they can for the embitterment of everyone.

Of course, that is the general aim of such positions and I'm speaking in rather ambiguous terms here, but bear with me. Just looking at the words 'presidents' and 'senators' in that sentence above makes me laugh, but remember its more often than not. Hopefully.

Anyways, back on tract. I can't completely agree with Plato when he says that they have to be forced into such roles, but I believe that especially with a liberal arts education, most people have the Mensch, do gooder attitude instilled into them. I can't force people to give up their own happiness for the happiness of others - I feel like such a thing would cause resentment in some hearts that would then grow and jeopardize their performance.

Does this mean that I would allow for people to put their own happiness above the well being of others? Does that mean that those with the opportunity to gain seats of 'power' should be allowed to exploit that power at the cost of their people, much like we've seen throughout history.

Plato has something to say to this. A page or two later he writes:

Whereas the truth is that the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and quietly governed , and the State in which they are most eager, the worst.

...

You must contrive for your future rulers another and a better life than that of a ruler, and then you may have a well-ordered State... Whereas if they go to the administration of public affairs, poor and hungering after their own private advantage, thinking that hen they are to snatch the chief good, order there can never be; for they will be fighting about office, and the civil and domestic broils which thus arise will be the ruin of the rulers themselves and the whole State.

He writes that those who have no interest in ruling will be the best suited for the job, and will provide order. Those that have an interest in ruling will only cause disorder because they want to jobs to serve their own goals and ambitions.

If I don't have an interest in something, no matter how much I know it is important, I'm likely to just not put effort into it and only do what is needed. I wouldn't go above and beyond for the people.

However, he does have a point about the others. I simply need to look at our own government to see what happens with officials are fueled by their own self-interests. Take the progressive hell that plagued the Albany the past month or so, take the retarded actions of the republicans during the 2008 election trail up to this very day. Order has gone out the window and progress is the true victim here.

So what would be the best solution? I'd be willing to wager that the answer lies in having a balance between duty and self-interest. You're own wants and needs shouldn't overcome your duty to your people, nor should you become a slave to them. This is also wherein lies the concept of wisdom - of knowing how to deal with both screaming fools at the same time.

And for what it's worth - Plato seems to be implying that only certain people should be taken and nurtured to fill positions of the such; of picking out those who you want to place into a special track of sorts. This goes against what everyone says America is all about - its the land where anyone can work their way up. And while this may be true, there is still the existence of that special track for *certain* people. It is possible for those not on that path to find their way to it, but its only makes things harder. Thank you life chances.

I'll conclude with one last question: Should our elective officials be wise? Keep in mind the hell Ms. Sotomayor has gotten in the past week for calling herself a 'wise latina woman'. I'll give you a minute to answer that question.

Tick, tock.

You done? Good. You should have answered with a resounding 'Hell to the yes!' or something of the sort. If you didn't, well, I'll let you ponder your own silliness. Now go sit in the corner till I'm done.

Of course I want my officials to be wise. I'm trusting them to make deicisons that impact all of our lives and while wisdom is a attribute gained through one's life experiences (unlike what some would want you to believe otherwise) wisdom is still wisdom. Wisdom is knowing where to come to a compromise that actually gets something done. If you can't do that, if you won't be willing to hear other ideas and take them into account, if you will say 'no' as if its your magic wand for getting what you want, then sir/madam I want you off the stage. Just leave. I've lost all my patience with such people. Granted, doesn't that (in someway) make me as narrow minded as they are? Yes, I do believe that argument can be made, but at the same time, I don't care. What I care about (and what others should care about as well) is finding how we can make life better for all.

After all, shouldn't that be an end goal of education? Making life better?

And if I banished you earlier, you may come back now from your timeout in order to discuss this with the rest of us. Just remember to behave yourself. Or else...

Favorite Pic of the Day

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:45:00 +0000

A Stain on SOF Pride

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:28:00 +0000

Within the past week, there have been ny times articles highlighting the arrests of two of my fellow classmates.

Let me start by saying that this is a source of shame for the rest of us. Facebook has been lit with condemnations towards both individuals - none of us expected such behavior from them.

That said, here at links to both articles:
Teenager Is Arrested in May Starbucks Bombing
Manhattan Man, 19, Arrested in Anti-Gay Robbery Attacks

Looking at both cases, I'm not sure what I'm more shocked from. First of all, a bomb? At Starbucks of all places! What did the mocha guy behind the counter run out of mocha so you decided to blow up the place? And where the hell does one even get bombs? I understand guns and knives but a bomb (whatever the strength) is a whole other ballpark. I would go on, but the other things I want to say would get myself in trouble, and I don't need that.

And as for the anti-gay robbery, considering he went to such a liberal school that tolerates just about any and everything, I don't get this. He never stuck me as the anti-gay type (nor did the other guy strike me as a 'terrorist', so obviously I suck at this). As I read the article, I kept trying to recall any form of hostility towards them during my short and often air-fulling conversations with the boy.

As I said earlier, we are all disappointed in those two and collectively shake our heads saying "Those damned fools" under our breaths. If you're going to screw up, don't end up in the nytimes for god's sake.

More Micheal Steele. This Time, With Chicken

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:00:00 +0000

This has been circling around a bit, so I figured you lot should hear about it as well.

First and foremost, I will not be won over with fried chicken. Knowing you, you've likely laced the chicken with something that will actually make your damn rapping make sense.

Now why does he think that fried chicken would help him, after he was made King Rush's erm, um, pet? I don't think there is enough chicken in the world to make the masses of black folk forget that. (Unless, it was he who came to the rescue that day when a Popeyes had run out of chicken. That was just bad...)

And why should he stop at chicken? What about pig's feet, kool-aid, and yams. He might as well make it a whole banquet. Perhaps he can get people so stuff off of food, that he can then say "Hey, you all now owe me a favor". That may be his only hope.

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:04:00 +0000

Favorite Pic of the Day

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:05:00 +0000

http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/nate-beeler.jpg

I didn't say it. I'm just putting it out there.

A Little Mumbling About Race

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:32:00 +0000

Thanks to my currently being unemployed, I've had a lot of time to simply stay at home and read. For a number of months now, I've been intrigued by the thought of looking for a site where 'black intellectuals' - for what that term is worth. A friend of mine (black as well) recently said to me "but isn't that an oxymoron?" - may gather and converse. Granted, I didn't find a site that had fit all the parameters I was looking for, but what I did find may be of more weight.

I stumbled upon blogs and news sites galore. All of this has made me realize that race is likely the topic that most excites me and my sociological studies.

In the age of post-Obama politics, race is *still* an issue. Anyone who says otherwise is a poor, misguided fool. Hell, it seems like now even more than ever, people involved with politics are repeatedly showing their true racist colors. As far as I'm concerned, Race will (at least for the considerable future) always be an element that one must be mindful of. As I get ready to move to Central Pennsylvania, I leave with that premise in mind.

That said, I intend to keep up with these sites - they offer a little more of a window into other issues.

Yes, A 'Wise Latina' Is Just What The Doctor Ordered

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:43:00 +0000

I'm sitting here in my arm chair(a rather comfy one, mind you) watching Sotomayor hold her own against the Senate, simply marveled by her performance. I can not see how anyone who has half a working brain - and there are a lot of people out there who don't - wouldn't want her to serve as a judge. This woman is able to talk with such skill and flow that I can't but be charmed by her.

Yet, we have that damn 'wise Latina' comment keep popping up. Why is there this line between white political candidates promising to help people of non-white origins out and non-white political candidates promising to help others like themselves out at all? Is all this fear that they would help the affirmative action agenda go too far in this country?

I do believe that her being a Latina will bring something a little extra to the Supreme Court. One's life experiences can not help but be present and influential when doing anything in life, much less applying law.

It is evident that the end result of her education, experience in law, and what she has seen in life in general has indeed made her wise. Just watch the women as shes on the plank. Look at what we get when figures who have opportunities at positions of power are unwise to say the least. We get Palin, Steele, and a slew of others that make me have no hope for where this country is going.

I want these people wise. I want these people to come together from different backgrounds in order to make decisions. Quite frankly it scares me when one group - especially one who's every ideals are rapidly losing ground yet ferociously (and foolishly) defend them - wants to keep the idea pool collectively monotone.

But of course, only time will tell whether she will be appointed or not. Good luck, Sotomayor - I look forward to hearing the good news in the future.

The 11th Hour

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:22:00 +0000

Ever thought that the grass would be greener on the other side on the fence, but then on your way over, you start to realize you're not as interested as you once were?

Perhaps that's how I'm currently feeling about going off to college. In this 11th hour - as the days keep rushing to August 27th - I find myself not all that excited as I originally was.

Take for example, the fact that I'm done with high school. I thought I would bask in the glee of graduation but instead, I feel no different. There is no sense of 'OMG! I can't wait to get out of here' as I've seen in my friends.

There are two things about college that I'm looking forward to: The topics I'll explore and graduation. I get to fuel my readings and reflections on race and it's ramification and if I'm able to stay within the honor's program, I will graduate cum laude. At least. This will hopefully put me in a great position to reach the goals I have for after graduation, but more on those later.

I think, that after a week or two at Susquehanna, I'll get more excited. For now, it shall remain some far off distant reality.

Palin 2.0

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:04:00 +0000

It just keeps coming back. Oh god, we can't kill it! WE'RE GONNA DIE!

Seriously, didn't we get enough of her the first time 'round?

I guess not since it appears shes positioning herself for something (2012 anyone?). Now seeing how much political hell has broken loose, I'm a bit paranoid. My friends say we have nothing to worry about - that she made enough of a fool of herself so shes a goner. But, with the Republicans and their cohorts looking for some kinda of face to tie to their brand of bull, she might just be want they need. She might be the one to organize their rhetoric and drive them back to the White House in 2012.

Just thinking about that possibility makes ill. I've been hoping for someone within the party to get their people back in shape, but that is looking more and more like a pipe dream. Should by the grace of the devil himself allow her to even be a contender for 2012, I'm not so sure I want to be around to see the result.

Now where's my passport?

A Pro-Choice Stance

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Mason) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:29:00 +0000

Abortion has gotten quite a bit of press in past months, thanks to a late-term abortion doctor being gunned down by a pro-life fanatic (ironic, no?). As much as I normally would like to avoid taking stances on certain topics, I do think its about time to me sort out my own feelings on the issue.

To put it clearly: I am pro-choice.

Does that make me morally incorrect? Perhaps more likely to being shot as well? Or is it that I'm relatively safe until I start being one to actually perform an abortion.

My train of thought is simple: As a male, one who gets rather sickly when he contemplates anything childbirth related for too long of a time period, how dare I turn on the American female population and demonize their right to do what they feel is right for themselves. No one should be able to control others' desire to control their life as they see fit.

Should someone one day come to me and regulate who I choose to have a child with, when I want to have that child and so on, I would have to tell them where to get off. I know full well that if I don't want to have my reproductive freedom taken away, I can't do the same to anyone else - a nice application of the "Do on to others what you would have them do on to you" rule.

Even the argument of late-term abortion I find to be a silly extreme that must be laughed out of validity. Who do you know would seriously carry a child - would allow another being to share in her existence - only to then decide months before birth to back out of her commitment. Late-term abortions are usually none when there is very little hope for the well being of those involved. People are, for the most part, creatures of morality. Those who are willing to do a fairly brutal process without due cause are a rarity. No argument should be contingent on such a unlikely prospect.

Finally, I close with this: While I do believe that life is something worth protecting, I am much more focused on the lives of those who are already here. They are more tangible, and in much more serious need of help. If you only set out to insure those on their way to this world safe passage, but let the mothers - their entrances become slaves to your beliefs and ideals, whats the point of protecting the newcomers? In due enough time, they will likely follow the mothers' fate.