World Politics vs. American Politics

I have a theory. The mutual misunderstanding of politics between the U.S. and the rest of the world is a large cause of internal political anger right here in American politics.

(Let me note here that I know the United States is not the only country in America. However, rather than continually referring to things as having to do with the United States of America, I'm going to abbreviate for the sake of efficiency and call those things "American.")

Perhaps most people don't understand that American politics can be very different from world politics. After all, despite what many of you may think, the U.S. has never been under the control of fascists, communists, or otherwise tyrannical dictators, despots, or monarchs. Here I'm including a picture to illustrate a simple version of world politics.

What you can see is very basic. We have two major axes symbolizing equality and order. As you move higher on the equality axis, government is geared more and more toward ensuring that members of the community are equal. The common left wing of the world heads toward socialism, sometimes degrading to its extreme form known as communism.

Conversely, moving down the axis of order, we come to world conservatism which demands that a few rights be waived for the sake of societal order. The extreme form here is of course fascism, where order, nationalism, and the state supersede all else. It should be noted as well that under both extremes, rights and individuality end up revoked by government.

At point (0,0) between the two axes we find world liberalism, or what is sometimes called "classical liberalism." The philosophies surrounding this point were pioneered by writers such as Mill and Locke, and were consequently taken by the founders of the U.S. and infused into the fabric of the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution. The idea here is that liberty should be placed as the highest priority without government intervening "inappropriately" to advance either equality or order.

Now let's zoom in on the graph a bit.

Being founded mainly upon classical liberal principles, and also because the U.S. has never been under the control of an absolute ruler, mainstream American politics has traditionally not ventured beyond the shaded area on the graph. Although a few policies have come closer to world conservatism or socialism (a couple of particular targets for such accusations are the Patriot Act and Social Security), the left and right wings have so far been able to check each other sufficiently enough that the USA houses neither a communist nor fascist party strong enough to present viable candidates. In essence, the actual range of mainstream American politics is much smaller than the range of politics in many other places in the world.

The problem comes then, when those who are not Americans but perhaps live within the current sphere of American international hegemony seek to compare what happens in the U.S. with what has happened in their own various countries over time. In this case, and as Americans seek to make the same comparisons, we begin to hear accusations of "fascist!" coming from the American left, and "communist!" coming from the American right directed toward their respective political opponents.

In reality the United States has never come anywhere near fascism or communism. Instead, when American political views drift toward the edges of classical liberalism -- further toward world socialism or world conservatism -- the opposing American side generally goes berzerk, drawing upon exaggerated notions of that drift.

By the same token, a European may learn that the "conservative party" has won the election in the U.S. and assume that America has moved much closer to fascism than it actually has since the word carries very different connotations in these two regions. Thus, I present the crux of my theory: that much of the political fear and anger experienced by Americans, and many of the ridiculous accusations made by either side can be traced back to improper comparisons of American politics to world politics.

This, of course, is not to say that without improper comparisons we would have political peace. Rather, it is partly the perpetual recurrence of these comparisons that causes the inflammation of our debate into the ridiculous demonization of those who may be on the opposing side.

Top ten ways to bring Talk Like a Pirate Day to the office

Arrrrr! Today is International Talk Like a Pirate Day so we decided to prepare a list of the top ten ways to bring the celebration/holiday to the office. We begged, borrowed, stole and compiled the best of the best from all over the internet and added a few of our own. So get ready for some pillagin' and plunderin'! See how many of these you can try out before you're politely asked to leave the office (or asked to walk the plank!).

#10 - Give co-workers pirate nicknames based on their titles: Buccaneer (CEO), Captain (Manager), First Mate, Cook, Privateer, Land-Lubber (Intern)

#9 - Plan and carry out a mutiny against your boss.

#8 - For lunch, call a fellow shipmate and say, "Arrr, matey, have your parrot call my parrot and we'll partake of noontime grub together." And then go to Arrrrrrrrrby's for lunch.

#7 - Start every email with "Ahoy Matey!"; "Me hearty" or "Scurvy Dog!"

#6 - When accounting asks for numbers, say "I'd rather walk the plank!!!"

#5 - Spike the water cooler with rum (see picture at right).

#4 - Do all your expense reports in Doubloons (use a currency converter if you need to).

#3 - After the staff meeting, yell "Hop to it, dogs: Thar be leftover catering booty in the break room for plunderin'."

#2 - Change the dress code to a "Pirate Dress Code" (shirts must be torn and untucked, peg legs must be covered, eyes must be fully patched at all times, arrrrgyle socks only) and if you don't comply, you'll get sent to Davey Jones Locker for insubordination.

#1 - When the xerox machine flakes out, yell "Avast, ye demon copy machine! Taste the wrath of me arse!"

Do you have any to add to the list? Comment below!

Happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day!

Thanks to cisley and zappowbang for the photos through Creative Commons on Flickr.

The Question of "Dangerous Ground"

Just who is Mark Penn? The name in question belongs to the former top campaign strategist of former presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton. Penn held that position until April of this year when the two parted ways in regard to a disagreement over a certain free trade agreement which the Senator opposed. This comes to us by way of Sourcewatch (and the crazy picture of him comes courtesy of thesun.co.uk).

Not to be forgotten, Penn came back into the news today when, in an interview with CBS, he stated that the media were on "very dangerous ground" in their treatment of Governor Palin.

"I think the media so far has been the biggest loser in this race," Penn stated, "And they continue to have growing credibility problems ... This is an election in which the voters are going to decide for themselves. The media has lost credibility with them."

When I read this I wondered whether or not anything Penn was saying could be verified. Being a Geocentric co-host then, I set out to investigate. Are the media really losing credibility?

Last October, Gallup came out with an article showing the results of a poll that had been in process since 2001. As can be seen in the chart here, "more than twice as many Americans say the news media are too liberal (45%) rather than too conservative (18%)."

So how does that measure up against Americans' party affiliations? This next chart gives you all the numbers you could want. I should point out here that the 45% mentioned above are composed of 77% Republicans, 43% Independents, and 15% Democrats. Of course Democrats, being affiliated with the more liberal of the two parties, are more prone to believe the media present information "just about right."

This potentially speaks to one of two possibilities. Perhaps Republicans are way out of touch in their opinions of the media. Or perhaps the fact that their sentiments are supported (though obviously not echoed) by the views of Independents shows that they are on to something. But these are the results of only a single poll.

So now I must leave the matter up to you. What do think about bias in the media, or what do you think about their treatment of Governor Palin? Has the media lost credibility with you? If so, and if their credibility continues to decline, what do you suppose will be the future of media coverage in this country?

Lest we forget...

Today, I would like to honor those who lost their lives during the tragedy that happened seven years ago on 9/11. It's hard to believe that seven years have passed since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Like most, I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing that day. Like most, I didn’t fully understand what was going on as the first events unfolded.

I was a senior in high school and sitting in my physics class when I saw the second plane hit. I remember watching in disbelief when the first tower collapsed. I was thinking of the last time I saw the World Trade Center in person. The summer before the attacks, I took a trip to New York City with my dad and some friends. We were on the ferry to see the Statue of Liberty and I had a friend take a picture of me with the NYC skyline and the World Trade Center in the background. Who could’ve possibly imagined a view of that skyline without the World Trade Center? After class that day and for the rest of the week, I was glued to the news stations (a rare occasion for me as a high schooler). I have a detailed account that I wrote a couple years later that I’ll have to share sometime.

The main reason I have for posting today, though, is to challenge you (and myself) to learn something new this week about the heroes of 9/11. I watched a couple of really good programs this week about the United 93 flight. The shows inspired me to learn more and so I researched a few of the passengers on Google. It was amazing to see the profiles of the everyday people from different walks of life who came together to stand up to the terrorists. So this week, try and learn more about these heroes and you’ll grow to appreciate them even more. To the heroes of 9/11 and their families: Thank-you.

During this week’s Geocentric Podcast, we will have a moment of silence for the victims of 9/11. Thanks to Jason Wilson and Jackie "Sister72" for the photos on flickr.

You are what you listen to

We've all heard the saying, "you are what you eat." What's more telling, though, might be what you listen to.

A new study at Heriot-Watt University in Scotland found strong correlation between peoples' personalities and their choice of music. The study, which included 36,000 people from six different countries found that people had more in common with fans of their favorite music in other countries than they had with fellow citizens who preferred different styles of music, according to a CBC News report.

Here's what CBC News reported about the results of the study:

"Jazz fans tend to be creative and outgoing, with high self-esteem, in keeping with the innovative and sociable nature of the music.

Country western fans were found to be hard-working, but introverted, fitting with the blue-collar image of country music.

The research concluded soul music lovers are a well-rounded bunch — creative, outgoing, gentle, at ease with themselves and with high self-esteem.

Rap fans are outgoing and far from gentle, while indie music lovers lack both self-esteem and the work ethic.

[There is also] a link between income bracket and musical tastes, with more affluent consumers liking more exciting, punchy music while those lower down the pay scale preferring more relaxing sounds."

Perhaps the most unexpected finding of the study revealed the many similarities between people who listened to heavy metal music and those who listened to classical music. Both groups were described as, "gentle, creative people who are at ease with themselves."

Keep in mind that this study isn't a personality test. Most people listen to many different kinds of music and also have very unique personalities. They can't be fit into such general categories as the ones presented in this study. But the key to this study is that certain types of musical tastes correlate with -- not cause (necessarily) -- certain types of personalities. Correlation isn't causation. We can't gain stronger work ethic just by listening to country music. On the other side, many already hard-working people don't like country music. The findings are still very interesting though as long we remember that personality isn't solely based on musical tastes.

What I like about this study is that it proves what we've already known: love of music is universal. It penetrates borders, language and culture itself. Music defines who we are. Like the great Bob Marley still says, "One good thing about music -- when it hits, you feel no pain." That's something we can all relate to.

Good Job, Google

On Thursday, Episode 11 of the Geocentric podcast mentioned the first negative aspect we'd heard about Google's new browser, Chrome. That point in particular was related to the EULA, or more simply, the browser's "terms of service." Momentarily I'll give a brief explanation of what the problem was but for now I would like to announce that apparently Google has remedied the problem. I bring you this announcement from the gadgets related blog of Matt Cutts.

So here's what happened: Originally, there was a portion of section 11 in the EULA stating that by doing anything through the Chrome browser, you would give Google “a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.” In other words, if you do it through Chrome, Google owns it. Those of us who were aware of this were irritated to say the least.

To their credit however, Google has officially changed this section to the following:

"You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services."

Much better. Of course the original wording of the EULA was rather confusing to those who understand the history of Google, not to mention that such a rights claim seems odd in connection with an open source product. So to help us understand what happened, Google released the following explanation:

“In order to keep things simple for our users, we try to use the same set of legal terms (our Universal Terms of Service) for many of our products. Sometimes, as in the case of Google Chrome, this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don’t apply well to the use of that product. We are working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service. This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome.”

So basically, it was a case of bad cutting and pasting. Well, I suppose you can't expect perfection from anyone, even Google. However, those of us who are just waiting for Google to become that which it hates can breathe a sigh of relief... at least for now.