Kudos for you reading another commentary on President Obama's Nobel win. The one thing I'm not missing as I study abroad here in London is the fight over whether or not Obama deserved the MVP award for world leaders. To be fair London media is even nastier than ours—think about what would happen if the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks wrote for The National Enquirer—but at least the British don't bring semi-automatic rifles to rallies waving badly photoshopped Obama signs with Hitlerstaches.
That aside, I'm noticing that in all the noise the left and the right are making, no one's talking how the Nobel affects Obama and his next three to seven years. What I mean by that is what Obama represents: change we want to believe in. Obama campaigned as the leader who would bring not just the US but the world into a new era of diplomacy and peacemaking. So far, so good—his handling of Iran, the international economic crisis, and renewed talks for nuclear disarmament all prove he's got what it takes.
The problem with the Nobel isn't about the lack of things he's done though. Saying that he'll rest on his laurels is closer, but still off the mark. The Nobel isn't making Obama too comfortable—it's make us too uncomfortable. Specifically, our generation—the generation that was instrumental in helping Obama win in the first place.
A year ago on this campus seven Nobel winners came for a four-day event. I was there, watching Jody Williams roar to the crowd that she didn't win it by sitting on the sidelines. I was there, watching Desmond Tutu share his story of defeating apartheid despite being imprisoned, beaten, and having to watch people die and suffer. I was there when our entire campus watched spellbound as seven peacemakers told us that if we wanted peace, we not only had to work for it, but fight for it, with all our hearts and passions.
Compare what these people did with what Obama has done.
Then, make the connection. These winners didn't have anybody rooting for them when they started, so their drive for peace was long, arduous, and difficult. But it made them and their cause stronger, to a point that really did change the world.
The fact they had no expectations, in effect, made them better peacemakers. So what happens when all the world's expectations are lumped onto a man who never went through what Jody Williams and Desmond Tutu went through—a man that also happens to be the most powerful leader in the world?
Going back to LMU, the fact that we are all-in on the President's potential is not healthy for us either. We are now linked to his potential success or failure. Obama not meeting our expectations will not only fail bringing about peace, but it will shatter the hopes of a generation of Americans.
I still have faith in our President, but I was very disappointed when he chose to accept the Prize. It would have been the ultimate symbol of his potential if he said, “Check back with me in ten years”. It would be have a powerful statement to tell the world that he acknowledges change is something we can't believe in until we make it happen. It would have been the best diplomatic move in American history to tell the world that peace isn't that easy.
But by accepting it, he's made his job harder. Because it's no longer a laurel. It's a chain that binds him to our generation, our country, and the world's now-impossible expectations. This isn't healthy for him, for us, or for change.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Information Overload
I don't know about you, but I'm getting really overstimulated by conversation. Everything from the health care debates (is bloodbath too harsh?) to Kanye West flipping out at the VMAs is making my brain nauseous. Yes, nauseous. As in my brain is keeling over from the fact that despite all the information we come across every day, very little of it seems relevant or important. Yet it just keeps coming, whether we like it or not.
This is actually more common of a concern than you'd think. The Information Age has given the world unlimited access and scope to almost every reach of the accumulated knowledge of human history. Information that can now be accessed in a microsecond-Google search took months, even years, to access barely fifty years ago.
But if knowledge is power, and with power comes great responsibility, we are at a crossroads. At this two intersection are two looming questions: Does too much information muddle the human mind, or does it motivate us—in learning lessons from the past and being aware of the future—to better the world? And what happens when, with so much information swirling about, false or twisted information gets injected into the system?
I tend to believe, in regards to the first question, that we are on the right track. There may be people out there that consider their obsession with Bradgelina or purse chihuahuas relevant to their life's meaning, but luckily (er...hopefully) those aren't the people who run companies or countries. As for the people who will be in power someday (us), I can speak from experience and conversations we are using the boon of the Information Age to our advantage. Whether it's the LMU student who learns about unfair wage practice at the LAX Hilton, or the University of San Francisco kids who discover that human trafficking still occurs in the US—we are doing something about it. Never before has humanity's problems been so out in the open; never before have we risen marvelously to the occasion.
But, like my poor nauseous brain can attest to, the fact we have access to so much information does not mean its all true. Yet we seem to think the opposite. A perfect example is the recent financial meltdown, in which situations like subprime mortgages (Wall Street telling Main Street he can buy a million dollar home with a $15k salary) screwed everyone over—yet everyone believed it at first.
But this is human nature. We like believing things that aren't true. I argue that the game has changed, though, and for the better—because there's a fourth party involved. The three other parties—corporations and business, media, and government—used to be the only way we got our information. Now, with email, blogs, and Skype, they have competition from, egad, ordinary people.
Problem is, fat cats don't want to get skinnier. Think of how much more in-your-face the media, businesses and their advertising, and government has gotten in tandem with the Information Age. They've figured out that if they can get our attention first—and with enough punch—they still have the advantage.
Which leads us back to square one: overstimulation, my poor nauseous brainwaves—
And conversation. Processing too much information may at times bog us down and prevent us from thinking clearly (or even wanting to think at all). But the means of overstimulation is also the best defense against it. The contrast is in its content. Like the old saying, “You are what you eat”, we are what we think. Garbage in, garbage out.
Thus the case for conversation—good conversation, that is. For it is in conversation with multiple perspectives, opinions, and thoughts that, in the very clash of these ideas, a product emerges steeled and resolved in its conviction. That is why LMU students are faring so well with the Information Age; we are using conversation to integrate our information into our actions and better ourselves and the world.
And that is why I write: to further encourage this culture of conversation. Join me weekly to explore new perspectives and ideas on everything from politics to pop culture. It is my hope that the more we think, in both our minds and out loud with others, the better equipped we will be to face the promises and the perils of the Information Age.
This is actually more common of a concern than you'd think. The Information Age has given the world unlimited access and scope to almost every reach of the accumulated knowledge of human history. Information that can now be accessed in a microsecond-Google search took months, even years, to access barely fifty years ago.
But if knowledge is power, and with power comes great responsibility, we are at a crossroads. At this two intersection are two looming questions: Does too much information muddle the human mind, or does it motivate us—in learning lessons from the past and being aware of the future—to better the world? And what happens when, with so much information swirling about, false or twisted information gets injected into the system?
I tend to believe, in regards to the first question, that we are on the right track. There may be people out there that consider their obsession with Bradgelina or purse chihuahuas relevant to their life's meaning, but luckily (er...hopefully) those aren't the people who run companies or countries. As for the people who will be in power someday (us), I can speak from experience and conversations we are using the boon of the Information Age to our advantage. Whether it's the LMU student who learns about unfair wage practice at the LAX Hilton, or the University of San Francisco kids who discover that human trafficking still occurs in the US—we are doing something about it. Never before has humanity's problems been so out in the open; never before have we risen marvelously to the occasion.
But, like my poor nauseous brain can attest to, the fact we have access to so much information does not mean its all true. Yet we seem to think the opposite. A perfect example is the recent financial meltdown, in which situations like subprime mortgages (Wall Street telling Main Street he can buy a million dollar home with a $15k salary) screwed everyone over—yet everyone believed it at first.
But this is human nature. We like believing things that aren't true. I argue that the game has changed, though, and for the better—because there's a fourth party involved. The three other parties—corporations and business, media, and government—used to be the only way we got our information. Now, with email, blogs, and Skype, they have competition from, egad, ordinary people.
Problem is, fat cats don't want to get skinnier. Think of how much more in-your-face the media, businesses and their advertising, and government has gotten in tandem with the Information Age. They've figured out that if they can get our attention first—and with enough punch—they still have the advantage.
Which leads us back to square one: overstimulation, my poor nauseous brainwaves—
And conversation. Processing too much information may at times bog us down and prevent us from thinking clearly (or even wanting to think at all). But the means of overstimulation is also the best defense against it. The contrast is in its content. Like the old saying, “You are what you eat”, we are what we think. Garbage in, garbage out.
Thus the case for conversation—good conversation, that is. For it is in conversation with multiple perspectives, opinions, and thoughts that, in the very clash of these ideas, a product emerges steeled and resolved in its conviction. That is why LMU students are faring so well with the Information Age; we are using conversation to integrate our information into our actions and better ourselves and the world.
And that is why I write: to further encourage this culture of conversation. Join me weekly to explore new perspectives and ideas on everything from politics to pop culture. It is my hope that the more we think, in both our minds and out loud with others, the better equipped we will be to face the promises and the perils of the Information Age.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
