A Personal Post For New Year's Eve

I haven’t written anything on this blog for a long time. I have a variety of reasons for my absence, which are mostly covered by the excuse “Life Got In The Way.” College, new blogs, working too many jobs to count, and family obligations, among other things. But now it’s New Year’s eve, I don’t have to work or study tomorrow, and thus have absolutely no excuse for not taking a few moments to write a short(ish) contemplative post.

Except I’m not really sure what to write. 2012 is almost over, and I have no idea how I am supposed to feel about that. When I start musing about this year and everything that it brought forth, I am overwhelmed with nostalgia, gratitude, sadness, regret, ecstatic happiness, fear, hope, and anger, among other emotions. So I’m having a hard time deciding what I think about this past year and how I feel about the coming year.

I can certainly say that last December lots of things were very different… I was in my senior year of high school, hell bent on going to an Ivy League college, experiencing painful jealousy, bitterness, and disillusionment in my personal life, questioning the most important of my foundational values, doing a lot of writing, reading a lot of poetry I didn’t understand, and listening to a lot of Maroon 5. They were interesting times, albeit the darkest times of my life thus far. But I think I learned a lot about life last December, nonetheless…

Personally, 2012 was a year of new beginnings. Starting college was a big one. I graduated high school in May, and I think since then I’ve been learning to cease worrying (somewhat) about people’s opinions and instead learn to love the path I’ve chosen for myself. (Not an easy lesson.) I learned to only worry about the opinions of the people I’ve come to respect and love – people who have earned my trust – instead of giving credence to every opinion with which I come into contact.

And that’s another thing. (Pardon my whimsical rambling here… I’m just writing down these thoughts as they come into my head.) I’ve learned not to give away trust, but to instead allow others to earn it. This doesn’t mean I’ve become untrusting. I’m merely learning that, especially in this culture and country, people have no idea what it means to stick with commitments. I’ve learned the hard way that when the going gets tough, the solution for most people is to leave. I’m not bitter about that – (well, at least I try not to be.) Rather, the realization has embedded within me the firm belief that trust should be earned, not given away.

In 2012, I lost a great deal and learned a ton. I fell in love with life, and made a (probably momentous) decision to take that life in both of my hands and stop quantifying/qualifying it by numbers. My GPA, exact hours of study, daily compliments, minutes of practice, followers on my blogs, professional or educational accomplishments, pats on my back, places I’ve been, things I’ve done… I’m not so sure the numbers of those things matter so much anymore. They’re still relatively important, but 2012 taught me not to let them define my success.

I guess I better wrap this up, because 2013 is coming on, bringing with it all the new battles I’ll be fighting, all the new hills I’ll be climbing, all the tests I’ll fail and pass, all the lessons I’ll learn. I’m afraid, but I’m also excited. So much lies before me, and I can’t wait to see what it is.

L’Shana Tova!

The Only Free Man

I don't presume to be a writer on the same level or of the same quality as W. Somerset Maugham, one of the greatest English authors of the twentieth century. I don't claim to hold all of his views or admire all of his ideas. However when I came across this passage in one of his greatest novels, (though one of his most depressing and satirical,) "Cakes and Ale", its profundity and truth gave me cause to stop reading and contemplate it for a few moments.
                 "She embarked upon a conversation which, I gathered from her tone, was of a facetious and even flirtatious character. I did not pay much attention, and since it seemed to prolong itself,  I began to meditate upon the writer's life. It is full of tribulation. First he must endure poverty and the world's indifference; then, having achieved a measure of success, he must submit with a good grace to its hazards. He depends upon a fickle public. He is at the mercy of journalists who want to interview him... of editors who harry him for copy... of persons of quality who ask him to lunch and secretaries of institutes who ask him to lecture, of women who want to marry him and women who want to divorce him, of youths who want his autograph... of agents, publishers, managers, bores, admirers, critics and his own conscience. But he has one compensation. Whenever he has anything on his mind, whether it be a harassing reflection, grief at the death of a friend, unrequited love, wounded pride, anger at the treachery of someone to whom he has shown kindness, in short any emotion or any perplexing thought, he has only to put it down in black and white, using it as the theme of a story or the decoration of an essay, to forget all about it. He is the only free man."
                I am not sure if any English professors or literary analysts would agree with me, but to my mind this idea as Maugham expresses it here actually encapsulates the whole of this particular work. "Cakes and Ale" satirizes the social and personal lives of authors in twentieth century England through the characters of Alroy Kear, William Ashenden, Edward and Rosie Driffield. The long-suffering author Edward Driffield is forced to put up with the antics of his coarse and wayward wife Rosie as she flouts the conventions of the times and carries on affairs with all of his friends, including Ashenden. Maugham leads one to believe that Edward has no idea of what is going on, and indeed, not even Rosie suspects that Edward is aware of her behavior until the very end after she has run away with another man. Edward then publishes a book in which the heroine, obviously Rosie, is unfaithful to her husband in his time of deepest need, describing her actions with the greatest of detail. This leaves Rosie to wonder in the end how much her husband really knew, and moreover, why he never gave any indication of his knowledge. Driffield offers no explanation, and Rosie, leaving the past behind and moving on with life, remains untroubled by too much speculation. But the answer is given to us the readers by the narrator Ashenden in the passage above.
              Driffield was, in every sense of the term, an author. His refuge was his writing. He was "the only free man", because no matter what happened to him, it could go down in black and white and he would be untroubled by it forever after. Friends could disappoint and betray him - his wife could run away with another man - his child could die - he would pay heavily the price of fame. And yet none of this could ever inhibit his one true gift, nor quench his one true passion - it could only fuel it and enhance its quality. This is why Maugham describes the author as "the only free man."
              This led me to reflect upon the real true freedom of writing. I have never had to pay the price of fame, and I hope that I never will. Yet in some small measure I can understand what Maugham meant when he said that the writer has one compensation, because the most significant freedoms of the writer are his freedoms of thought and expression, and these are the liberties that are the most precious and the most useful to him. They are also the most precious and useful to those around him privileged to share in his thoughts. A truly gifted author stands above the common folk only because he has found a way to express thoughts and experiences that everyone has in an eloquent, poignant, and unique way - he has a voice that people want to listen to. This is his liberty - that when he encounters life's pitfalls he is merely given more words for that voice.
              Some people express themselves through music - some through their clothing - some through their speech. Most of us express ourselves partly through all of these things. But the author is unique. He expresses himself by taking to pen and paper (or nowadays, to Microsoft Word) and literally expressing his opinions, his thoughts, his experiences, and his ideas to the world. Sometimes the world listens. Sometimes it doesn't. It really shouldn't matter. The writer writes because he loves writing for its own sake, because it is a sweet freedom to him, as essential to him as food.
            But don't envy the writer this unique freedom, for it comes at a heavy cost, as Maugham expresses above, a cost that includes "persons of quality who ask him to lunch, and secretaries of institutes who ask him to lecture, women who want to marry him and women who want to divorce him, of youths who want his autograph..." Only an author can understand the longing to express life's turmoil in order to be free of it; only a gifted writer can live contently in his rich inner world while the rest of mankind tumbles head over heels attempting to make sense of life. The author's refuge enables him to analyze what has gone wrong - and if not fully understand, at least relocate it to a solid black-and-white place where it can bother him no longer. When I think about the unique refuge the writer has in his writing, I realize that indeed, the writer is as Maugham claims -  "the only free man."

Simplifying Capitalism - Part/Chapter Two

        From my two previous posts on capitalism, my readers might logically and reasonably assume that capitalists think that, indeed, all government is evil and must be destroyed. After all, Friedman says that government, specifically American government, has done a lot of things wrong. He says government should not interfere with buying and selling, he says that government should not use coercion to manage the people's economic activities, and he says that government interferes in American society in many areas where it should not be present. Thus we can conclude that capitalism proposes government should be done away with.
So to Washington D.C., conservative Americans! We must wave our banners and proclaim that the White House should be burned and the office of President abolished! ... Right, Friedman??
         Unfortunately, no. In the second chapter of "Capitalism and Freedom," titled "The Role of Government in a Free Society," we find that this is not Friedman's conclusion at all. On the contrary, our government has an extremely important role to play in the workings of this nation. After all, where would we be without leaders, without authority, without referees? And this is, in fact, government's primary job - that of referee. As a rule, the people should be left to their freedoms of speech, religion, thought, and open marketing. But this does not mean there shouldn't be laws, and this does not mean there shouldn't be individuals to enforce these laws. Therefore, our government's job is double-sided; it must know where to step in and where to stay out.
        Firstly, there are many important ways it must step in. In this chapter Friedman has defined eight specific areas of government intervention...
1.) Maintain order and uphold the laws,
2.) Define and uphold property rights,
3.) Arbitrate disputes,
4.) Enforce contracts,
5.) Promote competition,
6.) Counter technical monopolies, (monopolies on lighting, transportation, electricity, etc.)
7.) Counter neighborhood effects, (by-products of private agreements that harm a third, uninvolved party,) and
8.) Support private charities and support families to govern the irresponsible (children and lunatics.)
        These are extremely important functions, ones that, if adequately performed, would have an enormous impact on our society's law and order. We can trust humans to be able to manage their own affairs, but we need higher authority when these affairs threaten to harm other human beings. This also goes along with the Founding Fathers' idea of three separate branches of government - one branch, the legislative, makes the laws. The next branch, the administrative, puts the laws into action. The third branch, the judicial, tries and punishes those accused of breaking the laws. Without government we would be a lost and immoral country indeed. A few important lines from one of my favorite plays, "A Man for All Seasons" by Robert Bolt, serve to express this concept; 

Will Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Will: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast... And if you cut them down, (and you're just the man to do it,) do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

           In other words, so many people's lives would be threatened and ruined if there were no standards by which to judge their actions. America devoid of laws and authority is a frightening thought. 
           Government's role however, is not only very vital to the preservation of law and justice in our country, but is, (or should be,) a very defined role. There are many areas of society in which it can and should, in fact, be an active participant; there are also areas where it should mind its own business. This is where some of the lines become fuzzy. Many recent presidents, beginning, I believe, with Teddy Roosevelt and the "Progressive" Age, have taken it upon themselves to broaden, expand, and re-define government's parameters in society so much so, that these parameters hardly exist anymore. That is to say, fewer and fewer boundaries restrict government from intruding upon every area of our lives. This is also a frightening thought, one that has given rise to much concern from conservative Americans like Friedman. In this chapter he also lists 12 roles government has taken it upon itself that should instead be played by the American citizen...
1.) Sets agriculture prices,
2.) Sets tariffs on imports and exports,
3.) Controls output,
4.) Uses rent, price, and wage controls,
5.) Regulates many industries,
6.) Regulates and censors free speech,
7.) Forces people to use social security programs,
8.) Public housing,
9.) Conscription into military service, (employed several times throughout our history, such as during the later stages of the Vietnam War,)
10.) National parks,
11.) Government post offices, and
12.) Government toll booths.
         And these are not its only spheres of influence - think of public high schools, public colleges, income taxes, public service projects, licenses on occupations, the alphabet soup of wasteful government programs, its interference in health care. You are probably familiar with and accustomed to the government being a part of all these things in your life. I, for one, have become very used to giving my Social Security number to anyone in the public sector who asks for it, though I don't really or fully understand Social Security's purpose. All I know is that I had to have that 10-digit number memorized by the time I was 16 and can only do certain things if I write it down on certain forms. There are three very important things that define American individuals - our health, our education, and our jobs; Washington has stuck its finger, its entire hand rather, deeply into all three.
      I could continue in this line of argument for many pages, using 1984 or Animal Farm by George Orwell, or excerpts from works of Hayek, Reagan, and De Tocqueville as support. However an anti-government theme is not my focus. I merely wish to point out, as Friedman did, that government should and does have certain duties, and one of those duties is leaving the market alone. The more recent presidents have found this difficult to do - they have found it impossible to do. And te consequences for our economy have been disastrous. More importantly, the consequences for our much-cherished liberty have been disastrous. 
     This is a summation of Friedman's "The Role of Government In a Free Society," along with my own commentary and thoughts on the subject. There is much, much more I want to say, but I'll stick with this expression of the main points for now. Any comments or questions below would be much appreciated. 

The Internet Is Creating A More Intelligent Society

         Though I may be dating myself by this anecdote, I feel compelled to share it anyway in order to demonstrate how far our society has progressed along the road of the Information Age in the past decade. Whenever I was assigned an essay in 5th grade, I was forced to take a trip to the bookshelves in the basement, locate the shelf creaking under the weight of the enormous Encyclopedia series, run my finger along the alphabetized titles until I found the desired word category, summon all my strength to pull out the gigantic volume, heave it onto the floor, flip through the pages and then proceed to laboriously copy out the encyclopedic entry using paper and a pencil. I would then use this information in my essay to make it more credible and informative. That is how it was done when I was ten years old, and for this reason I loathed writing essays.

       Now, obviously, things are different. As I stated in my last post on this subject, all I need to do now to supply my essays with authoritative sources and facts is to open up my MacBook Pro, get onto Google, type a few words, and there, I have sources and facts in abundance, usually more than I ever want or need. We possess a wealth of information literally at our fingertips, and this is truly amazing to one who has grown up watching the progress of this Information Age unfold. 

      The internet has undeniably altered the way that our society learns, thinks, understands, and researches. Some argue that this change has been for the worse - that because of the internet, now we have shorter attention spans, weaker memorization skills, and shallow minds incapable of deep thought. However true these claims may be, we also can learn much more quickly, we can access a multitude of data in a matter of seconds, we can multi-task easily, we can understand the complex mathematical and physical science that is computer programming, we are able to connect with more people and different cultures around the world, and save so much time and effort through the use of Google, Bing, and Wikipedia. Perhaps we retain less information, but why do we need to? The information is at our fingertips at all times. The internet is not making us less smart, it is "simply challenging us to become smarter in new ways." ("Is the Internet Making Us Smarter or Dumber? Yes.", by Matthew Ingram, June 6th, 2010, Gigaom.com)

      First of all, simply take a moment to stop and contemplate the overwhelming and exhaustive amount of data that exists on cyberspace purely for our cognitive benefit. Contemplating Google alone is enough to blow one's mind. You can literally ask anything, ("Does God exist?", "How do I freeze strawberries?", "Why should I get married?", and "Where can I find Tom's shoes?" are just a few search suggestions that I've seen, meaning that someone out there has actually asked Google these ridiculous questions,) and receive a million answers in a few seconds. Frequently at the dinner table when my little brother asks my dad some random question about why the toilet bubbles when it flushes or what year King Peter the Great died, all my dad has to do it pull out his iphone and find the answer. Our essays and articles are more thoroughly researched and the quality and quantity of our daily information intake is much improved. If the internet is not making us smarter, it is certainly making us much more well-informed. 

      Along those lines I propose my second support of the thesis that that internet is not making us stupider; the internet has proved to be a valuable asset to education. Not only are vast amounts of historical and scientific data available for easy access to the student, but helpful learning websites, educational software, and school gadgets exist in abundance. Throughout high school I benefited enormously through website programs such as Sparknotes' study guides, Collegeboard's SAT and CLEP prep, StudyBlue's easy and efficient online flashcards, and Rosetta Stone's online language games. Reading and writing have become more central to our culture with the use of email, blogs, twitter, facebook, online newspaper sites, and yes, even texting. We can say what we want to say more quickly and efficiently. 

     Thus teens like me, though accused of being shallow-minded zombies addicted to the internet, have benefited perhaps more than any other social group from its use, because we've had myriads of sources to aid our learning. We've learned quickly how to best utilize those sources; we've been able to connect more widely with people all over the world through social networking sites; we've been able to virtually travel to places we never dreamed of; and we've been able to freely share our ideas, express our opinions, and publish our thoughts via the internet. For these purely selfish reasons I'm thankful to have had the internet as an additional teacher during high school.

      What about the accusation that before the internet people were smarter, more learned, more educated, and less distracted? Well to this I can only retort that even during the Middle Ages shallow distractions existed in abundance as well: they always will exist where shallow minds can be found to desire them. This is pure human nature. The internet has given knowledge to those with the wisdom to desire it, just as Gutenberg's printing press gave the Bible to religious and devout individuals. But Gutenberg's printing press also eventually gave issue to cheap sensation newspapers, vulgar fiction and erotic novels, just as the internet is also the source of much pornographic material, misleading advertisements, and shallow distractions. (Angry Birds, anyone??) Something as multi-faceted as the internet cannot be blamed for lowering the IQ level of an entire society. If you are unfocused, scatterbrained, or have weak memorization skills, don't blame the internet - blame yourself. There is a lot of knowledge and learning to be found on the internet if you have the discipline and focus to search for and find it. 

          My final conclusion then, is the same as the title of an online article by Matthew Ingram; "Is the Internet Making Us Smarter or Dumber? Yes." There are numerous good things and numerous bad things about the internet, so its goodness or badness really depends upon how you, as an individual, choose to utilize it. In fact the internet is so double-sided that I discovered I am not the only one to write a debate on the subject - the Wall Street Journal also recently published two articles arguing opposing views about whether the internet is making us smarter or more ignorant. As Ingram concluded his article; "To the extent that we want to use them to become more intelligent, they are doing so; but the very same tools can just as easily be used to become dumber and less informed, just as television can, or the telephone or any other technology, including books." But the advantages, I believe, certainly outweigh the disadvantages. We don't outlaw all books because some of the books contain superficial or inappropriate material, and with the same logic, we can make the best use of all the wonderful things that the internet has to offer.

The Internet Is Creating a More Ignorant Society

Sunday, March 11, 2012

 The other day I was struggling to remember a funny quote from a movie I had just seen the previous night. Did I have to engage in this mental battle with my faculties for long? Of course not. All I had to do was pull out my handy laptop, click on a little google button, and type in my question. Immediately dozens of answers were available at my disposal. Finding this answer required no more than a superficial browsing of my memory and very little physical effort other than moving my fingers over a keyboard.

        In rhetoric class, I felt more than a little guilty learning about the fourth canon of classical rhetoric Memoria, and the ability of the Greeks and Romans to train their minds to remember whole series of poetry, to chant the entirety of the Iliad or the Odyssey from memory, (in Greek, nonetheless!!) and to retain extensive stocks of definitions and progymnasmata, commonplaces to be used in argument. No doubt about it, those dudes had astounding memories, made even more retentive and accurate by constant training, both everyday and formal.

       Contrast it to our culture today... Do we even memorize our friends' phone numbers or emails anymore? No, we just "edit contact" and there: the computer has done the memorization for us. Do we quote poetry or readily offer answers to questions about historical data? Sometimes, but more often it is more convenient to google it, is it not? Google has eliminated the need to remember things, whether it be historical dates, friends' emails, that funny quote you heard on "Psych", or the name of that one character in that one book that I just read that one night... what was his name again? Hold on, let me look it up really quick... But lest we digress.

      The internet has not only decreased our need to retain information, it has also greatly reduced our ability to retain information. Perhaps this is less obvious, but it becomes apparent. After all, our memory is a muscle - if it is not used, it becomes weak and ineffective. It may become sore when you suddenly make use of it after it has spend a long period lying in inactivity. Author Nicholas Carr expresses a common effect of this disuse in his famous article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"; "I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading. Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I’d spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle." Our unused memories are suffering and so are our attention spans, which are becoming shorter and shorter as our need to concentrate is being reduced by short articles, quick links, and fast-paced images of the internet.

      Has it ever bothered you when you go to type a search into google and it comes up with a million suggestions before you finish the sentence, or even the word? It irritates me that a soulless yet complex machine is haughtily predicting what I, a reasoning human being, want to find. What irritates me even more is that it's usually right; my query is almost always one of the suggestions, so I am able to gratefully cease the strenuous activity of actually typing it out and simply click...The internet therefore is making our society's memories weaker, our attention spans shorter, and individuals themselves lazier. All of this contributes to a stupider society. (Wow, I didn't even know "stupider" was a word until no squiggly red lines appeared underneath it!) We certainly "click too much, read too little, and remember even less."

      Yet another feature of the internet fostering ignorance is that it has reduced creative thought, which is related to the laziness factor. Take me, for example. Not all of the ideas and objections in this post are my own. Obviously that quote from the article above was not stored word for word in my human memory. It was the product of the process 1.) google, 2.) click, 3.) read, 4.) copy, 5.) paste, 6.) and add quotation marks. Instead of talking to people who share my ideas and who could contribute to the arguments in this post, all I need to do is search for similar articles online. Instead of having mental progymnasmata ready to use as did the ancient Greeks and Romans, it's extremely more convenient to utilize the pre-packaged arguments formulated by others. I do it myself often because it saves time and energy, (i.e., because I am lazy and uncreative, having few of my own ideas to offer.) But wait, this is the internet's fault. Or is it?

     This post isn't an environmental sermon attempting to convince readers to "unplug" and spend more time taking walks in the woods and looking up info in encyclopedias instead of online. I have just been thinking about the pros and cons of technology and decided to explore the arguments an anti-internet proponent would use to convince us that google is detrimental to our cognitive processes. In my next post I plan to play the advocatus diaboli and argue that the internet is, in fact, creating a more intelligent society - because this is not an issue I have made up my mind upon, and perhaps never will.

    Well, now I need to go chat with my friend, bookmark some interesting articles to aid me on my next post, look up that funny quote I couldn't remember off the top of my head, post a few tweets, research Emerson on RWE.com for my lit. class, edit a few contacts and answer a few emails. It's also a beautiful day so perhaps I'll turn on my ipod, put in my headphones, and listen to my favorite pop tunes while I look out the window.

Simplifying Capitalism - Part/Chapter One

Relating Economic Freedom & Political Freedom

Assuming all my readers are conservative Americans, such as myself, I'm pretty sure you all agree with me on several basic political principles...that Americans should be free to buy/sell what they want, that freedom of speech and opinion are fundamental natural rights, that we should not oppress one another, and that we should abide by the laws of our country. These are principles that are found, not only in the ideas and writings of the Founding Fathers, but in the Torah as well. In the Communistic governments of China and Russia we have seen examples of political systems which flout these principles of human rights and individual freedom.
        How does the economy relate to these? How can our system of buying and selling affect our political freedoms of speech and thought? And vice versa - how do politics affect the economy? Do labor unions, wage standards, and the price of laundry detergent have anything at all to do with voting, the Constitution, or America's laws? In Milton Friedman's first chapter of Capitalism and Freedom, he demonstrates that political freedom and economical freedom are intimately related, and explores the relationship between the two entities. Also in this chapter Friedman discusses the market as a direct part of freedom, the relation between market arrangements and political freedom as well as briefly tracing the development of free trade concepts and outlining the ideal economy promoting a free society.       
        First of all, Friedman states that only certain arrangements between these two freedoms are possible - more specifically, that only a competitive capitalistic economy ensures political freedom. (Big surprise.) In other words, a country where people are free to start their own private businesses, compete with other businesses, buy what they want, and sell what they want, all without restrictions of the federal government or anything else, is the only kind that also ensures political freedom. We will be free to live securely in liberty if a capitalistic infrastructure is in place.
        In the early 1800s, the trend was laissez-faire economics, ("LAH zay fair", French for basically "do what you want,") which seemed to work very well and greatly improved the conditions of the masses. But then the trend changed, and government began to interfere in the economy more and more - "Welfare rather than freedom became the dominant note in democratic countries." And after World War Two, this collectivist trend was briefly interrupted by a reversal in economic policies and an increased emphasis on private markets. Now we are back to more government and less individualism once more. During these twists and turns in the economy, political freedom has fallen suit - strangely enough, whenever the market was left alone and individuals were free to compete in trade, the nation's population did very well and enjoyed greater freedoms. Whenever welfare prevailed and government stepped into private business affairs, the people suffered, politically and economically. 
       Next Friedman states that there are two ways to manage the economic activities of the masses - either military/totalitarian coercion, or voluntary individual cooperation; "the technique of the market place." He is saying the government can force people to buy and sell what the government wants them to, or they can allow the natural laws of supply and demand to determine the market. Obviously the latter is the most appealing mode of management...
     What does a "free private enterprise exchange economy" look like, and why is it so desirable? These are questions that Milton Friedman will spend the rest of his book answering in detail, but he also briefly and simply answers them in a few paragraphs in the first chapter. Essentially, capitalism in action is - a business that uses the resources it controls to produce goods and services, which, in turn, it exchanges for goods and services produced by other businesses, on terms mutually acceptable to both. Money is the exchangeable commodity that makes this transaction that much easier.
      On a very simple level, let's take a very simple example of a free-enterprise market. Let's say I run a butcher shop. You need meat, so you come into my butcher shop and I provide you with the resources, (meat,) and skills, (preparing and packaging the meat,) that you cannot provide for yourself, because you don't have the resources, skill, or time. In return, you give me money, which I can then use to provide for myself the things I need. I go to the bakery and buy bread with that money, because I don't have the resources (flour, ovens, bakers, etc.,) or the time, or the skills, to bake bread myself. Thus you have provided me with something I don't have, and I have provided you with something you don't have. That is a mutual exchange. This is capitalism in its purest and most basic form.
       Maybe another butcher opens a similar shop down the street. Maybe he has a larger variety, or cheaper prices, or better quality of meats - so you go to him to buy meat instead. That's free choice. You can decide which butcher you like better. I want more money so I can buy bread for my family, so I lower my prices, or I expand my variety, or I better my quality of meat to bring in more business. That's competition. Does this competition hurt you, the customer? On the contrary, it lowers prices and improves quality/quantity for you, which is very beneficial for you. These laws - the laws of mutual exchange, free choice, and competition - are the basic tenets of capitalism. It is obvious how letting these laws alone to freely balance and improve the market in turn lead to greater freedom of choice and a more prosperous economy. Adam Smith called these natural laws "the invisible hand" of the market.
      What does this have to do with politics? History may prove that people are more free when they can buy/sell what they want, but why is this so? Well, for once thing, minorities are more free under a free market because the market is impartial. When you buy bread at a bakery you don't know if the flour was grown by a black person or white person, and you probably don't care. Thus minorities are less likely to be discriminated against in a free-enterprise society. Also, the market naturally "gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want... each man can vote, as it were, for the color of tie he wants, and get it; he does not have to see what color the majority wants and then, if he is in the minority, submit."
        For another thing, the economy has long been a powerful source of coercion by despotic governments - Communist governments make their people their political slaves by determining what they can or can't buy, what occupations they can or cannot hold, what they can sell or not sell. They take away their political freedoms by taking away their economical freedoms. In a society where the government doesn't interfere with the economy, this source of force is gone.
       In conclusion, the principles and ideas outlined in this chapter are extremely important to our understanding of what a capitalistic economy should look like. It is vital for Americans to grasp the basics. Friedman covered numerous extremely significant points about economics and politics, and I hope that my interpretation of his thought is accurate and made good sense. Questions/criticisms/praises are encouraged below! :)

Simplifying Capitalism - Introduction

If I stopped the average American on the street and asked them what they thought of Communism, nine times out of ten the reaction towards this institution would be negative.

Most Americans are afraid of Communism for many reasons, the main one being that they have very recently been eyewitnesses to its oppressive and destructive effects on the peoples/economies of China, Russia, and others in the forms of censorship of the press, violent authoritarianism, harsh quenching of liberties such as liberty of speech and thought, savage anti-religion campaigns, etc. McCarthyism in the 1950s was one example of how Americans feel about Communism - so was the largely unsuccessful and embarrassing Vietnam War of the 60's and 70's - and so was the Cold War of the 80's. Fear of 'Commies' pervades this nation.

Yet how many of us really understand the philosophies of Karl Marx in all of their complexity? What element(s) of Communism make it so repressive of mankind's natural rights and liberties? Americans understand from the examples of China and Russia that Communism is wrong, but do they ultimately recognize why? Something vital to understand is that Communist theories are fundamentally unsound, which has in turn led to phenomena like censorship of the press in Russia and 70 million deaths under Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong (1893-1976.) These cases of massacre and oppression are not radical, rogue events perpetrated by insane leaders - they are the results of an economic philosophy, one that blatantly contradicts the guiding premises of the Jewish Torah.

In summary, to understand why "Communism is bad" one must first understand what Communism essentially is. However that is a study for another post. At present, I'm going to take the opposite side and discuss what Communism is not.

Communism's nemesis, as you probably know, is capitalism. There are many definitions of this word, and for the time, I'm going to put those aside and look at capitalism how the Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman understands it in his book Capitalism and Freedom. I'm reading this book for my literature class at the moment, and to better understand it (not exactly Dr.Seuss level stuff, just sayin'!) I'm planning on blogging my notes. You may not be a politician or Barack Obama's economic adviser, yet I think it's still important that everyone understand what a free market should look like and why Communist economic thought is fundamentally wrong. In any case it will be interesting to learn more about what one of the greatest thinkers of the century has to say about Communistic fallacies and how our government could be doing it better.

The Winter Catwalk

                                  Top Five Trends for Winter!

                                                            
Now that you've worn out your trendy autumn-colored scarves and Yves Klein blue flats (if you read Fashion For Fall, and took my advice, that is :) and now that the real cold weather has set in, you need to re-vamp your wardrobe to make it a bit more practical. Here are five items for which to keep your eyes peeled. (Hey, an awkward sentence, but, as Winston Churchill said, "Ending sentences with a preposition is something up with which I will not put!") These winter fashion trends are not only awesome and cool (and trendy, obviously,) but practical as well, especially if you live a climate with a harsh winter season...

Trend One - Those Marvelous Maxi Coats.....

At the beginning of this decade, "in" winter coats were a whole lot shorter. But as time has gone on and we are now at the beginning of the year 2012, we find that the length of trendy coats has slowly transitioned downwards until it is almost at the ankle. Fine with me - it keeps you warm, and it looks great on anyone! Look for a classic shade in a frill-free cut and let the floor-sweeping length provide the drama. The shape flatters any body type, and a tie at the waist creates an instant hourglass figure. Military is also in style, so look out for regimented rows of brass buttons and stiff collars. For a coat, neutral colors are always the classiest - go with brown, tan, navy, black, white or gray. Lilac and light blue are just not for you at this moment in history so you'll have to wait for spring. If you're suffering for color, there's always The Scarf...

Trend Two - Lions & Tigers & Bears, Oh My! Zoological Prints           

If you want to know what print patterns are in, all you have to do is take a trip to the zoo this winter - everywhere I'm seeing feathers, fur and snake prints. If you're saying to yourself, 'only a model can get away with wearing those shoes'..... don't think you're getting off that easily. Zoological can definitely be done by anyone. The key is pairing something wild with something dull - such as a leopard pair of flats with an all-black outfit, or a zebra scarf with a neutral jacket (dark denim would be cute - I can see it now...) and swingy skirt. Snake prints generally look best on purses and they are totally cool and just so... snaky. Excuse the pun. Fur is not only for wealthy middle-aged women with poodles - you can pull it off too, with a trendy maxi coat trimmed in faux fur, or a zip-up athletic vest edged with the same. (Think those young snowboarders you see everywhere at Bridger Bowl this time o' year...)

My personal favorite is zebra - I'm crazy about the black-and-white look, and also love black stripes on gold, on dark pink, on dark blue... pretty much on anything. It's such a classy yet hip look. Don't go crazy and attempt to look like an African safari, but settle for zebra nail polish, zebra undershirt under a boring jacket, zebra pumps or flats with a neutral dress, a zebra purse, OR zebra jewelry. (Better not be putting all of that together...But I'm giving you credit enough to be sure you already knew that.)

                                     Trend Three - Think Sunset

As for shades this winter... rose, aubergine, eggplant purple, and chocolate brown are setting the style. Yup, in your mind's eye, you should be picturing Godiva, sunsets, pretty roses, raspberry wine, Mogen David, beets...okay, okay I think you are getting the idea. I am thrilled about this trend, because these are wonderful colors to pair with many various pieces,  such as dark denim (great fan of this too...) neutral colors, both gold and silver jewelry, and toned-down accessories. These rosy colors are going to be perfect for tops. Keep your eyes open for blouses and sweaters in any fabric in one of these colors - make sure the shade of eggplant/maroon/dark purple suits you, as not all the shades are for everyone. Personally I look better in darker shades of aubergine than light. You need to figure out what coloring is best for your type. Skirts in chocolate brown are always classy, but stay away from maroon skirts or dresses. Stick with tops or scarves in these dusky, sultry hues... they're perfect for dressing up to enjoy a glass of red wine and some chocolate :) (And, in my opinion, an infinitely better change from the mustard yellow and jade green of last season!)

Trend Four - Those Never Ending Boots...........

Knee-high boots! I love this trend, and what's more, it's very practical for winter too, especially muddy Western winters, yuk. (Mad face.) In these fabulous boots you can simultaneously be as awesome as a model and as practical as a cowgirl - no need to sacrifice fashion for function or vice versa! Doesn't get much better than that. With long skirts the boots are inevitably going to have to be a little shorter, but you can definitely get away with a knee-length swinging skirt, a pair of printed snazzy tights, and an extremely tall pair of these model boots. They also look ideally sophisticated.with one of those maxi coats. Trust me, OTK (Over-the-knee) boots  make you feel powerful, and it's great :) Black, brown, gray.... any neutral color will do, and to be super trendy, pair them with thigh-high socks that stick out of the boots.

                         Last But Definitely Not Least.... Chunky Sweaters

 

(Had to do the most pics of these because there were so many good ones...) This is one of the things I majorly look forward to, heading  into the crisp winter season - warm, fuzzy sweaters. Moreover, like the boots and the maxi coat, they are not only practical and comfortable, but extremely chic and trendy for 2012, whether you opt for a blanket sweater coat, a boyfriend cardigan, (not necessarily belonging to your boyfriend... I hope) a chunky pullover, or a thin-knit turtleneck.When wearing something as loose-fitting as one of these sweaters, it's best to pair them with more form-fitting bottoms, like a skinny denim skirt, leggings, or flowing maxi skirt, (a holdover from autumn's catwalk - yay!!!) OTK boots are a perfect complement to the Chunky Knit and keep you from looking chunky :) (Assuming you're not going for that look...) Watch for wide-knit styles that can also go over dresses - (the cardigan-over-dress look is one of those perpetual fashion thingies; fine with me!) To pull another great look off, pair a maxi skirt with a tanktop and loose chunky knit cardigan, and if the sweater is too long, add a belt to cinch in your waist. The biggest thing to remember about wearing these key pieces is not to go all-out chunky.
              When many think of "chunky sweater", they think of the 80's, when this piece was a staple. But now it has re-emerged, (as chic trends seem to do,) because it's effortlessly and immediately stylish. "People like easy," as one fashionista pointed out, "and chunky is definitely easy."

Stick with The Chunky in neutral colors like you see in these photos - these styles, with the wide necks, arrays of knitting patterns, belt ties, and loose-fitting sleeves are also good guidelines to follow when searching for the perfect Chunky. Forgo the necklace if it has a loose neck, but substitute it with a pair of dangling earrings instead. When choosing items to accompany this piece, think "Anti-chunky/form-fitting", "minimalist", and "complement." Any partner to the Chunky must not detract from the Chunky's greatness!         

Ahhh, I can see you now - in your chic knit maroon sweater partially hidden by a fabulous tan trench coat... with a flouncy slender skirt set off by those catwalk-worthy knee-high leather boots, and leopard spotted bag over one shoulder! Beautiful. Now you're stylishly ready for the swirling winds of winter and all the messy elements that come with it... Bring It On.

Tidbit from Tennyson for a Melancholy Day

I never thought of happy memories as being sad until the people giving them significance were taken away. Now "the days that are no more" and the reminders of them are painful. Yet, if I could go back in time, would I do without them? I think not, for as Tennyson points out in another poem; "I hold it true whate'er befall, I feel it when I sorrow most - 'tis better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all." 

                                                                  
Tears, idle tears, I know not what they mean,
Tears from the depth of some divine despair
Rise in the heart, and gather in the eyes,
In looking on the happy autumn-fields,
And thinking of the days that are no more.

   Fresh as the first beam glittering on a sail,
That brings our friends up from the underworld,
Sad as the last which reddens over one
That sinks with all we love below the verge;
So sad, so fresh, the days that are no more.

   Ah, sad and strange as in dark summer dawns
The earliest pipe of half-awakened birds
To dying ears, when unto dying eyes
The casement slowly grows a glimmering square;
So sad, so strange, the days that are no more.

   Dear as remembered kisses after death,
And sweet as those by hopeless fancy feigned
On lips that are for others; deep as love,
Deep as first love, and wild with all regret;
O Death in Life, the days that are no more!