March 31 - April 13
www.stoutonia.com
opinions
9
A Libyan intervention... who’s next? Brandt Ambercrombie III Contributing Writer
It looks like we are at war folks. On Tuesday, March 22, the United States and Great Britain launched 112 cruise missiles into Libya. This came after a unanimous approval by the United Nations Security Council and the Arab League to support a no-fly zone over the country. As the events transpired, President Barack Obama stated that military action was not his first choice. He declared that the U.S. intervened in Libya to prevent a slaughter of civilians that would have stained the world’s conscience. At one point in his speech, Obama said that “Our own future is safer and brighter if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom”. As the situation unfolds, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Administration of the White House both say that the sole reason for intervening is fueled by humanitarian endeavors. If an event like Libya is a burden to our conscious, then why haven’t we intervened in other humanitarian catastrophes like Darfur or the Congo? These atrocities have been transpiring for years. Why haven’t we felt the obligation to assist these nations? And what about the nations of Bahrain, Palestine, Syria and Yemen? These small countries are suffering from violence toward civilians too. The governments of these nations have been actively suppressing political protests by violent acts of oppression. The U.S. claims that it strongly condemns the violence and has urged the governments of these countries to show restraint and to respect the universal rights of their people. So again I say, why hasn’t Washington pushed to invade these other nations as well? No one can deny that Muammar Gaddafi is crazy, inhumane and dangerous; no rational logic could conclude that a man like that should be allowed to govern a nation. However, history has seen a vast array of dictators comparable to Gaddafi. In many
instances, the U.S. has quietly supported them faithfully for decades. So, why are we intervening now? If we could ignore the violence of the past, why are we caring about the citizens of Libya in the present? It is because our interests are now at stake, as is the stability of the region. Libya only produces two to three percent of the world’s oil supply and further control in North Africa will serve as a strategic stronghold for the Western Allies. Previous American presidents haven’t seemed to mind authoritarian despots as long as our national interests remained intact. The United States has for the most part, chosen to pursue our economic interests over the Democratic interests of the region. Unfortunately, when a dictator’s craziness makes them no longer compliant with our standards, we go to war in the name of civility and humanitarianism. Many believe that Obama has a different attitude when it comes to the Middle East. In his closing remarks, Obama said, “I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed at one’s own people; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.” Rhetoric and ideals such as these should not be shunned or denigrated. It’s noble, and if brought successfully to fruition, could elicit benefits the world has never seen. However, how realistic is it to believe that the U.S. and its Allies have the capability to achieve such a lofty goal? Moreover, what happens when this doctrine is only applied selectively to a minority of nations? If this doctrine is not instituted completely and fairly, for all op-
pressed nations, our leaders start to look hypocritical and their motivations will become dangerously questionable. So what is the domestic cost for spreading American freedom across the globe? There is an irony that both the Republicans and the Democrats agree that we are in a state of national fiscal emergency. How as a nation can we find money to protect poor and low-income individuals against local, state and federal budget cuts at the same time that we are going to war? Helping other countries find a path to democracy is important. All humans deserve a foundation of rights which allow them to express themselves and live freely. But when does the goal of spreading freedom abroad become an impediment to assuring a standard of liberty and fulfillment for the citizens of the U.S.? I mentioned earlier in the article that the coalition forces launched 112 missiles into Libya the first night of attacks. According the Pentagon, the total the cost of firing those missiles was $112 million in a single evening. In a recent interview last Sunday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated that the intervention in Libya could last months. In addition, he also agreed that the cost of incursion could cost well over $1 billion. We are now in a situation where politicians on both sides of the isle are busy cutting the budget by eliminating nutrition programs for women and children and Pell Grant programs for college students. As the Arab spring continues to develop, how indebted are we as a nation to insure the freedom of others while the liberties of individuals at home are ignored? What if the cost for our interventionism is ultimately minimizing the freedom of those at home? In the face of this situation, it is important to look at the facts. If we are concerned that our conscience will be stained with knowledge of injustice and maltreatment, it may be wise to focus on those closest to us. If we want a future that is safer and brighter for mankind, perhaps we should start at home.
A trip back in time puts the Internet back in perspective Robert Kempainen Opinions Editor
In a recent Op-Ed titled, “Tools for Thinking,” New York Times columnist David Brooks opened with crediting Steven Pinker of Harvard University for asking a smart question: What scientific concept would improve everybody’s cognitive toolkit? 164 of the top thinkers wrote essays proclaiming the next scientific concept. None, however, focused on the evolution of the Internet and, more specifically, the emergence of a symbiosis of consciousness. Let’s pretend for a moment that I have just returned from a very unique internship back in time. Yes, back in time. Specifically, from the year of the University of Wisconsin-Stout’s founding: 1891. The objective of this internship was simple: attempt to describe the dawn of the Internet to some lucky first generation Stout students. My hope was that this trip back in time would enhance my perspective of the realities of the world we are currently living in. It did. As I began my trip, the questions immediately started flowing. How might I begin to describe this force we call the Internet? What frame of reference could I use with these students? Would it be possible for Stout students to comprehend such an abstract phenomena with
such a limited knowledge? I quickly realized that in order to accomplish this task, I would need to explain the metaphysical history behind the emergence of the digitalized world. I began by establishing a frame of reference for these students to follow along. The closest artifact that resembled a digital technology in 1891 was photographs. Digitalized photographs have the same scientific concept as the photographs of 1891: it was a moment captured in time. The world changed in 1891 when George Eastman had just introduced the inexpensive Kodak which allowed amateurs to take multiple snapshot photographs. In the same year then came the Edison Company, who successfully invented the Kinetoscope, a device that enabled one person at a time to view moving pictures. These students had no idea how the emergence of moving images, once captured in time, were going to change the face of the planet. They just thought it was cool to see themselves in something other than a mirror. I soon began to have doubts. Was it possible for students in 1891 to comprehend the Internet if they were already astounded by the functions of a camera? I knew it would not be easy to do, so I made the effort to explain things in visual terms. I began with the concept of the television and
informed the students about the coming invention of an electronic tube with a photoconductive plate. This, I told them, was the electronic reproduction of digital images. I went on to explain how the technological advancement in “artificial eyes” aka cameras, were able to capture time in its tracks while simultaneously transporting those images at the speed of light through an electronic portal and into your living room. This placed the viewer in the perspective of the camera on the other end of the television. In essence, I explained this device as the development of an exterior consciousness. The students were beginning to understand what the television was. I thought it was time that I introduce the concept of the computing machine. The computer was designed as a way to organize information in digital form, making paper unnecessary in some cases. Ultimately, the scientific concept of a computer was enhanced by a universal language of equations and algorithms, which laid the way for a boom in software programs. I could tell by now that the students were capable of being able to comprehend the abstract phenomena of the future. It was time to define the vast computer network linking smaller computer networks worldwide. I explained the Internet as being both a ubiquitous force in nature
and not even existing in the tangible world. The Internet is the most powerful tool the earth has ever known. It is not only uniting the world with ideas, but also consciousness. Anytime you enter the Internet, you are connecting with the World Wide Web of heads. The Internet truly is an external symbiosis of consciousness. Thank you, 1891, history will undoubtedly remember. Now that I’m back from my time-traveling internship, I have seen how far we’ve come. If someone were to travel back in time to now and enlighten us about the future 100 years from now, what would they say? What mediocre forms of technology do we take for granted today that could turn into omnipotent ones tomorrow? Sure, we can dream of computer’s in our contact lenses, but that technology already exists and it will most likely be around in our lifetime. Einstein once said, “The distinction between the past, the present and future is only a stubbornly, persistent illusion.” The next great invention is on the horizon. What sorts of things haven’t we thought of? I have always wondered about the potential of virtual gaming? Will it ever encompass more than just two senses? Only time will tell.