Copyright forbes.com

Pakistan today decided to follow China’s example in blocking access to Twitter:

 Pakistan on Sunday blocked access to Twitter in response to “blasphemous” material posted by users on the microblogging and social networking website, a senior government official said.

“This has been done under the directions of the Ministry of Information Technology. It’s because of blasphemous content,” said Mohammed Yaseen, chairman of the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA).

“They (the ministry) have been discussing with them (Twitter) for some time now, requesting them to remove some particular content,” he said.

Offensive content or not, this at best suggests a misunderstanding of Twitter’s user generated content, and at worst, is a government suppression of (and access to) free speech.

In the case of the former, the misunderstanding costs the Pakistani people free access to information positive and negative, and the chance to adapt to and thrive within a new global discourse. In the case of the latter, it’s a suggestion that the government believes that society will be unable to deal maturely with some information that the government does not control and that some civilians might find offensive. Whatever the case is, and how any particular information would be perceived by Pakistani society, banning is the incorrect approach. If anything, it will only increase the public’s curiosity in whatever has been blocked, creating a much bigger problem down the line.

“Kawaii” means “cute” in Japanese. Daily Kawaii is a feature on Outsideinsider where Sam posts some of the mountain of cute pictures and videos he stumbles across on the internet.

On Sunday evening (Monday at dawn for people in Asia) people on the west coast of the United States will be treated to a spectacular light show:

The western United States andeastern Asia will be treated this weekend to a rare solar spectaclewhen the moon slides across the sun, creating a “ring of fire.”

But scientists caution would-be viewers to be very careful because the sun’s damaging rays will remain powerful even during theannular solar eclipse. The advice: Either wear specially designed protective eyewear or attend a viewing event — at a planetarium or amateur astronomy club, for example — to avoid risk of serious eye injury.

The solar spectacle will first be seen in eastern Asia around dawn Monday, local time. Weather permitting, millions of early risers in southern China, northern Taiwan and southeast Japan will be able to catch the ring eclipse.

Sadly, those of us on the East coast will miss this event (which after the Supermoon was hidden by lots of cloud cover, seems like insult on top of injury), although there will likely be  video feeds around 8-9PM EST. For those going out, make sure to get some protective eyewear or avoid looking directly at the event to prevent a matching ring of fire around your corneas.

Chen Guangcheng via Wikipedia (CCL)

Late last night, the Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng landed in New York, declaring that ”equality and justice have no boundaries” but expressing gratitude for the way that the Chinese government had thus far acted in the international incident his midnight escape created several weeks ago:

“I am very gratified to see that the Chinese government has been dealing with the situation with restraint and calm and I hope to see that they continue to open discourse and earn the respect and trust of the people,” Chen, speaking through a translator, told reporters outside a New York University housing building in Manhattan’s Greenwich Village.

Chen, one of China’s most prominent dissidents, is going to study as a fellow at the NYU School of Law. Leaning on a crutch because of an injury suffered during his escape, he smiled and waved to a cheering crowd before speaking to reporters.

“I’m very grateful for the assistance of the American Embassy and also (for) receiving a promise from the Chinese government for protection of my rights as a citizen over the long term,” he said. “I believe that the promise from the central government is sincere and they are not lying to me.”

This is likely a bittersweet resolution for Mr. Chen, for as he later suggests, it’s possible that his relatives back in China are suffering reprisals for his escape and his apparent ‘victory’ over the Chinese Government in getting them to allow him out of the country.

However, this is a definite victory for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for which Mr. Chen’s escape drew continuous and extensive embarrassing attention abroad and caused extensive ‘loss of face’ domestically. The sooner Mr. Chen’s situation was resolved, the better for the CCP. Now that Mr. Chen is in the U.S. and has less ability to spread what the CCP considers to be anti-government propaganda in China, they’ve also removed the effective part of an outstanding thorn in their side (even when he was previously imprisoned.

Moreso however, the whole incident distracted from China’s perhaps for significant embarrassment, the Bo Xilai scandal. The combination of Mr. Bo, who was accused of corruption and violations in discipline and his wife, who was accused of possibly causing the murder of a British businessman, was potentially a serious stain on the CCP’s power, trust, and ability to govern effectively. Not only did Mr. Chen’s escape distract from this incident, but Mr. Bo’s family’s case will likely fade from the spotlight and quietly be resolved now that the world has congratulated itself on a victory in Mr. Chen’s case and moved its attention elsewhere.

While Mr. Chen’s escape to New York is hopefully the sign of brighter things to come for him, his arrival primarily represented the Chinese Communist Party triumphant.

“Kawaii” means “cute” in Japanese. Daily Kawaii is a feature on Outsideinsider where Sam posts some of the mountain of cute pictures and videos he stumbles across on the internet.

You’re only supposed to anthropomorphize good things that are happening like happy suns shining, dancing flowers, the whole Disney/Roger Rabbit deal:

Instead, all I can think about when I watch that first video is “Oh, those poor cooling towers!”

David Benatar, head of the philosophy department at Cape Town University, argues that “more boys drop out of school, fewer men earn degrees, more men die younger, more are incarcerated” and that the issue is so under-researched it has become the prejudice that dare not speak its name.

“It’s a neglected form of sexism,” Benatar says in a telephone interview. “It’s true that in the developed world the majority of economic and political roles are occupied by males. But if you look at the bottom – for example, the prison population, the homeless population, or the number of people dropping out of school – that is overwhelmingly male. You tend to find more men at the very top but also at the very bottom.”

Benatar’s approach to these issues are flawed, because by and large and as proven by numerous studies, men overall are privileged gender. That doesn’t mean that all men come from a place of privilege just because of their gender, but as Benatar himself admits  above, men have a greater opportunity to succeed in most societies and do so at an unequal rate than women due to this opportunity afforded to them.

Where Benatar’s argument fails in particular is by not accounting for antiquated outdated systems of sexism that are still very prevalent in society. The idea that men are more likely to be conscripted into the military that the author of this column cites for example, reflects the fact that a number of militaries around the world have very sexist attitudes towards the ability of women in combat situations. Even here in the US, women were not allowed to serve in submarines until two years ago. During the recent Republican presidential primary, presidential candidate hopeful Rick Santorum also on numerous occasions went on the record to suggest that women were unfit to serve in the military because it would compromise their male compatriots who would ‘feel obligated to protect them.‘

When Benatar argues the need to address the high percentage of male homelessness and educational dropouts, on the other hand, he is totally right, but not for the reasons he suggests. For one, he ignores contributing factors like class, primordialist culture, economics, and social background, which are issues for both sexes. For another, addressing this issue must take the focus of increasing the awareness of the problem in a way that doesn’t stagger the gains that women have made.

The author for this column does also raise an important point however about gender discrimination in advertising, but it too is flawed in the sense that it only looks at half the equation:

Men are also increasingly the butt of jokes. In a recent article for Graziamagazine, one male writer took exception to comedian Jo Brand claiming that her favourite man was “a dead one” and an advertisement for oven cleaner with the tagline: “So easy, even a man can do it.” In a Guardianarticle on Friday, it was pointed out that the stereotyped image of a man incapable of growing up has become a staple of US film comedies – the most recent example being Jeff, Who Lives at Home, starring Jason Segel as a man still living with his long-suffering mother who lets him smoke weed in her basement.

While I can’t speak to if this is an increasing issue as the author of this column suggests, it is inappropriate and counterproductive for both sexes to perpetuate these gender stereotypes of men as incompetent when it comes to household work or as irresponsible ‘manchildren.’ But it also inappropriate to the extent that advertising discriminates against women as well. Look at the advertisements during the Super Bowl, or most televised sporting events, and tell me those advertisements aren’t similarly offensive and stereotypical of women.

As a final point, John Scalzi has also recently delved into a broader discussion of privilege in a blog post entitled “Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is,”  which is worth reading if for no other reason than because it reframes the discussion through an analogy of video game difficulty settings in a fascinating manner:

As the game progresses, your goal is to gain points, apportion them wisely, and level up. If you start with fewer points and fewer of them in critical stat categories, or choose poorly regarding the skills you decide to level up on, then the game will still be difficult for you. But because you’re playing on the “Straight White Male” setting, gaining points and leveling up will still by default be easier, all other things being equal, than for another player using a higher difficulty setting.

Scalzi directly incorporates and recognizes issues of class and background and how they also absolutely have a damaging effect on men and women, but points out rightfully that while “you can lose playing on the lowest difficulty setting…The lowest difficulty setting is still the easiest setting to win on.”

Some of these numbers make sense; in many cases, particularly where the student is under 18 upon entering college, student’s parents will take on the loan debts for undergrad and the student themself has very little interaction with the loans until they’re going through exit counseling before graduation. What struck me about this study though were the recommendations made by the researchers in their conclusion:

Researchers think the results suggest a need for additional financial counseling so students can fully understand what they’re getting themselves into, and that it will play a major role in their post-graduation lives.

To that effect, ISU will send emails to all of its students showing how much they owe, for the first time, this summer. It’ll also lay out their estimated monthly repayment upon graduation and a list of lenders, said Roberta Johnson, ISU director of student financial aid.

Another helpful tool will be an online calculator from the federal government debuting this summer, that will show students how much their majors will likely net them, salary-wise, and measures the impact of monthly student loan payments after graduation.

More knowledge and information to current students is a fantastic idea. To what extent though will this “additional financial counseling” and “helpful tools” actually address the problem of taking on the loans in the first place? Society still connects success with a college degree in many areas of the country, and many private and public colleges, although making cursory efforts to guarantee their graduate’s future through “career centers,” make much of their money from student enrollment and are likely going to be hesitant to take steps that might actually stem the flow.

Here’s the real issue with student debt: there’s far too much of it. Since the federal government became involved in the educational loan industry, schools (both public and private) have used it as an excuse to radically expand annual tuition (on average) by almost 400% in the past thirty years. Overall U.S. student debt topped the $1 Trillion mark several weeks ago, and only 38% of it is being paid off in some capacity right now (with the rest of it being deferred, postponed, or defaulted on).

And we’re not just talking old loans; according to the Department of Education, out of all borrowers whose first loan repayments came due between Oct. 1, 2008, and Sept. 30, 2009, 8.8% have defaulted on their loans, up from 7% for the previous two year period. That means if you graduated from college in 2008 (as this author did), statistically, there’s a chance that either you (or 1 out of every 10 of your friends) is completely financially incapable to pay your loans and have probably ruined your credit score by your early to mid-twenties.

Education is a rapidly expanding bubble. Long-lasting and government reinforced, but still a bubble. And the problem with bubbles, especially when everything else is in a recession, is that they eventually pop too. While it’s refreshing to see that some colleges are attempting to take an initiative deal with it, like Iowa State above, and (possibly more effectively) Ohio State, whose President’s cost cutting ‘remove the onus from students’ measures have recently been profiled in the NY Times, it is not enough. If anything, it may speed up the bubble popping. With rising costs, lowering standards, and more information about the prohibitive level of loans students will be dependent on, many individuals may choose to postpone or drop-out.

And where will this all lead to when the bubble pops? Aside from the great deal of NEET Americans struggling under debt and joblessness locked in a perpetual stagnant cycle that is the national economy, quality education will once again become a privilege of the elite. According to this Reuters piece, we’re already seeing the beginning of it. 38% of the parents of current college students are unable or (likely less commonly) unwilling to assist with the cost of college. Universities, which often raise tuition rates by 6% every year, will become bastions of the wealthy and those willing to roll the dice.

Yes, it is important for the future that students be trained to take more responsibility for the price of their education. But the U.S. government needs to settle on how much it wants all students (who want to be able to) to go to college. As it stands, government loans are being exploited by schools (who’ve discovered it’s easier than getting donations from alumni), and U.S. students are being automatically disadvantaged and staggered by debt when they enter the global economy.

If we don’t decrease (or eliminate entirely, as one representative has suggested) the future of students in this country does not appear to be very bright.

Now, “Turf” is an excellent contortionist. It seems to be the only thing he’s done, the only thing he’s been motivated to do, for the past two years. it’s a little difficult to figure out his motivation; whatever it was apparently led to some friction between him and his family, and forced him out onto the street for two years. But it’s obvious from how emotional after his performance, that it was something he felt he had to do.

This reminded me of a couple of TED talks given by Sir Ken Robinson  about education,  school curriculums, and the importance of motivation:

(Second video, which is also worth watching, can be found here)

The problem is, that we live in a world that does not always reward motivation. As much as one would like, sometimes it is incredibly difficult to make a living off of what motivates you. If everyone has a dream job, to what extent should they strive for that dream job? And since motivation does not always equal ability, is it always better to pursue your dream job or to save motivations for your hobbies?

In the case of Turf, it seems to have worked out very well, and hopefully his living situation will improve after this appearance on national TV. But, he did go through two years of the street, struggling against very difficult circumstances. Can everyone do what he did to get their dream job? And if they can’t, does that reflect more weakness or random chance and opportunity?

“…Joe Ricketts, the founder of the brokerage firm TD Ameritrade. Mr. Ricketts is increasingly putting his fortune to work in conservative politics.

The $10 million plan, one of several being studied by Mr. Ricketts, includes preparations for how to respond to the charges of race-baiting it envisions if it highlights Mr. Obama’s former ties to Mr. Wright, who espouses what is known as “black liberation theology.”

The group suggested hiring as a spokesman an “extremely literate conservative African-American” who can argue that Mr. Obama misled the nation by presenting himself as what the proposal calls a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln.”

A copy of a detailed advertising plan was obtained by The New York Times through a person not connected to the proposal who was alarmed by its tone. It is titled “The Defeat of Barack Hussein Obama: The Ricketts Plan to End His Spending for Good.”

ABC News then reported a few hours later that after a condemnation by both the Romney and Obama campaigns, the group has backed away from the proposal, and claimed that there was never actually a plan developed to implement it:

“Romney’s campaign manager quickly said in a statement that the team doesn’t support “efforts on our side” to run ads of “character assassination.”

But the leaked proposal, authored by the GOP ad man Fred Davis and brokerage firm guru Joe Ricketts, has made things complicated now that it’s public. A person familiar with the super PAC tells ABC News that the leaked document was simply a proposal that was never acted on, and that no plan had been made to make any ads.”

…Which is interesting, because the NY Times found the proposal rather detailed; “a 54-page proposal” that was “professionally bound and illustrated with color photographs.” (Click this link to view the proposal, hosted on the Obama campaign’s website) The Times also noted that “strategists have already contacted Larry Elder, a black conservative radio host in Los Angeles, about serving as a spokesman, and…have also registered a domain name, Character Matters.”

Likely this setback will not be much of one for Mr. Ricketts, who like Mr. Sheldon Adelstein and the Koch Brothers earlier in this election cycle, still intends to be heavily involved in this election. And while the Romney campaign’s reprimand held back this advertisement this ad, one must wonder how long they’ll (and the Obama campaign possibly as well) be able to maintain control over their zealous millionaire supporters who are anxious to appear relevant in the political process now that they’re free to do so under the Citizen’s United ruling.

With this kind of proposal being floated around as a basis however, it’s possible that like John McCain in 2008, Mr. Romney may not like where his “supporters” take his campaign in the next six months.