While it seems many people thought the commercials were lacking yesterday, this was a pretty clever commercial from the superbowl yesterday.
This video makes the most sense when viewed in the context of Apple's famous superbowl commercial in 1984, playing off the big brother theme from Orwell's book 1984 and advertising its macintosh computer.
Motorola used a similar theme, but everything was white, Apple's theme color, and the girl at the end had white earbuds in, the symbol of the iPod. They took Apple's theme and turned it around on them and said if you don't want to be controlled you shouldn't buy Apple products, but the Xoom. Probably one of the better commercials last night, for those who got it.
Hopps
Monday, February 7, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
The Next Decade: Realism and Idealism
Friedman in his book, The Next Decade, speaks to different prevalent foreign policy philosophies. He breaks the two primary camps espousing their views into Realists and Idealists. Their names are rather self-explanatory.
Realists say the US, as any other nation, should focus on its national interests, even if that means dealing with countries that perhaps don't practice democracy, high levels of human rights, and other American morals and values (across ideologies). Certainly that has been done before, Roosevelt with the Soviet Union against Hitler, Nixon with China (and perhaps, Friedman predicts, with Iran. Or currently, supporting Mubarak in Egypt since he provides a stable anchor for the entire middle east and security of Israel even though he isn't stellar in regards to human rights). They believe that since we live in a dangerous world, focusing on moral goals diverts from the pursuit of our genuine interests, thereby "endangering the very existence of the republic that is the embodiment of American ideals." (36)
Idealists state the US should operate primarily on the moral principles upon which this country was founded and believe it should continue on (again, across ideologies). The believe that the moral compass must be first and foremost in our minds when deciding foreign policy.
Friedman proposes that the divide between the two "fundamentally misstates the problem" (36) He points to several points upon which each side founders. Idealism: Which takes precedence, national self-determination or human rights (two principles upon which the American revolution was built)? If a country decides to revoke human rights through a constitutional process, or countries that don't hold elections like the US but clearly are wanted by the people based on long standing cultures? Realism: It typically thinks that the national interests of the 21st century US, which are extraordinarily complex, are as simple as those of an 18th century small nation (simple survival) were.
He says they are really just different sides of the same coin, power. "Power as an end in itself is a monstrosity that does not achieve anything lasting and will inevitably deform the American regime. Ideals without power are simply words-they can come alive only when reinforced by the capacity to act." (37) Acting for power as an end in itself ends up essentially being thuggish and not worth anything, but in a real world only working with regimes that function and think as you do won't allow you to get anything done. He then goes onto speak about how America can't shun powers that don't behave exactly as we do, that they will often still be useful to fulfilling our primary goal of national self interest, the interest of preserving the American republic which stands for those values. He makes a very interesting statement "The pursuit of moral ends requires a willingness to sup with the devil." (38) He takes a rather utilitarian view of the world, it is hard to say completely from this book, but almost a view that the ends justify the means. However, he ends with a statement concerning the next decade, the President of the US will need to grapple with both ends. "he must choose the uncomfortable synthesis of the two that Machiavelli recommended. The president must focus not only on the accumulation and use of power but on its limits. A good regime backed by power and leaders who understand the virtue both of the regime and of power is what is required." (40)
This brought an interesting question to my mind, as a Christian. God has put government into place as a means to restrain evil in this world, he has given it a sphere of authority.
"Is there any activity or deed necessary for the basic function and survival of a state that is immoral or sinful/wrong for a Christian to do?"
If it was truly pared down, could a Christian do any job or position within a government that is necessary for its survival, without sinning? One side of the issue seems to say yes, if it is truly a job requiring its survival, God created this institution, how could He require it to do something that was wrong (unless perhaps the view is taken that if something is wrong it shouldn't be done and if it is time for the nation to collapse, that was God's plan)? But on the other hand, this is a fallen world and things aren't perfect (though government was instituted after the fall). This is a pertinent question to think about, whether directly involved in politics and foreign policy decisions, or simply voting for politicians making those decisions. Among many things, I think a very visible application of this question is pacifism. If war or violence, in the proper context, is necessary for the survival of the state (which while it could be argued either way, I think a realistic view of human nature would say it is), is it wrong to be involved in the proper act of war? Even if it was necessary for it to be done to survive, should you not be involved in it and let others who have no qualms "do the dirty work" so to speak? Something to ponder.
Hopps
Realists say the US, as any other nation, should focus on its national interests, even if that means dealing with countries that perhaps don't practice democracy, high levels of human rights, and other American morals and values (across ideologies). Certainly that has been done before, Roosevelt with the Soviet Union against Hitler, Nixon with China (and perhaps, Friedman predicts, with Iran. Or currently, supporting Mubarak in Egypt since he provides a stable anchor for the entire middle east and security of Israel even though he isn't stellar in regards to human rights). They believe that since we live in a dangerous world, focusing on moral goals diverts from the pursuit of our genuine interests, thereby "endangering the very existence of the republic that is the embodiment of American ideals." (36)
Idealists state the US should operate primarily on the moral principles upon which this country was founded and believe it should continue on (again, across ideologies). The believe that the moral compass must be first and foremost in our minds when deciding foreign policy.
Friedman proposes that the divide between the two "fundamentally misstates the problem" (36) He points to several points upon which each side founders. Idealism: Which takes precedence, national self-determination or human rights (two principles upon which the American revolution was built)? If a country decides to revoke human rights through a constitutional process, or countries that don't hold elections like the US but clearly are wanted by the people based on long standing cultures? Realism: It typically thinks that the national interests of the 21st century US, which are extraordinarily complex, are as simple as those of an 18th century small nation (simple survival) were.
He says they are really just different sides of the same coin, power. "Power as an end in itself is a monstrosity that does not achieve anything lasting and will inevitably deform the American regime. Ideals without power are simply words-they can come alive only when reinforced by the capacity to act." (37) Acting for power as an end in itself ends up essentially being thuggish and not worth anything, but in a real world only working with regimes that function and think as you do won't allow you to get anything done. He then goes onto speak about how America can't shun powers that don't behave exactly as we do, that they will often still be useful to fulfilling our primary goal of national self interest, the interest of preserving the American republic which stands for those values. He makes a very interesting statement "The pursuit of moral ends requires a willingness to sup with the devil." (38) He takes a rather utilitarian view of the world, it is hard to say completely from this book, but almost a view that the ends justify the means. However, he ends with a statement concerning the next decade, the President of the US will need to grapple with both ends. "he must choose the uncomfortable synthesis of the two that Machiavelli recommended. The president must focus not only on the accumulation and use of power but on its limits. A good regime backed by power and leaders who understand the virtue both of the regime and of power is what is required." (40)
This brought an interesting question to my mind, as a Christian. God has put government into place as a means to restrain evil in this world, he has given it a sphere of authority.
"Is there any activity or deed necessary for the basic function and survival of a state that is immoral or sinful/wrong for a Christian to do?"
If it was truly pared down, could a Christian do any job or position within a government that is necessary for its survival, without sinning? One side of the issue seems to say yes, if it is truly a job requiring its survival, God created this institution, how could He require it to do something that was wrong (unless perhaps the view is taken that if something is wrong it shouldn't be done and if it is time for the nation to collapse, that was God's plan)? But on the other hand, this is a fallen world and things aren't perfect (though government was instituted after the fall). This is a pertinent question to think about, whether directly involved in politics and foreign policy decisions, or simply voting for politicians making those decisions. Among many things, I think a very visible application of this question is pacifism. If war or violence, in the proper context, is necessary for the survival of the state (which while it could be argued either way, I think a realistic view of human nature would say it is), is it wrong to be involved in the proper act of war? Even if it was necessary for it to be done to survive, should you not be involved in it and let others who have no qualms "do the dirty work" so to speak? Something to ponder.
Hopps
Labels:
Stratfor,
The Next Decade
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)