I Think We Did Do That

Responsibility—perhaps the scariest thing for any person to have. Personally, the word for me always conjured up a slightly negative connotation. Responsibility was an inevitable and encumbering necessity that would plunge my life into the depths of scheduled monotony. To my deep seated fears, responsibility meant that I would be responsible—that decisions and consequences would ultimately be MY fault. Is this why people fear the concept of global warming and climate change? Is it so scary for people to admit that man has started to cause massive shifts in temperatures and trigger more severe ‘natural disasters’?

For years evidence has been laid out in the public sphere by legitimate scientists and quacks alike toward the concept of global warming. The term ‘global warming’ has itself become so ubiquitous for most in the United States that one would be hard pressed to find someone who has not engaged in at least a cursory debate on the issue. With raising ‘awareness’ of a warming globe there has been a marked bias against actors perceived at causing it. From the start, responsibility for climate shifts and melting ice-caps has been put on certain sectors of the world population, corporations and groups of politicians. The environmental concept of global warming was political from the get go. Since the onslaught of the Al Gore environmental ‘revolution’ however, it has since become heartless and borderline heresy to ignore the perceived effects of ‘global warming’. For me, global warming seems like an un-falsifiable argument that has gained such strong roots in the ‘common sense’ of Americans that if someone were to legitimately question man’s responsibility for global warming he/she would be laughed out of the debate. Global warming, and those who rally to fight against it, has thus not only become a political issue in recent years but has solidified itself in the political sphere with an immense amount of political capital biased toward one ‘scientific’ or political view.

So what does this mean for responsibility? If global warming and its claimed effects have indeed been caused or exacerbated by the doings of man does it not behoove man to change it? I think it does. It is however quite frightening to think that man has such power to effect the world in such a way. The weather was always a realm of irresponsibility on the part of man—a realm where people could watch in awe and equally justify loss and death as outside their own control. The weather was the dominion of the ancient gods, the activities of Mother Nature then the product of complex scientific climate systems based on regular Earthly cycles outside of man’s control. Now here we are, sitting on the doorstep of more responsibility and we are fighting each other whilst convulsing with fear.

From Thomas Friedman’s Did We Do That? - New York Times

"One thing people always loved about the Weather Channel was that it was nobody’s fault," Ms. Cullen explained. "We didn’t point fingers. Our news was not political. And then Katrina came along, and suddenly the weather wasn’t the weather anymore. It was something else. Suddenly the weather was potentially our fault."

World War III

It's coming.

I've never lived through a World War, so I can't claim to know what the experience is like. However, if World War III will be anything like Warcraft III, I say bring it on. I've been playing that game for years.

Just joking, of course. Furthermore, I've never actually played Warcraft III.

Linguistic Rant 1

Anyone has known me for even five minutes knows that I am partial to ranting (and holding unnecessarily insigifnicant grudges for unnecessarily long periods of time--a story for another day), so it should be no surprise that I post the occassional rant on Combat Shock.

Today's rant regards people who infuse certain words or phrases into their habitual speech pattern that either a) don't make any sense, b) are superfulous or c) just plain old irritate the hell out of me. For example, I despise it when people try to emphasize the magnitude of the story they are telling by prefacing a statement with "When I tell you that...," then go on to describe an action that they, of course, think is earth shattering, and finally don't finish their thought by referring back to the "When I tell you that..." i.e. someone might say, "When I tell you that at my old job, I had so much more responsibility than I do at this one." That's it! That's the entire sentence. Shouldn't it be more like, "When I tell you that at my old job, I had so much more responsibility than I do at this one, I mean it!" At least that would make sense.

Another example is when people preface a statment with, "Can I just tell you..." and then proceed to tell me without waiting for an answer. What if I simply didn't want them to tell me? If you want to tell me something, just tell me. Don't ask me and then tell me if you aren't planning on waiting for an answer.

I don't know what happened to engender this sort of speech pattern to be so prevalent in society today. And it's not just among youths--adults have begun speaking this way as well. Adults who lived through the fifties.

People, let's all try to use the language that we've all agreed upon.

The Annual Nobel Prize Awards Show!

Last night, I had an incredibly interesting discussion with my girlfriend, Meghan, about the nature of the Nobel Prize, seeing as how it's that time of year again when Stockholm grants the prestigious award to some of the year's most notable pioneers in various academic disciplines. The discussion began with questioning the nominations procedure, which admittedly I was unclear of and consequently had to look up in this comprehensive Wikipedia entry. After finding out that nomination records are sealed and never publicly announced (not even to the nominees), the discussion progressed to whether the Nobel Prize would work as a more popular, Academy Awards-type ceremony that is broadcast on television intended for mass viewing and media coverage.

I actually find this very intriguing. Sure, the Nobel Prize is covered in The New York Times and the like, but I wonder if broadcasting a ceremony in the style of popular television, movie and music award shows would generate enthusiasm among the public for academia and perhaps even engage viewers to pursue their own intellectual endeavors. People complain all the time that the American public is becoming more apathetic with regards to intellectualism, so why not try to appeal to the public in this fashion?

As an added bonus, it would also be splendid to watch Al Gore walk up stage to receive a Nobel Peace Prize (this is just speculation!) while an announcer says, "This is Mr. Gore's x nomination.."

Speaking of nobel prize, how is the prize for physics and for medicine this year? Giant Magnetoresistance is crucial for storing large amounts of date on hard disk, leading to the developments like the Ipod. Genetic Manipulation in mice also is pretty interesting.

By the way, big shout out to Marginal Revolution , Greg Mankiw and all the guys who have pointed out Intrade's betting pool for this year's Nobel Prize. Economists can be such dorks, but I love it. Who do you think is going to win the Nobel Peace Prize? The website seems to favor Al Gore...

Oh, and Oprah? Really?

Survivor

No, not the vaguely racist television show. I'm actually referring to Chuck Palahniuk's "brilliantly satiric and savagely funny" second novel, as the San Francisco Chronicle described it. During my commute home this evening, I spotted two people reading this book in a stunningly short amount of time--between boarding the subway headed for the Port Authority and boarding the bus leaving the Port Authority (a matter of 4 subway stops and a walk to the bus terminal; about 15 minutes total).

The book was published in 1999 and has since achieved notoriety and acclaim, particularly among cult fans. I've never been a fan of Palahniuk. From the brief passages I've read of his, I have found his works to be pretentious and not particularly well written or original (I have read many authors who have written in reverse chronology before). Funny thing is, a friend of mine lent me a copy of Survivor many years back, which is still sitting on my bookshelf, as I have yet to get past the first chapter.

How can it be that almost seven years later, so many people are still reading this book? Is it just me? Can it perhaps be one of those books that I am dismissing too quickly that is, in fact, marvelous? Or are more people than I think reading it based on word-of-mouth and not enjoying it? Perhaps the success of the Fight Club movie has engendered some sort of psychological do-no-wrong status among cult fans. I have no idea.

Tell me people, is this book (or others by him) worth an honest read?

Putin's Parliament

I think everyone knew that as soon as Vladimir Putin stepped down from his position as President of Russia, he would continue to run with his ex-KGB crowd and exercise the puppet master's hand from behind the scenes of the already highly corruptible regime. So, is it really a surprise to anyone that he announced this?

What a shocker! Since Putin is barred from serving a third term as President, he's going to try his luck with Parliament--a door that would lead towards the path of Prime Minister-ism. I remember two years ago having taken a course on Russia in War & Peace (consequently the actual name of the course) and discussing Putin's Russia as the final unit. The big "debate" then was what would happen after Putin steps down--whether he would still exercise control of the new leadership, whether he amassed too much personal power to just relinquish to another, or whether he would legitimately finish his term and be done with the political scene. Even then, everybody in the class almost unanimously agreed that Putin would be around for a long time.

I particularly like this excerpt from the New York Times article:

''In Russia -- as before -- a regime of personal power has been established: The power of one person, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, and whether he is called president or prime minister ... is meaningless,'' Alexei Venediktov said.