Can Religion Save Itself?

In response to the recent attacks on Paris by ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), an extremist group of muslims, David Brooks wrote an article this week titled "Finding Peace Within the Holy Texts." In it, he describes how our struggles are just beginning when it comes to religious radicalism. The 21st century, he argues, will be filled with a growing religious population that will force us to answer religious issues with religious solutions.

Why does he think religious solutions are the key? For one thing, religious people have more children on average than those who are nonreligious, so our society will be largely dominated by religion whether we like it or not. This means that we should not only be conscious of religion, but that we should try to use it to help us achieve our goals. After all, he advocates, religion itself is not the source of conflict. Rather it is the formation of distinct "in-groups" and "out-groups"(distinctions that allow us to identify with one group while opposing another) that lead to our discord and religious strife. Brooks contends that we need military force to stop ISIS and other groups that threaten us, but we also need to foster an environment of religious acceptance to have a lasting impact on the world.

As someone who does not identify with any one religion, I have always been somewhat skeptical of it. I think that religion is a really important force in many people's lives because it brings people together. It helps them answer the questions that they can't explain. I have always admired the religious communities that take people in and try to make an impact on the lives of others. But, I have also seen the drastic effects that come from opposing religious views.

The problem is that once we buy into one ideology so completely, we begin to view every other one that contradicts it as wrong. This effect becomes so overwhelming that we can't see beyond our differences. We lose sight of our shared values. We justify terrible crimes by saying that we are fighting in the name of God. Religion has exacerbated disputes like the Palestine-Israel Conflict, resulting in the deaths of thousands of people. Today, groups like ISIS and the Taliban have destroyed the lives of many innocent people. It is so hard for me to believe that the God who teaches us love and respect within our religions could tell us to hate so deeply those who disagree with us.

I agree with Brooks that we need to change, but I think his solution may be too idealistic. How can we overcome such great divides in our beliefs and our cultures? Is it realistic to think that one day we could have world peace? Unfortunately, I think that even if that is possible, it is very far into our future. What we need to do now is stand in solidarity with our friends. We need to support them in this time of crisis. We need to fight hate with love. And maybe one day, we will be able to stand together in peace.

Image compliments of:
Pixabay

Exploring Adulthood

Members of the millennial generation (people born in the 1980s-2000s) are often labeled as lazy and narcissistic. We are the generation that's projected to move back into our parents' basements post-graduation. We are the generation that grew up with computers. We are the generation that became obsessed with social media, and consequently, ourselves.

But, that isn't how David Brooks sees it. In his article "How Adulthood Happens," Brooks contends that even though the number of people who move back in with their parents is double what it was in the 1960s, that this is not abnormal. Rather, it is the result of several societal factors that have manifested themselves in a prolonged transition to adulthood.

One of these factors, he argues, is the shift in the focus of academic institutions. Today, on average, college students spend half the time studying a day compared to their counterparts in the previous generation. Much of this is due to the increased focus on social events fueled by the college admissions arms race. Today, college has become a socially rich environment made up of world-class gyms, renovated student centers, and opportunities to attend concerts, performances, and other activities. All of these make colleges look more attractive to prospective students, but once they arrive on campus, these same institutions are great distractions for students. This results in graduates who are not used to working hard outside of structured environments, and, perhaps more importantly, not used to being alone.

So, graduates are sent into the world without direction, drive, or support. This leads them to rely on their parents for financial and emotional stability while giving themselves the chance to discover themselves. And many graduates are happy to spend a few extra years in transition. In their book “Getting to 30,” Jeffrey Arnett and Elizabeth Fishel write, “The value of youth has risen, and the desirability of adulthood has dropped accordingly. Today’s young people expect to reach adulthood eventually, and they expect to enjoy their adult lives, but most are in no hurry to get there.”

And it's understandable that they're not clamoring to be adults. All their lives they have been told that they could do anything they wanted if they put enough effort into it. But, the reality is that the dream jobs that involve "making an impact on the world" are few and far between. 

So, instead, adults today wander through this murky stage of young adulthood, afraid to settle for something that is not their passion. And that's okay. They should have room to explore. Instead of seeing them as lazy, good-for-nothing, leeches we should view them as determined and passionate individuals who want to make their mark on the world. Instead of shunning them, we should embrace them and encourage them to find their passions. Because only then will they go on to do what they find interesting and exciting. And who knows? The world may be a better place because of it.

Vulnerability and a Life of Passion

In Brené Brown's TED Talk, "The power of vulnerability," she describes how the people who find life fulfilling have to embrace the idea of feeling uncomfortable, of being uncompromisingly who they are, and being proud of it. Only then can people live lives full of passion and connection.

Last Friday, David Brooks touched on this topic in his article, "Lady Gaga and the Life of Passion." Reflecting on Gaga's reflection that she has always wanted to be brave and passionate, Brooks examines what makes someone live whole-heartedly. He says, "I suppose that people who live with passion start out with an especially intense desire to complete themselves...We have to bring ourselves to fulfillment, to integration and to coherence." But, in order to do this, we have to open ourselves up to being comfortable with where we are. We have to be open to exploration and we have to decide not to settle for anything less than what we want.

In our culture, we teach children that they should have an answer ready for what they want to be when they grow up as young as elementary school. On Halloween each year you can usually find a few kids in helmets or lab coats who will enthusiastically tell you that they want to be a doctor, a scientist, a construction worker, or a firefighter. While we do not put much emphasis on their answers (they are only eight years old, after all), there is still an expectation that we should know what we want to do and where we want to go in the future.

As I have mentioned in previous posts, I am undecided about what I ultimately want to study at Penn State. I often find it really frustrating to be in this position because so many of my peers have their lives mapped out from now to post-graduation. But, I also know that I do not feel ready to pick a major. I need to embrace the fact that I don't know where I'm going or what I'm doing.

Both Brooks and Brown argue that you need to have courage and embrace vulnerability to lead a fulfilling life. As Brooks says, "We all care what others think about us. People with passion are just less willing to be ruled by the tyranny of public opinion." After we break out of society's expectations of us, we will find that we have more freedom to be who we want to be.

At an event, I recently heard a speaker describe a very easy, but important exercise that can help you really reflect on why you do what you do. Take a piece of paper and write down everything that you have participated in or spent time on (include things you do now). Then write the reasons you do each one. We all do things because we know they look good for employers or because we know they would make our parents happy. But challenge yourself to only do the things you enjoy.

Brooks ends his article on a powerful note asking, "Who would you be and what would you do if you weren’t afraid?" I challenge all of you to find this out.

What's up with Hillary's Flip-Flops?

No, this post is not actually about Hillary Clinton's flip-flops (for the record, I don't think she would be caught dead in a pair of those shoes), but rather her changing opinions about certain key issues. Brooks brings this issue up in his article, "Hillary Clinton's Opportunist Solution!" in which he criticizes Clinton for "do[ing] whatever she needs to do, say[ing] whatever needs to be said and fight[ing] for whatever constituency is most useful at the moment."

While Brooks acknowledges that Clinton may have experienced a genuine change of heart about some things, he concludes that she has flip-flopped too many times about issues that are too important to her constituency for it to be a coincidence. For example, Clinton used to oppose gay marriage, but changed her mind right around the time that it became a hot topic for Democrats. She has also switched from supporting what she once called "the gold standard in trade agreements" to now vehemently opposing it.

As a voter considering candidates in the Democratic party, this worries me. I understand that it can be hard to reconcile your true beliefs with what the party wants (especially as both parties become more radical in nature). A good candidate has to be able to win a strong base and then in the general election, they have to move towards the center to appease the other party. And Clinton has shown that she is more than capable of swinging.

But, does this make her a good candidate?

Even if you agree with what Clinton is (currently) supporting, how can you guarantee that she will act on her campaign promises? This is true for all candidates involved, but Clinton has already shown us an impressive track record of changing her mind.

As Brooks mentions, "The Clinton theory of the campaign seems to be that people vote on the basis of what policy a candidate can deliver...But it could be that voters actually vote on the basis of authenticity and trustworthiness. In that case, Clinton could be hurt by the fact that only 35 percent of, say, Floridians think she is honest and trustworthy."

In an earlier post, I talked about Joe Biden's interview on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. In it, he projected loyalty, trustworthiness, and respect for the American voter - all things that I think Clinton has failed to demonstrate. Biden, on the other hand, seemed like a good balance. He had the humility and passion of candidate Sanders, but he was more moderate and had more experience. Now with him officially out of the race, Clinton's chances at winning the Democratic primary are significantly higher.

I predict she will pull through the primaries. Sanders has enjoyed popularity with younger generations due to his honesty and ruggedness, but he will not be a good candidate for the general election. No Republican is going to consider voting for someone who self-identifies as a socialist. Webb has dropped out, which leaves O'Malley and Chafee. O'Malley definitely got his name out during the first Democratic debate, but his experience is limited compared to Clinton. As for Chafee, barely anyone noticed he was on the stage.

Clinton currently leads the race and it seems that she will continue to do so. We may just see our first woman president in 2016.

The Rise of the Radical Republican

It occurred to me today, while reading one of David Brook's posts, that I never really explained why I picked Mr. Brooks (as opposed to any of the other NY Times columnists) to respond to each week. So, here it goes:

I chose to follow columnist David Brooks because I respect him in a way that I cannot respect pretty much any Republican politician in this era. Even though I do not always agree with Mr. Brooks, I feel like he is open to conversation and reasoning. Many of his arguments are not made with a strong, "I'm right, you're wrong" tone, but are more subtle. Often he plays devil's advocate, exposing both sides of an idea before settling on one. I understand that on the national scale, candidates do not have this luxury to weigh pros and cons. In order to get money and support from their parties, they must do some pandering; they must sound confident in their policies; and they usually won't change their minds, for risk of being labeled as inconsistent or dishonest. It still never fails to frustrate me, though, when they say something offensive or just plain stupid.

The other reason I love following David Brooks is because he is not afraid to dissociate from his party. Instead of making it easier for himself, as so many people do, and letting the party make decisions for him, he looks at his own values and holds his party (and its candidates) accountable for measuring up to them. If they don't, he has no problem distancing himself.

In fact, he did just that this week in his article: "The Republicans' Incompetence Caucus," when he argued that the Republicans have changed to the point where they have lost their founding principles. He explains, "Conservatism stands for intellectual humility,...incremental change, a preference for reform rather than revolution, a respect for hierarchy, precedence, balance and order, and a tone of voice that is prudent, measured and responsible...All of this has been overturned in dangerous parts of the Republican Party." Personally, I couldn't agree more. The Republicans, especially those in the House, have become so radicalized that they would rather shut down the government than talk reasonably about issues like funding Planned Parenthood or the Affordable Care Act.

Brooks points out that politics is "the process of making decisions amid diverse opinions. It involves conversation, calm deliberation, self-discipline, the capacity to listen to other points of view and balance valid but competing ideas and interests." Politics is meant to be a way of reconciling two different opinions in order to improve our society. Instead, Republicans have come to look at politics in general as a corrupt institution. And instead of working together with Democrats to set it right, they just sit around complaining. They would rather stall the political processes than make a compromise to get something done.

I can only hope, for Brook's sake and my own, that things change soon - preferably before the 2016 election.

Should we take higher education to a higher level?

What is the goal of higher education? Is it to explore our interests and learn more about ourselves? Is it to get a job (if you ask your parents, that's probably their answer)? Or is it some mix of both? Which schools are best to attend - big schools that are more career-focused, or smaller, liberal arts schools?

This week David Brook's article, "The Big University" exposes the evolution of the higher education system from a curriculum based on morals and spiritual understanding to a vocational assembly line. He laments that in today's universities, "Students are taught how to do things, but many are not forced to reflect on why they should do them or what we are here for. They are given many career options, but they are on their own when it comes to [deciding] which vocation would lead to the fullest life."

As an undecided student who has a love for learning, but also wants to get a job in the future, I completely relate to this mentality. Unfortunately, because I'm considering some technical majors, I am taking classes to teach me the skills required for a specific field instead of learning more about my personal philosophy. And I do feel that, for the most part, this is pretty characteristic of Penn State's programs. Do I wish that Penn State would put a greater emphasis on personal development? Yes. But, even though I may resent learning about protists in biology (when am I ever going to use that knowledge again?), I think that it's okay that these skills are the university's focus. And I think it's unfair of Brooks to accuse universities of not doing their job.

I would argue that some of the onus that Brooks puts on the university should be on the students to go out and seek those enriching opportunities through clubs or study abroad experiences. I personally, have made it my mission to learn more about my personal career development outside of class. Over my past few weeks at Penn State, I have sought out 10 upperclassmen who are majoring in the areas that I am considering. While this has not brought me that much closer to picking a major, it has helped me expand my network and has exposed me to the unique programs offered by each college.

Now, is it true that it might be easier to find these life-enriching experiences at a small liberal arts school? Maybe. But, part of life is being a self-advocate and taking charge of your own education. While I agree with Brooks that there has been a movement away from self-fulfillment in higher education, I think that if you are vocal about your goals, you can almost always combine your interests in a new and interesting way. For example, I met a student last week who is an IST major with a focus in Psychology; now that's a cool course of study.

Brooks also does point out that many universities are starting to return to the classical model, just in a different way. Instead of emphasizing religious teachings, many are offering interdisciplinary programs, or opportunities to conduct research outside of the classroom. Hopefully, these efforts will help make us well-rounded and skilled individuals upon graduation.

To answer my questions at the beginning of this post, I don't know what is best. I think it really does depend on the individual. But, I know for myself, that I will take the initiative to learn more about the world around me - even if I don't pick a humanities-oriented major. All I can say right now is that I am excited for my future and for discovering all this university has to offer over the next four years.

Rosy retrospection: Is the GOP Too Grand - and Too Old?

Nativism has risen and fallen throughout American history. We have experienced periods of great xenophobia including the World Wars, the Red Scare, the McCarthyism movement, and the most recent upheavals today as the immigration debate continues. But no matter how many times we may try to deny it, immigration is ingrained in the American soil. It is the life-blood of the American Dream.

True as that may be, many Americans are concerned that immigrants will take jobs away from U.S. citizens, eat up health care benefits, and violate the laws that maintain order in our society. As Donald Trump put it, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best...They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists." And Trump is not alone; all of the 15 Republican Presidential primary candidates advocate some kind of border strengthening to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country.

While many Americans agree that something needs to be done about immigration (84% of Republicans and 44% of Democrats are unsatisfied with the current level of immigration), the reality for the Republican party is that even as they gripe about the number of illegal immigrants, that number is increasing, and so is the percentage of non-white voters. If the GOP does not change its stance, it could alienate a huge portion of the voting population.

This past week, David Brooks addressed this issue in his article "The American Idea and Today's GOP." In it, he argued that America has always been striving to improve itself and provide its people with a better future. Today, he maintains, the Grand Old Party has lost that direction. Instead of looking towards the future, many Republicans are hoping for a return to the past.

If you don't believe him, just look at some of the 2016 Republican Presidential candidates' campaign slogans:

• "Make America great again" (Donald Trump) 
• "Heal, Inspire, Revive" (Ben Carson)
• "Reigniting the Promise of America" (Ted Cruz)
• "Restore American Prosperity Today" (Jim Gilmore)
• "Restore the American Dream" (Rick Santorum)

Brooks argues that in this mindset, the GOP is losing the very principles it once stood for. He explains, "American free market and religious conservatives have traditionally embraced a style of nationalism that is hopeful and future minded. From Lincoln to Reagan to Bush, the market has been embraced for being dynamic and progressive." But, in the last few years, the Republican party has spent more time and effort trying to undo the past than influence the future. For example, they have continued efforts to kill the Affordable Care Act and have been working to try to overturn Roe v. Wade (the 1973 Supreme Court decision that ruled that women can abort babies up until the third trimester).

Furthermore, Brooks contends, the data surrounding the immigration issue does not support the Republicans' fear. "Today’s immigrants are assimilating as fast as previous ones. They are learning English. They are healthier than native-born Americans. Immigrant men age 18 to 39 are incarcerated at roughly one-fourth the rate of American men." So all of this hullabaloo about rapists and criminals has no base in reality. The people who are coming from other countries are the people who always have: those looking for better lives. Our ancestors came here with the same ambitions. Is it not fair to give these people the same benefit of the doubt?

Either way, if Republicans don't open their minds to the future, they may very well be a party that goes extinct.

Photos compliments of:
Nevele Osteog
Boss Tweed
takombibelot

A seemingly simple question: should we raise the minimum wage?

Whenever election time comes around, we hear a lot of debate from the candidates about minimum wage. Typically, the candidates' positions split down party lines. Democrats usually want to increase minimum wage, thinking that this will help lower poverty levels; Republicans normally oppose this because they argue that the change will not help - and may actually hurt - poorer Americans. Setting party lines aside, who is right? How can we actually help poor Americans?

In David Brook's article, "The Minimum-Wage Muddle," he tries to ascertain the answer to this very question by examining past trends and basic laws of economics. As a student in Microeconomics this fall (shoutout to Econ 102 Section 1), I thought that this was an awesome application and way to showcase my knowledge.

The way markets work is that they are always seeking an equilibrium where consumers are willing and able to buy a certain number of goods, and firms are willing and able to sell them. If firms try to sell a product for a higher price, fewer people will buy it. This will cause a surplus. In response, the firms will lower their price to sell their stock. If the situation is reversed and the price is too low, there will be a shortage of the good and the suppliers will start selling the good at a higher price. So, eventually the market will gravitate toward the equilibrium price and quantity.


Minimum wage disrupts this relationship because it puts what is known as a price floor on the good, which in this case is labor. When a price floor is put on a good, that means the price is higher than the equilibrium price. As I mentioned above, that will cause a surplus. In other words, more people will be looking for jobs than firms are looking for employees. People who are able to get jobs will be better off, but there will be more people who don't get jobs.

Another effect is that the people applying for minimum wage jobs will become more qualified because they are unable to find employment elsewhere. These more qualified people will get the jobs while unskilled workers may be cut out of the market. So, middle class families may benefit from minimum wage while in the meantime, lower class families are suffering.

Additionally, a study done at Stanford revealed that many times owners will increase prices in response to having to pay higher wages. Since many of the places that hire minimum wage workers sell their products to poorer Americans, the poor are in essence paying a tax to help employ the middle class.

Now, while all of the assertions I have made up until this point are true, they are all based on a simplified model of the world. These models cannot be accurate in every situation. There have actually been instances where minimum wage has helped increase pay without decreasing employment (see here).

So, what does this mean? Have we gotten any closer to finding the answer? The short answer is that it really depends. There are always trade-offs involved. It cannot be denied, however, that the poorest people are hurt by minimum wage. So, when looking at candidates in this year's election, think long and hard about what you value. While both parties have good intentions, their methods of economic policy have two very different effects.

Photos compliments of:
The All-Nite Images
Wikipedia

The Power of a Single Story

In her TED talk "The Dangers of a Single Story," Chimamanda Adichie explains that when we take stereotypes at face value and use them to describe a group of people by a "single story," we are often missing a large part of who they are. She illustrates this with many comical examples including the observations one might make of Americans if their only experience with them was the novel American Psycho (see the picture below for her observation). While this is clearly an exaggeration, it still illustrates the point: we should look beyond the single story.

But, there are instances where the single story is more convenient; where we only want a small snip of someone's personality. For example, a college application. An icebreaker activity. A Facebook or LinkedIn profile. A resume. In these moments, many of us struggle to define ourselves, to boil down all of our experiences into one single statement.

This week in his column, David Brooks wrote a piece entitled The Biden Formation Story, which referred to Stephen Colbert's interview with Vice President Joe Biden on The Late Show. During the interview, Biden told his single story to the audience, what Brooks refers to as his "formation story." In that story, Biden described his reluctance to run for President after having undergone the emotional trauma of losing his son this past year. But, while his story was meant to explain why he decided not to run, the story he told was one of a true candidate.

Brooks argues that "every presidential candidate needs a narrative to explain how his or her character was formed...some experience or life-defining crucible moment that then defines the nature of their public service." In essence, they need the single story that Adichie refers to. They need a way to express who they are and why they are here.

In this context, I agree with Brooks. Without the single story, "a candidate is just a hodgepodge of positions and logos." As a people, we want to elect someone who we can relate to, who can lead our country to greatness, and who can make the world a place we want our children to live in. A single story is powerful; it shapes how we think of someone - for better or worse. Right now Hilary Clinton's story is more about scandal and defensiveness than about making a difference. Biden, on the other hand, has the potential to make his story one of redemption, to rise up and accept responsibility for the American people.

As we get closer to the 2016 election, it will be interesting to see how these stories change. Will Biden enter the race? Will Hilary share her story with the world? But, no matter what the result, the single story will live on. Adichie advocates that we push to learn more beyond the single story, to get to know someone beyond their accomplishments. I would like to think that because we want people to be informed, we give them the opportunity to learn more than the single story. That is why we have so many televised debates and discussions with the candidates. The reality, however, is that most people will only ever want to know the single story. The key to determining this race will be how the candidates tell their stories. A story told at the right place and the right time might just win the election.

Images compliments of:
AZ Quotes
West Point - The US Military Academy 

The Romantic Era Part 2: 2015-?

Is the Romantic Era that produced incredible literary and artistic works including Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, The Bronte Sisters' Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights, and Samuel Coleridge's "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" about to be revived in the common era?

Not exactly, says David Brooks, but he argues in his article "The New Romantics in the Computer Age" that we might see something like it. Brooks explains that at the current technology growth rate, computers will quickly surpass humans' abilities to make financial predictions and risk calculations. They will be able to sort and compile data to accrue evidence for a civil case or make an informed prediction about the housing market, and do it with more accuracy and speed than a human worker. He believes that because of this growth, computers will begin replacing lawyers, doctors, and financial experts. The only jobs left for humans will require skills that computers cannot exhibit: creativity, empathy, authority, leadership, and communication.

While I agree with Brooks that these skills will be more valued in a technology-driven workforce, I don't see our society rushing to turn back the clock to a nature-oriented existence. The Romantic Era emerged at the end of the Industrial Revolution because people developed a newfound appreciation for nature and its interaction with the human experience. This time period was characterized by people's nostalgia to return to the simpler past. In contrast, today we are always looking forward to (and becoming more dependent on) new technologies. Take, for example, all the hullabaloo that occurs before a new Apple smartphone release. You can't pick up a newspaper without seeing some kind of review or prediction about its success. And it doesn't stop there. Cell phones, laptops, and tablets have made us lazy, self-absorbed, and ignorant to the world around us. We created technologies to make our lives easier, so that now we can spend less time thinking and more time posting and reacting to a virtual world.

That being said, technology has also allowed us to do great things; to connect different parts of the world, to increase the standard of living in poorer nations, to discover ways to combat disease and save lives. But unlike after Europe's Industrial Revolution, I don't think we have the option to look back at a time without technology.

In tenth grade my teacher introduced a challenge called "The Experiment." The goal was to abstain from technology usage for a month and a half for anything other than homework. About 75 students started the project. Of them, only 10% made it to the end, but that wasn't the important part. What I found most shocking was that people would leave the project because they thought that "they couldn't live without technology." Herein lies the heart of the problem.

As we have gained new technologies, we have lost our creativity, communication, and empathy (ironically, what David Brooks thinks we need in the future). We are less likely to spend time interacting with our peers in person and more likely to spend time liking their posts and statuses on social media. Like Sherry Turkle said in The Flight From Conversation, "Human relationships are rich; they're messy and demanding. We have learned the habit of cleaning them up with technology...it's a process in which we shortchange ourselves."

Brooks says that helicopter parents, standardized tests, and college application processes are to blame for the current lack of the arts. I would say, these are only symptoms. The real way to return to the romantic era he speaks of is to pare down on electronics and find our humanity again. While David Brooks sees an increase in technology as a way to return to our roots, I see it as a threat to our very existence.

Welcome

Hello readers,

My name is Lisa Gardner and I am a student at Penn State University. In this blog, I plan to write about my reactions to editorial pieces in The New York Times written by columnist David Brooks. I will post once weekly about something he has written or my observations about his writing style and his argument composition.

Happy reading!

Lisa