Tragedy in Boston

As we all have heard, the Boston Marathon event experienced two separate, yet aligned acts of terror today, both small explosive devices hidden in trash cans. First and foremost my deepest sympathies and heartfelt sorrows go to all of those affected by this horrendous incident. As of this writing, no one person or group has taken responsibility. There are speculations, of course, that the culprits could be al Qaeda related, or at least be influenced by al Qaeda, if this person or persons were not directly affiliated with the terrorist group. 

If this were the work of a sole practitioner who has been influenced by the ideologies and tendencies of extremist groups such as al Qaeda, then the U.S. should prepare for more 'lone wolf' attacks. This type of event could give others more courage to take action against the U.S. on a small scale, because although it may not kills thousands and destroy buildings, it still causes terror and puts the U.S. public, government, and market at edge.  I do not see the U.S. becoming an Iraq or Afghanistan type situation; however the potential for more attacks such as these is exacerbated. 

If on the other hand this act of terror was committed by an Adam Lanza type, then the U.S. will need to seriously reconsider its mental health regulations and practices. Of course there was way more scenarios that we could hypothesize; yet I fear it could be the first. Many lone wolves have failed in the past few years, including the infamous Christmas Day Bomber and the more recent NY Federal Reserve bomber, and there are multiple reasons for their failures. The Christmas Day Bomber was as small scale as it gets but not intelligent or inconspicuous. Cases such as the NY Fed Reserve Bomber are too large scale with the purchase of large quantities of explosive materials that are sure to alert law enforcement. But only one wolf needs to be successful to encourage the rest of the pack. 

I hope I am wrong and the coming days will be very interesting to see how things play out.  Best wishes and prayers to the victims the terror attacks in Boston today.

Technology making us lazy...

I am not the first to say this, nor the last, but technology is making us lazy. Who wants to read a 2 page article from NYT when you can simply go on to the BBC and read the same article but in 1,000 less words (ok, over exaggerating), or merely go to Twitter and in 140 characters or less! Our attention span is probably shrinking, but at least we pay attention to some things. And if you do not feel like reading an entire article, skimming the first 2 paragraphs is better than not reading at all. The worst part that I see, and that is little talked about, is the auto-population tactic and the auto-input feature when you search on Google (or any other search engine). Auto-population is great when filling out forms and/or applications, but saving the cookies to your computer could also get you in trouble, especially if your computer falls into the wrong hands or your information is not deleted from a publicly used computer. [I do not need to mention storing user names and passwords on computers and the risks this leads, but it could also make you forget your password and have to keep changing it - so inconvenient!].

The auto-search function is great when you are unsure how to word a search or just want to see what pops up after you type in "when I" (it's a fun game, you should try it). But when we know what we are looking for and the search bar auto-populates the letters and words of your search, we just hit "enter" and up pops the hundreds of pages that have some sort of related wording to your search. But will this auto-populated search deter us from typing? It is handy on a smart phone, though smart phones, such as the iPhone and some Android phones already have the talk to text feature, or just voice control over the entire phone. This eliminates the time and energy of us having to find what we are looking for manually. It also saves us typing time. Technology is inevitable, and we can only guess that in a few years down the road some cell phones will be virtually hands-free. The same may go for computers. The software is out there that allows one to speak into a microphone and the computer will automatically type what you say. Automatic. That is the problem. Our world of technology and instantaneous-ness commands shorter attention spans and our desire for more information to reach our fingertips more quickly and with less energy on our part. There is money to be made in this field, but it could also be an indirect factor of America's decline - if America is declining at that. The Developing World has access to this technology but will not employ it the way the America (and the 'West'). The Developing World will also prosper in manufacturing and extracting before becoming service-oriented economies. In the future, if I can just sit on my couch, talk into a microphone and direct my computer to not only write this piece but post it on my blog, how much movement will be perform?

(By the way, I am a fan of NYT and BBC).

Occupying "Wall Street"

It is now out in the open that for the past 3 weeks, there has been a movement in downtown New York City called "OccupyWallStreet." The first two weeks, the media did not give the movement much coverage, but now, that the demonstrators haven't left their designated park, the media is all over the movement. And this is good. It will get the Occupy Wall Street's name out and may even draw in more supporters. The official website is not too technically savvy, but it gets the message across that the only way to change the current politico-socio-economic system is through activism and rational conversation. (The movement does not condone violence, though who knows if it will lead to that?). The interesting thing is that there is no real list of demands, except for accountability, respect, equality, and well, jobs for qualified individuals. Though to get a better understanding, I encourage you to read this CNN article, which was not written by a mainstream CNN reporter. My take is what I said earlier about the Egyptian demonstrators - many do not have jobs and want to express their disappointment with the system. Many demonstrating do have jobs, however. But most just do not feel important enough in the system, even if they are employed. Maybe they are looking for a purpose, or maybe they are looking to for something to do.

Here are some pictures from the demonstrations, though there are so many out there now:

A friend wrote this piece to American students (please note that it is edited):

"For the students, if you're getting [a college/master's] degree because of a concern with what is wrong with the world and wish to do something about it, I suggest you join the movement. The general assembly process offers you and the your communities more potential for impacting the lives you want to live then [a] degree does.

This is not to denigrate [a] degree but as a [degree holder] I have seen the brightest and most talented of my peers struggle to find work or find work beneath their abilities. Sadly the non-profit and government labor markets favor those who buy in to the current systems, settle for reform, imagined or real, while it punishes the creative among us who would change or replace the system for lasting solutions. If, for example, you are the kind of person who is getting a degree to get a nice UN salary, do some shopping, then you should go to liberty plaza and see how much more potential collective action has than consumption.

As you guys learn about states, global governance (UN, IMF, WTO, WB, Basel, etc) and even civil society, keep mind that these may not just be necessary evils but not necessary at all. There are horizontal alternatives that my coursework never taught me that I had to find out for myself.

In short, everyone go to the marches, go to liberty plaza as much as possible and participate and help out and converse. "

And just like Al Jazeera had a live stream of the Egyptian revolution and Libyan revolution, you can watch a live stream of the OccupyWallStreet movement here:

http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution

Or you can read about it and watch it here:

http://gothamist.com/2011/10/05/live_video_stream_occupy_wall_stree.php

Again, there are numerous media outlets now covering this development.

Analyzing Social Media and Revolutions, Again.

This past week, CNN put out an article on social media, one that asks the question whether social media hinders revolution. The basis of the piece comes from an article by Navid Hassanpour, a grad student at Yale, who calculated equations and came to the conclusion that the organization of revolutions are hurt by social media because it discourages face-to-face contact and the real understanding of the current situation by seeing it/experiencing it/and discussing it with others physically. This may be so. Social media via the internet and through devices such as laptops, cell phones, and tablets, let people connect to others without physically meeting or seeing them. Hassanpour argues that people have no choice but to organize and mobilize without social media, which doesn't seem that groundbreaking. Aside from the calculations to prove this, the answer here is part of everyone's metamemory or metacognition, meaning, we have known all along that people will organize in the absence of social media, but just needed to be reminded of it. Some call this "hindsight bias" but still, this the argument of Hassanpour is nothing out of the ordinary.

Taking from the CCN article, they quote the New York Times regarding social media's role in organizing people: "All the Twitter posting, texting and Facebook wall-posting is great for organizing and spreading a message of protest, but it can also spread a message of caution, delay, confusion or, I don't have time for all this politics, did you see what Lady Gaga is wearing?" Confusion spreading, yes, as there is a plethora of information coming from social media apparatus on the internet, and one cannot always discern between accurate and inaccurate information. But for those who are staying abreast of a revolution through social media, the NYT is wrong to assume that people would just get bored with the revolution (politics) and wander on to other topics (Lady Gaga??). Those in tune with the revolution will most likely not be distracted by other goings-on in the world and will be highly focused on the revolution.

The question here is "does it really matter if social media hinders or helps revolution?" Yes, it is always good to analyze the effect of social media on all things, Clay Shirky has done this multiple times. It is also good for theoretical work to discuss this, but it has no practical value because technology will only advance and social media is here to stay (Google+ just came out, right?) Perhaps statistically social media may bring less people out to the streets, but that does not necessarily mean that social media makes people less interested in current events. It provides more outlets to disseminate information and news, whereas this information is in the public domain and can be viewed by people who otherwise would not have been interested enough to go directly to the source. And it is a fact that social media helped the revolution in Egypt.

Revolution from Evolution

Protests, violence, revolutions. This has been the norm recently throughout the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), dubbed the “Arab Spring.” The uprising began in January in Tunisia in January against former president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, who was thereafter ousted, and picked up steam with the protests in Egypt, which led to the downfall of long-time president Hosni Mubarak. Insurrections then sprung across the region to, most notably, Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain, but also to Jordan, Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, Djibouti, Sudan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Many of these anti-dictator movements have been suppressed by the use of force from their respective governments. Though things remain largely unchanged in many countries in the MENA, the current wave of demonstrations has made its mark on those autocratic regimes. Most analysts and reporters have rightly contextualized these mass uprisings as a reaction to political, societal, and economic disrepair. A prime example is Egypt, where Egyptians became fed up with the dilapidated economy, zero job prospects, poor health care, and lack of housing. The unemployment rate is around 10%, yet 88% of Egyptians between the ages of 15 to 29 are unemployed—meaning they had nothing else to do except remain on the streets and “fight for their rights.” Similarly in Yemen, the general unemployment rate hovers around 8% and for those under 30 years of age, the rate is between 16-45%. One can assume the same for Libya, which also has a general rate between 15-30%. This allow for Syrians and Libyans to take to the streets without suffering economic consequences (since many do not have jobs). But what if these socio-economic factors were not the primary reasons for the revolutions, but rather helped induce an evolutionary change in the protestors and demonstrators, which has pushed them to their limits?

An ecology article entitled “Humans as the World’s Greatest Evolutionary Force”[1] by Stephen R. Palumbi makes the case that humans, and human technology, has accelerated evolution in our eco-system through the industrialization of “our agriculture, medicine, and landscape.” Palumbi states that “technological impact has increased so markedly over the past few decades that humans may be the world’s dominant evolutionary force” and efforts to decrease evolutionary change are usually ineffective. In short, he cites examples of the human impact on the speed of evolution in pests and diseases to resist man-made antibiotics and pesticides, claiming “such changes are apparent in antibiotic and HIV resistance to drugs, rapid changes in invasive species, and pest adaptation to biological engineering products.”

If bugs evolve to resist pesticides, then perhaps there is an evolutionary force for humans to resist corrupt regimes and demand better governance. This is not to say that Middle Easterners and North Africans are analogous to pests, vermin, diseases, or viruses; nor do corrupt dictatorships resemble pesticides and antibiotics. Rather, it is the comparison of unknown forces present in small organisms and human beings that enable both to build up defense systems to resist either a debilitating pesticide or in our case, authoritarian rulers. As species of organisms and animals evolve, the species Homo sapiens also exhibits evolutionary changes, particularly in intellectual thought. Yet just because Homo sapiens are one species, not everyone within the species evolves at the same time. This does not make anyone less human than any other, but it is generally accepted that each and every person on this planet is different, particularly in intellect. Moreover, it is evolution by context. As each situation is unique to each country throughout the MENA, the new challenges that develop and the ways that those citizens will respond to these challenges will ultimately make them evolve. It must also be noted that here, evolution does not equate with civilization and those who live in the MENA are no less civilized than those who live in Europe or the United States. Normally, ecology and international affairs do not go hand in hand, but perhaps there can be another way to argue these developments in the MENA. What if there has been an evolution of thought and feeling in the MENA protesters that has come about as a way to resist the suppression and dominance of the governing regimes?

The combination of protesters’ grievances of being denied the right to freely express themselves, the constant violations of civil liberties, and no real political representation—not to mention the high rates of poverty and lack of economic and education opportunities—have exacerbated the need to form democratic governing structures in place of the current authoritarian and/or monarchial regimes. The result is that what has been transpiring in the MENA has been the evolution of thought and feeling into a more democratic outlook. The citizens of the MENA have evolved from acquiescing to their “revolutionary” leaders and the accompanied forms of authoritarian government that came to oppose full-fledge Western democracy; even though many of these leaders claimed they ran democratic states, such as with Ben Ali in Tunisia, Mubarak in Egypt, Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen, Abdelaziz Bouteflicka in Algeria, and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Although the MENA leaders constantly claimed to bring about the much-needed reform for its citizens, it has never come about. They blamed the West for their own shortfalls, and many times this has rallied the public to the support of the government. But no more. The MENA citizens know the system is broken and are now in the process of rebelling to implement other, more socially progressive systems of government that are more democratic in nature.

According to Palumbi, two factors move the process of evolution: natural selection and technology. Natural selection, or survival of the fittest, is when certain traits and characteristics—in our case ideas and feelings—become stronger and eventually the mainstay due to the influence of the surrounding environment. It is still to be determined whether the MENA protesters will be the ones to survive, along with their new ideas of how to govern a state; yet it is rather hard to eliminate ideas. For example, the people of Libya, Yemen, and Syria have built up this will to survive through the decades of injustices and corruption to show that they will stand no matter what force the government may bring to bear on them. Those brutal methods utilized by government forces, such as deploying the military to open fire on civilians, beatings, tear gassing, unlawful arrests, detainments, disappearances, and even murder are what Palumbi calls the “social price of evolution.” These “overkill strategies” such as we see in Libya, Bahrain, Syria, and Yemen, try to “slow the evolution of resistance” in hopes to eliminate the opposition to their rule. Firepower, however, is no longer a deterrent. In Syria, unofficial statistics put the casualty number at over 1,000, but Syrian demonstrators are standing strong against Bashar al-Assad. The situation is similar in Yemen, with over 500 killed and hundreds more wounded from the military response of President Saleh, who has recently arrived in Saudi Arabia for medical treatment for an injury sustained in a rebel mortar attack on his presidential palace. Additionally, a major social price throughout the MENA is the shutdown of the economies, causing losses of income and livelihoods. Yet economic difficulties are not unusual in this region and it appears that these citizens are ready to sacrifice their current situation for future prospects.

Palumbi refers to another method, “refuge planting,” which is the planting of “insecticidal toxin genes” into crops to repel pests without using external pesticides. Translated for our context, refuge planting is the planting of spies in civil society or within the opposition movements to dismantle the opposition and report back to government officials. In Egypt and Libya, demonstrators detained who they believed were plain clothes police officers or government subsidized mercenaries trying to tip the balance of power away from the citizens in the streets. This begs a question to be asked as to why some evolve but others do not, namely those who support and protect the acting regime. This is not easy to answer. Although one may be surrounded by the proliferation of ideas relating to new governance and liberty, does not necessarily mean that one will absorb them. A comparison would be the use of flu shots and their effectiveness. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention[2] the flu shot is not 100% effective nor does it prevent the flu similarly in children and the elderly. In shot, the flu vaccine can kill one strain in some people but not the same strain in others. And as flu strains adapt and change, so does the vaccine. It takes time and patience to prevent against the flu such as it takes time for people to evolve intellectually, an essentially towards democracy. This does not mean supporters or corrupt regime are inherently “bad” or “stupid” rather they have not been opened to new ideas and ways. Revolution gives everyone something to believe in and fight for, regardless what side one lies on.

The impact of technology has advanced the evolution of the citizens in the MENA. The oppression and lies by MENA governments have not been able to stop the proliferation of technology, which has helped spread new ideas through civil society—ideas people may have either read or experienced through the likes of travel, the internet, TV, and even text messages. Yet just by having access to upload pictures or videos of the protests, including the military responses, enables more people to experience the movement and to understand the flaws of the current governing system, thereby reinvigorating the evolutionary drive of democratic ideas to solve the problems. In particular, social media networks, namely Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube, have been utilized to arrange demonstrations, disseminate information and news, and show the world the violent reactions of government forces. For example, the April 6th youth movement in Egypt that began in 2008 and took control of the Egyptian Revolution was only possible with the use of cell phones and the Internet, as they used the web to spread anti-government messages, videos, and assemble Egyptians to demonstrate. Further, Syrian and Yemen opposition groups utilize Facebook and other social media outlets to organize mass rallies on specific days, including Syria’s “Friday of Anger” and Yemen’s “Friday of Honoring Martyrs.” Telephone technology has played a major role in Libya, where engineers siding with the opposition have been able to restore and secure rebel phone lines that aid the rebels in locating targets and people as well as passing on information to friendly forces. Without these phones (and the support of NATO technology) the rebel forces would have been crushed and evolution suppressed. But because of the spread of technology in the MENA, people do not need to a join physical opposition groups to be introduced to different views on the world and governance. Now, one can turn to the internet or TV. As Dina Shehata states in her recent Foreign Affairs article, “The Fall of Pharaoh,” technology has created a “new generation of protest movements open to members of all ideological backgrounds and to those without any particular ideology at all.”[3]

The evolutionary change in the citizens of the MENA has resulted in new thoughts, ideas, and strategies toward governance, and has culminated into the current situation of the region. Technological advancements have proliferated the availability of knowledge, which in turn has progressed intellectual evolution. Those in the MENA are now fighting for their liberty because they reject the injustices brought on by their current (or former) governing administrations. Although it appears that the result of the protests will be democracy, or at the very minimum democratic principles such as freedom of expression, equal rights, and free and fair elections, how these uprisings evolve into newfound political, social, and economic action will be fascinating. Each country’s state of affairs is different and we cannot assume these reformed countries will be overtly democratic in nature or that they will be receptive to the relationships and interests of the West, particularly the United States. However, because democratic values have been a part of the foundation of the uprisings, the development of a sort of democratic hybrid governing scheme could come about, one where religion plays a role in domestic and international policy making. Or new dictators could once again emerge, setting the MENA population backward, but still fueling the fire of evolution within.

Palumbi suggests that we should try to use the evolution of different species and diseases to our advantage, and so too should we support the protesters of the Arab Spring. This is not the first time a group of peoples has risen up against their government and it will not be the last. Yet the outcomes of the MENA uprisings will have far-reaching implications. Let us hope that those “fittest” to lead these new countries will do so in accordance with the will of the protesters.

---

[1]Palumbi, Stephen R. “Humans as the World’s Greatest Evolutionary Force.” Science. Sept. 7, 2001. Vol. 293 No. 5536. pp. 1786-1790.

[2] “Vaccine Effectiveness.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm

[3] Shehata, Dina. “The Fall of the Pharaoh.” Foreign Affairs. May/June 2011. Vol. 90 No 3. pp 26-32

At the World Trade Center

Well it known that crowds gathered in front of the White House and the World Trade Center on Sunday night when bin Laden was pronounced killed in action. As I work in the area, I took some pictures of the World Trade Center the past few days and would like to share them here. The pictures are from my second generation iPhone, so they are not the best quality.

Bin Laden is Dead?

Every major news corporation has reported that Osama Bin Laden has been killed by a US mission in Islamabad, Pakistan. He was targeted and killed in a mansion in the city, news sources have stated. It appears that it was a manned mission, as opposed to that of a drone attack, which is very commonly used by the US and NATO in Afghanistan and the borders of Pakistan. Bin Laden's body is in US custody and his DNA has been double checked for accuracy. Of course many will deny this report online and in news media, particularly those supporters of al Qaeda; however Qaeda can use his death as a huge martyrdom experiment to recruit and inspire recruits. This will be a tangible success for the US and its mission on the 'war on terror,' but this does not mean that al Qaeda will fall apart in the short run, and perhaps not in the long run either. Al Qaeda has splintered into so many groups and factions throughout the world that although the head of the group has been killed, the loss of his direct leadership will be minimal on most groups affiliated with al Qaeda, such as al Shabaab in Somalia.

It is fascinating that this operation was successful during the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, called the Arab Spring. Will it have any affect on the protesters and demonstrators as a way to inspire them that the symbol of Islamic extremism has been killed? By bringing down this symbol, perhaps it can invigorate these MENA citizens to rebel harder against their own dictators, to start a new era that accurately represents Islam and governance not just for the region, but for the world.

Some things that are interesting which I have been hearing and reading from these various news media outlets:

1) Al Qaeda will strike back hard; therefore the US has not scaled down any security measures around the world just because the AQ leader is dead;

2) Although bin Laden was killed in Pakistan, Pakistan has vehemently denied his presence in their country. Afghanistan, on the other hand, reiterated that bin Laden was not stationed in Afghanistan, but was in Pakistan this entire time.

3) Several hundred people outside the White House are celebrating the news, singing the national anthem and chanting "USA, USA."

The operation was a man mission, being led by the military but in cahoots with the US. Obama directed Leon Panetta, director of the CIA to make killing/capturing bin Laden the top priority, and last August, he got a lead to where bin Laden was hiding in a compound in Pakistan. Last week Obama authorized the mission and today he gave the mission a go. No Amriecans were harmed as it was a small unit of men, yet there was a small firefight, with led to the killing of bin Laden and captured his body.

Basically Obama said talked up 'war on terror' mission in Afghanistan, although bin Laden remained at large until today. He said that it was a significant achievement in effort to rid AQ, but understands the war is not over. He reiterated that the US is not a war against Islam. He also noted that there was cooperation with Pakistan, even though the Pakistani intelligence service is constantly accused of colluding with the Taliban and even aiding bin Laden. Some of his memorable quotes will be "Justice has been done" for those affected by bin Laden's terror and "America can do whatever we set out mind too," which is also a segue into his political campaign.

Obama really struck on the 'gaping hole in our hearts' for those lost in 9/11. The tie with the events of 9/11 is really the only one with Bin Laden in recent memory. This is a good thing that there weren't more large scale attacks orchestrated by bin Laden. Other than any repercussions on al Qaeda and how they will react to this news, it will also be interesting to see how the US's global power is viewed and how the US's relationship with Pakistan will continue.