Greece Trip: Day 1

So, I am in Greece over Spring Break with a class trip from school.  We are going to be traveling to different parts of Greece to study both the ancient society and the development of the early church.  The main cities we'll be in are Athens, Delphi, Kalambaka, and Thessoliniki.  I have to write travel journals each day talking about what we did and thoughts about it.  So, as time allows, I will be trying to post those journals along with perhaps a few pictures each night (here, GMT +2).  I hope you enjoy.

Edit: Sorry I haven't finished my bit on George Friedman's book "The Next Decade." I have been rather busy at school leading up to spring break, but I will hopefully get my last post or so up shortly after Spring Break.

Hopps


Day 1: 10-March 2011

We left Longview at 5am on Wednesday Mar 9 to drive to DFW to fly through Newark to Athens. We arrived with no problems in our travel. As we approached Athens we came from over Europe crossing the eastern Alps and crossing over Kosovo, Macedonia, Greece, etc to get to Athens on the southern side of Greece. We could see many mountains and valleys all covered in snow, it was quite beautiful. Once we landed at Athens International on the outskirts of Athens we started the drive to our Hotel in the center, a about 45 minutes away. On the way our tour guide, Yonni, started giving as some information about Greece and Athens.

Athens has 2 million people and the metro area is about 4 million. They actually had snow yesterday, which only happens every 2-3 years, but it was gone by today and today was in the 40s, so cool, especially in the shade but not too bad. Athens is surrounded by mountains, as are most cities/former city states in Greece, because the mountains divide the country into numerous valleys that are somewhat separated causing them to initially develop rather individually.

The Olympic Center from the 2004 Olympics

The Acropolis

Athens is the capital of Greece and of Attica (kind of the county it is in). Athens is also home to the Athens University, the biggest in the country, with 100,000 students. Because of congestion and to encourage use public transit during the day on Mon-Fri only half the cars are allowed in the city center. This is determined by the last number of your license plate, if it is even or odd. While we were downtown today, while not a lot of cars, there are a ton of little vespa like scooters that dart everywhere, in and our of traffic, hardly paying any attention to where they are as long as it is reasonably paved. Whenever you cross the street you may be sharing the crossing with numerous scooters and even cars. Whenever a stoplight turns green all the scooters that had worked their way to the front in between cars during he light all dash off down the road with taxis and cars right behind them. Rather chaotic looking, but amusing looking. On the note of public transportation, when they made their subway system it took a long time because they kept finding artifacts, over 70,000 in all. In fact, many subway stations actually have museums in them. On the sides of many of the roads in the city are nice looking sour orange trees for decoration, but the oranges aren't really edible, except for making marmalade or something. We drove down one of the main avenues, Queen Sophia Avenue. Along this was the National Garden with over 7000 trees, Embassies, and the House of Parliament (Greece is a parliamentary system, as such their president is merely a figure head). The house of parliament is in the neoclassical design built in the 19^th century (I believe), and this was a popular design style in Greece during this time; it was modern but it still incorporated some ancient Greek elements, such as Ionic or Doric column styles.

Scooters Driving

A Public Inscription

After getting to our Hotel, we put our baggage in our room and started off at the National Inscription Museum. This is more of a scholarly type place where people study remnants found that have inscriptions on them.  Here we also learned a little bit about the development of the Greek alphabet. The Egyptians started very early with Hyroglyphs, the Jewish slaves, etc took some of this back and between them and the Phoenicians kind of simultaneously, developed a phonetic alphabet (though the Phoenicians did it first). This then moved to Greece where it developed into their alphabet from their earlier system called “Linear B”, a symbol based writing system.   There were two main local variants of the Greek alphabet, Ionic and Halkida from the island of Iubea.   The Ionic form developed into the modern Greek alphabet, helped by it becoming the official language of Athens in 403 B.C., but the Halkida form eventually moved to southern Italy and was the foundation of the Latin alphabet. Modern Greeks can understand much of ancient Greek still. About 60% of modern words were around then, most of the new words are technology related. In fact, the grammatical system back then was more complicated then currently. When the modern state of Greece was formed, the older more scholastic form was chosen as the official language over the common language version that was more lax and other stuff mixed in, but in 1980 the common language became the official language of Greece. Many inscriptions at the museum were public inscriptions that told laws or treaties or told of a sponsor of an event; in Ancient Greece rich people didn't have big fancy houses but spent their money to sponsor events such as theater or games, etc.

Looking up towards lunch and the Acropolis

Statue of Perakles

Capuccino

Police Bus

Peaceful Protestors

We then moved into walking around much of the downtown area of Athens. On the way we saw the Athens City Hall with a statue of Perakles, a famed and important ruler of ancient Athens and the one who started the Parthenon. Buildings within a certain distance of the Acropolis can't be more than 8 stories tall so was to preserve the view. We ate lunch at a little cafe on the side of this hill in the shadow of the Acropolis, it felt a little like the movies, which was pretty cool. :-) In the designated old part of the city you can't build new buildings, only preserve what is there which could be anywhere from 100-200 years old to over 1000 years old. Some of the areas we visited to get a general feel for Athens (not spending a lot of time any one place) included: Omonia square, Sindagma square, Kolonaki center square, Monastiraki square where there used to be monastery built 1000 years ago. We also saw reamins of the Library of Hadrian, one of the great libraries of the ancient world. While in Kolonaki square we were able to stop at a cafe called Da Capo and get some delicious cappacino (though not terribly cheap €2.50). A couple people also got some hot chocolate, but it was quite intense, it was a dark chocolate, almost syrup it was so thick. Kind of like melting chocolate chips in the microwave and adding a bit of milk then drinking that. Quite an experience. :-) On our way back to the hotel we had the opportunity to see a group of a few hundred people marching on the streets protesting. They were workers who had been laid off from a telecom company (I think as a result of the recent government austerity measures). They were pretty peaceful, just banners and megaphones, but I was excited to see it, protesting and rioting seems to practically be a national hobby in Greece so it was good to see it firsthand. :-) We had seen police around pretty visible all day. Standing around in groups and police buses waiting on the streets. Apparently this is because of both the protesting and the relatively recent influx of refugees from many places including Libya, Tunisia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other places. Also on our way back, we passed a couple of streets to avoid, they are a center of drug dealing and using, there were people squatting down up those streets, etc, not very pleasant. It was good to get a general feel for the city, in many ways it reminded me more of traveling in San Jose, Costa Rica than say Jerusalem. While it has a mix of old places like Jerusalem, the many shops and kiosks and little scooters, etc seemed to give a more similar feel to San Jose. An enjoyable first day, and I'm surprisingly not as tired now as I thought I would be after all the traveling. Tomorrow we get to hit it strong, including the Acropolis.

I hope you enjoyed, and will enjoy over the next 9 days.

Hopps

Superbowl Commercial: Motorola v. Apple

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

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

The Next Decade: Terrorism

Alright, so I've had the chance to read a little bit more of The Next Decade.  Friedman has now spent a little time talking about terrorism and the "War on Terrorism" over the past decade, what it has done and what needs to/will change about it.  He makes the point that terrorism isn't really an existential threat to the US, while it will occasionally happen and people will die, it can't do enough damage to threaten the existence of America, "terrorism in and of itself cannot destroy the material basis of the American republic" (73).  The point of terrorism is to use force multipliers, to focus on the psyche to make the terrorist appear more powerful than he really is.  The US has made combating terrorism the central thrust of American global strategy, to the detriment of strategy and issues elsewhere.  Terrorism cannot be eliminated, it is impossible.  To do so would require wiping out entire people groups, obviously not possible or desirable, and this in turn would probably create other groups who didn't like this and would then take over the job of terrorism; even totalitarian states are unable to completely stop such attacks.  This has created an unbalanced foreign policy; while Friedman isn't saying to ignore terrorism, it must be seen in light of the overall national strategy.  Certainly a certain amount of resources should be devoted to preventing terrorism, but the nation needs to also not have a singular focus on one area and be aware and able to respond to events of national interest around the world, such as Russia expanding its sphere of influence over the last decade as they've observed the US being tied up in the middle east.  Or the fact that taking out Iraq created a vacuum in the balance of power in the middle east; it used to be Iraq and Iran balancing each other in the middle east to prevent either from becoming too powerful, now Iraq is incapable of doing that anymore, which then puts the US in a poor position to negotiate with Iran.

Here is where Friedman takes on a pragmatic view of the Presidency.  In response, to say a terrorist attack, a President must soothe the nerves of the public and show his efforts to stop terrorism, but he shouldn't act in a manner that is disproportionate to the effect and shouldn't try the impossible.  "He can lie to the public, but he must never lie to himself." (75)  What this is saying is Friedman believe at times the President must say one thing to soothe and pacify the public, but in reality knows he can't fully act through on that because the costs are way too high for a negligible benefit and keep in mind the long term interests of the US, and so must in reality act else wise.  This has been done in history before, such as Roosevelt calling for vengeance on the Japanese after Pearl Harbor but privately focusing on Germany first, not Japan, because he believed that is what was necessary to win the war. Among other interesting ethical issues presented in this book (and other STRATFOR writings), this is an interesting one, is it ethical for a President to lie to the people when necessary for the "greater good" of the country, knowing he can't tell the full truth, that he must convey a sense of being able to accomplish something even when he knows it can't be done?  Is that OK?  Like I mentioned above, it has been done before, and perhaps should have been done this decade with regards to terrorism, I don't know, but is it right?

From here his main point concerning the next decade is that the US must not focus singularly on terrorism, but must define its interests in different regions throughout the world and deal with them accordingly and proportionately.  To prevent regional hegemons and preserve its balance of power strategy throughout the globe.

I think my next post will touch on his discussion of foreign policy philosophy/paradigm, particularly idealism and realism.


Hopps

The Next Decade

So, I feel like should post again since it has been nearly a year, I am absolutely terrible at keeping up with this thing.

So, I thought I'd comment briefly on a book I am currently reading (since it's laying on the desk next to me) called "The Next Decade: Where We've Been...and Where We're Going" by George Friedman of STRATFOR. I have posted on topics along this line before. George Friedman is the founder and CEO of STRATFOR, a private intelligence and global analysis firm with a lot of interesting things to say about world events happening, and where things could go from here. I read his book "The Next 100 Years" a couple years ago and he had a lot of interesting things to say about the world and where it is probably heading in the next century. He is certainly aware that predicting a century with any detail is impossible, but he does believe overall trends and ideas can be predicted. He made some interesting predictions such as China slowing way down/crashing within the next 20 years and having internal turmoil, despite what many people say. He also thinks we'll have another, albeit less intense, cold war with Russie in the next few decades and that countries such as Turkey and Poland will come onto the world stage. (For more on this see a previous post)

Anyways, this book came out last week and he has narrowed it down to just the next decade. So far he has mainly talked about America and its place in the world and how it affects all of the world in so many ways, regardless of whether you want it to or not (he tries to stay as ideologically agnostic as much as he can and just look at the facts, both a virtue and a vice I think). As I get further into this book, I'll try to share a little more on some of his predictions. The interesting thing about his perspective on Geopolitics is he sees it (especially longer term) as very deterministic. Everything is dependent on geography. What countries will and won't do, and can and can't do comes down very much to geography. Whether you have fertile agricultural land for wealth with a navigable river down it (the US) or no river making it nearly useless (Russia, parts of Europe), or whether you are placed strategically (Poland in the northern European plain between Europe and Russia) in a position that has strategic value essentially always. Shorter term, such as a decade, he believe leaders (particularly the President of the US) individual decisions affect people's lives a lot, but in the long run things will go the way they will nearly regardless of individual decisions by leaders. I think he can see a lot that others can't perhaps, but I think he misses the mark sometimes because he does neglect the human factors (that are so hard to predict) such as society and religion and family and morals and the things that those can affect. He takes a very pragmatic, utilitarian, and often Machiavellian view.

Well, that's enough for now, I'd encourage you to check out the website, they have a lot fo good information; a good free weekly email and a good subscription service that is reasonably priced it you're a student.

Hopps