If you happen to be bored

Fascinating Op-Ed in the NY Times a couple of days ago about the role of universities in education. Since most... all?... of us are in college, I though this would be a fun read. If you happen to be bored, take a look.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27taylor.html?pagewanted=2&em

I have a room!

It's 10 minutes from campus, fully furnished, $575 a month plus utilities (which apparently aren't that much), fully working kitchen, washer and dryer, closet space and drawers, etc. Now I only need one more thing for my summer internship to be complete:

A summer internship.

Time to save the world

My life has certainly been hectic lately. It seems crazy to think that eight months ago I had no greater care in the world than being with Kimberly for one more week and wondering what Seton Hall would be all about. Now, due to a variety of circumstances that have occurred in, quite literally, the last five or six days, I don't know where I'm going to be spending my summer, what I'm going to be doing with my summer, who I'm going to be living with next year, where I'll be living next year, where all of my stuff is going to be stored this summer, and a number of other seemingly vital things that I should have figured out by now with my exodus from the dorms being necessary as of May 8. As Bailey Warren, a Central student who is considering going to Seton Hall next year, put it to her mom when I told her and her mother about my predicament, "See mom? That's how you do it; you just kinda wing it." Part of me is really excited for this opportunity to "wing it" but part of me is shouting, somewhere in the recesses of my mind, that this is all a terrible, terrible idea.

My relationship with growing up has been tedious at times. College has never felt like home like I feel some of you reading this blog have experienced. While I've never seriously considered transferring for financial reasons (and that'd be admitting failure, and freshman year sucks anyway, and blah blah blah), a number of times I've thought to myself "What on earth am I doing in New Jersey?" Of course, had I gone to Truman State instead of here, I would probably often find myself wondering what on earth I was doing in Kirksville a lot too, so I'm not entirely sure this is necessarily a total negative.

On the positive side, the opportunity that has been presented to me (or at least, has the potential to be presented to me) is quite simply amazing. Ashley Williams, a junior (senior by credits, I think) who's become a relatively close acquaintance of mine in Public International Law (or at least, as close as one can get to an acquaintance), is currently interning at a law firm in Newark that, among other things, works with victims of the Darfur genocide in hopes that one day, whenever/if-ever Sudan's president is arrested by the International Criminal Court, people she has spoken with will have the opportunity to testify in The Hague, in the Netherlands. In a couple of weeks she'll literally be sitting across the desk from black Sudanese people missing limbs because of the armed militias that have murdered hundreds of thousands of people and saying "tell me what happened" and waiting for their response to be translated to English from Arabic. There are other parts to the job in addition to conducting interviews, of course, but, as my father and I have discussed many times, these aren't the sort of opportunities one gets in Missouri. Ashley claimed she'd really been talking me up with their hiring manager and they were really looking for interns over the summer, so if I was going to be around I should apply. Since this seems better for my eventual career than working at Andy's or Go Games for four months, I submitted my resume Friday and have been almost constantly on the lookout for a response. If I do end up getting one of the interning positions, which Ashley has assured me is all but certain, I have about 14 days to find a place to sublet over the summer, store my stuff, figure out with whom/where I'll be living next year (it probably won't be on campus due to the cost of me spending money instead of making it over the summer) and worry about things that I've never really had to worry about before (How do I cook this? Where does one get a good couch? Which subway line is that again?). Instead of seeing my parents and little brother (who I learned today got a 30 on his ACT as a sophomore- go David!) after 8 weeks, it'll be more like 4-6 months. While moving to New Jersey for college was definitely a break from the past, before now I've still felt inextricably tied back to home because of my lack of a permanent (semi-permanent) place to live out here. I'm away at college, but I live in Missouri. After this move, if everything works out and I get the position, I feel like this is finally, almost-completely, jumping off the cliff.

I guess this had to happen eventually. Talking to people about internships, asking all of my older friends here if they know anybody looking for an apartment roommate, and doing dry cleaning because I might actually have to wear a suit for a reason other than a debate tournament (among other things) makes me feel terribly adult. It's like I'm (potentially) important now, I have (potential) obligations, I'm doing things my grandma in Joplin probably never dreamed I could do. I'm not just that guy that works in that mall, I'm (potentially) interning for a law firm that is one of the cogs that makes international law somewhat real instead of only an abstract idea. I could have something on my resume for which other professionals would actually be impressed. More than once in the past week, I've looked around and asked myself "How did I get here?" On the other hand, I feel like there are a LOT fewer safety nets than anywhere else in my life. Even though I was at Seton Hall, I knew exactly when I was going home, what I was doing with my stuff all summer, what I was doing next year--everything was all planned out. Now, if I don't find a place to keep my stuff by May 8... then there's nowhere for my stuff to go. There's no "oops, bail me out" button that I can press without me physically going around and asking people to press it. It's so vastly different than having my parents around, and it's much more real than them leaving last August. From Bailey's perspective, what I'm doing is probably terribly exciting. From my perspective it's certainly exciting, but I feel an incredible degree of uncertainty with all of these proceedings. I guess that's to be expected.

In so many of the stories we've grown up reading (well, okay, I've grown up reading), the hero, at some point, always has to leave home to go on some journey, during which he or she will meet a memorable cast of characters, learn a lot about themselves, face seemingly impossible obstacles, and eventually, through a great feat of some kind or another, end up saving the world. Like so many people growing up, I've had visions of myself going somewhere far away, doing something incredible with my life, becoming a "somebody" that everybody else, in their normal, uninteresting lives, looks up to, admires, and wonders how on earth I did it. The difference now, at least the difference from now and any time before in my life, is that I'm actually faced with the opportunity to "go" and make something of myself on my own merits. Finding a house to sublet in South Orange is not something my Dad can help me with. Getting an internship with a law firm in Newark or with the United Nations isn't something where my mom can put in a good word for me. But, unlike a lot of people that grow up thinking they'll go far away that end up staying right next door their entire lives, I'm actually taking advantage of this (potential) opportunity. Maybe after college I'll move back to Missouri, go to law school, and live in Kansas City the rest of my life. Maybe I'll go to graduate school in Texas, or Florida, or Boston, or California, or Denver. All of this potential has always been "potential", but now, for really the first time (including when I picked to come out to Seton Hall), I feel like I'm actually (potentially) beginning to, in a small way, start making something of myself. I have no idea if I'll love it or hate it, if I will excel or fail miserably. But I know, or at least hope, that from now on out in my life I'll be doing something because of who I am, what I've done, who I know. Here I go. It seems like as good a time as any to start trying to save the world.

For all of you that have been dealing with me for the past 5 days

Thanks for putting up with me. The issue has been resolved, for the most part, and while I suspect there may be more emotional swings for me in the near future all in all I've managed to grab some peace of mind. This hasn't exactly been the most wonderful time of my life, and I appreciate greatly all of you that bothered to listen to my psychoanalyzing literally everything until I drove myself crazy. Over the next 4 or 5 days I plan to crawl into a small hole, sleep, and let the vast majority of this become some disillusioned memory. I love all of you. Thank you again.

A fundamental change of circumstances

Article 62 of the 1960 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties says that if states undergo a fundamental change in circumstances with regards to a treaty obligation upheld by that state, the state can "get out" of their treaty obligation even though one of the peremptory norms of international law is that treaties should be upheld. A fundamental change in circumstances has to be a pretty big deal for it to count in international law. For example, a classic case where a state tried and failed to use the fundamental change of circumstances excuse was when state A had an obligation to construct a dam with state B on the border of their two countries. After over a decade of construction (and the breakup of the Soviet Union), it was looking like state A wasn't going to get such a good deal out of the treaty. In attempting to withdraw, they argued there had been a number of fundamental changes of circumstances that had occurred since the treaty was signed, among them the newly discovered negative environmental impact of the dam in addition to the other massive unforeseen economic problems they had to deal with because of their transition from a socialist economy to a capitalist economy. The International Court of Justice, deciding the case, rule that the economic fallout from the breakup of one of the two super powers of the second half of the 20th century did not constitute a fundamental change in circumstances, and neither did the possible environmental damage the dam could cause. For a fundamental change of circumstances to occur negating the treaty, they reasoned, something really drastic would have to occur-- like the drying up of the whole freaking river.

I tend to be a lot like the justices on the International Court of Justice when it comes to looking at fundamental changes of circumstances. Often times, when it would be easier, or more convenient, to simply say "life's changed, let's move on", I have a tendency to stick around a lot more often than most other people I've spoken with would. Lately (especially lately) I've been prone to more self reflection on why this is. I've rehashed the possibilities with the majority of you that know about and can check this space on a regular basis at some point or another, but regardless of any deeper psychological reasoning behind it, I still find myself believing some greater good will come out of the situation, that giving up would be the "easy way out". At times I wonder if this is a profound way of looking at the world, or if I'm just profoundly stupid. Since my life's motto is, essentially "things fall apart", one would wonder why, when things do start falling apart, I feel as though I have a moral obligation to rush in and start trying to hold things up regardless of the apparent pointlessness of doing so. If a child touches a hot stove and is burned, does any sane child try to keep touching the hot stove to make it cool down? Is that really any different from what I sometimes do?

While this post is somewhat related to recent events, focusing on one solitary problem inevitably begins to sound whiny. A recent book review, on Slate.com of a book called "Don't Cry", said that the author, whose name I unfortunately have forgotten, essentially wrote a book portraying all human tragedy as equal. We don't think in those terms-- to us, a woman losing her new born baby is a lot more tragic than somebody missing somebody else after a one-night stand-- but the author wrote a series of very short stories, one right after another, describing varieties of human suffering. One scene shows a wife in an abusive relationship, another a lonely traveler in an airport, and another a man consumed by his work. All, the author seems to say, are equal; one can't categorize human tragedy. The title of the book, "Don't Cry", is actually ironic in that the entire point of the book is that it's okay to cry no matter how minor or trivial one's situation may seem to the rest of society, it's personal, real, and hurts to the person experiencing it. The book reviewer points out that the possible implications of people in real life treating human suffering as equal would be enormous, that we'd essentially never stop crying.

As I've grown older, I've held on to the somewhat romantic notion that despite anything, things can and will work out if we just try hard enough. However, the repeated instances of things not working out, or at least not being nearly as simple as I believe they should be, have begun to make me question this notion. Am I just a kid putting my hand on the stove over and over? Does growing up mean you become more callous to the suffering around you, that you learn to suck it up and move on and screw over everybody else because they're just out to screw you? Or does growing up mean realizing, truly, that it's no sign of health to be well acclimated to a fatally sick world, that when things are uncomfortable, awkward, stressful, painful, it's okay to give yourself a while to not just "get over it"? Does the former allow you to live your life with less pain? Does the latter mean you get to keep a hold of something something actually resembling life as it should be? Is there a right answer? Should my views change?

As I grow up, and keep experiencing all of the drama that's associated with life with fewer and fewer filters, I really don't know if I'm progressing, regressing, or actually experiencing something close to a real fundamental change in circumstances.

The vital need for EATING, POTATO

This blog post is a brief tangent from my personal life to discuss what I'm actually learning at the John C Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University. Not that I learned any of this in school, per se, but it's the type of thing I feel like I should be learning and/or discussing in school. This post is actually the result of a conversation with my father.

Last week, a very important birthday occurred. (Look, it's an attention getting device! Doesn't it make you want to read on to find out whose birthday occurred, and why it's important, and what all of this means? I'm practicing my newspaper writing skills; I'm thinking about trying to write for a paper or two next year on campus to boost my activity points since apparently you have to be involved in at least TWO clubs, instead of just one, to get full priority points for housing. Anyway...) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO to its friends, turned 60 years old. NATO is widely regarded to be one of the most important and successful military alliances in history, allowing the United States to reinforce the defense of Western Europe against the Soviet Union during the Cold War (if this were a research paper I'd give you a link or a footnote here. Since it's a newspaper article, I can just make these unsubstantiated claims. This could just be my opinion, for all you know). In fact, NATO was so successful that it never had to be used (the Soviets never attacked Western Europe), which is the hallmark of any strategy based on deterrence. The Soviet Union collapsed, the Berlin wall fell, and the principle reason for NATO's existence ceased to, well, exist.

However, NATO didn't go away with the fall of the Soviet Union. Though primarily a defensive alliance, in the 1990s and now 2000s NATO has expanded across Europe, first taking in Central and Central-Eastern European countries like Poland and the Czech Republic before expanding even further Eastward to countries like Romania and Bulgaria. Many US policy analysts wanted to use NATO as a tool for the military integration of Europe with the US at the head, and many countries in the former Soviet Union wanted to join to protect themselves from a Russia many still did not trust (it's another unsubstantiated claim, but you trust me, right?).

While there was a rational reason to expand NATO, as well as a rational reason for Eastern European countries to want to be included, Russia has not taken kindly to what it views as US intervention and meddling in its perceived sphere of influence. Last year, after Ukrainian and Georgian entry into NATO was debated among NATO members, Russia and Georgia got into a war highlighting Russian tension with the idea of continued Western expansion right up to its borders. This event caused some in the alliance to question the wisdom of having a "mutual defense pact" (an attack on one is an attack on all) with a small country right on the Russian border with a lot of unresolved ethnic problems and border disputes since the fall of the USSR. Is it in America's best interests to pledge to fight Russia over Tbilisi?

Further cracks in the alliance have appeared as a result of the war in Afghanistan. While the members of NATO, for the first time, invoked the mutual defense pact after the 9/11 attacks, it has been difficult for the United States to get its European allies to shoulder what the US views as their share of the burden in the Afghanistan conflict. Meanwhile, it is arguable US forces still deployed in Germany could be of much better use in Afghanistan, or elsewhere around the world. Much like General Motors (I stole this comparison from the internet), NATO is an organization that has stood the test of time, but now needs real changes in order to remain viable in a changing world.

In recent years, NATO has been used to essentially allow Europe to free-ride on the United States, who have essentially been paying for Europe's defense. While there is still the need for protection against Russia, and the need to integrate Eastern European countries into the broader European community, a US-led NATO is not the appropriate organization. In the present time Europe is more than capable of defending itself without US assistance against Russia should the need arise, because Europe is not the war torn Europe of the early 1950s and Russia is not the Soviet Union. The United States also has a vital need for troops currently stationed in Europe to be available to be deployed in other areas around the world with both troops and funds in short supply. Additionally, the European Union has been a great uniting force for Europe, and increases economic instead of military ties, allowing for Eastern European countries to be included while being much less threatening to Russia and performing the task of European integration much better than NATO probably ever could in its present form.

Therefore, the United States should suggest a fundamental restructuring of NATO into a new European Defense organization without US involvement. This organization could be called the European-Asian Treaty Institution for Nominal Governance (EATING), and would allow Europe (and Turkey, thus "Asian") to provide for a combined defense force for the continent against any possible Russian aggression. The United States should then, with other major allies the world over, form an alliance not based on geography but based on the shared values of liberal democracy. This alliance would include countries like the United States, India, Japan, Poland, Australia, Canada, Israel, and the UK and pledge itself to the defense of democratic values the world over, called the Peace in Our Time Alliance Treaty Organization (POTATO). Through EATING and POTATO, both Europe's defense will have been secured without burdening the United States, freeing up US troops to enter into a new global alliance uniting members of liberal democracies dedicated to preserving and protecting that form of government worldwide.

I hereby call on the world to begin EATING and POTATO as soon as possible.

(By the way, despite the ridiculousness of the names I've come up with for the sole purpose of making my title look funny, I really think this idea has some merits. It'll probably never happen due to institutional inertia, but we can dream, right? At least, that's what I think.)