E-Portfolio Blog Post

Over this past year, I have received an education on many fronts. Obviously, beginning my journey to receive an undergraduate degree in History at The Pennsylvania State University is something that has been both exciting and satisfying for me both personally and academically. Learning to interact with people with vastly different backgrounds and interests has been challenging but worthwhile. Classes such as LA 101H(Blogging) and Political Science(Contributing to a course Wiki) have exacting because of the emphasis on utilizing technology to make the educational experience more interactive and engaging. The difference between my high school and college experience has been remarkable.

 Previous to attending college, I was a member of the U.S. Air Force for 4 1/2 years, with much of the last year being deployed to Afghanistan. I guess it can be said that was an education in and of itself. As an airman who's primary occupation was to be a liaison for the U.S. Army in order to integrate air assets with ground forces, I was forced to utilize what I had previously been trained in a dynamic and complex situation, as well as make on-the-fly adjustments to the realities of a constantly changing environment (Trying to communicate effectively with the Army, U.S. and foreign air forces, and effectively engaging with ordinary Afghans is not something that is gone over in Basic or Advanced training!).

With this background in mind, I believe the content of my portfolio offers a unique perspective on a variety of issues that are currently being debated in our society. While much of the material contained in this portfolio discusses military matters (the war in Afghanistan, suicide in the U.S. military), I also give my thoughts on the 2012 election as well as underlying themes that are present in American society. 


Link: Matt Brandon's E-Portfolio

I Wish My Teams Won Championships!!!

As a sports fan, I love watching the intense competition that each game brings. Of course I have my preferences and like to watch some sports more than others, but I think the fact that I can watch any sport means that I like watching two teams or individuals competing more than the sports themselves. This tends to work best when the teams you like-- in my case, the Redskins, Nationals, Captials, and Wizards, who are all D.C. sports teams-- do well. Unfortunately for me, all of the teams I like haven't been good in years, or always seem to choke when they make the playoffs. It kills me when I see a city like Boston, who has had multiple championship winners in multiple sports, do so much better for such a long time, while my teams are constantly in the cellar of the standings perennially.

Exhibit #1: The Washington Redskins. Its a shame how such a proud franchise has been ruined by the worst owner ever to own a professional sports team. I remember watching Super Bowl XXVI in 1991 when the Redskins beat the Buffalo Bills to win their 3rd Super Bowl in a decade. Since that moment, they have been the sports team that I will always follow. Since then it has been all downhill. They have been to the playoffs three times in the past 20 years, and have won a grand total of two playoff games in that time span. On top of that, the owner likes to do nice things like sue season ticket holders who couldnt pay their bill during the recession and ban signs that are critical of both the team and the owner.

The Nationals are considered to be a team to watch this year, but during a three year stretch of 2007-2009 they lost 300 games. They were the laughing stock of baseball, and even had the word "Nationals" on their jersey's misspelled "Natinals". Oy.

The Wizards...well what can one say about the Wizards. They are terrible and have been ever since Gilbert Arenas and Javaris Crittendon brought guns into the locker room. Since then they have drafted John Wall, who hopefully will not have his development as a player retarded because of the lack of support that is around him.

The Capitals are the lone team the past few years that have been contenders in their respective sport. They won the President's trophy for being the best team during the regular season in hockey the past few years, but they can never seem to go the distance and win the Stanley Cup.

Maybe some day my teams will be as good as the one's in Boston. Until then I will be watching the regular season and then watching someone else win during the playoffs. Such as life being a Washington, D.C. sports fan. 

Ozzie Guillen

This week's post comes from the world of sports. Last week, Ozzie Guillen, the manager of the Miami Marlins, told Time magazine that he "loved" and "respected" Fidel Castro, who was the leader of Cuba from 1959 to 2011. These comments caused an uproar in the Cuban-American community of South Florida, even resulting in protests outside of the new Marlins stadium, which is located in the "Little Havana" section of Miami. Coinciding with the opening of the new stadium is a big push to attract new fans for a franchise that has traditionally had little support for the local community. On Tuesday, Guillen was suspended by the Marlins for 5 games because of the "seriousness of the comments attributed to Guillen." Major League Baseball supported the Marlins decision, with commissioner Bud Selig calling the remarks "offensive" and saying that "they have no place in our game."

Jeez, so much for that little thing called free speech. Now I am not saying that the Marlins or Major League Baseball should be unable to suspend Guillen. They are the one's who write the checks, so it's their decision on how to handle an employee that made questionable comments. Nor am I questioning the rights of Cuban-American's in the Miami area to speak out and protest comments that they find offensive. But since when did anybody care about the comments of the Marlin's manager? I understand that he is Latino, but this uproar over his "insensitive" comments strikes me as a bit overblown. I don't remember nearly this much controversy when Guillen was managing the White Sox and called Jay Mariotti(who really is a true asshole) a "fag."

Even more than this, do we really want to live in a society where nobody says anything offensive? A place where no one says anything that may hurt someone else's "feelings"? That place sounds incredibly boring and I don't think I would want to live there. I'm not saying that you should turn to the person next to you and scream profanities in their face because you can, but speech that goes against the grain and challenges the status quo is a healthy part of any democracy.

Sources:
-ESPN story
-CSM story

The Internet

In my opinion, the internet was and is the really big innovation of this generation. It has revolutionized the way we communicate, view media, and retrieve information. I remember the first time my family got an internet connection was in the late 1990's/early 2000's. It was a dial-up connection that, by today's standards, is slow as hell. Websites a decade ago were pretty primitive, mostly just reading and a few pictures, nothing like the interactive sites that we see nowadays. 

I consider my generation to be the first one to really understand and utilize the internet. In the last 10 years we have seen the rise of Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Wikipedia. A search engine like Google completely revolutionized how we find information. Need a quick answer to a question you don't know? Google it. Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites have completely changed the way we communicate with each other, letting us both share and view the day to day lives of our friends, acquaintances, and family members. YouTube gave everyone the ability to watch professional videos and post video's of things they are interested in or of just stuff that is going on in their personal lives. Wikipedia, the de facto source of information for most college and high school students, markedly changed the way we informally learn by combining formal news sources with the personal input of Wikipedia users. I think that the internet can largely be considered a democratizing movement, where traditional mediums that were long restricted to certain professionals were suddenly opened to give everyone a voice (i.e. blogging).

The rise of laptops, tablets, and smartphones is the next step in the internet revolution. Instead of having to go to a computer lab, or your home computer, you can literally take the internet and all of your information with you wherever you want to go. Most smartphones and tablet's are basically micro-computers that have all of the capabilities of laptops and desktops, but have the distinct advantage of super-portability. 

Trayvon Martin and The Media

Some of you may have heard this week of the tragic shooting of a teenager, Trayvon Martin, by a neighborhood watchman named George Zimmerman. Zimmerman claims that he witnessed suspicious behavior and that he had a physical altercation that warranted the use of deadly force. Zimmerman was not arrested because Florida has a "Stand Your Ground" law, stating that a person is authorized to use deadly force in self defense when there is a reasonable belief of a threat. As of today, Zimmerman remains a free man. Some politicians and commentators in the media have suggested that the police may have not conducted itself appropriately and that there is a particular racial aspect to the case.

Whether or not Zimmerman will be charged or is guilty of murder or manslaughter is not for me to decide. My focus in this blog post is on the out of control media. Even if everything that comes out in any news story covering this case turns out to be true in the end, I can't stand to see is how the media jumps to conclusions and declares a person guilty in the court of public opinion. Time and time again, we see cases where many in the media act less like journalists and more like an editorial board hiding behind the cover of a "news" banner. And then comes the inevitable stream of "new" information that is released-- oohhh! the plot thickens! To everyone that reads this blog at this school, this should be more than familiar: The Sandusky Scandal. The rush to judgement cost Joe Paterno his job(he should have been placed on administrative leave, pending the investigation), and the school's reputation has been heavily damaged. I am not trying to say that Sandusky is innocent of all charges-- the evidence in the grand jury report is damning. But for us to function as a society, I think we have to let our constitutionally guaranteed right to due process run it's course. It may be an ugly truth, but Jerry Sandusky is as much entitled to his rights as you or I am. Hopefully I am never placed in one of these situations where I do have to let the judicial system decide my fate, but if I was I would certainly want what I am constitutionally entitled to.

If the people concerned about Trayvon Martin really want justice, they should want the verdict carried out the right way-- In the court room, not the news room.

Sources:

ABC News timeline of events
CS Monitor why George Zimmerman hasn't been arrested.

The Rhetoric of "Real Time"

Whenever I get the chance, I like to watch "Real Time With Bill Maher" on HBO. The concept of the show isn't all that original-- Bill Maher and his panel of 3 or 4 guests discussing the biggest news stories of the week-- but the show always features a robust conversation with differing viewpoints. For those who have never seen the show, the main portion features Bill Maher, the host, and a panel of guests, usually a liberal, an independent, and a conservative commentator. While the panel may be "fair and balanced", Maher himself is unabashedly liberal.

What makes Maher's show different from a program like "Hannity", which would probably be the conservative equivalent to "Real Time", is that the people on the show have their opinons respected. A few weeks ago, one of Maher's guests was Grover Norquist, who is the president for "Americans for Tax Reform", which is a very conservative political lobbying group. While Maher completely disagreed with virtually everything Norquist said, he always gave him the opportunity to speak his mind and never interrupted or cut him off from speaking. Compare this with Sean Hannity, who claims that Barack Obama used to be affiliated with known terrorists and probably has never had a non-conservative view on his show.

Granted, I sometimes feel that Maher can take it too far. Last season he did a show where he said that those who go to college and are getting a degree in something other than computer science or engineering are doing "bullshit." I got his point about how some college degrees don't necessarily prepare students for work in the 21st century, but his argument rang totally false when I found out that he got a degree in English from Cornell.  Despite this one complaint, the show is informative, intelligent, and immensely entertaining.

Sources:

-Bill Maher and Grover Norquist
-Bill Maher on College

Vote "Kony" For President!!!

I first heard of Joseph Kony, and the Lord's Resistance Army(LRA), in October 2011, when I read in the Washington Post that President Obama had authorized the deployment of 100 SOF operators to Uganda to kill or capture Kony and crush his army. Just this past week, the video "Kony 2012", produced by a non-profit group called "Invisible Children Inc.", went viral and was the talk on the news and in social media. The purpose of the film is to inform people around the world about Joseph Kony and the atrocities he has committed (Such as the use of child soldiers). While the intentions of the film are certainly noble, it oversimplifies the serious problems taking place in the region and routinely glosses over relevant facts.

Most notably, Joseph Kony has not been in Uganda for 6 years. Both him and his army retreated from Uganda after a number of military offenses by the Ugandan Army in 2006 and are most likely located in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, south Sudan, and parts of the Central African Republic. This is only mentioned in passing in the film. Also, saying that he has over 30,000 child soldiers at his disposal is also disingenuous: the current LRA numbers most likely in the hundreds, not the thousands. Additionally, the Ugandan Army has also been accused of some of the same types of atrocities that Kony and his army are most notorious. The Ugandan government can also hardly be called "democratic"when its legislature is currently considering a bill that makes homosexuality punishable by life in prison (originally it was to be a capital offense punishable by death).

All of this brings us to the question of "Why did this video go viral?" I think it's because people want to feel that they are connected to a cause bigger than themselves. Devoting oneself to a cause to help those less fortunate around the world is extremely noble. But I think that in this day and age, people feel that making a difference is only one click away. That by reposting or retweeting this link, they have helped to capture a war criminal. This satisfaction is false. Changing the world--really making a difference--is extremely hard. If it wasn't, everyone would be able to do it and it would lose its importance. 

It's too bad that it only takes slick production values and Facebook to make a video popular. If people turned on the news once in a while, they would know that atrocities are already taking place in Syria as we speak.

Sources:

-Foreign Policy Magazine Blog
-Huffington Post Article focusing on criticism of "Kony 2012"
-BBC article about Anti-Homosexual bill in Uganda