My name is Conor Reid, and I'm a 17 year old bibliophile, logophile, technophile, and partially an audiophile. 100% star stuff. I'm diseased, too. Huzzah!

The Current State of the News

Turn to CNN on your TV. Or MSNBC. Or (if compelled by some demonic force) FoxNews. If you don’t really like watching TV, then check out CNN.com, or any other assorted American media website. What do you see? Japan, Japan, Japan, and then some more Japan. And this happens every single time a large natural disaster strikes. First and foremost, do not think that I’m belittling the massive and heart-wrenching tragedy in Japan. The thousands of lives lost and the millions of lives forever changed for the worst is absolutely awful, and deserves to be said on the news many times over, as it has. The nuclear crisis in Japan, however, has been overplayed by the media who love nuclear meltdowns and excitement for their ratings, but that is besides the point. 

The point I’m trying to make here is that there is more happening in the world that just Japan. I’m not saying the news should stop covering the disaster in Japan; far from it. I am saying that they do need to at least focus on some other stories as well, that are on par with the magnitude of the Japanese earthquake in terms of newsworthiness. And the thing is, as I said just a few sentences ago, this happens each and every time a large natural disaster occurs. It happened with Haiti, it happened with China, and now it’s happening with Japan. (Curiously, it should have happened with the flooding in Pakistan as well, but that is for another time.) The news immediately switches to stories covering the disaster, and only show stories from that disaster. The same stories emerge. Wonderful stories of survival among the catastrophe seem to shine. And it stays like this for a solid two to three weeks. This I cannot stand.

The world is more than just disasters. There is more happening in the world, specifically right now in the month of March, 2011. These past few months have been some of the most significant, if not the most significant, months of the 21st century thus far, and there’s quite a lot happening. Just today, the UN Security Council is going to vote on imposing a no-fly zone in Libya, Bahrain is recovering from a deadly crackdown on protestors by police forces in Pearl Square with hundreds injured or dead. Did I mention that Bahrain also has Saudi Arabian military forces in the country to help try to quell protests? A CIA contracter that killed two women in Pakistan is being released from custody after a blood payment to the families of the two killed. And Yemen is also experiencing mass protests. That’s a hell of a lot of news for one day. Just one of those stories could happen and it’d be considered a big news day. Yet they aren’t even reported, or if they are, they’re mentioned in a passing breath. It’s saddening that American media can only focus on natural disasters when the world has so much more to offer.

And now comes to the point where I beat the so-often played drum these days: that of Al Jazeera. As soon as the protests in Tunisia reached critical mass, I discovered the wonderful reporting of Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net). Their commitment to excellence and letting all voices be heard, as well as their superbly unbiased writing won me over quite quickly, and they are now my favourite site for consuming the news. As we speak, they’re covering all of the stories previously mentioned, not just Japan. Of course, they do have a liveblog for Japan and have extensive coverage of the crisis, but they have a liveblog of events happening in Libya and Bahrain, too. So if you, like me, desire real, unbiased news, you can be sure to trust Al Jazeera. They have a television channel as well (without commericials!), but it’s currently unavailable in the United States because the TV companies refuse to carry it, due to the news network being based in Qatar. It’s a shame, but you can watch the livestream of the TV network on their site.

So please, I ask the American media to start covering things other than Japan. The world isn’t all about natural disasters, and it certainly isn’t all about Japan. There’s so much happening, and it’s a crime not to report it. 

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.”

—Jesus Christ (Matthew 10:34)

My NHD Documentary for 2011 about the First Barbary War

“Right now, right this afternoon, just 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined. Let me say that again. Four hundred obscenely wealthy individuals, 400 little Mubaraks, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008, now have more cash, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined.”

—Michael Moore

The History of the Question Mark

Before you yell at me, yes I am doing another post about the history of an assorted piece of grammar’s immeasurable arsenal. What can I say? I’m a Grammar Nazi, and this stuff interest me. But that’s besides the point. This time, I won’t be covering the history of contractions (which you can read here, if you so wish), but question marks instead. The question mark is a universally recognised symbol, and yet its origins remain quite mysterious indeed. And these two sets of origin stories are as different as stories can get, but I’ll try and do my best to cover both.

Read More

“The power of the people is stronger than the people in power.”

—Wael Ghonim (Google Executive and Egyptian Revolutionary)

Dismantling Pascal’s Wager

The French scientist, philosopher, and mathematician Blaise Pascal, other than being famous for Pascal’s triangle and being the namesake of the Pascal, the SI unit of pressure, created a quasi-philosophical proof advocating for belief in God. Pascal’s logic was that it was better to believe in God and be proved wrong than to not believe in God and be proved wrong. The proof stated:

  • If somebody believes in God and is correct, they will be rewarded with eternal paradise upon death.
  • If somebody believes in God and is wrong, it is inconsequential and they are neither punished nor rewarded upon death.
  • If somebody does not believe in God and is correct, it is also inconsequential for they are neither punished or rewarded upon death.
  • If somebody does not believe in God and is wrong, upon death they will be handed a life of eternal punishment and damnation.

Therefore, Pascal concluded, it is best to wager to believe in God rather than not, because if you don’t believe in God, then you have nothing to gain and everything to lose whilst those who do believe in God have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Obviously, this line of thinking isn’t going to sway either the highly religious who already believe in God and the highly non-religious (such as myself) who don’t believe in God, but it could provide a sound argument for belief in God for those on the fence. I hope that I can at least quell that argument, for Pascal’s Wager is wrong on many fronts, and fails to take in quite a few measures, some of which I will discuss. So please, join me in dismantling Pascal’s Wager, one piece at a time!

Read More

As a democratic revolution led by tech-empowered young people sweeps the Arab world, Wadah Khanfar, the head of Al Jazeera, shares a profoundly optimistic view of what’s happening in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and beyond — at this powerful moment when people realized they could step out of their houses and ask for change.

The Two Shoe Experiment

If somebody was wearing two different types of shoes on their feet, you’d notice, right? Well, a friend and I decided to put that to the test. Today at school, we switched one shoe with each other. The friend, who we’ll just call Ryan, wore two white Nike shoes while I wore two brown Van shoes. We switched one each, and ended up with a white Nike shoe on one foot and a brown Van shoe on the other. (Ryan had a bit of tight squeeze, because while I’m a size 7.5, he was a size 11.) As we paraded around school in our strange combination of shoes, we were surprised to notice that not many people commented. We traded shoes at around 9:20 AM, and kept them on until we traded once again at 2:20 PM, going back to our original shoes. That’s essentially five consecutive hours of wearing two different shoes. During that time, we went through four different periods in school, not including lunch. Ryan and I shared two of those four periods together, so if you assume that around 25 kids were in each class, that’s a total of 150 different people seeing our shoes, not including people that we walked passed in the hallways between classes and during lunch. That’s an astronomical amount of people. And the grand total of people that noticed and commented on our strange shoe set-up? Just eight between the two of us. That’s right, only 8 out of 150 people noticed and commented about the two different shoes we were wearing. Of course, there were quite a few people that noticed but just declined to say anything, but by going on just the people who commented, that’s around 5.3% of people noticing a small but very obvious change like that and actively saying something about it. There’s going to be some margin of era here, and obviously this was not a very controlled experiment at all, but there’s some solid number one can latch on to. 

While these results may seem insignificant at best, what does this say about society, at least in school? Well, for one, people don’t have very good skills of observation. Most people don’t notice the little things, and our brain just brushes over details like two different shoes if they don’t really matter. So people really should stop worrying about how they look. Also, for the people that did notice but simply declined to comment, why? Why refuse to say anything? Is it societal pressures that stress, “If you don’t have anything good to say, don’t say anything at all,” or did you wish to not offend that person? Please, I’d be very interested to know: if you did see either me or Ryan today wearing two separate shoes, why didn’t you comment?

Why Mark Zuckerberg Should Support the Arab Uprisings

The revolutions in the Middle East have changed history as we know it, and the media is reacting as such. I, for one, will be the first to admit that I’ve gotten a little caught up in the action, as just a few quick glances at this very website can attest to. While the media, specifically Western news sources have touted the revolutions as “Social Networking Revolutions,” they were nothing of the sort. These revolutions were engineered and carried out by the brave people of Tunisia and Egypt and Libya and Bahrain and Algeria and Yemen and all other protests currently happening in the Middle East. With or without the likes of Facebook and Twitter, these revolutions were going to happen. Facebook simply made it easier. And it is this fact that is so amazing. I fail to see why Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg aren’t capitalizing on the fact that his service helped set in motion one of the most influential chain of events in the 21st century (if not the most influential). John McCain, after coming back from a trip touring parts of North Africa and the Middle East, said, “He [Mark Zuckerberg] was the most popular man in Tunisia.” Everybody in Tunisia wanted Zuckerberg to visit so they could thank him. In Egypt, many people are now naming their children “Facebook” after the site for the role it played in the revolutions. While the influence of Facebook may have been overstated, I still fail to see why it has remained silent in the wake of all this praise. Not once has Facebook issued a statement supporting the protestors. In contrast, not only did Twitter write a strong issued statement in support of the protestors across the region, they teamed up with Google to allow people in internet-less areas in the Middle East, such as Egypt at the time, to tweet via calling a number and having their voice transposed into text. Facebook really has to get on the ball on this one, for it could be a huge marketing win for them. Up until now, it has been a wasted opportunity on their part. It’s now or never for Facebook, and hopefully they’ll make the right decision. 

History’s Shifting Sands

Just for the record, this was not written by me, but by Mark LeVine for Al Jazeera. (You can view the article here). I just wanted to share this article because it was particularly potent and thought-provoking. Enjoy!

For decades, even centuries, the peoples of the Arab world have been told by Europeans and, later, Americans that their societies were stagnant and backward. According to Lord Cromer, author of the 1908 pseudo-history Modern Egypt, their progress was “arrested” by the very fact of their being Muslim, by virtue of which their minds were as “strange” to that of a modern Western man “as would be the mind of an inhabitant of Saturn”.

The only hope of reshaping their minds towards a more earthly disposition was to accept Western tutelage, supervision, and even rule “until such time as they [we]re able to stand alone,” in the words of the League of Nations’ Mandate. Whether it was Napoleon claiming fraternité with Egyptians in fin-de-18e-siècle Cairo or George W. Bush claiming similar amity with Iraqis two centuries later, the message, and the means of delivering it, have been consistent.

Ever since Abd al-Rahman al-Jabarti, the great Egyptian chronicler of the French invasion of Egypt, brilliantly dissected Napoleon’s epistle to Egyptians, the peoples of the Middle East have seen through the Western protestations of benevolence and altruism to the naked self-interest that has always laid at the heart of great power politics. But the hypocrisy behind Western policies never stopped millions of people across the region from admiring and fighting for the ideals of freedom, progress and democracy they promised.

Even with the rise of a swaggeringly belligerent American foreign policy after September 11 on the one hand, and of China as a viable economic alternative to US global dominance on the other, the US’ melting pot democracy and seemingly endless potential for renewal and growth offered a model for the future.

Trading places

But something has changed. An epochal shift of historical momentum has occurred whose implications have yet to be imagined, never mind assessed. In the space of a month, the intellectual, political and ideological centre of gravity in the world has shifted from the far West (America) and far East (China, whose unchecked growth and continued political oppression are clearly not a model for the region) back to the Middle - to Egypt, the mother of all civilization, and other young societies across the Middle East and North Africa.

Standing amidst hundreds of thousands of Egyptians in Tahrir Square seizing control of their destiny it suddenly seemed that our own leaders have become, if not quite pharaohs, then mamluks, more concerned with satisfying their greed for wealth and power than with bringing their countries together to achieve a measure of progress and modernity in the new century. Nor does China, which has offered its model of state-led authoritarian capitalist development coupled with social liberalisation as an alternative to the developing world, seem like a desirable option to the people risking death for democracy in the streets of capitals across the Arab world and Iran.

Instead, Egyptians, Tunisians and other peoples of the region fighting for revolutionary political and economic change have, without warning, leapfrogged over the US and China and grabbed history’s reins. Suddenly, it is the young activists of Tahrir who are the example for the world, while the great powers seem mired in old thinking and outdated systems. From the perspective of “independence” squares across the region, the US looks ideologically stagnant and even backwards, filled with irrational people and political and economic elites incapable of conceiving of changes that are so obvious to the rest of the world.

Foundations sinking into the sands?

Although she likely did not intend it, when Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, warned Arab leaders in early January that they must “reform” lest their systems “sink in the sand” her words were as relevant in Washington as they were in Tunis, Tripoli, Cairo or Sanaa. But Americans - the people as much as their leaders - are so busy dismantling the social, political and economic foundations of their former greatness that they are unable to see how much they have become like the stereotype of the traditional Middle Eastern society that for so long was used to justify, alternately (and sometimes simultaneously) supporting authoritarian leaders or imposing foreign rule.

A well known Egyptian labour organiser, Kamal Abbas, made a video telling Americans from Tahrir that “we and all the people of the world stand on your side and give you our full support”. It is a good thing, because it is clear Americans need all the support they can get. “I want you to know,” he continued, “that no power can challenge the will of the people when they believe in their rights. When they raise their voices loud and clear and struggle against exploitation.”

Aren’t such lines supposed to be uttered by American presidents instead of Egyptian union activists?

Similarly, in Morocco activists made a video before their own ‘day of rage’ where they explained why they were taking to the streets. Among the reasons, “because I want a free and equal morocco for all citizens,” “so that all Moroccans will be equal,” so that education and health care “will be accessible to everyone, not only the rich,” in order that “labour rights will be respected and exploitation put to an end,” and to “hold accountable those who ruined this country”.

Can one even imagine millions of Americans taking to the streets in a day of rage to demand such rights?

“Stand firm and don’t waiver …. Victory always belongs to the people who stand firm and demand their just rights,” Kamal Abbas urged Americans. When did they forget this basic fact of history?

From top to bottom

The problem clearly starts from the top and continues to the grass roots. Barack Obama campaigned for the presidency on the slogan “Yes we can!” But whether caving in to Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, on settlements, or standing by as Republicans wage a jihad on the working people of Wisconsin, the president has refused to stand up for principles that were once the bedrock of American democracy and foreign policy.

The American people are equally to blame, as increasingly, those without healthcare, job security or pensions seem intent on dragging down the lucky few unionised workers who still have them rather than engage in the hard work of demanding the same rights for themselves.

The top one per cent of Americans, who now earn more than the bottom 50 per cent of the country combined, could not have scripted it any better if they had tried. They have achieved a feat that Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Hosni Mubarak and their fellow cleptocrats could only envy (the poorest 20 per cent of the population in Tunisia and Egypt actually earn a larger share of national income than does their counterpart in the US).

The situation is so desperate that a well known singer and activist contacted me in Cairo to ask organisers of Tahrir to send words of support for union workers in Wisconsin. Yet “Madison is the new Tahrir” remains a dream with little hope of becoming reality, even as Cairenes take time out from their own revolution proudly to order pizza for their fellow protesters in Wisconsin.

The power of youth and workers

In Egypt, workers continue to strike, risking the ire of the military junta that has yet to release political prisoners or get rid of the emergency law. It was their efforts, more than perhaps anyone else, that pushed the revolution over the top at the moment when people feared the Mubarak regime could ride out the protests. For their part, Americans have all but forgotten that the “golden years” of the 1950s and 1960s were only golden to so many people because unions were strong and ensured that the majority of the country’s wealth remained in the hands of the middle class or was spent on programmes to improve public infrastructure across the board.

The youth of the Arab world, until yesterday considered a “demographic bomb” waiting to explode in religious militancy and Islamo-fascism, is suddenly revealed to be a demographic gift, providing precisely the vigour and imagination that for generations the people of the region have been told they lacked. They have wired - or more precisely today, unwired - themselves for democracy, creating virtual and real public spheres were people from across the political, economic and social spectrum are coming together in common purpose. Meanwhile, in the US it seems young people are chained to their iPods, iPhones and social media, which has anesthetised and depoliticised them in inverse proportion to its liberating effect on their cohorts across the ocean.

Indeed, the majority of young people today are so focused on satisfying their immediate economic needs and interests that they are largely incapable of thinking or acting collectively or proactively. Like frogs being slowly boiled alive, they are adjusting to each new setback - a tuition increase, here, lower job prospects there - desperately hoping to get a competitive edge in a system that is increasingly stacked against them.

Will Ibn Khaldun be proved right?

It now seems clear that hoping for the Obama administration to support real democracy in the Middle East is probably too much to ask, since it cannot even support full democracy and economic and social rights for the majority of people at home. More and more, the US feels not just increasingly “irrelevant” on the world stage, as many commentators have described its waning position in the Middle East, but like a giant ship heading for an iceberg while the passengers and crew argue about how to arrange the deck chairs.

Luckily, inspiration has arrived, albeit from what to a ‘Western’ eye seems like the unlikeliest of sources. The question is: Can the US have a Tahrir moment, or as the great Arab historian Ibn Khaldun would have predicted, has it entered the irreversible downward spiral that is the fate of all great civilizations once they lose the social purpose and solidarity that helped make them great in the first place?

It is still too early to say for sure, but as of today it seems that the reins of history have surely passed out of America’s hands.

Mark LeVine is a professor of history at UC Irvine and senior visiting researcher at the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at Lund University in Sweden. He has authored several books including Overthrowing Geography: Jaffa, Tel Aviv and the Struggle for Palestine (University of California Press, 2005) and An Impossible Peace: Israel/Palestine Since 1989 (Zed Books, 2009).

Why February Only Has 28 Days

February only has 28 days. You know that. Well, I hope you know that. But why? What godforsaken individual decided that it’d be a bright idea to give February 28 days whilst every other month has 30 or 31?  As with most things in life, we must travel back into the past. This time, however, instead of going to Anglo-Saxon England like the last post, we have to travel back to the glory days of Ancient Rome. Well, actually a bit further back than the glory days. More like the baby days where Rome was just learning to walk and annihilate (and then copy) their enemies. 

And here we are in Rome, circa 8th century BCE. Prior to this point, the Romans had been running on a very peculiar calendar system. The kind that only has 10 months that consist of a total of 304 days. Calendars had originally been invented to keep track of the best time to plant and harvest crops, so there was no need to have any months in the place of January and February, so they simply didn’t exist. Not much happens during those months (except for the glorious birth of a very special human being on the 9th of January), and quite frankly nobody really likes them anyway. However, the king of Rome, Numa Pompilius, decided to redo the calendar system so it made more sense. His new calendar had 355 days (see, they’re getting there!) and added two months, January and February. Because the Romans thought that even numbers were unlucky, each month had either 29 or 31 days with a bunch of leap days thrown in to make things complicated. One month, however, had to have 28 days to make the calendar work, and February was chosen as that month. 

However, Julius Caesar had to come around and mess everything up again, and reorganised the calendar to have 365 days. February, however, was cast as a 29 day month with 30 days on a leap year. When emperor Augustus came around, he wanted to rename a month after himself (like Julius and July), so he choose August (which was previously named Sextilis). However, it wouldn’t suit Augustus for August to only have 30 days and be less than July, which was Caesar’s month, so he stole a day from poor old February. And that, my friends, is why February only has 28 days. 

The History of Contractions

Oh, contractions. How wonderful they are to use in both everyday speech and in writing. The few milliseconds they save you whilst writing informally adds up (or at least we like to think they do), and using contractions in speech is much easier and faster than saying the full two words. While some may abuse contractions (such as the word “ain’t”) or get a bit confused by them (I’m looking at you, misusers of “your” and “you’re”), they are an essential part of modern communication in our world today. Unfortunately, contractions aren’t readily accepted in scholarly works. They are almost looked down upon as childish and immature. However, that is far from the truth. While most look at contractions as a fairly modern invention, they’ve been here since before all of us, our parents, our grandparents, our great grandparents, and many generations before that were born. Contrary to popular belief, contractions weren’t invented in the 20th or 19th centuries. In fact, to find the origin of contractions, we must travel back centuries and leave our beloved Modern English behind. No, we’re not even going to visit the wonderful intricacies of Middle English; Old English is our destination. 

Read More

The Middle East-And Why the West Got It Terribly Wrong

What you and I are watching unfold is history in the making. Of that there is no doubt. Popular revolutions all across the Middle East are taking place. In Egypt and Tunisia, they’ve already won their freedom. In places like Bahrain and Libya, brave souls fight on to secure theirs. The question I pose to our news agencies, our governments, to everybody is why didn’t we see this coming? 

Supporting Egypt wasn’t the US’s and the West’s only blunder in the Middle East. Tunisia, too, was held up as a pillar of a stable society in the Middle East. It was frequently used as an example of what a country should be in the region. We couldn’t have been more wrong. We misjudged Bahrain, too. The opening to the Formula 1 seasoned was scheduled to be held in Bahrain in a few days time, but that obviously isn’t happening. How is it that a country with such a brutal regime is able to hold F1 races? Libya may be our greatest mistake of all, however. In 2004, when Gaddafi finally decided to scrap his nuclear weapons program, we greeted him with open arms. Tony Blair, Silvio Berlusconi, Nicolas Sarkozy, John McCain; they all held mettings with the Libyan tyrant, praising him for his progressive policies and his quest for “peace.” Hell, there’s even an Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights. (The irony is rich, I know). Our governments have been wrong about the Middle East for a very long time, and I’m sad to see that we supported these monsters for decades using billions of dollars worth of taxpayer dollars.

The worst crime of all, however, isn’t that our governments supported these dictators. Deplorable as that may be, worse still is the fact that we didn’t know about these brutal regiemes. I understand that government censoring was tight in many of these countries, but nothing is that secure. Why haven’t any of our news agencies publicised any of the stories about repression in the Middle East? Stories about people being jailed for years over speaking out against their government, stories of hundreds of people disappearing thanks to secret policies, stories of people being beaten to death by police forces, and other equally horrific stories are only coming out now. Before these uprisings, I’m ashamed to say that I knew next to nothing of the oppression occurring in Egypt and Tunisia. It is the job of journalists to provide us with information such as that. We rely on journalists to tell us the state of the world, and if journalists are willing to turn a blind eye to horrific stories like these, then I don’t know who to trust. Enough with your political banter and irritating pundits on both sides of the political spectrum. Just tell us the news, as it is. The real news, uncensored. Don’t turn a blind eye to certain parts of the world just because you think your audience won’t be interested. I understand that new agencies have to make money, but don’t curtail and censor the news just so you get the ratings you want. News isn’t meant to be a money making machine, it’s meant to keep the citizens of the world informed. So inform us. 

The revolutions in the Middle East should serve as a wakeup call to all of us. It’s time we stop focusing on just ourselves and realise that there’s a world around us, and people are being abused and unjustly attacked every day. People are living without such basic freedoms such as freedom of speech, and we aren’t even hearing about it. The revolutions in the Middle East will succeed, and there’s nothing we can do to influence them either way. When such events happen again in another part of the world (for I have no doubt that they will), such as East Asia or sub-Saharan Africa, I can only hope that we are in a position to help. I can only hope that we will know of the situation of each country before they are caught in revolution. I can only hope that we will throw our full support behind the protestors, and I can only hope that freedom will once again succeed, as it has succeeded. Perhaps next time the birthplace of modern political freedoms can serve at least a small role, and perhaps next time it will make me proud to be an American rather than ashamed to be one. 

Historically Relevant

For the past three days I’ve been working on a sort of Facemash clone, but for historical figures. And now, finally, it’s complete. So got ahead and check it out! http://historicallyrelevant.com/ Have fun battling historical figures head to head, and choosing which one is more relevant to history. Check out the Top 10 and the FAQ while you’re at it. Why did I make this website? I’m not particularly sure. But I did, so there you go. Have fun!  

Search
Navigate
Archive

My past posts, easily accessible and sortable for hours upon hours of non-stop fun!

Twitter

Follow me on Twitter to get a glimpse of the machinations of my mind. Or, you know, if you just want to talk.