Molotov Cocktail

I just want it to be known that the titles of these class notes are taken directly from my notebook, which means they were uttered or inspired by the lecture.

Today in class we talked about Infoseeking vs. Confirmation Seeking behaviors. Infoseeking describes those who legitimately are looking for more information on a given subject, whereas confirmation seekers are only tuning in to opinions and facts that reaffirm their previously held world view.
Clearly, one of these behaviors is conducive to a thoughtful approach, and the other isn't. However, confirmation seeking happens in many more circumstances than we may realize. The example brought up in class was of the campaign debates. Those people who tend to watch the debates also tend to be a certain type of people, who go to debate watch parties and follow politics closely. Those who prefer the sound bite approach to debates will wait until the next day -- when the sound bites are released.

(1) How can the populace be more engaged in the electoral process?
(2) Where do Confirmation Seekers originally get their beliefs?

In answer to (2), I believe that probably a mixture of formal and informal education contributes to the formation of schemas and biases. Parents, culture, and other experiences all contribute. So as easy as it is to criticize confirmation seekers, it is necessary to note that they are only seeking media that confirms things they know from real life. Are information seekers changing their "real" world to fit things they hear from talking heads?

Iranian perception of the satellite shootdown

Wednesday's successful shootdown of the rogue satellite provoked an interesting reaction by the Iranian press. The most viewed article on the site, the overall impression is of a deceptive Pentagon that underestimates the intelligence of the world. The article reads into the motives of the Pentagon, plainly stating:

The operation to shoot down the orbiting spacecraft was clearly designed to send a message to both Russia and China, America’s two major competitors in the race for military dominance in space.

Furthermore, the article criticizes the Pentagon's fear of leaking hydrazine from the satellite in light of its previous decision to use Agent Orange in Vietnam.
Though it would be easy to write off the comparison as ludicrous, this illustrates a peculiar aspect of Iranian-American relations. To Iran, a country of long history and memory, the actions of a government taken within 50 years constitute a continuation of policy, though no American would say that the presidencies of Johnson and Bush 43 are anywhere near so linked.
The article ends ominously:

...once you start shooting down satellites in space, for whatever reason, other countries are sure to follow, and before long, there will be mayhem and havoc in the heavens (as well as on Earth)!

This doomsday approach to the militarization of space aligns Iran more closely with Russia and China, who recently proposed a treaty to prohibit the deployment of weapons in space.

The coverage of the event in the Washington Post is a little more cautious. Noted is the relationship between the satellite take-down and the Russian/Chinese treaty, as well as the potential diplomatic strain. The article's conclusion, however, is ultimately more cynical than its Iranian counterpart. The article quotes proliferation experts as saying that the militarization of space is inevitable, largely because any tool for space defense can be turned around on the offense, as with the Aegis system (or the system successfully tested by the Chinese last year).
And of course, as it is election season (when isn't it?) the journalist inserted a quick tie to the primary candidates:

In a survey of presidential candidates by Washington's Council for a Livable World, Sen. Barack Obama backed a space code of conduct. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she would constrain space weaponization "as much as possible." Republican candidates did not respond.

The political nod is sandwiched in between expert opinions. We discussed in class today the startling lack of media coverage of candidates' foreign policy. The little soundbites in this article give a little foreign policy snack to anyone interested in the issue, and ultimately, the issue probably isn't important enough for any fu

Oil is to blame for... everything

...but what does oil blame its problems on? In class we talked about various factors that impact foreign policy, or the media. Here's a quick scan on necessary factors for determining the price of oil:
Energy companies (broken down: "upstream" companies that extract oil, "downstream" companies that refine), OPEC, Department of Energy, nationalized oil companies (foreign governments), investors, demand of consumers (drivers of cars, trucks, boats, planes, consumers of home heating oil, manufacturers of anything plastic, the military), environmental/clean energy groups and lobbies, alternative energy companies, gasoline retailers, local taxes and restrictions, natural disasters (Katrina wiped out gulf production for some time), accidents (shut down refineries), safety and environmental regulation, transportation costs, weather, litigation.

So go on, pick your raison du jour, and lay it on thick when you complain about how much it costs to fill up at the pump.