The Night Sky is Beautiful

I went out tonight to smoke my pipe and ended up staring at Mars for a bit. Ever since I was a child I've loved the night sky, loved the vast expanses of space. It makes one feel so insignificant at the same time it makes one feel so special.

Despite all the problems of this planet, I still have hope. I suppose part of that hope stems from the fact that I believe that all men are truly good, but it also stems from the NEED to believe in something better, the NEED to have that hope. Without that hope I'm nothing but a broken man, but with that, I will conquer mountains.

As I've been putting together this idea for my div3, I've been trying to get at the heart of what I believe. I suppose that's a life long quest, but having to work out an articulation of this division 3 has helped me in more ways than one. It's also given me something that, at this point, I would love to dedicate my life towards.

Here's the div3, sans corrections yet to be put forth to me by my committee:

The Ethical Obligations of States to Non-Citizens

A Division Three in Three Parts

I. Ethical Obligations of States to Integrate Non-Citizens into National Populations

II. Case Study: Britain After July 7^th, 2005 – the Failure of Racial Integration in the U.K. and the Future of Integration

III. Making a Case for International Law: Using the British Example and E.U. Law as a Starting Point for Global Application of Integration

What obligations do nations have towards non-citizens in their nations? That is, what responsibility does a government bear to integrate, not assimilate, immigrant or minority populations which lack full citizenship into the larger polity? Are there ethical obligations that a government must fulfill, both to its citizens and non-citizens within its territory, in terms of integrating minority populations into the majority, or should the considerations which motivate states to integrate non-citizen or immigrant populations be purely practical ones? Should integration be approached from a humanitarian standpoint? Should states work towards healthfully integrating minority populations into the polity as a whole because a state has a duty to do so? Or should states merely consider the potential conflict that could arise from segregation or discrimination in enacting integration policies?

In order to more fully investigate these questions, I intend to examine the current dialogue in Britain regarding racial segregation and integration. The ongoing debate in Britain has been highlighted since the London bombings of July 7^th, 2005. Since that date, the issue of integration has been moved to the forefront in public discussion. The recent comments by Trevor Phillips, Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, warning that Britain might be ‘sleepwalking to segregation’ have prompted members of the British government to begin to draw up plans to address the increasing lack of integration in British society. Charles Clarke, Britain’s Home Secretary, has set forth proposals to develop a new advisory committee to investigate the extent of racial divisions and put forth solutions on how to correct the problem. To what extent are the current proposals by the British government motivated by humanitarian concerns, or are these plans being motivated by practical politics only?

Using the British attempts to correct the lack of integration, as well as current attempts in the European Union as a whole to address the issues of racial segregation and discrimination, I intend to assert that there are ethical obligations that states have towards non-citizens within their borders, and I intend to use the British and EU approach as either a model for integration worldwide or as an example of what approaches to integration are faulty. Not only should all states work to integrate minority populations into their polity for practical reasons, all democratic states have an ethical obligation to do so.

More on the wonderful world of div3

Whoa! It's entirely possible I've hit upon something with which to narrow and focus my div3, which would cause for joyous and raucous celebration.

Inebriation off the starboard bow, thar she blows!

I'm a little afraid that looking into the ethical obligations of nations towards stateless peoples might be a little too...difficult to cover.

But what about the obligations of states to integrate transmigrant minority populations within their own states? Not assimilation, ala conservative American rhetoric, but integration and being made to feel welcome.

The European Union has been enacting laws and policies to make transmigrant workers feel 'more at home' in the EU members state they work in. This falls under the larger question I wanted to ask...so...whee, maybe?

More in depth tomorrow. Snuggles!

Div3: The Quest for a Case Study to Explore a Larger Question

Alright people. Let's be frank for a minute.

I have two weeks to get my act together and get a div3, and I have no bloody idea in what. I mean, I've got my question, I guess, which is to look at the ethical obligations of nations (or humanity?) towards noncitizens or transmigrants, maybe? Or the ethical obligations of nations to peoples not of their nation? Essentially, the ultimate question is 'What is the responsibility of people towards other people?'

But I need a case study. I need something, some legal case or precedent, that I can examine to get a better understanding of this subject. Because I can't ask those questions, they're all too big.

But I want to use European Union Law as a part of this, because I want to argue that since the EU has applied it (which means I need to get into Justice and Home Affairs) to 25 nations that it can be applied on an international level, and thus should apply all over the world.

I mean, it's idealistic, but then, I'm an idealist.

What this all means is that, in all likelihood, I'm probably screwed.

I don't know. Need to email a few people, and then I'm off to bed.

The Promise of a Generation

My life has been one of promise amounting only to mediocrity. That needs to change.

There comes a point in a man's life, or a woman's life, depending on your sex, where he is on the edge. The edge of a precipice, the edge of a knife, the edge of something, and this something is truly and undeniable important. This is what separates the men from the boys, so to speak, what differentiates between those who amount to something in this life and those who never amount to anything. And, I'd really rather not fall into the latter category.

I know that it's very possible I've taken the first few steps along this edge, and I'm teetering back and forth between finding what I need to find for self-fulfillment and being unable to find my niche.

In a meeting recently I was told that there comes a time when someone has to decide on their niche, that thing which they want to do for the rest of their life. Or, at least, that thing that they should focus on at this stage in their life. And I'm in the middle of the process of discovering what that thing is for me. I'm not sure what I want to focus on, in education or in life.

My problem has been, partially, that I have always considered myself a generalist. I never wanted to be a specialist; I would much rather know little bits of information about lots of things than a ton of information about one or two specific things. In this day and age, however, that doesn't fly, so to speak. You can either get with the picture and carve our a niche for yourself or wind up unhappily spending the rest of your life floating from job to job and relationship to relationship. You need that focus, if only to give you a sense of purpose.

And the question for me is, what should be my focus? What do I, deep in the very core of my being, wish to specialize in? And, am I ready to make that decision, only knowing what little I know? I have so much yet to learn, and so little time in which to do it.

My life, one which could be infinitely better than it is right now, has stumbled. I have mounted the ladder of success only to get stuck a bit above the bottom rung, but I hope and think that I'm about to find my footing. And I need that footing, that grounding, in order to continue.

Lately, I've been intrigued by a combination of issues, from International Ethics to U.S./E.U. relations to the philosophical underpinnings of a liberal society and the problems inherent in liberalism. Part of me is compelled to ask 'Why should the Right have pre-emenence over the Good? Is not the Good far more important?' Part of me wants nothing to do with that question, since the realm of philosophy is one which causes me enormous amounts of grief. Yet I chose to study philosophy and politics because the two are intimately connected and I am called by them.

If I ask the question 'Isn't the Good prior to the Right in terms of importance? Shouldn't the Good be prior to the Right?' how do I narrow it down? How do I make that manageable? For a div3, what can I do, what real world issue, will allow me to explore that question by exploring that issue?

Basically, where I begin is with the question 'Do we, as human beings, have a responsibility to other human beings?' Where I go from there, however, is a mystery.