Yet Another Failed State Institution

I found out that my aunt's husband has been having an affair. This is the second affair in our extended family. It makes me completely lose faith in the institution of marriage. I don't even want to entertain the thought of marriage if this is what it leads to...extramarital affairs...unhappiness, and messy divorces. Are human beings inclined to be monogamous for most of their lives? If so, then why so much cheating? I feel like being faithful is becoming something of an anomaly nowadays. Maybe being social creatures by habit, humans are not meant to exhibit monogamous tendencies. If man-made institutions were not in place to restrict our behavior, would we see many more explicit polygamous relationships?

I think it's totally possible to be committed to someone and not get married. The foundation of trust and devotion has to be there, and that's hard to achieve between two people. That's what so many marriages lack. People get married for the wrong reasons-- because they think they're in love, because they're impulsive, because they want someone to stay with them.

There's a recent New York Times article about civil unions in France that made me think about what it means to be committed to someone. Maybe civil unions are the way to go. You can reap the economic benefits that come with marriage, but it doesn't box you into a corner in case things don't work out in the long run. And then after a while, if you can picture spending the rest of your life with someone, marriage may be the ultimate step.
Civil Unions in France

Hibernation Continues

This just means every time I take Nina outside she's going to want to eat the worms lying around.

Just Saying

"When peace breaks out."
I've never quite understood that phrase. Doesn't it seem oxymoronic in a sense? Breaking out is something objects of chaos do. If peace was a person, he/she would probably...glide out.

I can't even put forth words after watching this. It's like a horrifying reminder of everything that is wrong and sick with the world right now.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/flogging-video-sparks-protest-in-sudan

What a privilege we have here to protest things we disagree with when that very simple action we take for granted is not even accorded to someone else in another part of the world simply because of their gender.

Richard Holbrooke: 1941-2010 | FP Passport

Richard Holbrooke: 1941-2010 | FP Passport

A pivotal figure in US foreign policy has passed away. May he rest in peace.

The Cat's Out of the Bag

Whoo, Wikileaks has now given me new source of information for research! But seriously, what do people expect? International politics is not a saintly game. You can call US foreign policy what you want--deceiving, hypocritical, corrupt--but no country escapes such accusations. This huge leak just confirms what any person with common sense has known all along.

Speak Softly and Share the Big Stick

“We have moved from the cold war era of bipolar reality through the brief bubble of sole superpower unilateral fantasy into a world of a new multipowered system which requires old-fashioned balance-of-power diplomacy,” Mr. Rothkopf said. The result, he said, may be that “all of a sudden, the old cobweb-infested State Department is more important than it’s been in many, many years.”
--David Rothkopf, author of Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power, in a recent New York Times article

I wonder what American society will be like if in our lifetime the authority of the most powerful country in the world dissolves. The what-says-what-goes attitude of the US has fostered a society of people who can afford to not preoccupy themselves with foreign affairs and be educated about global issues. Can we ordinary Americans afford to be ignorant about issues outside of our borders--issues that are integral to our country's welfare--the day we're no longer the hegemon of the pecking order? Two things might happen. One is that there will increasingly be a discord between what the American public wants, i.e. demands made on the domestic level, and what the US needs to do on the international front. It's undeniable that American unilateralism is being increasingly challenged, whether it's from push or pull factors. This could very well make multilateralism the most viable way of conducting diplomacy in the foreseeable future, especially if the US is looking to slow down the ability for unilateral decision-making by a few other unnamed rising powers in the world. So then what? What if the public doesn't enjoy this seemingly compromising way of the US managing international affairs, especially if it may adversely affect the economic and socio-political situation at home?
The other thing that might happen is it may compel a generation of Americans to become interested in international affairs. Maybe we'll start asking questions, become interested in world history, educate ourselves on what past and present US foreign policy has been..we'll start talking about these things and caring...and maybe then the local media won't relegate foreign affairs news to a 2 minute clip or a blurb. It'll be...a revolution! Probably? Maybe? Perhaps?

I'm devastated that the New York Times is going to require a paid subscription for its services next year. Where am I going to turn to for free, informative, unabashedly liberal-slanting news? I don't want to read things outside of my worldview--it's a highly discomfiting feeling.