Well, my new-old site crashed… Not that I have written anything in quite awhile… Mostly because of time, work, and school.

There are times when science actually fascinates me, and I want to be scientist to make the great discovery that will change the face of the world forever. This is what I mean, when I was growing up in school, it had been pretty much accepted that asteroids had collided with the Earth to create mass extinctions.

Every school kid knew that, a massive rock from outer space had killed the dinosaurs. This was the practical answer, the oversimplified answer. In reading Peter Ward article, the explanation appears to be more complex. There appears to “geochemical” evidence from the geologic rock that some of the mass extinction came via the climate over long periods of time.

Peter Ward builds his case through graphs and assumptions that, along with those within his field, greenhouse emissions were may have been responsible for at least two of the mass extinctions: the Permian and the Triassic. Through scientific method, data collection, and fossil records the information appeared to skewed.

He weaves a compelling story of how some of the mass extinctions were a gradual process through carbon dating, fossilized materials, and new statistical protocols for analyzing the fossilized ranges. He then sets forth in proving his thesis forward. The critical analysis suggests that the mass extinction is recurring, more of a historic event than a random one like the extraterrestrial events.

In his modeling, of when the events are triggered, is up for much debate and research. However, in his clip notes he points out that:

• “More than half of all life on the earth has been wiped out, repeatedly, in mass extinctions over the past 500 million years.
• One such disaster, which included the dinosaurs’ disappearance, is widely attributed to an asteroid impact, but others remain inadequately explained.
• New fossil and geochemical evidence points to a shocking environmental for the largest of the mass extinctions and possibly several more: an oxygen-depleted ocean spewing poisonous gas as a result of the global warming.”

And similar types of ecological events have made his and others arguments compelling. His graphs and charts of the plausibility make the article more readable for the layperson.

Toward the end of the article, the article drags a bit with the accounting of volcanic, CO2, and H2S concentrations that common student eyes might roll back into their head. Nonetheless, the explanation of CO2 parts per million, and where possible greenhouse emissions by the end of the next century for the present day modernity seemed to be a bit convenient for global warming debate.

One final point, the author’s tone of the article seemed to be filled with an urgency to take notice. The overall tone was a warning for humanity to take better control of emissions. At the end of the article, there seem to be agenda blossoming. This bit of preaching concerns me, in that, there may have been some scientific dogma encroaching within the article itself—but nevertheless the excitement of discovery had me tweaked for discovery in the geologic record.

I have spent most of holiday break from school reading books for the research of my thesis on how human’s perceive themselves individually and within groups to establish what is tangible and define the unexplainable with the evidence of science fiction and fantasy.

In the process of this discovery, I have come across several texts that tend to illustrate this process outside my predisposed genre of theoretical choice. One of those reading was by Vine Deloria, Jr. His reading has taught me: how human beings endeavor to find various ways to believe, perceive reality through idealism, faith, logic, and rationalizations. With that said, Vine Deloris’s book, Red Earth, White Lies, comes across as if he is lecturing a class full of snot nose; wet behind the ears; ethnocentric students; who can barely think outside of the box.

Thus, the reader and/or students are perceived as unable to think critically and unable to ask obvious questions and culturally ignorant of not only of native indigenous peoples—but also of their own civil, ethnic, and religious attitudes. For instance, Deloria says. “The bottom line about information possessed by non-Western peoples is that the information becomes valid only when offered by a white scholar recognized by the academic establishment; in effect, the color of the skin guarantees scientific objectivity (page 35).”

His point is well taken, for the most part, although, it is consumed with bias, bitterness, and vitriol. I concede that science should do a better job of cataloging data of past civilizations through the debris archaeology and geology; and, it has made implausible large and esoteric “statement of facts” of how a culture in era separated by time existed. Yes, one might be able to extrapolate from the present and “well” recorded cultures of the past 400 years or so ago—but, that does not necessarily mean that the past, or present, are accurately reported by the observer/s, or that they fully understood the language of the native peoples.

Admittedly, Deloria’s attack on academia and the “dogmatism” of the “scientific” expert and the extreme entrenched scientist plays well for his audience by deconstruction of them in order to invalidate and maybe even subvert the arguments of the institutions. Some one once said, “Translation is death.” Deloria pontificates that, the word “giant” has been mistook, mistranslated, oversimplified for the “taller than average,” or the “tall ones” that were taller than the “average us” of present “seems” plausible. Furthermore, Eurocentric folklore, whether told through theologians, historians, or oral traditions has been transmuted, transformed, and translated to the dearth of human compunction especially those of native peoples.

This is what I mean, Deloria castigates and derides his own native indigenous community for contributing to their own “invisibility,” he says:

“These positive symbols of prosperous buckskin are not the whole story, unfortunately. Nothing is calm beneath the veneer of Indian country, and it may be that we are seeing the final absorption of the original inhabitants in the modern consumer society. The push for education in the last generation has done more to erode the sense of Indian identity than any integration program the government previously attempted. The irony of the situation is that Indians truly believed that by seeking a better life for their children through education, much could be accomplished. College and graduate education, however, have now created a generation of technicians and professionals who also happen to have Indian blood. People want the good life and they are prepared to throw away their past in order to get it (page 2).

Thus, his proclamation that some of his own brethren’s willingness to “educate” themselves at the hegemonic culture is a betrayal of sort; in that, the full assimilation of the Indian identity is close at hand. In so being that, the Indian identity is becoming “acculturated” as well as “socialized” into the ideal American hegemony representation and culture.

Moreover, to “accept” the hegemonic culture’s as sacrosanct becomes the final death nail of the Indian identity. This assumption by Deloria is a bit arrogant. Nevertheless, his point about the sciences’ overzealousness as to dismiss native folklore as irrelevant, insignificant, and “unreliable” is short sighted. Yet, if we are to rely on the hypothesis by academia, and yes the dogmatic views of scientists, then the perspectives of indigenous peoples must be included. Speculation without proper evidence, of scientific data, is cannon fodder. The dismissal of evidentiary data, and to assign it as possibly faulty, because it is not “convenient” to present day scholarly arguments is spurious. And, denies the ability to obtain the wealth of information.

Deloria’s thesis throughout his book is driven, compelling, heartfelt, even surreal as he tries to layout the case of dogmatism of academics and scientific community—but it abuses the totality of the groups. And to the extent of his argument, this is one of the by products of a hegemony. On the other hand, like the political extremes, there are those who “truly” believe that they are impartial not dogmatic. “True believers” (Hoffer) never do. It is the observers from without that are astutely aware of this sometime rigidity, pragmatism, and again sometime dogmatism of science. This endeavor is often on the verge of religiosity, yet, at the least, more willing to adapt.

The previous statement may seem accusatory, but in a recent special by Nova, in regards to Albert Einstein, in the culmination of his theory of E=mc2, and the basis for his work. The dispute within science, of his time, was between whether mass and energy as separate and distinct proves a point. “Culturally” the stubbornness of science to disregard women, or those “beneath” them in the social-strata, in bringing new ideas, “out of the box” thinking has slowed the progress of discovery. If not for the advent of war, the acceleration of modernity might have been furthered hampered today’s post-modern world.

Nevertheless, Deloria’s overwrought thesis has me disconcerted how to proceed in receiving his view of the social sciences such as anthropology or geology, in regards to the machinations of native cultures that has passed its history orally—without the physical written scribes—has afforded science the ability to discount native peoples mythos and legends. This is unfortunate, and I understand the Deloria’s view of how research of these cosmology—and “perceived” histories that are “documented” by books and essays seems arbitrary.

Deloria’s description of a world of condemnation, intolerance, and condescension comes across heavy handed. Some of this criticism is warranted, however, one has only to see the history of the Maya codex as an example of the “long process of discovery” to understand its significance (see Breaking the Maya Code by Michael D. Coe). It is his tone, the lecturing in the fashion of GrandFather to his grandchildren as, as I perceive it, gives me pause. This means, of course, I have more reading, and, observation, study, in the verification of Deloria’s thesis and statements.

As for my own thesis, this is another affirmation of how humans behave, in that, they establish, displace, or set aside the items that once inconvenient; verify, narrate, and (re)deploy (my own acronym—DVND). Deloria’s view that, the world of science has “disappeared” a whole culture historical metaphors, and mythos underscores that the human condition “provides” the rationalization to feel victimized, or to be perceived as “worthy” to the reality of the hegemonic.

Deloria’s book is a clarion call for the social sciences that allege to “know” how civilizations existing thousands or millions of years ago (see the article of Dikka Baby in Scientific American as an example) as hypothesis grown as facts. And, then have those “postulations,” “speculations” as the popular and engrained as institutional theories into the halls of the education system as factual lore. This in turn thereby disregards other “plausible” explanations. I am not asking for native indigenous people’s cosmology or spiritual mythos to be as accepted as fact—far from it. But to be accepted or seen as another data point for correlative research, not to do so is irresponsible, arrogant, and ethnocentric.

The Red Earth, White Lies is agenda-ridden and can be viewed from a racial disparity perspective, but Deloria’s critical analysis, and overarching thesis scathes science for a good reason. To open up the dialogue, to shake them up, to wake up “the establishment,” for its inequity, at times, of viewpoints, of perspectives, and if this was his overall purpose—good job.

This past fifteen weeks, I have been taking a course called Cultural Diversity in the Modern World; and, throughout it, there have been four main themes: socioeconomics, race, culture, and ethnicity.

For clarification, ethnicity is shared and learned aspect of culture; therefore is a subset of it. This is the small “e” of ethnicity, the learned ethnocentrism of one’s parent. The behavior (learned) shapes the familial unit. The core and identity of the capital “E” of ethnicity originates from the cultural mores of the larger group beyond the family; such as school, church, and other larger community events.

Working backwards then, the overlapping template of ethnicity plays a role in the cultural diversity of an individual, in that, the perception of outside agencies, who bring their “own” baggage of perception”, sets one’s ideals, values, and beliefs juxtapose to the “other.” This otherness, if you will, soon becomes the “us” once the meeting of ideals are blended—thus integrated. One might say, is “the incorporation“ of one’s ethnic group; no matter what one’s dominate group/s may be in charge of, or represented.

Example—If one is residing within the United States, for instance, one could be considered an “ethnic” group from the “others” perspective outside of the US—since ethnicity is more of a nationality than a race. Another example of ethnicity can be seen in the book, “In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in the Barrio” by Philippe Bourgois discourses on the state of Spanish Harlem—based on race ethnicity.

He points out the challenge of assimilation after the exodus of Puerto Rico, where the great immigration of Puerto Ricans nationals to New York aspires to the American Dream after War World II. He reveals a patriarchal dominated society of machismo identity from both female and male perspectives of their deconstruction of subsistence patterns inherited from their native land—essentially the transition of being farmers, mostly, to assembly factories workers, to only have them, their jobs for the immigrates, virtually disappear—“outsourced” within thirty years of immigration. During this transition the “work ethnic” that is usually attributed to immigrate becomes transformed. Education is revered and downplayed. A culture of dependency resulted; drugs, abuse—physical, mental, sexual—and alcoholism subverts and delays the full incorporation into the American ethos.

The core base of the work ethnic is instilled into the children of immigrates yet considered by their Puerto Rican youth as a foolish game of the overriding homogenic culture. They see themselves as a “ethnic group” subservient and oppressed by the dominating culture—thus their ethnicity, defined as arbitrary, of a group identity, real or imagined, social, cultural, and/or racial past has been relegated as insignificant. The youths see their culture under attack, which brings out their arbitrary and overstated sense of ethnicity in their culture.

Culture is defined as learned behavior that allows and explain a people’s way of life, it also includes the blueprint for survival, is adaptive is intangible, is shared, and is integrated, and that, the hegemonic “state,” in this case, culture sets and establishes cultural norms. The dreams, goals, and desires by both immigrant and hegemony become blended, and integrated. Again overlapping, sorting the details of behavior and the rule of law, both explicit and implicit. An example of this, again taking from the Bourgois book, is term he uses called “cultural capital.” In the book, one of the youthful protagonists has an office job, where he felt uncomfortable taking orders from a woman. His bitterness and disdain for her was only precluded by his lack of understanding of office politics and how corporations assess their economic value. Thus, his inability to achieve and understand “cultural capital” (Bourdieu 1973, and Bourgois 1995), defined as the general cultural background, knowledge, disposition, and skills that are passed form one generation to the next, within the dominating society, while underachieving prevented him from moving beyond recrimination of what he believed as hegemonic “state society”-defined as “the man.”

“The man” represents a particular faction of humanity, in this case, in the form of a race—Caucasians. Needless to say, this brings us to another component of cultural diversity, which is race. Race is defined as statistically significant phenotype (what is seen mainly—and unseen), and that, the official position of anthropology is that, racial categories are culturally determined, in so being that, they are arbitrary, in which, race is whoever, whatever, we (as a society) want it to be. And they sum up their with position as “we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called “racial” groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances” (American Anthropology Association 1998).

An example of this arbitrariness, is within the United States itself, the category of Hispanic as a race is a culmination of an ethnic Spanish speaking peoples covered a swath of various ethnic differentially different group, whereas as outside of the US, race is, for the most part, separated from a native indigenous peoples and former Colonizers of European decent. Skin color is also factor. Collin Powell, considered a Black American, but outside of the US, he could be considered “white” (because of his features) or of European descent in countries such as Brazil, or in Latin America states. This reinforces the observation that race is arbitrary element as determined by the hegemonic culture or society. Furthermore, race is a biological concept that may have varying differentiation within a race, but in the entirety of the species does not.

And finally, socioeconomic defined as differential access to a society’s sources of wealth and/or prestige. As exemplified earlier, in the book by Philippe Bourgois, speaks of limited resources of Spanish-Harlem, in the sense that, minorities access to, or understanding thereof, to the dominate overlaying culture precepts of bureaucracy of city codes and regulations for opening a store—for instance—was hindered by their inability to read and comprehend culture capital moments.

In fact, invariably “culture capital,” and “socioeconomic factors” are integrated, shared, in that, the behavior of surrender coincides with accessibility to the hegemonic culture tools from the depressed group. Although, the group is often misrepresented and categorized as skin color, as minority access to the dominate culture resources are not the same. For instance, someone whose income in that of the middle class (no matter what race) does have the same access that of Ted Kennedy, or a George Bush family members. The ability to have the resources from a global perspective is far easier for these families than a middle-class citizen. The automatic entrance to Harvard or Yale, because of family name recognition alone gives an advantage over those who don’t. Pro Athletes, politicians, famous actors have the access that most don’t.

The culmination of the above points is to illustrate that cultural diversity and the study of it are complex. In that, cultural diversity is the causes and implications of the contact and interaction of different social and ethnic groups. Moreover, these various themes are part of the web of significance that overlay the modern culture of America. The globalization is created by the engine of competition, as a leveling mechanism, dysfunction, and therefore creating variety of vehicles as a complex structure that empowers and fuels modern diversification in the sense of culture, religion, technology, innovation, and creativity yet with this saturation and overpowering of states comes the resulted backlash of ethnicity and state societies trying to find normalcy and stability seeking to reaffirm their brand of cybernetics.

This backlash can be seen in the “culture wars,” immigration debate, and on the “war on terror.” In addition to these, the blending, sharing, integrating the world of modernity and cultural diversity with globalization as the overriding engine of creation for competition of resources will continue to subvert state societies (in all forms), cultures (in all forms), and religion (in all forms) for years to come.

Editor Note:

It has been a challenge to pay the upkeep on this website. I have asked for donations to help the poor college student, who has been trying to make his way through school. I am approximately two years out from completing my master thesis, but three months behind in doing my research projects due to lack of funds. So, therefore, from time to time, there will be adveristing within my blog. I will discuss those I have experience directly, or experience within the field that I may have been exposed to indirectly. So, with no further ado–here is my first attempt.

There is always a beginning, middle, and an end. Life is cyclical. In the book by Travis Hugh Culley, “The Immortal Class,” we observe his life through his eyes, at first as a child, which for him was quite extensive, then as a young adult trying to find his way into maturity; the world of uniformity.

Let me explain, Culley speaks of his observation of the “rhythm of the city” as watches “culture capital” of employers and employees perspectives each justifying their place within the social construct of daily life. He conveys the sentiment of the workplace environment, the daily politics of workers, of the temp, managers, and CEO’s.

In his youthful self, we find him defiant, struggling to find his way—and challenging authority of his parents, and the social control of neighborhood. His befriending of the “strange” neighbor and the “mythos” of the neighbor’s perceived mental capacity illustrates his rebellious attitude.

His personality of defiance resided within him well into his mid-twenties until the realization, the transformation of his sense of survival and very essence of subsistence was threatened. The “social control” from his mother begins to takes hold. Reminding him the only way a “mother” can, that he is responsible of taking care of himself in order for the world to “figure him out”—she simply says, “You’ll need to eat first…” This sly statement by his mother, reminded me of a cartoon from the 1990’s called Animaniacs, by Warner Bros. Studios, which had a pairing of two mice known as “Pinky and the Brain.” Brain, an oversized brained mouse and tiny body, was a genius (insanely so) that wanted to take over the world with his supported friend or sidekick—Pinky.

Pinky, in the cartoon, is supposed to be the insane one. He makes funny snarf noises, whistles, and faces. Pink seems to be brain damage; even might have a bit of Tourette’s Syndrome from all the inappropriate outbursts that come out at untimely moments. Pinky is Brain’s friend no matter what; or, how many times Brain fails in attaining his goal. The one time they do successfully to take over the world is when Pinky has been “cured”—the stunned look on Brain’s face is classic—filled with amazement and pain, which eventuates Pinky into sabotaging his own success and reverting to type. Pinky is the “true” genius and he uses “Superman II” type moment in order for Brain to forget. In a sense, Pinky’s role was to be a supportive role of a parent; unconditional love—and smaltzy. He, Pinky, listens to the schemes of Brain no matter how hair-brained, unconventional, or out of the norm they are. Pinky supports Brain’s mad-hatter type ideas—and let Brain fail ad nauseam to gain experience from his mistakes.

Pinky, in the four-quadrant political model, is upper left, individual emotional, while Brain is an over-the-top lower, authoritarian, and rule of law systems type. So, what does this have to do with Culley’s book?

On pages 85-87, Culley in an emotive episode; in a condescending attitude tone with his mother, when she asks:

Culley writes then, how his mother responds to his emotive state (upper left), “she took a deep breath and chuckled. ‘You’ll need to eat first.’” Although his mother may appear to be coming from the left quadrant of emotional concern, albeit there is some, she is actually coming from the space of lower left, group socialization, a form of system social control perspective, in that, coercion or silent ridicule is a used as a tool to correct an individual’s behavior. Culley through implication recognizes this.

On page 121, Culley begins to find his “consciousness.” Realizing that the world will move without him. He pontificates, “What would happen, if I were to be hit or disabled again? Having nothing, how could I recuperate? Is this what it feels like to have nothing left in the world? Is freedom the feeling of being prey to other people’s negligence? From the worker’s perspective, is freedom not failure? All this thinking; I had not surrendered.” Yes, he still a bit self-absorbed, Culley is beginning to express his version of self-awareness.

Knowingly aware that “action” is required, “movement is required,” and as he says, “If thought can catch you, so can language. If language can catch you, so can death…” In essence, from an upper left, intuitive emotional sense, Culley understands that his individual behavior, upper right, must take hold. He says, “If you question, you hesitate and that is dangerous… (p 125).”

Later on, Culley, crashes into a pedestrian, “a suit,” on his bicycle, and becomes “transformed.” To the extreme, Culley shows signs of being Bi-Polar from a laymen perspective, swinging from one extreme to another, are apparent. He is now on a high, from the accident with the “suit”—he is feeling invincible. Bicycle delivery infuses Culley’s ego and yet tempered to a certain degree. But as I purvey the travails of his misadventures, a nagging theme song underlies my thoughts—the theme music of “Pinky and the Brain” now becomes transmuted to the “Mighty Mouse” theme.

He tries to soothe us with antics as he battle with the natural environment of modernity. To import the sense of heroism throughout his text; somehow the world will be caught in his poetic trance as he tries to glide through as if he is the Roman god of Mercury—a deliverer of space, time, and chaos—if you will. His messenger status creates the view of spatiality; he sees the dance, and twirls before it. This begins a process for him, trying to embark on a category. He begins to think integrally as he describes the “congestion of a city.” He takes note of how harried life remains the same, even in slow motion. Culley’s reflection of how the pace of the city has remained unchanged despite the transition from horse and buggy to the horsepower of the metal machine is interesting to be sure. But the culmination of technology has always, in a sense, reverted within a city walls—no matter how much advancement been procured. After all, a city is the embodiment of the lower right governmental systems. It is essentially Platonic state of bureaucracy.

Invariably, with Culley we find him once again trying to convey a sense of community in the closing moments of his book with the death of a fellow bicyclist. His last chapter is the revelation and culmination of his green politics fully furled, in which, he invites environmental and ecological changes, and in turn, tries to redefine the subsistence of the socioeconomic classes. He asks, in a sense, the desire and the ambition of a people, of a nation actually, to return the hearth of Americana. To return to theme of community in order to reduce the stress filled world—and slow down. He counters his own words of staying in motion. He presupposes that such an active discourse can be possibly driven by Americans will be reborn from its isolationists flame of the Phoenix—and that the children of suburbia will return to the womb of the urban city.

He, Culley, has transformed himself from the individualist, upper right, with self-absorption to more of a emotional collectivist state—lower left—but has integrated to the quadrants of behavioral, psychological, governmental spaces, and yet even his integrated persona belies his megalomania of a mouse self shines, whether it is Brain or Mighty Mouse one cannot be sure.

(Image by Scientific American)
“Scientific American: Reviving Dead Zones written by Laurence Mee”

I am of two minds in regards to this article. The science and nature bare the fruit of discovery and truth. However, the author of this article has dog in his presentation, and apparently he wants everybody to know it. His last name serves him well as he pontificates what should be done with world’s coastal areas and estuaries.

The tone of the article was one of not only informing but of one that seem to state that I told you so. His bias appears to come from the certainty that his research, along with others, as he graciously included has borne fruit. He imparts that the intensive agriculture and by products thereof have an immense impact on the environment by creating dead zones among the coastal shores and bounded coastal areas.

He first defines what the dead zones are by giving it name called eutrophication. He lays out quite expertly what this process does to coastal shore. He specifically uses the Black Sea as the prime example of his case study and throughout the article. He explains how the human element massively contributes to the contamination of the environment.

In many ways, the article condescends to the reader. He overly explains what the issues are, and how the effect of eutrophication has hurt the ecosystem. Simply, it is the reduction of accessible oxygen for the environment or sea to be viablely used by the inhabitants (sea life). Mee proffers once the oversaturated nutrients of nitrogen, from fertilizers and other byproducts are reduced by the elimination of central planning by communist states, and the break up of them, along European environmental consciousness that reviving of the dead zone Black Sea has started to comeback.

There other elements as well that has played a factor, such nature’s resiliency, and ability to adapt. His scientific method seems sound, the explanation more than plausible; it is the tonal quality to which his last two pages embark—the tone of lecturing-that was annoying. His evidence was compelling—I just felt that last bit of hawkish behavior was not needed.

By Greg Stewart
image by National Geographic.

It is big news when the senior editor of National Geographic takes the time to write an article—and a 3.3 million year old baby is just an occasion. The discovery of the Dikika baby is quite incredible. To look in the hominid record so far in the past is quite incredible (link here). A bit of history, if you will, that may have been part of us.

The amazing part is the fact the discovery is so complete. The Dikika baby has even brought more questions regarding the life of Australopithecus afarensis. The discovery of course is found in the Awash River from Hadar, near the site of Ethiopia Rift Valley, the most abundant site for hominins discoveries.

The article was very informative in regards to the current culture of the country. Meaning that, the discovery of such find is remarkable with malaria, lions, and ethnic violence at the door of the researcher back make the discovery quite compelling a story of how they found it. But the one question that kept running through my mind was, “Is this find a fraud, a fake discovery, a clever ruse to bolster evolution?”

The science and technology seemed sound enough. The area where the discovery was made was interesting. Nevertheless, although the verification process must have been rigorous, my mind contemplated the possibility that this might be a false find. The trouble I had with article was the assumption of how baby hominins and their parents lived. There seem to be a lot of guessing.

As for the physical evidence, it made me wonder to what extent the brain deduction and tooth patterns of the skull warranted such conclusions. Too much subjectivism seemed to play on the whole of the article. Sloan reporting is worth investigating, and the material to be further researched. From the lessons in class, the scientific method was used for the most part. The supposition of how the A. afarensis inter-acted on a daily basis was a bit too subjective.

The conclusions of the adaptations, or lack thereof, were fascinating, but too open to conjecture. The overall appeal of the article for a layperson was quite informative, while being a bit understated for those with superior knowledge. In fact, this reporting is more about the discovery than the science of how the 3.3 million year old baby girl who fits into the evolution scale than documenting of the actual science.

Author’s Note: To be clearI am certain of the validity of the discovery. To find such a prize, and in its completeness seems too fantastic. In addition, the “culture” assumption by the article’s authors is to problematic for me. At anyrate, there is a need for more evidence to validate this 3.3 million year-old child.

By Greg Stewart

I really tried to get through, [this school assignment of], the long winded diatribe of Thomas L. Friedman’s book, “The World is Flat,” when I found out there was another hundred pages to read between me and my Final Destination to a conclusion and the course syllabus; I surrendered. I did scan major portions of it, however.

Lucky me, I had already prewritten an initial diatribe of fluff, and of banter. I had written this grandiose obfuscation on Friedman’s book, although compelling, thoughtful, and a clarion call to urgency, his thesis is repetitive and too long for public consumption. For the most part, he is correct, based on the argument he presented, on the assessment of this country’s, the US’s, competitive future lies. Friedman’s dissertation surrounding the issues of technology and ideology has substantial weight in regards to geopolitics, socioeconomics, and education, in that, he presupposes American competitiveness, innovation, and ingenuity is on the decline.

One hopes that, this claxon call for America’s future is, at the least, examined, and in part enacted. With that said, his socialist leanings may cloud his efforts and his warning to the American consciousness and its willingness to accept it as nothing more than nannyism run amok

The good intentions of Friedman’s proclamation of the “civil evolution” next step have been muted to the halls of academia and political scientists—in general. By “civil evolution,” I mean that the next great cultural redefining moments, see the examples of Platonic Dialogues, the Christianity Movement, the Enlightenment Movement, and the Civil Rights Movement—to name a few, in which, upheaval of cultural norms have usurped for the overall betterment of humanity.

Some may see Friedman’s warning as purely dialectal science fiction, nonetheless, I felt, admittedly liberal of me I know, that his compunction to undercut American institutions was overstated but sobering. For instance, he says the “dirty little secret” according to the National Science Foundation, “half of America’s scientists and engineers are years or older—and the average age is steadily rising” (p 327).

He also quotes Shirley Ann Jackson[1], “For the first time in more than a century, the United States could well find itself falling behind other countries in the capacity for the scientific discovery, innovation, and economic development” (p326).

In essence, without further quoting, he is implying that educational institutions are failing to provide scientists and engineers to fill the vacuum of creative American ingenuity. We are training more foreign nationals than American native born citizenry (332). Thus, Friedman’s argument focuses on what he calls “The Middlers,” the middle class citizenry ability to adopt and adapt to the new “flat world.”

He says, “My simple answer is this: There will be plenty of jobs out there, with the knowledge, skills, ideas, and self-motivation to seize them” (p 276).

Stop and think about that, he is saying, Friedman, that the outsourcing and in-sourcing of jobs will be based one’s ability to adapt, and will be plentiful—as long as you are willing to change with the new world technologies. Essentially, using the “flat worlds” tools afforded so one can access the job market.

He further proclaims, that the responsibility is not only of the individual, but of the government and employers—Freidman parlays that, “If there is a new social contract implicit between employers and employees today, it should be this: ‘You give me your labor, I will guarantee that as long as work here, I will give you every opportunity—through either career advancement or training to become more employable, more versatile” (p 395).

This may result in more versatile employee, but the employee generally fails to see the innovation of cross training. It seems to most employees that, “the multinationals,” a pejorative, are nothing more than blood sucking life sappers who wish to do nothing more than to squeeze every once of low wages from their employees in order to prop up the self-indulgent overpaid CEOs—see Qwest former executive Joe Nacchio as an example.

Moreover, low wages, commissions, or contracts are undercutting the monies that can be made in the market place. This can be seen in Friedman’s anecdotes, in which he relays this through his friends, when says that their services have been “commoditized” essentially reducing their careers to being “vanilla” or automated to the new world technology. The “flat world” technology as Friedman’s Ken Greer relays, “Our clients,” meaning the boss of a contract based businesses, “all said the same thing, ‘Your firm was really qualified. John was very qualified, John was cheaper.’ We used to feel bad losing to another firm, but now we are losing to another person” [emphasis added].

In other words, “the flattening of the world” will be individualized competition on a personal level, even for multinational companies, since the new technological era make small firms big, and big firms small through outsourcing and reduction of labor. Nonetheless, the technology versus ideology debate, meaning the free market will be grooming how one views through the world. A world that will eventually result in a borderless political axis and those who feel trapped in the world of borders, classism, and elitism will be crushed by the flattening.

Take these words of one prominent one Colorado citizen view of the flat world through the eyes of immigration, he says (basically),

In relaying the fears of his listeners, in how the outsourcing and the in-sourcing of job loss of American citizens to the illegal immigrants warrants protection from them. His view is that that they are stealing low end intensive jobs, while the end service jobs are being outsourced to foreign nationals because of the “multinationals,” don’t care about nations, government, and people. He believes that they are only concerned with profit. His beliefs that the jobs that are being in-sourced to the illegal immigrants have a detrimental affect on national security and prosperity. In effect, leveling of the playing is creating a double standard, a sanctuary to illegality; undercutting the rule of law.

Optimistically, one hopes that the talk show host from Denver is rooted in the perspective of rule of law, and not subject to any other nefarious aspects attributed to those who are often accused of being xenophobic. Meaning his “fear” laden talk, which seems to smack of protectionist ideals and his proclamation that he doesn’t want a “leveling of the playing field,” is a contributing factor to his denial that the world is already flat.

Thomas Friedman has written a bible in geopolitics, economics, and introspection. He uses anecdotes, interviews, and personal testimonials—and to a degree draws on the energy and experience of his own life. Friedman has laid his case out, or most of it, that technology will be the driving force in the twenty-first century. The overlaying argument of technology versus ideology is well taken. His perspective of how it can be accomplish seems too socialistic, may be even being a nannyist to me. For instance, when he says that “The social contract that progressives should try to enforce between government and companies and workers … ‘We cannot guarantee you any lifetime employment. But we can guarantee you that we will concentrate on giving you the tools to make yourself more lifetime employable—more able to acquire the knowledge or the experience need to bed a good adapter, synthesizer, collaborator etc.’” It appears to me that he is advocating more government control, progressives, or liberals by redefinition, often do. Admittedly, Friedman ideals are appealing, but the battle of universal healthcare issue, which he tries to address for instance, is entrenched and may require more time than a “flat world” will allow. It is the details that gets muddy, often it is the “corporate interests” not the “people interests” that are reflected. See the K Street scandal as an example. At this time, such futility cannot be afforded.

Friedman’s book is the claxon call to the US government, business, and citizenry. This is good. We need alarm bell ringers. However, we need them to be laser clear, succinct, and brief. His continual use of anecdotal stories seemed to be self-serving. The stories of him returning home, visiting his daughter at Yale, talking with his wife, and discussing old college chums may have been fascinating to him, but arduous to the reader. The testimonials and his statistics along with public forum stories should have been enough. His repetitive examples were at times exhausting, and seemed to insult the intelligence of his audience.

Nevertheless, the drum beating of examples vividly adjoin the imagery of the state, of the virtual world, consuming expectations of the work force and employers of the futures. Friedman advocating the re-education and more educated work force in order to remain more competitive in the technological world, to illustrate the information age, the Internet Age, which has infiltrated the free market place has insidiously subverted the foundation of a competitive US, but also as a way to show the accessibility of the “flat world.” It is unfortunate that, in observing the media, press, radio, and television along with the Internet, the US seems to be self-destructing, and lost in self-flagellation of a persecution complex.

In part, this is due to the “arrogance” and “complacency,” according to Friedman and in regards to the state of education, “the gap” is growing in disparity. Every year US native grown scientist and electrical engineers is growing less and less. Right now, the US is in a major need of a wake up call. Like the Civil Rights movement provided, the US needed a shock of reality. At that time, the flattening of the world, the US was heading toward an apex of major political correction. The advent of 9/11 closed it minds to the “glocation,” a term used by Friedman, as a way to describe a global view of itself and its culture, sent the US returning to The Cave. He says, “In my own travels, two aspects of culture have me struck me particularly relevant in the flat world. One is how outward your culture is: To what degree is it open to foreign influences and ideas? How well does it “glocalize”? The other, more intangible, is how inward your culture is” (p 411). The US needs to be forward looking as it was in the 1960’s, it cannot afford 60 years of denial, protectionist economics, and misogynistic ego massage. If that were to happen, the US would be relegated to second class nation.

In closing, I will leave you with two quotes one that declared the individual annoucement to “the flat world“ as necessary to take hold for a just world in the “flat world” to come, and the other forty-one years later to express the words in action:

When one see the words of Rao, it provides me hope that the words of King are closer to fruition than not. The Internet Age and the flatness of the world have brought this closer. No one noticed at the time, but King’s speech signaled the ending of what Friedman refers to Globalization as 2.0, when companies were “multinational,” this was certainly true, but King’s “grass root movement” showed the power of the individual in abstract form to the world. In Friedman’s book, he credits President Kennedy’s vision for the last time, when the US was looking forward and willing to step over the precipice, as the period of great creativity and innovation.

This is different however, with the culmination of dot-com crash, and the crashing of the planes into the World Trade Center, the War on Terror, and nation building in Iraq, has Friedman’s book as being panic stricken, in that, he feels that America, its identity being lost, and Americans is failing tests of opportunity. I must agree.

The rhetoric of the political extremes has locked the United States culture into a corrosive polarization, in which, political acrimony is needed to push forward to the economic stability of America. See the recent interview of former Republican Senator Danforth with Tim Russert of Meet the Press (link here) regarding faith and politics. Friedman states regarding leadership, “The job of the politician in America, whether at the local, state, or national, should be good part, to help educate and explain to people what world they are living in and what they need to do if they want to thrive within (p 365).” Fair enough, I would add to this vision that in order to withstand tumultuous waters of the extremes, it will take the pragmatists to curry the future of America and the planet in years to come.

Not too long ago, a fellow blogger created a new blog. His mission is to create an avenue for political discourse for the politcal extremes. So far, after reviewing his site, I like what I see. In an effort of full disclosure, he recently reposted an old article of mine, with that said, he and his fellow contributors are working towards the middle ground. The site is called Political Grind and it deserves a look. It is not flashy, or overbudden with links, it is simply a site to give one a perspective of the political happenings from the townhall view.