Mugabe: Still In Business (Unfortunately)

Aimee Sobhani
Politics

Few Americans know the true extent of problems in Africa: after all, the media's attention is so focused on the war in Iraq, the impending 2008 Presidential election, and various celebrity scandals that there's little time to cover problem-ridden Africa. Sure, every so often we might hear about Darfur, but there are also many other issues plaguing the African continent. Low life expectancies, famine, disease, poverty, war--these issues all stem from the rampant colonial expansion that occurred until the middle of the twentieth century, but it can be argued that these problems specifically arose from the rise of corrupt, incompetent African leaders that came into power after the expulsion of colonial rule.

One such leader is Robert Mugabe, the current President of Zimbabwe. The term "president" is not the best descriptor for the leader--a more accurate term is dictator. Mugabe has been President since 1980, mainly due to the fact that he has "won" corrupt elections by unbelievable margins (The BBC reports that in the recent June election, Mugabe won by 85%). Mugabe's cronies engage in all sorts of illegal activities in order to secure Mugabe's place in the government. Mugabe's opponents are harassed and intimidated, and voters not casting a ballot for Mugabe can expect to be intimidated as well. In addition, many voters choose not to participate in the elections due to the fact that it is common knowledge that the elections are meaningless.

Why is Mugabe such a threat? Let's just say he doesn't have the best track record. He and his party, ZANU-PF, have ruined the lives of large numbers of Zimbabwe's people through their revolting policies. For example, in 2005, Mugabe's followers destroyed homes in Zimbabwean suburbs because ZANU-PF's opposition party was gaining support in these areas. As a result, many Zimbabweans fled to other countries (especially South Africa), where they are at risk of becoming targets of xenophobic violence.

A decrease in the general well-being of Zimbabweans has accompanied Mugabe's rule. Zimbabwe has the lowest life expectancy in the world; most people only live until their mid-30's. In addition, inflation is rampant; a recent article revealed that inflation in Zimbabwe has reached 1 million percent and could continue rising. Additionally, as in most African countries, AIDS is a huge concern.

So how is the world responding to Mugabe's inability to ensure the health and happiness of his people? Well, it's not. The UN has stated that it believes Zimbabwe's latest elections were unfair, but merely pointing out the obvious is not going to solve any problems. The African Union (AU) has failed to take any decisive action against Mugabe and like the UN, merely voices its concerns about Mugabe's actions. Words, though they may be powerful in some cases, cannot remove Robert Mugabe from office, and they certainly cannot solve the problems faced by Zimbabwe.

Theory of perceptual relativity

Soo-Ryum Yang
Science

I hope everyone had a wonderful 4th of July. Nashville fireworks are OK; the Macy's one in New York is just little better. However, the Nashville Symphony's fireworks-synchronized performance was surprisingly impressive.

Now, back to the topic of this post. My good friend, couple of weeks ago, sent me a link to a very interesting non-fiction article from the New Yorker. The article essentially tried to explain how the classical feedforward pathway of perception misrepresents a more complicated mechanism that relies heavily on feedback and intra-brain processing.

Take for example, the visual system, the most complex sensory system and also, my research specialty. The traditional model of the visual pathway explains how electrical signals travel from the ganglion nerves in the retina to the optic nerves (the highways of neural signals) to the thalamus (a central relay station) to the primary visual cortex (processing area for basic visual features such as orientation and spatial frequency) to the extrastriate cortex (processing area for more complicated visual features such as color, motion, etc). Although this feedforward model suggests a one-way signal direction, it is now known that about 80% of the circuitry between the primary and extrastriate cortex is composed of feedback connections. In other words, when we see, we always (and only) perceive an illusion of a physical reality that has been modified and constructed by the brain. Thus, two different versions of reality arise.

(1) physical reality: the absolute, pure representation of an actual reality; independent of relative perception. (i.e. the green paper emits a certain, absolute unit of wavelength)
(2) perceptual reality: the illusion of a physical reality due to perception; may differ from person A to person B. (i.e. it cannot be ruled out that the brain of person A and the brain of person B will "see" two different colors when viewing the same green paper because brain A is intrinsically different from brain B)

So, is it truly possible to experience or witness physical reality? If physical reality cannot be experienced or "perceived", how do we prove that it exists? How do we define absolutes if the realities of those "absolutes" differ from person to person due to brain differences?

This post-modern theory of perceptual relativity suggests that optical illusion is not only confined to those fun, interesting visual tricks. Rather, optical illusion and illusion of all sensation form the fundamental basis of our perception, and thus our own relative realities.

Is the Bible truly unique?

Eric Strong
Religion

Let’s imagine for a moment that every Bible, every catechism and creed, every Christian writing altogether disappears from the face of the Earth. In fact, let’s pretend that Christianity itself is removed from the world forever. Convince yourself of this scenario by whatever means necessary; perhaps an evil dictator decides to eradicate Christianity, or the rapture occurs, or any number of possible, albeit unlikely, scenarios.

How would the Christian God communicate his “truth” to mankind when all records of this truth are gone?

Now, certainly, you can argue that the scenario described above will never happen: Christianity will never be eradicated from the face of the Earth. And you’re probably right. Successful religions, by definition, have always had means of ensuring that they never completely die out. But it’s strange that God would allow even the possibility of something as important as his only book describing the true way to “salvation” to be lost forever.

In fact, why would God write down what he wanted to tell humanity in a book, anyway? Why use a form of communication that is so widespread, so easily copied? And why use the same kind of communication that most other “gods” have done throughout history? Couldn’t the One True God think of a more special way to communicate Absolute Truth? Perhaps a story told by the stars, or truly “written on our hearts”, as Jeremiah would say? Why place so much significance on the Bible when there are so many more meaningful ways to communicate truth?

Just some thoughts to think about, as you reflect on your views about the inerrancy of the Bible.

Further references:

The Formation of the New Testament Canon

Early Christian Writings

Wall-E, our new favourite liberal

Soo-Ryum Yang
Politics

For those who have not seen the latest Pixar movie, Wall-E, the film is a must-see. It is an ingenious, heart-warming story but also one that has a very serious message about our wasteful consumer habits.

The year is 2700 something, and Earth has turned into a wasteland due to some future Wal-mart-esque company that has taken over the world (it even runs the government... hmm, that's not hard to see) by promoting excessive consumerism and negligence for the environment. The situation has gotten so bad that Earth has become inhabitable, and the humans return to a nomadic life by living in a big Earth-simulating space ship.

Predictably, the tone of the movie is very dismal. The backdrop of Earth as lifeless, deserted toxic field, though animated, seems so real and so possible. Even for a G-rated movie, the message of conservation and environmental protection is undiluted and very much in your face. However, the message does not come across as confrotational, but more of as a motherly warning about the possiblity of a greenless Earth. Sure it stings, but the funny parts make up for it. Trust me.

On a sidenote, the movie pays tribute to many cultural icons, such as Apple (Wall-E watches a movie from an iPod) and 2001 Space Odyssey (Hal reincarnates into an evil, autopilot robot). It also pokes fun at Bush's "stay the course" stratgey as a similarly delusional president from the movie echoes the same words to claim that Earth is beyond repair and that the only way to surivive is to live in outer space.

In retrospect, the movie is so far the greenest film of the year. It will hopefully influence younger kids as they start to think about the need to protect the environment. For the adults, especially the more conservative audience, it will let them know that a movie can be funny, liberal and educational- all at the same time. In the end, the movie is more than a hybrid of Steve Jobs' elegance and Al Gore's inconvenient truth (pun definitely intended); it is a forceful tale that preaches to the next generation, that hugging trees is not only a cool thing, but the right thing to do.