The Nirvana Fallcy, Humans, and Doctor Who

When examining any complex issue or problem in general, it's important to first understand, appreciate, and calculate the human element that factors into the equation.  What does this mean?  Well, I will elucidate upon this question by using the topic of the Nirvana Fallacy, a logical fallacy first named by economist Harold Demsetz in 1969, and the example he utilized.

 As an economist, Demsetz was particularly interested in the issues of private market failure and the generally all-around accepted panacea, government intervention.  Essentially private markets are subjected to the various whims, desires, incalculable variables, and counter-competitive incentives that all actors within the market face. Moreover, since humans are thus in part self-interested beings on top of being fallible, market failure should not be a surprising occurrence.  Now the solution to this problem, which is still largely advocated today both within the realm of policy debate and within the very classrooms across the country, is that government intervention is now justifiable in order to bring a balance back to the realm of markets. The idea is that since the government now plays a large part in either facilitating or allowing the welfare of a nation state to occur (depending on your political views), employees of the public sector would have the best interest in instilling efficient policy that corrects any mistakes the private market makes.   This all seems somewhat reasonable, but as the title of this post suggests, it also appears to be somewhat idealistic.

As I mentioned at the beginning, it's important to take note of the human element of any complex problem.  Now it's easy to notice when examining the argument for why private markets fail, the human element has been factored in.  Since it applies across the board to any issue where humans have a role though, it is only logical to apply it to the public sector as well. So let's further break down the intricacies of the public sector and the various individuals who make it up in order to get a better understanding of what we're dealing with.

The public sector is comprised of politicians, people who play a direct role in creating public policy. Bureaucrats, employees of government agencies that are in charge of implementing programs that exist as a result of public policy.  There are the voters who are responsible for selecting whatever politician they feel best represents their political interests. And finally there are special interest groups; conglomerates of voting weight that are particularly concerned about one or a few more related social issues.  While this is a rather simplistic model, I feel it best represents the structure of the public sector in both a palatable and efficient manner.

First let's focus on politicians.  I'm sure we all have our own views about these individuals, but the fact is these are people who are interested in creating policy that impacts our lives, for the better (we hope).  But if we calculate the fact that politicians are humans, and humans have a self-interest in maintaining whatever position they hold, it is logical to say they will employ whatever means possible to maintain or increase their gains.  Therefore politicians are dependent upon gaining votes in order to ensure re-election. 

Next we have Bureaucrats.  They on the other hand run small, medium or large government agencies that implement programs, all of which require a budget.  Therefore everywhere across the nation where budgeting occurs, bureaucrats submit what they need (or simply want) in order to finance their operations.   Again, since bureaucrats are human, they will thus act within a competitive state and advocate their needs over another, even if their needs are over-dramatized, or unessential to the overall process of efficiently running their organization or policy programs.  Sadly, something that also occurs is that bureaucrats are encouraged to spend their entire budget rather than examine ways of saving or using money prudently, because if politicians (those who okay the budget) see money was left over, they will allocate less the following year.  Therefore bureaucrats are at risk of seeing their operations experience a state of atrophy.  So in order to protect themselves and those who work with or underneath themselves, they must spend, spend, spend, even when it may not be necessary.

After this we have the voters, regular old citizens who may or may not work for either the private or public sector.  Their interests vary but they all have a reason for ensuring the welfare of themselves and those they care about.  Therefore they vote to ensure whatever political ideals they want get put into action. But the human element here is something political scientists have dubbed, "rational ignorance."  What this means is that the average citizen's daily life is already so congested with activities thanks to career and social obligations that they rationally choose to ignore the issues going on in the political world.  Let's say Joe Smith comes home after working 8 hours (8 am - 4 pm) at the office downtown.  Not only did he have to drive into the city and wait in rush hour traffic for about an hour or more depending on construction, but he also had to experience that same mundane process on his way back from work.  He's tired from the various emails, meetings, and phone calls he dealt with throughout the day, and moreover his wife Susie just called and said they were out of milk and eggs and he had to pick up their 10 year old son Johnny from soccer practice. This is his typical Tuesday, and the week doesn't get much better until the weekend itself comes.  Now what self-respecting human being wants to spend his Friday, Saturday, and Sunday researching policy issues that will help him make an educated vote for the greater good come Election Day?  If you say yourself in response to this, you either A) have a career within the public sector or within some academic institution, and you are either single or the family's out of town or B) you have an unusual hobby that while I encourage, also warn against for it is not very rewarding in the long run (it is grueling, defeating, and tedious, but keep up the good fight).  So then Johnny chooses to plug in and get his info from some talk radio source he hears on the way home from work, or tune in to his preferred news channel for a bit after dinner right before the "big game" comes on.  One thing we must take note of here is that those mediums also operate by pecuniary means, and thus by their very nature will appeal to whatever niche or mass market they are targeting.  This only pinholes and narrows down public opinion even more, but that is perhaps one of the drawbacks of living within a mass-society.  

Finally we have special interest groups.  If you answered yes in the previous paragraph to the question pertaining to wasting your weekend away studying policy history, than this might be the career path for you!  Essentially these are non-profit organizations whose main purpose is to advocate a certain social issue. Whether its gun safety, cancer, or spreading awareness of the endangered Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus, they carry both the financial and voting weight to largely impact political elections. And since they are competing for what they believe is to be of value, other important issues society face may be overlooked or underplayed.  So essentially what you have here is a competitive marketplace of people advocating ideas to thus generate some policy in order to further bring their ideas into fruition. And since the regular old voter tends to be stable in his or voting patterns, the politicians main focus tends to be the special interest groups. They have the power to ensure his job.

So, after that lengthy discussion regarding the inner-workings of the public sector, it is quite reasonable to assume that policy produced may not be done in an efficient manner.  Moreover, the policy itself could potentially be protecting one special interest over another.  So how does something such as the government, which in of itself can have just as many of the same issues as the private sector, supposed to assist in alleviating economic woes?  All individuals across the world have their interests and they will utilize whatever means and channels possible to ensure they are protected.   Now I do believe that a good majority of these people truly think that what they believe to be important is in fact important and that they are doing what they do with the best intentions.  Still, this doesn't convince me that government intervention is the best method of fixing the private sector.  Perhaps we should start reexamining the structure of our public system to ensure incentives correlate with the meta-picture rather than the various nested games competing amongst each other deep within. 

 In closing, the only thing this convinces me of is that humans are extremely complex, stubborn, confusing, creatures that sometimes make problems worse off than how they were in the beginning. Even with all of this though I will still borrow a quote from the good ole Doctor Who and say that the best part of this world and our existence is, "People. Ordinary, stupid, brilliant people."

Summer Update and Why Cloud Atlas Rocks

So far this summer hasn't been much different from the Fall and Spring semesters most college kids usually gruelingly go through. I still have class, albeit only one at time, but since it is delivered in a much more succinct time span, it has been somewhat demanding.  I still work, ten hours more than I did during the Fall and Spring, yet this current job is pretty much over when I leave the office.  Being a Graduate Assistant for Residence Life services, I found out rather quickly, is a 24/7 job.  I love it, but I suppose since I have a tiny bit more free time and less on the mind, I should use it wisely and update my blog. It's been a while.  

I go into work around 8 am and leave around 2 or 3 pm. I come home, make lunch, relax for a bit, maybe read, then start my summer class work load.  If it's nice out I end outside on an evening cruise snapping pictures of the now vacant and much more quaint Clarion University campus.  It's really peaceful, but somewhat eery after a while if you're used to the chaotic nature of the full-swing sessions. Either way, I've been trying to make the best of my summer by indulging in some long-lost hobbies and catching up on some of my favorite topics; political economics, philosophy, public policy, and political science.  I know I know, I live an exhilarating life. Sometimes I don't know how I handle all of the excitement. 

Yet as I type these tiny 12 inch Times New Roman words onto this pastel white script page, I think of something a friend, I guess someone I consider to be a good friend, recently told me.  That I tend to act as if the world is my diary.  What this person meant was that I am somewhat open with my life, what's happening in it, where I'm from, where I'm going, or at least planning on going, and who I am, with anyone that asks.  I guess this is a unique characteristic and maybe that's why I've always been interested in people, their stories, and the various nuances, complexities, and visceral moments that define who we are.  To me nothing is more fascinating than the human experience and all it entails because it is the foundation of all facets of existence.  Everything we are and what we have done has led to every tit bit of knowledge we now have or at least claim to have.  

The older I get (I'll be turning the ripe old age of 24 come July) the more I realize I need to find what I truly value.  For I know I'm not someone who could ever drudge through some tedious career even if it provided substantial pay unless I really loved it.  Well, lately I've been starting to focus on some potential paths that may lead to such a career.  I've always thought if I valued humans and the infinite intangibles we experience, what better a role is there to play than someone who helps maintain and encourage such things to prosper?  

To me that means dealing with the fundamental structures that make society work. The macro issues, the big picture; I look at it all and I see relevance.  I see how the words of a 13th century Middle Eastern mystic such as Rumi paint a perfectly pan-optic work of existence, how that has influenced various cultures and historical events in the region, and how those occurrences have gone to influence such things as the Western Renaissance, Classical Western Philosophy and Religion, and thus our Liberal Democratic institutional ideals, through interactions over time. 

Maybe that's why I think, "Cloud Atlas," by David Mitchell, is perhaps one of the most important works in the modern Western library.   

"Our lives are not our own.  We are bound to others, past and present, and by each crime and every kindness, we birth our future."  

That comes straight from the pages of Mitchells's, in my opinion, Magnus Opus, and I have never read a line that has truly grasped such a concept better than that quote right there; because it's true.  I'm sure we all know people who have impacted our lives.  Some of them may no longer be with us, but we feel or we justify via whatever parameters of logic and understanding that best work for us, that in some way shape or form they are still with us.  Whether you believe it's through a perhaps ethereal concept such as the spirit, or whether it's the actions, ideals, and emotional impressions that person bestowed upon you, we value that individual and thus they still live on through our own cognition.  And no matter if you have children of your own, friends, or family, those impressions will shape and guide your actions toward them; thus continuing the chain. 

So what does this all mean?  Why I am I ranting at 1:45 am when I could probably be catching up on some worry-free weekend sleep, even though it's been proven one cannot truly "catch up" on sleep? Casual verbal social lubrication aside, I guess I just wanted to open up the pages of my diary and share what's on my mind.  Maybe someone will read this and take value to what I say, or maybe no one will.  Who cares, it's just nice to get it out there I suppose.

A Question Without an Answer

A few weeks ago in my Economics course, my professor proposed a simple question, " Is America the greatest country in the world?"  This encouraged a few of the usually quiet, but apparently overly-patriotic students in the back to create a bit of a hoop-la. Roars of American exceptionalism  were mixed together with the normal tone of red, white, and blue dissidents. On the former side of the argument you will hear that due to our cultural, political, and socio-economic histories, our nation has been somewhat of a "city upon hill," if you will.  I use that metaphor for I feel it is a proper homage to one of our Puritan founders, John Winthrop's, original hopes for his future home of Massachusetts.  Essentially this new land would be a beacon, a model for the rest of the world. And I profoundly believe that those philosophical roots have woven their way throughout the fabric of our American identity.  Perhaps such an ideal in itself is necessary to drive a sovereign nation within our somewhat modern nationalistic organization of civilization, but either way, we as Americans have a sense of pride.  Which we should.  But I do think it is fair to state like all things, too much of something may not be good.

On the dissident side you tend to hear the common imperialistic argument.  That is via warfare, economic influence, and other means our culture and beliefs have created a hegemonic like net over the rest of the Western world. Moreover, the issues we now face in areas such as the middle east are fundamentally based off of these cultural struggles.   Some will point to our exceptionally large military, which is stationed all across the world, as evidence.  Others will state that the tangible moralistic depravity has not only corrupted our society, breeding a hedonic, materialistic generation of wantons, but it has also spread throughout the very foundations of our society, as evident within political and private sector corruption.  This is all a tad bit extreme.  But like the other side's argument, there are some points to be made here as well.  Americans do tend to place heavy value on consumption, which to be fair is something rooted within our very biological nature.  As animals we need to consume in order to survive.  There is no getting around it. Still, perhaps rather than focusing on the items that we value for conspicuous or ostentatious purposes, we should more or less value the vessels throughout which the consumption is experienced; ourselves.  

Do I believe America is the greatest country in the world?  I don't think that is a fair question.  Not because I value some other country out there or I am "anti-American."  That is far from the truth, for I love everything about my basic identity, including the nation where I was born and currently reside in.  But I don't find it to be a fair question because I don't think a question such as that is one with a straight answer.  Sure, there are many historical instances or cases we could easily point at and say, "that is definitely not a time and place I would want to live in."  Perhaps it was the Assyrian empire, or maybe for modern purposes it is North Korea.  So yes we can easily falsify this statement, to speak in a scientific tongue, but it is not something we can state as empirically true.  To do that we would need to create a list of criteria which based off the basic flaws of logic and reasoning, would be subjective and bias to our conditioned preferences of Western values. 

Do I think America is the most powerful country in the world? Surely, without a doubt, when it comes in terms of military capabilities.  But I don't think that is the purpose of a nation.  To me you could have many great nations, but neither one would truly be above the other as long as they serve the basic purpose of those who reside within their geographic and political boundaries.   As long as  a nation seeks to assist and offer security of a social group, so that said social group can pursue economic and sociological ventures in order to achieve biological, psychological and internal forms of happiness and peace, while simultaneously offering a breeding ground to support and nourish said groups socio-economic cultural identity and history, then that nation is one that is moralistically sound and legitimate.

Now obviously things such as education, healthcare, economic opportunity, and general infrastructure of a sovereign nation are all factors that will contribute to the greater goal.  And yes these are aspects that we as Americans do in fact have.  Yet if you look at some of our rankings, such as our overall performance in terms of education, there are obviously rooms for improvement.  So I suppose the purpose of this little piece is merely to encourage a tad bit of humbleness. Perhaps you could say I am merely arguing the virtue of humility, American humility.  For while we have obviously had a great wealth  of resources and opportunities in the past, this is not all due to our will and ability alone.  A lot of this merely comes down to the winds of fortune, and sometimes the winds change directions.  Let's make sure we have our sails in the right position.

Bad Rhetoric

About a week ago this statement and image set fire to facebook via the status updates of many libertarian and conservative friends of mine.  At first glance, it seems to be one of those "yes" moments for any strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment.

But I myself have a problem with rhetorical tools such as this, and it has nothing to do with personal or political sentiments towards the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution under the Bill of Rights.  Rather, my qualms with this statement stem from the lack of logical analysis regarding the comparison he makes of the items involved. Lets break this down.

Chuck Woolery states that blaming assault weapons for killing someone is the same as blaming airplanes for the atrocious events of September 11th, 2001.  Essentially, he is stating that just because an assault rifle was involved with the act of murdering someone, you can not blame the rifle itself, but rather the person who holds the rifle.  He then compares this to airplanes, since the airplane itself was merely the tool used to commit the egregious tragedy of 9/11.  Again, this makes some sense. But there are some issues we must discuss.

First, we must get down to the identity of both of these tools, airplanes and assault rifles, and we must reach a conclusion regarding their purpose. Basically, what utility were they intended for in our modern society.

Let's begin with airplanes.  Specifically, let's discuss those he refers too, commercial airliners.  These vehicles serve many roles.  The most prominent is a means for transportation.  They act as a way from people to get to point A and point B, either for personal or business related reasons.  In a large market economy, fast modes of transportation such as airplanes and other ground based motor vehicles are necessities for supporting the economy's fundamental need for mobility, whether it is social or economic. They also serve as logistic tools for large industry.  By transporting goods across the globe, they are a major part of any supply train.

Now let's discuss assault rifles.  What utility where they intended for?  In essence, they serve as an advanced technological means of self-defense, or, at times of conflict, weapon in order to complete whatever strategic mission may be at hand.

But assault rifles do have an economic role.  Since industries provide such tools, people or organizations consume these goods for either one of their intended purposes.  Moreover, they also serve a role for sporting.  Many individuals travel back and forth to firing ranges using multiple different firearms simply to practice and improve their skills. Also, hunting is still a large activity in many states such as my own of Pennsylvania.  All of these actions have economic impacts.

Now that we defined the original utility of these two items it becomes very clear that it is fallible to make such a comparison as the photo above states.  Both situations and items are different.  One must be wary of reading such rhetoric and consuming it for the intended political purpose no matter if it serves your cause or not. In this case the rhetoric ends up being a failed attempt at blurring the two situations with faulty semantic analysis.

When I originally posted a more succinct statement like this on one of the libertarian organizations Facebook pages, many were quick to attack me and merely focus on the economic benefits of such rifles.  While I completely agree their statements are valid, they still ignored the intended point which I stated above. More so, economic arguments can only go so far in my opinion.  You could virtually justify the legality of anything and everything when viewing things through an economic paradigm.  I'm sure there are many things people would cringe at with the thought of it being legal, but would truthfully have an economic impact. Therefore, any issue impacting the greater society should come down to a much broader analysis which includes discourse regarding the social and ethical implications of said matter, not just an economic viewpoint.

Personally, I respect the 2nd amendment.  I believe it is not only a Constitutional right, but a natural necessity in human civilization.  While we have become extremely advanced sentient creatures, sociological and psychological factors produce situations where one may need to protect themselves or their family.  While it is easy to state one can do this without an assault rifle, it all depends on what the aggressor in the situation has as well.  If such advanced weapons such as firearms are banned, it is reasonable to assume that the aggressor may have better access to these tools than the innocent law abiding citizen who may be placed in such a situation. Therefore we must have a fair and open market to prevent any unsafe disadvantages, since these events are usually fueled by criminal activities and criminals have an easier way of accessing black markets where outlawed or illegal items could be obtained.

But I do believe there are many steps any society should take to ensure such powerful weapons don't fall in the hands of unstable individuals.  Thorough and fair background checks must exist for these reasons. Furthermore,  we must also ask ourselves what we want our economy to consist of.  As the saying goes, it is either ,"guns or butter."  But lets save that topic and the underlying issues I have with the military industrial complex and the economic distortions and inefficiencies associated with it for another day!

I hope you enjoyed reading this!

Best wishes,


Mark

6 Simple Rules

 I recently decided to play a little thought experiment regarding sound values to live by.  I thought what would I say if I only had a few moments to live and I had the opportunity to address the entire world, or at least those who had access to technology that made this address capable, and I also had their undivided attention.  I came up with 6 things.

1. There are very few things you can be certain of in life.  Understand and accept this, make this the lens for which you view the world through.

2. As life goes by, we sometimes find ourselves in rather ill-tempered moods which may lead to us taking it out on those we care about, or perhaps that guy who sits in the cubicle next to you. Rather than blaming and lashing out on others, look deep within yourself and you may find out that what truly ills you is something of your own bidding or fictitious imagination.

3. Forgive, learn to forgive others and learn to forgive yourself, but don't do it simply to gain back something you lost.  If a branch breaks in a storm, you can not have the same one back.  You can only learn from what happened and eventually grow a new one.

4. Don't live everyday like it's your last, but rather, live everyday like you want to make the world a better place for all.  Spread laughter and smiles, show compassion and understanding, work hard, and be sure to give opportunities to those who are willing to work hard for them.

5. In some way shape or form give someone else all of your love and accept theirs back.  Treat it well, for it may be the most precious gift within existence.

6.  Finally, to steal a quote from someone you may have heard of, " Life is what happens while you're busy making other plans," - John Lennon.  Whether or not your childhood dreams come true, if things happen for a reason, or we simply make reason out of things that happen, the only thing that truly matters is that you make sure to take the time and enjoy the beautiful aspects of life itself.

Be true to yourself, follow the above steps, and things should fall into place.


It's been a while since I posted something last, but I hope you all enjoy this and have a wonderful Thanksgiving holiday.

Best,


Mark

My Beef with Indie Kids

Tonight I had a dinner conversation with some friends regarding what it means to be an “indie” kid.  Now I am sure you can search and find a plethora of different descriptions on the web.  But I am not here to define what it means to be an indie kid, I am here to tell you about the problem I have with these people and the high-minded views they have of themselves.  You see, I take issue with people who think since something has become “mainstream” it no longer holds the same quality.  Whether it is music, film, or any other artistic expression, the idea of something being solely “indie” doesn’t exist.  I also have a problem with these people believing that by them being indie, they are not “mainstream.” They may not be what you see on television every day, but I assure you, these people are a set cultural group within our society.  This means they represent a collection of values that are apparent based on behavioral and cosmetic traits.  I also assure you companies and manufactures directly market products and services to these people.  As an MBA student, if a company can market something towards you, you’re not that “indie”.

Here’s my beef with indie kids.  They go around acting like they are some bleeping paragon of knowledge when it comes to good music, and whenever a band they once loved becomes popular, they instantly attack it for going mainstream, and they boast to all of the new fans about how, “well, I listened to them before they were big!” Great, that’s awesome, and in my opinion, in regards to music, nothing could be a better compliment then to have someone you discovered before they were big become popular.  That’s basically saying you have great taste in music, and rather than acting like a turncoat, appreciate the compliment.     

On top of this, they cease to see the big picture.  If it wasn’t for advancements in technology, we wouldn’t be able to have so many micro-cultures of music.  Thanks to the web and social media sites, and the wealth of our nation, any Joe Schmo can afford a guitar, start a band, get some recording equipment, and start a web page.  And you know what; sometimes you find some great bands this way.  But most of the time these people are simply living within the paradigm of what others believe to be creative, and they try to channel that same spirit.  This isn’t being creative, this is being redundant.  Still, every once in a while you get a spark of uniqueness to mix in with the monotony, and you end up with something novel for a change.  Once this happens the “indie” kids pounce on the delicious piece of meaty music awesomeness like a vegan suffering from willpower depletion. Watch out !

So let’s imagine you have this new band.  They played a show for one of those bigger named artists, and you liked them.  It turns out that they aren’t that popular, but they have an amazing sound!  So like anyone who enjoys something, you tend to tell people about it. All of the sudden, more people are listening to them, and one day you find their music video playing on MTV! For some reason this strange thing happens; the people that originally listened to them and supported them get upset whenever they become successful.  Now not everyone turns their back, but many do.  And when this transpires, they do it with an air of snobbery that is so rude, egregious, and stupid; you sometimes just want to punch them in the face.

Okay, I get it, their sound changed.  Well, I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to listen to the same sound from the same band for some unknown number of years.  I like it when a band experiments. Sure you have winners and losers, but part of being an artist, and hell, a human in general, is growing.  Your perception on the world tends to change with this process, and what influences an artist more than their perception of the world?  There have been many bands that I have loved who have become extremely successful, and good for them! Isn’t that what we should want for everyone? They risk a hell of a lot by pursuing such a lifestyle, an existence that doesn’t have any soft cushions to fall back onto if you don’t make it.   So if this ever happens to one of your artists, even if their music begins to suck, be happy.  Because they are able to make a living by following their dreams, something we all want.  And if you ever meet an “indie” kid who says Mumford and Sons are no longer good because they are too mainstream, while he or she slowly inhales a hit from a self-rolled cigarette, do me a favor and punch them in the face.  By doing so, you made the world a better place.

Thanks,

Mark


PS - I do not actually condone any of the violence mentioned in this post. 

American Hubris

The Republican Presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, has made headlines with his proclamation that he will, “not apologize for being an American.”  Now, by stating this, he is saying he truly believes in American ideals, moreover, he will not apologize for any acts committed by citizens of the country or the governing bodies themselves as long as they were means used to achieve a pro-American end.   I feel like this is a fair analysis of the statement, but if anyone disagrees, I am open for discourse.

Now keeping this logic in mind, let’s examine another much broader argument.  I feel most people will agree that humans themselves are fallible creatures, meaning we are by no means perfect. Being this way, it would follow that we will make bad decisions from time to time.  And in a society, in order to preserve a level of civility, subsistence, order, and humanity, we must learn from these mistakes, and at times, we must apologize whenever they are of the up most egregious affair.  By apologizing, we are displaying another most essential aspect of humanity.  We are growing, progressing, and learning from past follies in order to better ourselves as individuals and thus improving the greater social group we live in.  So in essence, making mistakes and thus apologizing for them have been quintessential aspects to humanity for quite some time.  While it’s moral justification may have been more secular than ethereal throughout various points of history, and vice versa, what only matters is that it occurs.  For without it, we would not be at such a state of enlightened civilization. And while I am sure many of you would proclaim we still display barbaric tendencies, the truth of the matter is that things are much more humane than they have been at times. 

We should now break down what it means to be an American; I would say it is a human being who lives within a set geographic boundary under the guise of specific political factors, who also contain a definite, yet in our case, diverse set of cultural values dependent upon the socioeconomic environment the citizen comes from.  To summarize, an American is a particular individual living within a particular social group.  Thus, they would be subjected to the previous paragraph’s argument.  Furthermore, since humans are fallible, and are capable of making mistakes, and social groups are made up of humans, would it not follow logically that nations at times would thus make mistakes?  I feel the answer is obvious.

I could easily twist Romney’s words here and posit that by him stating he will not apologize for being an American, he is ultimately asserting he is not subjected to the various characteristics all other humans possess.  Ultimately, he is not a human.  While I am sure there have been and will continue to be many people we meet throughout our days who we feel are mere wantons vicariously going amongst their lives without a care for how their actions impact others, they are still human.   We don’t respect these people because we know, in terms of the grand level, they are not acting how a civilized, and thus, efficient individual should behave in society.   And while I do not believe there is a specific way an individual should behave to be efficient, I do believe going amongst your life claiming there is no need to apologize is both foolhardy and arrogant, and that is how one shouldn’t act. 

In fact, I believe one of the most dangerous things that could ever happen to our nation is for us to adapt what I declare to be an, “American Hubris,” a perspective that  states we, as citizens of this grand country, are invulnerable to the many realities of humanity and the world in general.  This type of certainty is short-sighted, irrational, and pernicious to the overall health and stability of our nation.  By believing that sheer will  has been the deliverer of fruition, wealth, and prosperity, we ignore the various variables that have been delivered by fortune and fortune alone.   While might and action can to some degree, “bend” the arc of history, in many ways the path is already set, and we can only act within the parameters in front of us.  By not apologizing and acknowledging mistakes, a nation lacks the ability to see what has and has not worked. Therefore they cannot employ such an analysis in order to choose the necessary step regarding what actions we need to take.  And for the many people who are quick to state that apologizing is the number one sign of weakness, I completely disagree.  By identifying mistakes, you are preparing your nation to face certain realities of the geo-political realm, and thus examining the right actions to employ necessary means for a truly prosperous, yet still temporary end, while simultaneously encouraging the undying, eternal flame of humanity amongst your citizens.