Sympathy for "Fence Sitters"

I had something of a revelation today.

A question World English Literature final exam today asked me what I thought "should" be done about the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. Attached to the essay was a brief editorial written by John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. In it, Bolton argued (correctly, as far as I understand international law) that action through the International Criminal Court is an tremendously poor way to bring Sudanese President Bashir to justice and to save the Darfuris, because such action is outside the scope of it's mandate. Suffice it to say that the I.C.C. does not have to power to indite members who are not signatory to its treaty, and rather than violate international law and state sovereignty, the world should seek to empower the Sudanese themselves to deal with Bashir.

This seemed to me, as I first started writing my response, to be a somewhat callous solution to the problem. Anyone who has heard or seen anything of the brutal, mass killing of the Darfuris in the west of Sudan know that nothing short of full-scale military intervention can prevent the janjeweed - backed by the Sudanese army - from slaughtering every single indigenous African darfuri down to the last burned village. To "respect state sovereignty" in this matter essentially amounts to sacrificing the Darfuris to their fate... another genocide in Africa to hang around the world community's shoulders.

But as I weighed the alternative option of armed intervention, I realized that the alternative that it represented casts shadows equally as dark. Violating international law, even to bring an evil man to justice and save a desperate people, sets a dangerous precedent in international law. Wasn't this how President Bush justified the Iraq war after it had been made clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found? Doesn't the continual disregard for international codes of conduct and state sovereignty weaken and destroy central pillar supporting our world institutions in the first place? If they fail, the undeniable truth is that many more people whom the U.N. protects and helps will also suffer, the Darfuris not the least of all.

It looks as though the crisis in Darfur is one of the "dirty hands" scenarios that my philosophy professor warned me about - one in which those in power must make a decision that invariably lays some sort of moral responsibility at their feet.

Is justice truly justice if adherence to law means that bad men go free and good people die? Is breaking the law justified if the protection granted by the rule of law is dissipated? To say that international law is flawed doesn't do much to help find an answer to the problem. The law has already failed - it must be revised, but that is a question for tomorrow. Today's question must be answered first.

As I wrote in my paper, the daily struggle of a government major is to avoid becoming one of Ayn Rand's hated "Fence Sitters" - people who are unable to make a bad decision and end up paralyzed, unable to make any meaningful choice whatsoever. Seeing all sides of an issue is one thing. Making a decision at the end of the day is quite another. Ultimately we must choose, because apathy is a choice far worse than either alternative. I feel more sympathy for Bush now, and really, for any government figure that is forced to make such a terrible decision. Perhaps that is the fundamental aspect of international relations - Obama certainly says that few decisions that make it to his desk are easy ones.

I penned in my conclusion that, since we must choose, perhaps we choose the answer that seems to help the most people, the soonest. If only to sleep better at night, we should make the choice that allows these poor victims of atrocity to survive the day. I think I might rest easier with my humanity intact, knowing that I had made a decision to help real people, now, in front of me, rather than theoretical people over the next hill.

Shrinking Cell Phones and Web-Lectures

First of all, a new Repiphany! page is up. Here is the comic for your viewing pleasure.

As usual, click here for the full-size.

The cool thing is I believe that vocal-chord phones are really on their way. My nanotech course has been worth-while, if only because it's helped me to discover what can be done on the tiniest of tiny scales. The time is not too distant when our phones and music players are literally a part of our bodies. Think of what the social consequences of that would be! Constant connection to the outside world. An end to texting? Never having to buy earbuds again.

It's a scary thought, but hey, it's the next step. The light bulb probably freaked a lot of people out in Edison's time, too.

Speaking of scary thoughts thoughts, check out TED. It's a video lecture website featuring a host of speakers from Richard Dawkins to Anna Deavere Smith. For about 20 minutes each, speakers provide their thoughts on issues from the American character, to believing in crazy things, to UFOs, to the faulty wiring in our brains. So far every talk I've listened to has been engaging, and many of them have been genuinely funny! Thank you to Roman for this treat.

Also, read JFK's Commencement Address and American University on June 10th, 1963. I don't think I've ever read a more eloquent speach advocating for peace.

Best of Luck!

Derek

Derek's Epic Audiocast - Episode #01

Because Blogging and Twitter just aren't cutting it in my efforts to get Google searches to pay attention to me, I've decided to create a webcast. In Episode 1 of Derek's Epic Audiocast (cue trumpets) I talk about my attempts to meld two songs together that have each been looping around in my head. After experimenting a bit, I came up with something that I think is halfway decent. Take a listen!



Let me know what you think. The two songs that I mixed are Zero 7's "Simple Things" and Little People's "Above the Clouds."

After this experience, I think it'd be fun to do a podcast with a few friends. Anyone want to form a group to talk about politics for half an hour or so? Drop me a comment.

This is why indie games are cool.

AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! -- Alpha Test Video #1 from Dejobaan Games on Vimeo.

Check out this video. Apparently 3d is breaking into the indie scene as well. It's a simple concept that seems to be a lot of fun.

Indie Games meet Global Politics

I'm always surprised when my two biggest interests, international conflict resolution and video games, collide. Usually the result is some sort of World War 2 first-person-shooter, which is fun but generally fails to actually, you know, promote international conflict resolution.

I've just ran across an independent game that seems to take a different take on the idea. It's called Storytron: Balance of Power in the 21st century. In it, you play an American leader following 9-11 trying to set the world right.

Being a hippie who hates America and who bathes in flowers, I immediately set about trying to improve America's relations with the Middle East. As a first step, I humbly asked Israel to recognize Palestine and to remove its settlements in the West Bank. Imagine my shock when Israel refused, even after I went and brought the EU to the table, and India. Even after I offered some trade agreements and some moderate political prodding, my efforts to promote a just world were rebuffed.

So, just to see what would happen, I clicked the "nuke Israel" button.

I quickly learned that it is a bad idea to nuke Israel. My international standing dropped like a rock. I was uniformly condemned by my European allies, who rallied behind - get this - Kim Jung Il of North Korea to pass a censure vote against America in the United Nations. On the plus side, however, what was left of Israel did end up recognizing Palestine. I decided to retire in infamy and lick my wounds on the political sidelines. To the right is my ending scorecard, with American power in the world ultimately dropping slightly, and American credibility in the world non-existent. I wonder if this is how Bush felt leaving office...

I had a bit of fun with this game putting my political ideology to the test. If anything this game has definitely illustrated that the non-violent course of action is a very difficult one. I plan to try a few more times and see if I can't do it all right.

In all seriousness - I would never accept a nuclear option in real life - I think this game presents some interesting opportunities to challenge our beloved mindsets. Everyone who has an opinion about how we should have handled the world following 9/11, please check out the link above.

On a side note, I can't help but underline how important it is that it was a game that caused me to think about my own ideology. Games aren't just Super Mario Brothers, folks... they sometimes present complex and difficult themes, in ways that simple stories or movies can't. I've been mining the Indie Game scene, and I can say for absolute certain that games like these are not uncommon phenomena. They're out there, and they deserve recognition.

Onlive - Truly Astounding Games Evolution

I've been paying attention to the Games Developers Conference that's been going on this week in California, and some really innovative stuff is landing. By far the biggest splash I've seen was generated by OnLive, an online web service that allows one to play video games over the internet. The astounding thing about this service is that the games one plays aren't simply flash games - mainly 2d concepts that run in a tiny window of the screen - nor is one downloading a massive, high tech title that runs only poorly on an entry-level computer. At the risk of sounding like an advertisement, OnLive is an amazing work of technology because it allows the user to play any title made available to it, from the Xbox360, the PC, the Playstation 3 - at full graphics quality, by streaming it over the internet.

Take a look at this GDC expo. It's a little long, but the first few minutes hit the major key points.

The interesting thing about this is that it lowers the bar of who can play high-end videogames. An interesting example of this is the game Crisis, a game that many view to be a benchmark for gaming rigs. Designed several years ago for games of the future, there are thousand-dollar machines out there now that still must strain to the upmost to play Crisis at its highest settings. Yet OnLive service effectively cuts that $2000 pricetag down to the cost of a its own subscription fee and the cost of high-speed cable. Sitting at my entry-level laptop from two years ago, I can play Crisis at max settings over the internet, at high def, with virtually no latenence issues.

I think this is going to have a dramatic impact on the games market. Game-distribution companies like Gametap have existed for years and have not radically reshaped the way that we play games because the hottest, big-ticket items still cost large amounts of money to play through them, and only run poorly on a low-end rig. OnLive, at least on the surface, offers every game on the interet to be played instantly at max-settings, for the cost of a subscription fee. Even for $60 a month, which is what I pay for games anyway, the advantage of effectively owning every game on the OnLive server is a really, really, big deal. We may be seeing the next iteration of the new age of digital distribution, wherein games are bought and sold purely over the internet, and the death of physical CD boxes.

How exciting! Let's see what happens.

An interview with the developer can be found here.

The Presidency - Worst Job Ever

The Onion totally got it right - this black man has the worst job in the world. Ted Kopec is insane.