Twitter, Garbage

According to its website,

"Twitter is a service for friends, family, and co–workers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?"

It then explains,

"Why? Because even basic updates are meaningful to family members, friends, or colleagues—especially when they’re timely.

* Eating soup? Research shows that moms want to know.
* Running late to a meeting? Your co–workers might find that useful.
* Partying? Your friends may want to join you."

Now excuse the following rant, but ...

Evidently, I am not entirely against new media. I think the idea of broadcasting one's ideas on the web (blogging) can have very meaningful uses. Amongst its many advantages, you can publish thoughts in a modern, accessible way, incorporating all that the web has to offer: links, videos, etc. making for what can often be better-expressed ideas. For example, rather than just reviewing a movie, one can actually link a reader to the clip of discussion. It allows those who might not have the expertise or time for the creation of a real website to contribute in their own way to the web. It also gives people a voice that might not otherwise be heard. Finally, it allows others to quickly and easily respond to what has been said, creating some fragment of a forum, which can be helpful for the purpose of gauging where your thoughts might stand with others.

In essence, a blog provides an opportunity to actually communicate and discuss ideas in a relatively public, profitable and thorough manner.

Blogging has its own downsides. For instance, there are thousands of blogs, and like many things in such vast quantity, their quality varies substantially. There are also issues of copyright and plagiarism that are hard to control throughout the web. (This last, actually, might just be part of a larger problem, relating to the lack of legal foundations with regards to the web...but I won't get into that now.) Yet, in its short lifespan, blogging has really established itself as a reasonable medium for communicating ideas.


Twitter, on the other hand, I see little value in. First, it serves a niche that no one really knew existed. Secondly, it creates what could be described as life spam. Finally, it is the self-sacrificing of one of the last vestiges of privacy (those few moments you have away from CCTV etc.). To no one's surprise, I don't actually really care if someone starts work at 4, just saw the cutest puppy, is craving chocolate cake, has to go to the washroom or is now really relieved that they went go to the washroom. In a society where we are bombarded by 24 hour headlines and snippets, do we really need to create our own? There seems to be more information with less substance than ever before. There are far more important things to concern one's self with than something crammed into 140 characters or less. Technology has facilitated the publishing and dissemination of information; Twitter is a devolution in the advancements in communication this has afforded us.

Rather than force us to enter the trivialities of one's private life, it would be far more fruitful to accumulate those 140 characters and actually write something thoughtful, without abbreviations that someone in their right mind might actually find useful, insightful or remotely interesting. (see other forms of new media to see how - blogging for instance) With the last few ounces of privacy that still remain under our own control, there is no need to give it away using Twitter. I have found that Twitter seems to only emphasized the mundane nature of most people's lives. Next there will be some way for companies to analyze "tweets" so that they might target advertising to individuals. Picture this: you tweet that you are fed up with your phone company. Immediately you receive a phone call from someone trying to sell you a new phone service.

Remember when you had real conversations with people? When you could ask them "What did you do today?" without knowing already every little banal detail? These are questions that Twitter users must answer. The thrill of mystery cannot be understated, nor can the vapidity of the every day lives of the vast majority of people. Keep it to yourself, if you have something real to say, write it articulately and eloquently without character limits. Then, choose your audience purposefully and you will reap the reward of people actually caring about what you have to say.

For now, I will stick to blogging: A medium through which real ideas can be properly communicated.

(Ironically, the guy who helped invent blogspot is the same guy who invented Twitter...I think there is something to be said about lightning not striking twice in the same spot.)

-HG

UPDATE: Total decimation of the Ivory Tower

Okay, so apparently after I write an analytical Renaissance video game in place of a dissertation, I am destined to become an untenured Professor of "Water" who teaches via podcast at the Universities of Glasgow, Miami, and the Moon... while Mark Taylor's NYT op-ed does point out some of the major problems with academia and I do agree with some of his suggestions, I'm pretty sure that shunting expertise in favor of impossibly amorphous zones of inquiry will not solve anything...

Other discussions on trouble in the ivory tower can be found here, here, and if you're particularly adventurous, here!

- JK

Theatre and the Third World

Sierra Leonean students rehearsing Julius Caesar

For the better part of a decade, I've been trying to justify why I think that public theatre can be a valuable investment in developing countries. Although my own focus has been on Sierra Leone, (if you're curious, you can read about my exploits here--complete with fun pictures!) I believe that in most contexts, theatre can serve as an important medium for reflecting, processing, and transforming social norms and can be especially instructive in a society that is undergoing changes.

My strong belief in the power of public theatre stems from more than just my personal affinity for Shakespeare. In fact, I think an important link can be drawn between how the theatre was used in early modern England, and how it might be used in developing countries today. Drama in the Renaissance was more than just passive entertainment; it used a familiar mode of theatrical discourse that extended to many areas of daily social interaction. Early modern society was deeply histrionic at all levels: merchants in the Exchange, prostitutes in Bankside, medical doctors, and royal processions, all employed a performative language for a particular end, whether it was to attract customers, convince the sick that they were convalescent, or display the extent of one's political power. In contrast to the subsequent bourgeois era, which used the printed word more and more to shape public understanding, the Renaissance used spectacle. In a world where print culture has yet to become mainstream, spectacle remains the most accessible way of interpreting society. Of course, public theatre doesn't have to look like Shakespeare's Globe; it can be street theatre, radio plays and readings, anything that invites an audience to listen and think critically.

Obviously I am not suggesting that public theatre will solve all problems, particularly in developing nations. I am merely arguing that it can be an important institution for encouraging critical reflection upon one's environment and this ability is absolutely essential for citizens of developing countries like Sierra Leone, if they are to actively shape the direction that their nation takes, particularly after violent conflict.

For detractors who would argue that there is no money for such enterprises, or that these must be secondary concerns for people who lack even basic necessities, I would argue that I have seen the opposite to be true. A rich cultural life must grow alongside practical development such as infrastructure and education; indeed, cultural enrichment is essential because it helps to bolster tangible growth. It is a myth (part of the western hierarchy of needs that has defined and derailed so many aid missions) that intellectual and artistic endeavours cannot flourish in a society whose food is not as bountiful, whose water is not as clean, or whose democracy is not as mature as ours.

- JK

Inmates of the Ivory Tower

Professor Joseph Nye's op-ed on the growing divide between the Academy and the Real World in the IR field has sparked discussion (or should I say, intergalactic war) amongst bloggers, with a particularly geektastic entry from the Duck of Minerva:



Highlights from Nye's article:

Scholars are paying less attention to questions about how their work relates to the policy world, and in many departments a focus on policy can hurt one's career. Advancement comes faster for those who develop mathematical models, new methodologies or theories expressed in jargon that is unintelligible to policymakers. [...]

Some academics say that while the growing gap between theory and policy may have costs for policy, it has produced better social science theory, and that this is more important than whether such scholarship is relevant. Also, to some extent, the gap is an inevitable result of the growth and specialization of knowledge. Few people can keep up with their subfields, much less all of social science. But the danger is that academic theorizing will say more and more about less and less.

As a solution to this, Nye proposes "a reappraisal within the academy itself", suggesting

Departments should give greater weight to real-world relevance and impact in hiring and promoting young scholars. Journals could place greater weight on relevance in evaluating submissions. Studies of specific regions deserve more attention. Universities could facilitate interest in the world by giving junior faculty members greater incentives to participate in it. That should include greater toleration of unpopular policy positions.

Nye's comments may be true enough with regards to political science, but as a scholar hailing from an even more obscure corner of academia, the discussion makes me wonder whether these solutions might be applied to other disciplines.

Trying to envision a classicist or english scholar attempting to be 'relevant' brings a laughable image to mind. Just as a dalliance with real policymaking can scuttle an IR tenure review, an academic whose work is accessible enough to show up in a newspaper column or, God forbid, Borders, will likely be tossed out to rot with the rest of the tenureless pop-scholars. If academics are becoming less and less relevant, it is a prison largely of their own making and one they occupy somewhat smugly.

Time was, universities were the seedbeds of intellectual innovation. The Oxford and Cambridge University Presses were among first printing houses in England and, throughout periods of authoritarian press control, helped disseminate information that could not be printed in London. The illustrious alumni of these institutions went on to become world leaders, men and, later, women who not only redefined the contexts of their time but shaped new discursive possibilities for society today.

But things have changed. With the myriad means of expression available, people now acquire their information from other sources. The movement toward specialization and abstraction that Nye and Drezner recognize in their faculties is in fact a problem with the very nature of the institution. Rather than reevaluate their function within society, academics increasingly withdraw from it, embracing their irrelevance with self-congratulatory resignation. If Plato knew then that he would be derided for stating that the City would never have rest from its evils "until philosophers are kings" how much more absurd would his claim seem today? Socrates argued that only with the marriage of wisdom and political greatness could "our State behold the light of day", but the species of wisdom produced by modern universities is only tenuously linked to the practical skills needed for effective participation in society.

Why, then, should the Academy change? Why must universities play an active role instead of concentrate on being a self-contained factory of thought? I will refrain from spouting sentimental fluff on the advancement of thought and duty to humankind, but I do believe that one of the most inspiring features of our time is a trend toward greater integration between branches of society. The potential for mutual enrichment is too high to disregard.

For those who would object that academics must be free to frolic in a haven of pure thought if they are expected to generate great scholarship, it is essential to reflect upon what 'great scholarship' has come to mean. Too often in academic communities, 'greatness' is measured in a work's denseness, sophistication and, yes, abstractness of thought. Not only does this scale place disproportionate value on distance from lay knowledge but, all too often, it rewards bad writing. If it is to remain a valuable institution for producing knowledge, academia must give up the pardoning of irrelevance for the sake of maintaining a divide between the layman and the scholar. This is not to say that all academic work must in some way be accessible to the general public but it should be remembered that much of the 'art' that is studied in liberal arts was created for precisely this sort of consumer. Shakespeare wrote for a throng of bellowing, hooting, whistling, weeping spectators--his scholars would do well to keep that in mind.


-JK

Political Style

For a minute, it seemed like politics had regained some popularity in the United States. Electoral pre-amble seems to reignite some sort of flame under the American people, yet when push comes to shove, the voter turnout is always the same. It seems every electoral year, politics falls out of style faster than FUBU. Why?

I’m not sure that I have the answer to this question in entirety, but perhaps delving into a discussion on the matter will enlighten us in some respects.

In fact, this incipit is not entirely true. We quite enjoy politics… just in a different way.
Our fascination extends beyond our brief courting of it pre-election: think Jacqueline Onassis Kennedy, Che Guevara’s face, Churchill’s cigar, Mao’s Mole, Ben Franklin’s glasses… you chose the icon. We are obsessed with the grand images of leaders of old. The politics of today are what bores us.

Why do we remember them?

In one superhero movie, the following is said “People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy and I can't do that as Bruce Wayne. As a man I'm flesh and blood, I can be ignored, I can be destroyed; but as a symbol, as a symbol I can be incorruptible, I can be everlasting.” Another prevalent scholar noted “Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince, a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavour only to avoid hatred, as is noted.”

The point is that image is everything if you want to “live forever” in the minds of the people. Batman realized that by using a costume he allowed himself to approach some form of immortality. Machiavelli’s The Prince is a manual describing which tactics to employ so that the prince might retain power. He dwells on the Prince’s image in the eyes of his people … and how to make the longest-lasting impression on them. It can be seen as a way for the prince to achieve immortality.

It seems that the image of the statesmen goes through a couple stages. The intention, as prescribed by Machiavelli, is to create a long-lasting reputation. Some do this with policy, others with physical image. However, time dictates how one appears in the annals of history. Therefore, despite their efforts, statesmen (and stateswomen) have a tendency to have a different legacy from the one they had imagined. To quote Gladiator, “How will the world speak my name in years to come? Will I be known as the philosopher? The warrior? The tyrant...? Or will I be the emperor who gave Rome back her true self?”

The stages:

First, there is an attempt to establish one’s self as an icon, that is a figure that is timeless, that will be remembered. (essentially the above-outlined ideas) The purpose of this is to create some type of legacy, a way to be remembered past one’s tenure as leader. Just look at the final terms of many past presidents or any King or Queen. Remember Qin Shi Huang’s Terra Cotta warriors? Or King Tut’s tomb?

Secondly, the “icon” image becomes something comparable to a costume. Consider Churchill’s cigar, Lincoln’s beard or Napoleon’s style. Were these accessories really necessary?

Lastly, as historical distance separates the present from these past characters, there is a branding stage. Yes, like marketing branding. Look at Che’s face… look at what Obama’s profile is becoming. The artist who created the now famous red white and blue Andy Warholesque pop-art campaign poster is selling his pieces for thousands of dollars. The idea is that an icon achieves something approximating logo status. Consequently, important figures are distilled into trademarks rather than ideas.

From our present vantage point, we can identify most of these historical characters. Unfortunately, they remain just iconic faces in our memories. Was Churchill a conservative or a liberal? Did you know that Napoleon was one of the first heads of state to provide Europe with a legal code? It is one of the most influential documents in the history of law. Did you know that John Fitzgerald Kennedy, America’s darling president, increased American forces in Vietnam from 800 to 16, 300 in what some historians consider the point of no-return culminating in the Vietnam war? Why then is he so popular? Because his wife was one of the most influential figures in style in the last 100 years?

In essence, my fear is that we forget what truly made these figures important. Though we undoubtedly will remember Barrack Obama as America’s first African American President, it is my fear that his promises (and presumably, or rather hopefully, his policies) will be equally recalled: multilateralism, universal healthcare, separation of state and interest groups etc. Somehow I sense that a hundred years from now, his photogenic looks and oratory skills will overshadow his actions.

"I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man [woman] whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him [her]. Will he [she] gain anything by it? Will it restore him [her] to a control over his [her] own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to swaraj [freedom] for the hungry and spiritually starving millions? Then you will find your doubts and your self melt away."

Like Ghandi’s talisman, we should remember icons for what they represent, political persons for what they stood for.

Resurrection of the Writ: Habeas Corpus and Boumediene v. Bush

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court announced its decision regarding Boumediene v. Bush. In opposition to the 2006 Military Commissions Act (MCA), the court ruled that prisoners at the Guantánamo Bay detention facilities retained the right to habeas corpus. The ruling upholds the detainees’ rights to due process, making it possible for them to challenge their confinement in civilian courts.

Image source: McClatchy

Since June 12^th, opponents of the decision have flooded opinion outlets with melodramatic—and often ill-informed—editorials, amplifying the paranoias of the American public. Senator John McCain regards the ruling as “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country,” while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich calls it “a disaster, which could cost us a city.” In the right-wing media, reactions have been similarly sensational. Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol has called upon Senator McCain to promise legislation that would undermine the court’s decision, while CNN host, Glenn Beck, has suggested a solution of his own: “We're going to shoot them all in the head. If we think that they're against us, we're going to shoot them and kill them, period.”

CNN's Glenn Beck weighs in on Supreme Court decision

On the other hand, advocates of the decision have been equally immoderate in their rejoicing. The New York Times has championed the court ruling as a “stirring defense of habeas corpus.” Other liberal media have framed Boumediene as a narrow escape that has salvaged the national character of the United States. Such rhetoric often disregards the serious political implications of the ruling. Neither extreme is prudent; in order to prepare for its possible ramifications, it is essential to consider the ruling in a sober light. While this entry does not aspire to analyse the legal technicalities of Boumediene, it will attempt to offer a few additional thoughts that may not have been audible amidst the frenzied dogmatic din.

Dissenters have opposed Boumediene for two major reasons: 1) It grants non-US citizens undue legal protection and rights and thereby endangers the American public. 2) In overruling the MCA of 2006 as an unconstitutional suspension of the habeas writ, the judiciary has challenged both executive and congressional powers, thereby overstepping its jurisdiction.

To the first point, opponents have suggested that opening US courts to “foreign enemy combatants” offers them unprecedented reign to abuse the legal system. The predominant fear is that courts will be flooded with “hundreds” of habeas corpus writs at the expense of the American taxpayer. Worse still, high-profile dissenters have propagated the paranoia that released detainees will “[return] to terrorist activities” and jeopardize national security.

With regards to there being no precedent for offering constitutional rights to non-citizens, Justice Kennedy writes in his majority opinion: "It is true that before today, the Court has never held that non-citizens detained by our Government in territory over which another country maintains de jure sovereignty have any rights under our Constitution. But the cases before us lack any precise historical parallel. They involve individuals detained by executive order for the duration of the conflict that, if measured from September 11, 2001, to the present, is already among the longest wars in American history." Justice Kennedy goes on to examine whether the provisions under the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) of 2005 are a sufficient alternative to habeas; he concludes that they are inadequate. Although Justice Scalia argues in his dissent of Boumediene that prior to this decision, there was “no suspension of the writ [of habeas corpus],” while no explicit suspension occurred, the Military Commissions Act (2006) created a resilient legal framework that made it practically impossible for detainees to contest their imprisonment; thus, for six years, hundreds of detainees were held without trial.

Senator McCain speaks during a town hall meeting in Pemberton, NJ

Image source: Associated Press

Under the MCA, prisoners who are designated (or await designation as) “enemy combatants” do not have the right to habeas appeal. This designation is established through a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) hearing; however, the MCA does not impose deadlines for the government to provide a hearing. Because there is no time limit, detainees can be held indefinitely without receiving a CSRT hearing. To cap it off, detainees are "legally prohibited from petitioning any court for any reason" prior to a CSRT hearing.

Thus, with the MCA, the Bush administration established an intractable legal knot that made it possible to detain prisoners indefinitely, essentially denying them even the most fundamental human rights. As an additional note, the claim that between 30 and 37 released detainees "return to terrorist activity" is simply false. Justice Scalia cited the statistic in his dissent; the number has since been repeated by Senator McCain, among others. A recent report by Seton Hall, however, establishes that the claim is “belied by all reliable evidence.” The report reveals that the number came from a 2007 Senate Minority Report, which in turn was based on erroneous information from the Department of Defense. (The DOD retracted its own statement in a 2007 press release.)

Regarding the second major objection, conservative commentators have proclaimed that we have reached a situation of "rule by judiciary" because the Supreme Court (the only unelected branch of government) has struck down both legislation passed by Congress and actions taken by the Executive. While it is not unusual for the Court to rule certain executive wartime powers as unconstitutional, as Ilya Somin's analysis aptly points out, "This is a nearly unprecedented situation where the Court rejected an important assertion of wartime power backed by both of the other branches of government." Nevertheless, although such occasions are rare (the last example occurred during the Civil War,) they are not unconstitutional. Indeed, the judiciary exists as an independent branch specifically to check the power of Congress and the Executive. Some opponents argue that Boumediene extends its protection too far and that amendments to the DTA would have been more prudent; however, as Justice Kennedy discusses, the DTA was too seriously flawed for minor adjustments to have been sufficient or effective.

In addition, the Court's ruling is by no means the final word. Congress retains the power to override Boumediene using the Suspension Clause. Under this clause, Congress may enact legislation that limits the right to habeas writ for specific types of detainees. Thus, by no means has the Court usurped both legislative and executive power, it has merely performed its constitutional function as a counterweight to the other branches of government.

Prisoners on the way to Guantánamo

Image source: Road to Guantanamo

As a final note, underlying the dialogue that surrounds Boumediene is the tacit notion that detainees at Guantánamo are treated as guilty until proven innocent: a principle fundamentally opposed to the spirit of numerous international human rights treaties, including the third Geneva Convention. From an ethical perspective, whether these detainees are guilty or innocent is beside the point: in addition to the provisions in Common Article Three, Article 103 of the third Geneva Convention stipulates:

Judicial investigations relating to a prisoner of war shall be conducted as rapidly as circumstances permit and so that his trial shall take place as soon as possible. A prisoner of war shall not be confined while awaiting trial unless a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power would be so confined if he were accused of a similar offence, or if it is essential to do so in the interests of national security. In no circumstances shall this confinement exceed three months. (Emphasis mine.)

The MCA stripped Guantánamo detainees of their right to fair trial and “prohibit[ed] detainees from citing the Geneva Conventions as a legal basis for challenging their imprisonment or for seeking civil damages for their mistreatment.” (Washington Post, Sept. 22, 2006). Far from granting undeserved rights, the Boumediene ruling restores the detainees' basic status as human beings. Although the decision is certainly broad, (and may not have been the only--or even the best--way to protect detainee rights,) it is a just baseline; although suspension legislation may still limit the rights of certain suspects, under Boumediene, all detainees begin with the basic right to habeas corpus.

Ultimately, the ruling sets an imposing precedent for future treatment of detainees; however, it demonstrates the important fact that even while protecting the nation, it is possible and therefore essential to uphold basic human rights. To lose sight of this is to lose sight of the very principles that we are attempting to protect.

- JK

p.s. After an eight-month investigation, McClatchy has just published a remarkable study of detainee treatment in Guantanamo; it includes interviews with over 66 detainees and I'd encourage anyone who's interested to read it!

"You old as f*ck. For this club, you know, not for the earth"

Bouncers haven't started barring me from clubs yet, and I do still get ID'd in a city where the legal drinking age is 18, but I've started to feel really old lately. I think it started when the cute surfer guys with the spiky hair that I was trying to chat up began talking about how excited they were to party after graduation. From high school.

I am an accidental cougar. It's bad enough to be robbing the cradle, but worse when you don't even realize it. Hey, it's all good, I'm young too right? Wrong. We old, We old as f*ck.

warning: jailbait

In a couple of years my close personal friends will legally be able to do things like cut people open and remove everything from diseased gums to livers (thank you very much, jagerbombs). The same individuals who once ran headfirst into their own chimneys and who had to be practically carried into a taxicab because their shoes were broken. And covered in vomit. My friends are (or soon, anyways) accomplished and published scientists, certified accountants, bar managers, hotel venture capitalists, actuaries and lawyers. They work for google. They are responsible for the math skills of brooklyn third graders. It's like we're real people! With real jobs! We don't take spring break, we take time off. If people screw up, death could be involved, or worse, a whole lot of money to fix that electron microscope.



I feel old, but why don't I feel like an adult yet? Maybe because I'm still essentially freeloading off my parents and my most recent personal accomplishment was going to seven bars in one night and not having a hangover. My only responsibility right now is to make enough money to pay the rent for my shared room that lacks a door and to feed and water myself without getting scurvy. And this is me in my "financially independent and thus responsible" phase because next year, whilest I may be doing more productive things with my time, I will be living entirely off my parents' dime (and apparently, dropping sick rhymes).

I am exactly the kind of person they write about in newspaper articles with titles like "Time to Leave the Nest" (Globe and Mail, Sept 14 2007) which concludes, "Those who live under parents' roofs simply because it is the easiest and most comfortable thing to do, however, must recognize that the twenties are not a prolonged adolescence. They are adults. Time to launch."

Ouch. Yes, I feel guilty for being five years and $20,000 in tuition from my high school days and not any closer to financial independence. Why must they taunt me with statistics that tell me that by the time my grandmother was my age she had already secured a husband and popped out two children? And if the media isn't guilt-tripping me about my selfish prolonged adolescence, it's making me depressed about low starting wages, quarterlife crises, the increasing costs of education, and how I'm part of the "houseless generation" who will never be able to afford a home. Apparently our generation is a bunch of underachievers. "Fewer 20-Somethings Reaching Adult Benchmarks" they proclaim (ABC News April 21 2005). "Today's 20-somethings will be the first who won't do better than their parents. A college education doesn't deliver the same promises that it once did." Well, that's just great, guys.

the promise of a college education.

But, at the same time, I don't think the idea that your 30's are the new 20's is necessarily all bad. It begs the question, well then what does that make your 20's? In response, sociologist Dr. Frank Furstenberg of the University of Pennsylvania has defined a new life stage of "early adulthood." In his article "Growing Up is Harder to Do" he explains that early adulthood is not simply an extension of adolescence, unlike what the mass media would have you believe. "Young adults," as he calls us "are physically mature and often possess impressive intellectual, social and psychological skills. Nor are young people today reluctant to accept adult responsibilities. Instead, they are busy building up their educational credentials and practical skills in an ever more demanding labor market." Ha, so there, we aren't just a bunch of losers who can't make it in the real world and crumble under the pressure.

I agree with Dr. Furstenberg that rather than trying to hold the young people of our generation to the standards and timeframes of those previous, society should revise what is considered the "normal" age of full adulthood as well as the definition of "adult" itself. While in the 1950's and 60's the notion of adulthood was firmly associated with marriage and child-bearing, a 2002 study by Furstenberg indicated that Americans associated adulthood more strongly with a complete education and financial independence, whereas marriage and parenthood were regarded more as lifestyle choices as opposed to prerequisites.

While a complete education, my own home and financial independence all sound like lovely things which I would like to have one day, I accept that with constantly changing economic forces and social policies, it will take me longer to accomplish than it took my grandparents or parents. I don't consider it a handicap on my part, but simply a different time table. Adulthood is not only about having your finances in order, but also about finding purpose and identity. I know that I am very lucky to have parents who are willing and able to support me in this semi-autonomous state. I realize that it is a luxury to be able to complain about going to school for another four years and not have to worry about building up debts. From this fortunate position, I embrace my 20's, not as someone failing to be fully adult, but as someone who is working on it and enjoying the ride on the way. I realize more and more that there is a world of opportunity available to me to explore that perhaps wasn't as accessible a generation ago. I have languages to learn, seas to swim and foreign foods to eat before I commit to a mortgage. And hey, everyone could use a few extra years of irresponsible debauchery before settling down to paperwork and diapers. "Can't have a bunch of old pregnant bitches running around."


-VH