Things You Should Watch

This week's video is a bit of a commitment, but I strongly recommend it if you find yourself with an hour to kill. For those of you who have not yet been enlightened, a vast chunk of the BBC's documentary catalog is accessible on YouTube. While there are numerous titles which I would suggest, this particular film surveys the career of Nile Rodgers, one of the most influential minds in American pop music.

For those of you who do not know Niles by name, he is a founding member of the American R&B band Chic, and is responsible for some of the most successful songs, sounds, and bands that have dominated the US pop charts since the 1970s. He's not a bad guitarist either.

Things You Should Watch

This weeks video comes to us from video blogger CGP Grey who, over the past few years, has produced numerous videos explaining and exploring various political and legal oddities that can be found throughout the world. In this video, Mr. Grey (or Mr. CGP, I am not sure) uses an eloquent and subtly arrogant narration to explain the alternative voting system.

We often think of voting in a republic strictly in terms of the democratic system that we have in America, where each person gets one vote and whomever gets the most votes in an election is the winner of that race. Alternative voting is a system where voters can rank candidates based on their desirability in the hopes that the candidate with the highest desirability for the maximum number of people will become a representative. I will let Mr. Grey explain the nuances.

Alien Lands

 

Seeing as I am roughly half way through my residency in Turkey, I feel that now is a proper time to discharge many of the reflective thoughts that have been floating around my head recently. Being abroad is a strange experience. It takes place both up close, spontaneously unfolding right in front of your eyes, and from afar, solidifying slowly in the back of your head. You assume the limbotic identity of both a participant and an observer, struggling to embrace the society you are surrounded by while simultaneously asserting the culture you brought with you.

Fortunately, Turkey does not lend itself well to this dichotomy. The inescapably affable nature of many Turkish people and their communities creates an environment of constant invitation so conducive to eating, drinking, and talking, that I feel a tinge of guilt when not participating in some combination of the three. The subtle beauty of Istanbul's sun stained mosques and cramped streets do nothing to remedy this ever swelling desire to explore, and though the city's sprawl carries on in all directions in a seemingly infinite stretch of terracotta, stone, and cats, it has a way of wrapping you in the warmest bear hug you have ever received, reassuring you that you are exactly where you need to be.

But it is imperative to remember where this perspective is coming from. As impartial as we would like to be, our preconceived notions of any foreign country hinder our ability to experience their communities in a truly unadulterated way. This obstacle is not only present when traveling in other nations: even when traveling between states in America it is hard to shake off the stereotypes that are associated with different regions and their people. When these prejudices are inevitably challenged and you are forced to confront the unexpected, it can lead to a brief, yet potent, feeling of isolation.

It is usually under these circumstances that I retreat to my enclave of fellow American expatriates. By no means would I suggest that these friends are anything but some of the brightest and most genial people I have met on this trip, but there is an indefensible peculiarity about surrounding yourself with your own ilk during an experience that is supposedly motivated by a lust for the unknown. Seeking out the familiar in a new environment is completely natural and healthy, but a reliance on the comfort of the known can easily devolve into apathy, keeping you from going out and absorbing the greater world around you.

The quiet struggle of the abroad experience is between finding a home within a foreign community and continually thrusting yourself beyond what you have already become acquainted with. This push and pull plays out both externally, in the host society in which you are a guest, and internally, as you strive to get the most out of your brief time overseas, and the caution that accompanies this realization is why I now find myself both inspired and reserved.

This dualistic relationship can perhaps best be explained through my recent trip to Cappadocia: a region of Central Anatolia with a topographical personality similar to something out of a Dr. Seuss book. The landscape, with its elaborately carved cliff-face fortresses and towering natural stone obelisks, was wholly alien to me. After a few days, however, the small town in which I was staying had become an oasis of familiarity surrounded by the extraordinary terrain. This affinity was most likely the result the hospitality of the town's inhabitants as well as the high concentration of tourists that were staying there, which lead me to ponder a seemingly appropriate question: was the "authentic" Cappadocia experience to be found in the tourist hub of Göreme, or was it out amongst the strange pillars and labyrinthine canyons of the countryside?

Ultimately I realized that the question was irrelevant. Trying to find some sort of authenticity in any experience implies that there is a wrong way and a right way to go about it, that there are rules by which the experience is governed, and, most damaging of all, that there is a possibility of failure. You cannot fail going abroad. Your experienced is measured by no standards except your own, so if you "fail" it is your own doing. Everybody who makes the decision to uproot and place themselves, physically and culturally, into a different society does it for their own unique reasons. I will admit, sometimes upon hearing those reasons I am forced to bite my tongue, but in the end, you are the final judge of what you gained on these brief trips. Just get out of the house every once in a while.

Things You Should Watch

Being a child of the internet, I feel confident in saying that I have spent the last few years honing my navigation skills on the vast ocean that is YouTube. Trusting in my self-endorsed capability, I have decided that every Monday I will try and post a video that I have come across which I feel is interesting, informative, or entertaining.

This week, I present the inaugural episode of the Crash Course: US History series presented by John Green, the author of the popular novel The Fault in Our Stars. Green, working with the Thought Cafe animation studio, does a wonderful job of explicating the nuances and complexities of American History in weekly segments that usually run shorter than fifteen minutes. If you are interested in US History, but find traditional ways of learning about it a bit daunting, or if you are just bored, I highly recommend the series.

Osmanlı: The Original Pluralists

Seeing as my legs are beginning to buckle under the weight of impending midterms, I figured I would keep this week's post rather short and post something more substantial over the course of the coming week.

We Americans have a tendency to pride ourselves on a shared sense of plurality. This exists in various dimensions in the the United States, be it our cornucopia of dinner options or beer brands or television shows about "Real Housewives", but I like to think, among all else, we have the most self regard for the diversity of cultural identities that exists among the American people. Let me be clear, I do not ascribe to the belief that the United States is a veritable patchwork of peoples who live side by side in some off kilter utopia. American history is primarily the tale of our collective struggle to extend our shared concept of freedom to every person who calls our country home, and we still have tremendous difficulty in doing so, despite our many advances.

Being American encompasses different things to different people, but the fact that we all adopt that common title is what melds us together as a national unit. Immigration is such an integral part of our history that many people can rightfully claim their American identity regardless of where they or their parent emigrated from. The common thread, however, is the recognition, not of an American sense of Nativism, but of the reality that we are a demographic mess composed of the children of every opportunist, reject, inventor, refugee, wealth seeker, slave, and autodidact who settled on our land for one reason or another.

In my infinite ignorance, I assumed that this sense of plurality was something that was unique to the United States. I found, however, that to many Turks, the essence of Turkishness can be derived from a similar mode of thinking. The Ottoman empire (to which the Republic of Turkey is seen as a successor to) was so vast and incorporated so many different populations that it is virtually impossible to truly identify which Turks originally came from what ethnic  lineage. Turkic, Balkan, Greek, Armenian, Arab, Jewish, and a plethora of other peoples intermingled in relative peace throughout a state that stretched from Budapest to Yemen.

Historically speaking, an Ottoman was someone who followed Osman, the 14th century founder of the Ottoman Empire. Prior affiliation, be it ethnic or religious, was irrelevant, as long as your Ottoman identity came first. The Turkish people have adapted this ideology to their modern state: If you identify as a Turk, you are pretty much a Turk. There may be a slight degree of fine print to peruse in regards to this statement, but, for the most part, you can count yourself Turkish. The vast majority of Turks I know see this claim to the right of Turkishness as the main source of authority when it comes to their own national identity, regardless of where their ancestors originated from.

Similar circumstances tend to breed similar ideas, and it is both humbling and fascinating to see a such an important piece of my own national identity shared in a nation so far from my own.

Anyways, back to studying...

Why Study History?

I have received some flack for choosing to study History. The common argument against such a decision holds that a history degree lacks the practicality and applicability of, for example, a computer science or engineering degree. This statement is indisputable, especially in today's economic climate, but it misses the larger point of what it means to examine and decipher our collective past. Few, if any other, fields of study can teach us to think critically, examine data, compromise effectively, be a good boyfriend, write eloquently, cook, wade through ludicrous political rhetoric, and, most importantly, dispel ignorance.

I spent the better of part of last week traveling through the western and central regions of Turkey, a land that epitomizes Mr. Faulkner's idea that the past is not even past. Back home, history is, like so many other things, compartmentalized, often quarantined to museums and national monuments and treated as an intellectual pursuit that is unrelated to our every day lives. In Anatolia, what came before is integrated into society in such an intense way that the chronological line becomes blurred. So blurred, in fact, that it is difficult to tell where a Byzantine Era, stone carved home ends and an Australian themed bar dubbed "Fatboy" begins.

Such a blatant physical connection to the past is rather refreshing to someone who studies history. Even back at school in Washington, DC, quite possibly the most historically conscious city in America, there is a definitive line between historic space and everything else. This unrecognized division between the historical and the mundane has the potential to coat us in a film of simplicity that keeps us from both appreciating the limitless narrative around us, and solving the major problems of that narrative. There is a reason why there are no high-rises downtown, there is a reason District residents do not have equal representation in Congress, and there is a reason the demographic map of DC looks like this.

While the dispersion of historical knowledge can be a powerful tool of education, the wrongful manipulation of such information can be devastating, not just to for academic reasons, but because it breeds a misinformed public. There are few states in the world who are not guilty of executing historical revisionism as a means of emboldening a national narrative. This crime is becoming more and more frequent in the United States as American politicians try and twist historical fact to their own design in order to garner support for their policy decisions. 

Such action can only be combated by striving to stay historically informed. In fact, there are a host of other reasons to regularly pursue the innate human desire to understand the past. You will find yourself in a position where you can win bets, decry liars, and inform your voting decisions. You may learn why Indian food is so spicy, why the U.S. does not love Cuba, or how to avoid civil wars. If you are lucky, you may even develop robust investigative skills, the ability to analyze a plethora of documents and data, and an understanding of why people act the way they do. One day employers will recognize the inexhaustible merit that comes with studying History and I hope, for my own sake, that day comes sooner rather than later.

Half the News That's Fit to Print

Censorship is a touchy subject in Istanbul. Turkey has a history of press restriction, either through direct legal action or occupational expulsion, dating back to their war of independence in the 1920s. These practices have only become more prevalent as public anti-establishment demonstrations continue to agitate the government. The underlying motivation for these policies, especially in recent years, is to protect the Turkish authorities from any form of criticism, making it effectively impossible for journalists to do their jobs.

Before arriving in Turkey, I made an attempt to educate myself about the country's current journalistic climate, mainly because of personal interest and a desire to avoid confrontation with unsavory Istanbul police officers. Despite these efforts, the idea of a society where what is put on television, in a newspaper, or on the internet is dictated by a government committee still seemed wholly foreign to me, perhaps because I was coming from a place where Rachel Maddow, Breaking Bad, and The 700 Club all have relatively equal footing when it comes to viewer access.

For me, there were two things that really solidified the fact that the publishing and broadcasting of information is a controlled effort in this part of the world. The first is the monotony with which printed media is presented in this city. Most news stands carry a plethora of different publications, yet the majority seem to resemble American tabloids in both appearance and content. I consulted with several Turkish friends on the matter and the majority endorsed my suspicions in regards to their quality of reporting.

The second, and certainly more poignant, observation has to do with the now infamous decision made by CNN Turk to air a documentary about penguins rather than cover the developing protests that were taking place in Taksim Square. The penguin has since been adopted by the protest movement as a symbol of disenchantment with and the rejection of an institution that has the potential to do good, but is instead subservient to a creeping authoritarian government. Maybe if the press restrictions were lifted or, at the very least, relaxed, dialogue could replace aggressive assembly as a means of expressing one's view.

I will admit, my gut reaction to the revelation that a free press was essentially nonexistent in this country was of the "that's messed up" variety. Having grown up in the United States, I relish the right to express myself in virtually any way and on any platform that I want to. It could be this near fetishization of free speech and a free press that caused my initial disgust with the Turkish government's press policies. The veritable cocoon of university students that has surrounded me since my arrival is, without a doubt, reinforcing this sentiment.

I suppose it is important to maintain perspective when faced with legal dissonance in regards to personal freedom abroad. As an American, I do not think it is really my place to criticize how this country's administration conducts itself. I also have only discussed the issue with a tiny sliver of Istanbul's population, all of whom seem to be of the same anti-Erdoğan ideology. Perhaps on a national level, these policies are welcomed because they protect the government from dissenting antagonism. After all, the assumption that freedom is a universal value can lead to distorted cultural understanding.

That is not to say that the Turkish people do not engage in constant debate over a whole host of issues; I myself have been involved in conversations ranging in topic from the value of Ataturk's language reforms to how mind boggling it is that we cannot buy alcohol after 10 PM. Dialogue certainly flourishes here, just not in as loud a forum as it does back home. I suppose the real challenge is understanding a relationship between the people and the authorities that differs from what I am use to. At least there's no Nancy Grace here...

A Yankee Abroad

Hello internet. It's been a while. I apologize for my recent lack of proper blog maintenance, but I have been fairly preoccupied with assimilating, to the best of my ability, into my current city of residence: Istanbul. Because of this, I will aim to steer my posts during the next three months away from topics in American politics and more towards musings that concern my displacement out of the United States and into a foreign land.

I hope that this will not mean that The Grappler will develop into another proverbial "travel blog", which, though at times are interesting and insightful, can be of a particularly sensational and narcissistic brood. Instead, I aspire to produce a collection of posts that explore what it means to be a traveler in an unknown place, a guest in another's home, and, perhaps most naturally, an American in Turkey.

During the past few days, I have at times found myself trying to both understand and deconstruct the pervasive, yet subtle, Orientalist predisposition that I believe many Americans (myself included) pick up from various indistinct channels back home in the United States. Though we are certainly further removed from the "East v. West" dichotomy than our forebears were, it is still difficult on occasion to break away from the feeling that we are simply observers, forcing ourselves into the citizenry of some exotic elsewhere.

And yet, this city has such a warmth to it, something that is reinforced by every "hoşgeldiniz!" that greets you whenever you enter a shop or a restaurant. Already, in my short time here, I have met some of the friendliest and life-loving individuals I have ever encountered, and they are often beyond eager to show me every facet of the city that they are so proud to be a member of. The pastel colored stucco and winding, illogical street plan of Istanbul reiterate the fact that this city was not carefully planned to maximize municipal efficiency, but rather grew organically as more and more people recognized this place as their home.

It is at times impossible to resist submission to this land's welcoming embrace and, to an extent, I do not believe that is necessarily a bad thing. A successful voyage in another country should envelope you in experience and make you feel like you are part of the population. It is, however, important to remember that we, as Americans, are still outsiders. I was not raised as a Turk, I would assume that I do not think like a Turk, and, as is evident whenever I open my mouth, I certainly do not speak like a Turk (no matter how hard I try).

Although acknowledging these differences is vital to understanding the experience of travel, dwelling on them would only serve to destroy what would otherwise be one of the most informative practices a human being can engage in. Physically being in another place materializes the world in a way that is impossible to do through reading articles or watching television. Furthermore, living somewhere that has been heavily featured on the news or in films has the potential to dispel many of the myths that these imperfect media ascribe to those lands. 

I have no doubt that my time spent in Istanbul will teach me a great deal about Turkey, the United States, and myself (there's your freebie travel blog cliche). Trying to deconstruct stereotypes about people, places, and experiences is an ambitious task, especially when we come from a country with a culture that is intent on telling us what the world is like according to our own proclivity. It seems to me, however, that all I can do right now is eat my kofte, down my Rakı, and let the balmy Turkish sun char my skin.

Facing the Red Line

At 2:00 PM EST today, Secretary of State John Kerry issued a harsh reprimand of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons on rebel opposition forces and civilians. This statement came in the wake of an attack on a Damascus suburb on Wednesday, August 21st that left hundreds with symptoms of neuro-toxic poisoning.

A proper response to the ongoing violence in Syria has been long overdue. Last August, President Obama warned the Syrian government that the use of chemical weapons would be considered the crossing of a "red line" that would prompt action from the United States. Despite the President's warning, several suspected chemical weapons attacks have taken place in Syria over the past year, none of which elicited a response from the U.S. government.

The military quagmires of both Iraq and Afghanistan have taught the President the value of caution in foreign military involvement, specifically when it comes to the gravity of placing "boots on the ground". Yet while taking a tread-lightly approach to the situation is necessary, Obama must also deal with the growing perception that America's international moral credibility is waning, and is being further hurt by the military's inaction in Syria.

Strategically, the conflict in Syria provides the United States with a plethora of additional complexities to the already tangled web of politics that affects Middle Eastern-American relations. First and foremost is Syria's relationship with Iran, which, for the past decade and a half, has been one of America's main antagonists in the region. On Sunday, Massoud Jazayeri, deputy chief of staff of Iran's armed forces, warned the United States that military intervention in Syria would have serious repercussions. 

In addition to international political complications, there is also heavy influence by Islamic extremists amongst the ranks of the Syrian rebels. One rebel group, the Al Nusra Front, is reported to have close ties with Al Qaeda. It is suspected that those rebel factions aided by Al Qaeda have the capacity to produce and deploy chemical weapons.

All in all, this situation is a mess. It seems unclear who the United States should be supporting, what means we should support them with, and to what end those means are to be used. Politics aside, thousands and thousands of innocent people are being slaughtered and displaced in a conflict that many do not wish to take part in. 

I have included a recent BBC Documentary that does a phenomenal job of providing some context to what is going on in Syria. The film, direct by Robin Barnwell and hosted by Dan Snow, illustrates how the country's recent history can shed a great deal of light on its current struggle. I strongly suggest watching it so you can have a basis for why the country is in its abysmal state.

Documentary BBC - A History of Syria (2013)

Return of the Maverick

In recent days the Obama administration has gained an unexpected ally in the push for immigration reform: his 2008 electoral opponent John McCain. The senator, along with his new political ally Democrat Chuck Schumer, returned from a meeting at the White House with a apparent sense of optimism, something rarely seen in Washington these days. Commenting on the meeting, McCain made it clear that a path to citizenship was a key component to solving the country's inescapable immigration challenge.

This act of bipartisanship comes at a time when Senate Republican leadership is becoming factionalized. While Senator Mitch McConnell still holds sway over many of the chamber's Republicans, McCain and his group of supporters, which includes Sens. Lindsay Graham and Lamar Alexander, are seeking an alternative to the Minority Leader's opposition based way of legislating. McConnell, wary of his looming reelection campaign in 2014, is unlikely to follow McCain's lead and adopt a more bipartisan position.

As McCain inches closer to his former position as Upper Chamber magnate, it is very possible that an increased number of bipartisan deals will be reached on the Senate floor in the coming months. The Senator has the optimum number of colleagues behind him to block filibusters that would prevent him from building his immigration legacy and is showing no signs of putting a stop to the brand of deal making that he become known for.

The Zimmerman Trial and the Ensuing Media Circus

Within minutes of George Zimmerman being declared not guilty, various social media sites were splattered with the opinions of both those who supported and opposed the verdict. Virtually every possible issue that could be connected to the shooting and trial were explored, most prominently gun ownership, problems with the Florida legal system, and racial inequality. Very quickly, it became clear that, in regards to the trial's outcome, people were split down very obvious partisan lines: Liberals tended to dispute the verdict while conservatives were often in favor of it, and each group used the event to support their political agenda. However, the vast majority of comments coming from both sides seem ill-informed and downright disrespectful, all of which was fueled by a media frenzy that surrounded the event.

Drama makes good television. That is just a fact, and it applies to the news as much as it does any other television format. However, the goal of journalistic television is not to entertain (though that seems to have been forgotten in the last decade or two), it is to inform. A murder trial certainly makes for good television, but is debatable whether or not the trial of George Zimmerman is at all relevant to the vast majority of American citizens.

One key argument for all the support being paid to the this trial and the events that surround it are a perfect allegory for the state of racism in the United States. While racial inequality is an abhorrent reality of this nation, this notion that the shooting of Trayvon Martin was racially motivated comes off as manufactured and misplaced. From NBC's editing of Zimmerman's recorded police call to Benjamin Jealous comparing Martin's death to the murder of Emmett Till, various groups and media outlets have trying to force a heavy racial undertone to the trial. This drive to editorialize the event, coupled with a common disregard with information surrounding the actual trial, seems to be leading many to hefty generalizations about the implications of the verdict.

The politicization of the killing of a teenage boy and the ensuing trial is nothing short of a failure by the fourth estate to do their job. Criminal trials are rarely relevant on a national scale and pornographic exploitation of those involved is a misuse of the tools that could be used to educate the American people and spark a serious dialogue about issues of race.

Senatus ad Opus

The Senate's recent burst of activity as a functioning body of government has come as a shock to those who have come to know the upper chamber as a legislative minefield, where few bills get passed and those that do are rather mangled upon exit. A recent Politico article highlights the seemingly overnight 180 that the Senate has undergone in regards to passing new legislature, specifically with immigration reform.

While it is nice to see this group of one hundred elected officials finally doing their job, the amount of praise they should be rewarded for such action should be minute at the most. Election politics are obviously an important factor in deciding whether or not to vote for a bill, but when it is the primary force behind such a decision, it is detrimental to the process and the people.

The fact that super-majorities are almost ubiquitously needed to pass any new laws is a clear signal that the chamber's rules need changing. There is something quasi noble, albeit annoying, about a legislator standing and speaking for hours on end to prevent a vote, but when the mere threat of this action requires sixty senators just to render their threat void, the chamber finds itself at the mercy of the minority. That is not how democracy works.

Elected officials should have one priority: serving the people who elected them. Political squabble should take a backseat when important issues such as student loans and immigration are being debated and voted on, and the Senate seems like it is just beginning to understand this. If only the House can follow suit...

U.S. Arming Syrian Rebels

Last Thursday, President Obama made a long awaited decision to intervene in the civil war that has been taking place in Syria over the past two years. It was confirmed that the United States will provide arms to the rebel forces battling the Syrian Government led by President Bashar al-Assad. Although the administration claimed that it was because of the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons, it is more likely that the decision was driven by a desire to prevent the violence from seeping into surrounding countries. Some politicians, however, chastised the President for not acting quickly enough.

History could help explain why Obama has waited a significant amount of time to take a proactive stance in the conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 90,000 people. First and most obvious, the recent foreign policy quagmires of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars should give the administration a great deal of reason to wander cautiously in regards to intervention in the Middle East. Likewise, last time the United States was faced with a similar opportunity to arm rebels in such a fashion was Operation Cyclone in the 1980s, in which the U.S. Government provided arms and financial aid to the Afghan Mujahideen. While this did help Afghanistan to throw off oppressive Soviet rule, it inadvertently allowed for the later consolidation of Al-Qaeda power.

President Obama is right to help the Syrian people fight for their freedom from a destructive despot, but a degree of wariness is necessary when dealing with such a volatile situation. The extremist groups present on both sides echo an atmosphere similar to the one in Afghanistan that was present thirty years ago.

Looking Through the PRISM

Due to thee abundance of quotations that are attributed to Benjamin Franklin, it seems that everything the American cultural colossus ever wrote down or said can be applied to democratic society in one way or another. His 1775 declaration that "they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety", however, appears particularly relevant in light of the recent news surrounding the NSA's data mining program. Whether or not you agree with the actions of Edward Snowden (the man who leaked the information surrounding the PRISM program), the operations undertaken by the NSA are now out in the open for the public to interpret and, at the very least, warrant a renewed discussion about surveillance in the post-9/11 era.

President Obama's argument in favor of the PRISM program are founded in the pragmatism we have come to expect from the Commander in Chief. He claims that "you can't have 100 percent security, and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience".

While it is quite clear that our current security climate does necessitate some abnormal precautions, secretly gathering large swaths of digital information about people who are, in the vast majority of cases, completely innocent is a great way to lose the public's trust. Additionally, compiling these records without probable cause does seem to test, or possibly violate, the IVth Amendment rights of the entire American population. However, as notions of privacy and property become more abstract in the digital age, what constitutes an unreasonable search or seizure will surely be tinkered with.

The big problem here is lack of transparency. Disenchantment with government has existed in this country since its founding, but it has seemed especially prevalent since the turn of the millennium. Voter turnout in the 2012 Presidential Election was a mere 57.5% of eligible voters, and it is unlikely that it was because the other 42.5% was stuck in traffic. Programs like PRISM may help protect us to a degree, but they create a considerable amount of distrust between the government and the American people. Terrorists may try and hinder out democracy, but an inactive citizenry will bring it to its knees.

Let Her and Falsehood Grapple

Hello!

As an avid user of the internet, I have been considering starting my own blog for a while. After numerous minutes of research and a healthy bout of procrastination, I have finally decided to take my place atop a digital soapbox. My main motivation for joining thousands of other online citizens who feel that their voices should be heard is a drive to exercise my freedom of speech. As a member of a democracy, I feel that it is my responsibility, as well as every other American's, to actively participate in the discussion of all things public and relevant. Such a belief is what inspired the title of my blog, which comes from a particularly brilliant line from John Milton's Areopagitica. The line, "let her and falsehood grapple", is the cardinal thesis of Mr. Milton's argument for an absolutely free press. The late poet believed that the only way for truth to come forth in the public sphere is for all opinions, belief, and idea to be present in the popular dialogue. It is in this spirit that I wish to add my voice to the already abounding digital forum. I hope that the posts to come will generate discussion in any form. Enjoy!