Eenerblog!

Nationalism: Vice or Virtue?

The words ‘patriotism’ and ‘nationalism’ have been used interchangeably for as long as I can remember. Thus, I simply assumed that they meant the same thing. There is a difference, though one could argue that the difference is so slight that it may not even bear mentioning (unless you’re a political science junkie).

Nationalism is a “passionate identification with a nation on the part of its citizens” (Shively 53). In order to really understand the definition, it must be broken down further to the point where the word ‘nation’ is defined: “A large group of people who are bound together, and recognize a similarity among themselves, because of a common culture” (49). In its rawest form, nationalism is basically an emotional connection between the group and their culture.

A state, on the other hand, is a political entity, an organization where the government has the decision-making power over the nation. Knowing that there is a difference between ’states’ and ‘nations’ makes it easier to see that there is actually a difference between nationalism and patriotism. We know that nationalism applies to the nation, the collective culture(s) within the state. Patriotism, therefore, refers to allegiance to the state. Shively’s footnote on page 53 supports this from an etymological standpoint.

What is so great about nationalism? For governments, it’s a matter of huge convenience. Governments use it to fill spiritual voids in people. European states in the 18^th century discovered this as religion declined. Nationalism was a seemingly perfect substitute for religion. It was a substitute which brought a large and diverse population together to fight for continuity of the state – and feel good about doing so. This holds true today among modern states. While nationalism appears to benefit the state more than it does the nation, it does have its virtues. It has brought communities together. People have been courageous and have been willing to make sacrifices in the name of nationalism. On the other hand, assassinations and massacres have occurred under similar auspices.

The concept of nationalism is a relevant issue in today’s world, although states exhibit varying degrees of it. Nationalism in the US, for instance, has been on a steady decline since Gallup polled Americans about their sense of country in 1988. Nationalism brings people together as one entity, but with the growing gap between the rich and poor, we have been separated into two groups: The “Haves and Have-nots” (Rise of the Have-Nots, Washingtonpost.com). For developing nations, however, nationalism is a powerful force because the state relies a great deal upon it for its survival and continuity, especially in its infancy.

Sources: Shively, Phillips, W. Power & Choice. 10th ed. McGraw-Hill, 2007.

Myerson, Harold, “Rise of the Have-Nots”. Washingtonpost.com, September 27, 2007. A25.

The Importance of Net Neutrality

Arguments were filed.  Petitions were signed.  The people have made it quite clear where they stand on the issue of internet neutrality, and the Justice Department has responded.

I feel as if I’m in the midst of an Orwell novel, learning the language of newspeak.  In other words, we have a Justice Department that seems to be anything but.  Last month, they issued a report declaring their support for a tiered approach to internet service and said that the imposition of net neutrality laws would hinder the continued growth of the Web.”–Chloe Albanesius, PCmag.com (Sept. ‘07)

The Bush Administration concurs with the (so-called) Justice Department.  The Administration claims that “government regulators should be ‘highly skeptical’ of net-neutrality regulations and instead rely on competition to protect consumers [from terrorist attacks].” –ZDnet.co.uk.   (Okay, I added the terrorist attack part as a feeble attempt at humor).

When people access the internet, each site gets to download at the same speed using the same amount of bandwith regardless of who you are, and hence, the neutrality.  Thus, when you open a page like wearethem.com [shameless plug for your blog, Marklar], it should load on your screen at the same speed as yahoo.com.  Of course, the speeds at which pages open may appear to differ, but that has nothing to do with bandwidth allowances.  It’s mostly (if not all) about page content.  For instance, if you try to access a page with images and videos, it will most certainly load at a slower rate than a page that simply has a pretty background.

Here is where the problem surfaces.  A group of major broadband ISPs are lobbying Congress to allow them to sell faster speeds to certain pages.    For example, let’s say that you’re trying to access a page for a clothing store.  We’ll call the first store, Store A.  Store A has decided to pay for this service, but Store B has not.  When a consumer is looking to purchase a hot little number for a night out, and she tries searching through Store B, the page might take forever to load.  Frustrated, she visits Store A’s website and everything is available instantly.  This creates an unlevel playing field in the marketplace!

Alas, the dilemma does not end here.  If ISPs have control over the speeds at which a user can access a site, they also have the power to censor the sites that you do have access to– by giving you no access to them.  For example, let’s say that “ISP-A” is  conservative and vehemently opposed to internet pornography.  Regardless of their right (or lack thereof) to do so, they can shut the bandwidth allotments and the porn will no longer be accessible.

So perhaps you don’t care about porn.  But what about political candidates?  If ISP-A believes that candidate #1 is better, it can simply deny access to all of candidate #2’s websites.

We also have our favorite search engines.  Some of us prefer Google, while others like Webcrawler.  Without net neutrality, an ISP can accept money from a search engine to accelerate it and slow down or cut off the bandwidths of other engines.

Revoking net neutrality is tantamount to censorship on a very grand scale.  The power and freedom to choose would no longer lie in the hands of the consumer, but rather the fat greasy hands of the companies, leaving an unfair and highly unbalanced marketplace.

 For more information, please visit the following websites:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html

http://www.pbs.org/moyers.moyersonamerica/net/neutrality.html

My Cake-and-Eat-It-Too Ideology of Egalitarianism and Self-Ownership

A preliminary word of caution: If you are unaware of the differences between Classical Liberalism/Conservatism and American Liberalism/Conservatism, you may find parts of this post rather confusing. There are vast differences between the Classical and American versions of these ideologies, so if you have questions or would like clarification on certain points, please ask me.

I never really saw myself as an extremist of any sort, let alone a political one. “Extremism” connotes a violent and mentally disturbed demeanor and “moderate” is, well, safe. My ideology, I had thought, zig-zagged down the center between American conservatism and American liberalism, with a little emphasis toward one side of the seemingly narrow spectrum depending upon the issue in question. While I detest certain labels, such as the term “extremist”, I savor others such as the safe and ever-likable “moderate”. However, after taking the ideology survey on politicalcompass.org, I’ve learned that I am, in fact, a bit of an extremist… but only with regard to thought and not necessarily action, I’d like to point out. This simply means that there are several issues about which I feel strongly, but that doesn’t mean I’ll kill you or bomb your building over those issues.

I realized that I felt strongly about issues mainly pertaining to personal freedom, whereas issues involving the public, while important, were of secondary concern. My answers to questions involving what may be best for “the group” were answered with a simple “agree” or “disagree”, and though I am not indifferent to public issues, I have just discovered that they are not at the top of my list. This discovery has evoked the age-old nature/nurture question: was I born this way or did my environment play an integral role in the formation of my ideas and opinions?

The answer may be a bit complex, but for simplicity’s sake, I’ll venture to say that it was undoubtedly related to my environment. I say this because I was brought up in the US, a country born out of classical liberalism, an ideology where personal freedom reigns supreme. Some of my ancestors may have been among those who fought against Old European feudalism. Perhaps aspects of this ideology were passed down through generations, even if it wasn’t a conscious effort on the part of my ancestors. People in my family have differing viewpoints when it comes to public policy, although there is one thing with which we are all in agreement – personal freedom is of the utmost importance and the government has no right to interfere in one’s personal affairs.

Knowing this, one could argue that I’m a classical liberal through and through. However, this is not the case. I subscribe to the old liberal philosophy that individuals are entitled to life and liberty (the pursuit of property is a gray area for me and the jury is still out on that one). On the other hand, I embrace the classical conservative ideal that order and stability are necessary if you are to have a healthy, productive, and relatively balanced society. Here, of course, the questions of how to maintain order and stability and at what cost emerge. What is the government’s role in securing this balance? I don’t profess to have the answer, although I can provide my answer, however utopian it may sound.

The government’s role in society should be to ensure citizens’ rights to self-ownership while maintaining egalitarian principles. On the surface, this may appear as a cake-and-eat-it-too proposition. It really isn’t, but it’s rather difficult to explain this philosophy without going off on a tangent about the definition of rights, especially with regard to property. (However, if anyone would like to discuss this with me, I would be more than happy to exchange ideas.) In essence, the government should refrain from interfering in the personal affairs of the citizenry while still ensuring that basic needs such as food, clothing and shelter are extended to those who, for whatever reason, are unable to obtain those things for themselves.

I’ve had my opinions on this matter for quite some time, although I didn’t have a label with which to attach my personal political philosophy until now. It’s nice to know that I fit in somewhere, I suppose. According to the results of the politicalcompass.org survey, I have been classified as a left-libertarian along with Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and my all-time hero, Noam Chomsky. I could have done a lot worse.

We’re the Government and We’re Here to uh… Help?

Hello, All…

I’m Erin and yes, I am the real Eeners… Nice to meet you in this here cyberspace joint.

My blog will consist of various topics ranging from the inane to the profound (hopefully).  To get things started, I’d like to share something that was discussed in my political science class a couple of days ago:

On Thursday, the class briefly discussed whether or not the government should be permitted to gather user information from websites such as myspace.com and facebook.com.  The question arose whether the federal government was merely trying to protect its citizens from sexual predators or if their fact-finding mission was an intrusion upon the private lives of its citizens.  At least a couple of people believed that the intention of the government was a sound one, although I strongly disagree with the notion that the government should be allowed to collect this data.

            Perhaps they really do want to stop the threat of sexual predators online.  I definitely support the eradication of sex crimes everywhere but this “protection” of the general public comes at the expense of our rights as private citizens.  Also, has anyone thought about what might happen if the government made a mistake and accused an innocent person of a crime based upon information obtained through internet surveillance? 

            Something very similar to this has happened before.  Brandon Mayfield, an attorney from Oregon, was mistakenly linked to the

            Apparently, this was legal, at least at the time (let’s not confuse the letter of the law with the spirit of the law, though), because our government was operating within the parameters of the Patriot Act, where two provisions allowed search warrants to be issued without meeting the requirements for probable cause under our country’s Fourth Amendment.  Hmm… Perhaps it wasn’t so legal then, was it?  Can you say unconstitutional?  A US District judge sure did.  These two provisions under the Patriot Act were ruled unconstitutional this past Wednesday (Associated Press).

            While Mayfield’s case had nothing to do with the internet, there are definite parallels between his case and the possibility of wrongful accusations based upon private data gathered in cyberspace.  I think it’s important to ponder the ramifications of giving up one’s privacy.  Allowing the government to obtain personal information over the internet might as well be an invitation to enter our homes at will and at that point, what good is the Fourth Amendment?  What good are any of our constitutional rights if they can simply be changed or ignored arbitrarily?

Hi Erin!!!

Enjoy your new blog!