Artful Chaos

The current view for American politics in the year 2020 is confusing. With the way President Trump’s term is going right now and celebrities announcing an interest in campaigning every other month, the future field of politics seems to be chaotic. History has shown however, that no political systems last forever. Some last for hundreds of years, and some last for days. But sooner or later every single political system descends into a form of chaos and is replaced by a new one. Some signs of today’s political climate point to this uncertain future due to ever so divisive party politics, a plummeting reputation among other world countries, and an economic bubble that is ready to burst anytime. Despite this, stability is extremely valuable when running a state. Even though the U.S. has its share of political problems, it is a stable nation with a clear purpose for existing and the strongest military presence in the world. But when the U.S. inevitably reaches the point sooner or later where the stability is no longer there, would it be right for the chaos to take over? The only other alternative would be to forcefully hold elections in the current system, but the stability from doing so is not something to be ignored either.

Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics stating that an exact evaluation of the present can predict the future, but an approximate evaluation cannot. Basically, it means that even the tiniest change in the present can have a wildly different outcome in the future. This theory can be applied to politics in the way that small differences in votes or electoral outcomes can wildly change future outcomes. Recent examples of this are President Donald Trump’s victory in 2016, Doug Jones’s victory over Roy Moore in the Alabama special elections a few weeks ago, and the removal of net neutrality laws last year. All of these decisions had very small margins of victory, with the net neutrality example being decided by a single supreme court vote. The future would have changed greatly if any of these decisions ended up going the other way. For example, if Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election then the odds of Roy moore winning the Alabama senate election would have been much higher. The current state of politics by this definition is extremely chaotic because wildly different futures can be obtained from minor outcomes in an election.

While chaos theory in political systems undermines stability due to its tendency to have the ability to completely end and replace government systems, it also creates the ability for true democracy and a government that functions for the people. If a government was created with complete stability and no chaos, the people would have no ability for self determination. The government would have a single path into the future, and the people would have no ability to change the political future. The current chaotic system is what gave us Donald Trump as president and all the presidents before him. It can be argued that many other political systems could be more effective than the one in place, but chaos is what gives us a government controlled by the people.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/dec/19/coalition-government-chaos-theory-politics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Can chaos theory teach us anything about international relations?

Max Folds

I challenge you. Take a piece of paper from anywhere. Fold it once in half. Do this again 8 times. The myth is that you cannot physically do this as hard as you try. I know that exploring this is a far cry from origami, but I was curious about exploring this idea ever since I presented last weeks blog and one of the audience members posed this question to me. And since it’s still paperfolding, it’s basically origami. If you were to fold a standard sheet of paper in half 7 times, it would be the thickness of a 128 page notebook. Fold the same paper 23 times, and it’s as long as a kilometer. Multiply this amount by 4, and your paper is longer than the observable universe. It is physically impossible to do this right now, but theoretically it is possible to do this with a standard letter sized piece of paper. The myth is therefore technically not true, but functionally it is correct. The reason that you can do this is because of the exponential growth function associated with doubling the thickness of the paper every time the paper is folded. Folding the paper at 1km thickness will give it a thickness of 2km. After that, it would be 4km and so on. This is why when folding complex origami models, the type of paper becomes more important than one might think. We will elaborate on these types of paper in a future installment of this blog series, but the main points are the thickness and the strength of the paper. When folding a single piece over and over again, the stress contained reaches to astronomical heights. A standard piece of paper won’t cut it at this point.

Drafting the Cause

It is no secret to every man over 18 that registering in the draft is of utmost importance. This is because the penalty for not doing so is a prison term of 5 years and/or a $250,000 fine. The last time this draft was called was in the 70s for the Vietnam war, so the odds of it being called again are slim unless a major war were to break out in the near future. Registering in the draft is required from everyone regardless of being disabled or not, however those who are unable to serve can register for clearances during an actual draft period. The draft’s fairness is not what I’m going to be talking about, but we have established that it is basically mandatory for all male citizens at a point in their life. Because of this, another question come into play. Since civilians are expected to participate in the draft, should they have more say in foreign policy decisions? Citizens elect certain officials based on their promises of domestic policy and foreign policy, but they can also affect decisions of domestic policy by participating in local politics relatively easily. A similar option does not really exist for foreign policy, which brings in the topic of whether or not a similar option should exist.

As it stands now, Congress holds the power to declare war and authorize large scale military decisions. The president is famously referred to as the Commander in chief, and has pretty much complete control over the military. If the president wanted to launch a full scale military invasion he/she would need support from congress. Small scale operations can be conducted by the president autonomously, famously demonstrated in recent years by President Obama’s mission that resulted in the death of Osama Bin Laden. For covert operations like these, the only influence that the general populace would have is on choosing the president who takes these actions. This makes sense though, because these operations would have to be kept secret to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the mission. When it comes to large scale war declarations, public attitude can have a huge effect on how the war plays out and is viewed. This was most famously observed with the Vietnam War, where public attitude towards the war was very negative. Many men dodged the draft by registering for deferments, and returning veterans were disrespected as opposed to celebrated. If the general population had a say in whether the war would take place or not, it is possible that civilian attitude would have been different. Furthermore, since citizens are expected to participate in the draft then the issue of being rightfully represented for their involvement comes into play.

Some deny the draft because it forces U.S. citizens to act in a war where they would not have any personal stakes or severe fundamental disagreements with how the war started. Since civilians have no real say in the wars that are declared, public opinion on wars cannot really be accurately predicted. In the case of the Vietnam war, many factors contributed to the U.S.’s loss and public reception was one of them. It’s impossible to know if the war would have been different if the public backed it more, but it is definite that the outlook would have been better. Also considering the fact that many would believe it to be logical that the public should have a say in war declarations due to the mandatory nature of the draft, it seems like a no brainer. The problem with implementing a system like this would be inexperienced voters making decisions on sensitive foreign policy, which calls into question the type of system that should be in place. The original question is then called in: Should the public even have a say in matters of national security?

Workers, Unionize!

A lot of right wing economic freedom is based on the idea of laissez a faire, meaning that businesses should be free to act on their own intentions and not face regulation from the government. In theory, this seems like the just option because individuals should have their own representation in the government and there should be no suppression of the people’s will in business. This ties in with the base theme of the constitution that every man should be able to pursue their own happiness in business and life. In theory this would be the fair option but by allowing this another problem rises. By allowing businesses to act on their own will like this, the workers themselves become a marginalized party as businesses have the ability to cut rights and pay without repercussion. In modern times, this takes the form of businesses cutting workers ability to unionize. Even though this practice is technically illegal, there are many loopholes that can be taken by businesses to deal with little to no drawbacks. The question is: should businesses be under stricter regulation to provide safety for the workers or the other way around?

It is illegal for companies to strictly prevent workers from joining a union. It is not illegal however, for companies to demonstrate their viewpoints on unions through the use of flyers and powerpoints and other propaganda. Walmart is one of the largest companies employing the use of these tactics today, using the coercion powerpoints in worker training. Workers have been reported as being too afraid to join a union under the fear of being terminated due to these techniques employed by most large companies. Companies also apply indirect strategies to demotivate workers from joining a union like offering pay increases and benefits to those who don’t join a union. The final major coercion tactic employed by large companies isn’t really a tactic at all. It’s a circumstantial effect of the nature of those who normally need to unionize. Unions are usually used by blue collar workers in low skilled jobs. These jobs have a low skill requirement meaning that many people can do the job regardless of intelligence. Since they’re also low paying, they can be terminated by the company with little consequence. The workers know this, and regardless of whether they want to unionize or not they know that their jobs are at the whims of the companies desires. Due to this, workers are pushed away from joining unions by fear.

The argument against unions isn’t completely one sided before. Basic principles of economics point to the fact that one should aim to improve the world for the sole reason of one’s own benefit. Therefore, companies should aim to improve the well being of their own workers in order to increase the companies benefit. Walmart takes the stance to better it’s workers by portraying unions as multi million dollar organizations that take huge amounts of money from workers and failing to deliver on promises, instead spending the money on less than noble desires. Walmart tells the workers that it is looking out for them by taking an anti union stance, and by dissuading workers from joining unions it is taking a logical step to increasing the well being of all patrons involved. The idea behind this is that Walmart has a stake in the well being of their workers, so why would they lie about unions not helping to benefit workers? The hardlinestance that companies take against workers like Walmart is not conductive to true freedom in the workplace and a upholding of one’s rights. It’s impossible to threaten employees with termination while also upholding their well being. For workers to be able to have secure rights a balance needs to be found between the rights of companies and worker rights.

https://www.cwa-union.org/news/entry/employers_anti-union_tactics_getting_bolder

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/how-walmart-convinces-its-employees-not-to-unionize/395051/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/union-busting-tactics_n_886203.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2012/10/29/reinventing-unions-for-the-21st-century/#710460e4659c

Origami Software

With the digital age unfolding in front of this very generation, we have seen various art forms influenced and even changed by the introduction of computers. While it may seem strange, modern origami has been influenced by software as well. When looking at extremely complex models forming creatures like bugs, trees, and generally organisms with multiple appendages, the big question comes to everyone’s mind : “How in the hell did someone design this?”

Origami changed a lot once mathematics and science came into play. Before, most models maxed out at around 50-70 steps. Now, models can have step counts reaching into the thousands. This is possible by creating a specific base for a model using repeating folding trends and using an artists detail to make this base come to life. In order to design a base like this, one needs to start at the crease pattern. If you unfold a complex origami model, all of the major folds will be visible on the paper. This is where the first steps of a design take place. By starting at a skeletal representation of the base that will eventually become an origami model, an artist can design whatever they please out of a single sheet of paper. But designing a base from a skeleton is an extremely challenging task, and requires the use of advanced origami theory such as circle packing. This is where digital computing comes in.

In the 90s, american physicist Robert Lang took an interest in origami as a scientific platform. He developed a program called Treemaker, that served as the link between the skeletal phase and the crease pattern of each origami model. Using the program, artists would be able to input an idea to fold in the form of a stick figure with several nodes. The program would use folding theory to develop a crease pattern that when collapsed, would form a base that could be detailed to the artist’s liking.

How to Become President

The cornerstone of every democracy is the ability of any citizen to have a say in how the government operates no matter how large or small. For most people, this say takes the form of voting. But, would it be possible for any average person given enough time to effectively lead the free world by becoming president? We pride our political system for being based on equal representation, but it should also extend up to the highest office in the nation. A monarchy only allows those of a select bloodline to become the head of state, while oligarchies make it so that only those of wealth and power can become the head of state. The base requirements to become president are that one must be a natural born citizen and at least 35 years old. These base requirements are very reasonable, but they only mean that those people can run for president. Actually becoming president is another matter with many factors that are in and out of one’s control.

The earliest step one could go through in order to become president is focusing on political studies such as economics, business, political science, history, etc… This is of utmost importance, as the leader of the free world must be someone who is well versed in handling large and small scale problems. While intelligence comes as a god given talent to few, it can also be built up with hard work and discipline. This aspect of becoming president is therefore equal to all. True, the barrier to entry for some might be smaller because of access to better education but enough programs exist that this should be a non issue for those of a lower socioeconomic background with enough drive. The second earliest possible way to become president is by building a political name for yourself and networking. The presidential candidate needs to be the head figure in their party, and that is only possible with having a huge background in that political party. This is something that can vary in difficulty greatly between the average layperson and a member of a influential political dynasty or equivalent. There is a reason why we have so many political dynasties in the U.S. despite the country being founded to get away from one. Even a truly intelligent and charismatic person would still have a large amount of trouble getting from the point of being a nobody in the political world to the point where they can lead a major political party. However, the child of a previous president would be able to capitalize on the connections available to them to easily make a name for themself in their political party. Now, this is not to say it is easy to become president if your father was one. No one has really heard of Reagan’s children in the political world, and it is unlikely for Ivanka Trump to take the position after her father completes his tenure.

While the previous aspects are important, these next few will make or break a person’s chances of being president. Intelligence is the first of these aspects, and different from the education described in the first paragraph. In a scenario where a person is the head of their political party, and well versed in politics enough to actually file an exploratory committee and head on the campaign trial, they will be picked at and tested on all aspects of their life. During this time, the candidates mental strength and fortitude will be tested to the limit. If the american people decide that the candidate’s intelligence is lacking through this process then chances of winning the election plummet drastically. Finally, the most important skill that one needs to become president that ties everything together is charisma. When becoming president, you are convincing the american people that you are the best option to become their leader. You must be the most popular person in the nation, and anyone that talks to you must leave being your friend. A natural inclination towards charisma is important, as thus are social skills. But the thing that separates a presidential candidate from anyone that is easily well liked is a huge dosage of mental strength. Campaigning for president is an extremely mentally and physically taxing process, and maintaining a charismatic demeanor throughout it is nothing short of a superhuman feat. Even the most well equipped people need this skill to become president, and a poor person with this quality could use it to gain the influence they need.

So in contrast from my previous blog posts, the process to become president is one that is truly equal in this country. The only area that previous lineage could actually help is political connections, but those could be built over time by a truly charismatic person. The road to president is one that can only be walked by a few, but those few can come from any place in society.

Post Deliberation Attendance Reflection

Coming into a new deliberation, I was not too sure what to expect. Being as my own deliberation was different from most due to its setting in a different location and abnormally large attendance, the two events ended up feeling different despite the identical base structures. This deliberation conducted in the normal stage at Webster’s focused on the issue of gentrification in lower income neighborhoods as the average cost of living rises. I noticed that the introduction stressed the importance of audience participation and sought to create a comfortable environment for those in the audience. I was glad, as this allowed the personal stakes phase to flow smoothly with enough points to discuss within the time allotted.

The first approach looked at the effectiveness of bigger business coming into low income neighborhoods, therefore speeding along the gentrification process but also theoretically improving the job market and economic health of the neighborhood. When speaking about this topic I noticed that the audience seemed more polarized than normal, most likely to the nature of this issue directly affecting those from lower income neighborhoods. Questions from the audience came quicker, and the richness of these testimonies seemed deeper. This also meant however, that the topic passed by quicker and we eventually reached a standstill where the approach team manually shifted the conversation to making citizens aware of their own laws and rights when new businesses take land in their neighborhood.

The second approach focused on the possibility of introducing community programs to keep these local businesses alive. The approach team focused on laying out the framework for some of these possible community programs including grants and loans as incentives for doing business. The audience response was smaller than the previous approaches response, so questions arrived slower than usual. Eventually the discussion evolved to the balance between social and human cost with funding these programs, but as the topics were less polarizing questions dwindled. I noticed that my own participation had also declined by this point from the previous section. When this discussion fizzled out, the team members came out with their conclusion and the final team took the stage.

The third approach talked about zoning, meaning the segregation of cities into zones to preserve the original areas while allowing for gentrification. This topic was an overly polarizing topic like approach one’s, so audience participation was at a high for the deliberation. I noticed many more personal experiences shared from the audience, most likely because this one was a relatable topic for many. Even though this discussion was more heated than the others, it went on for the longest due to the sheer volume of personal responses. Most of these responses were negative in nature, drawing the conclusion that it is much easier to get the audience to criticize an idea than it is to support one unanimously.
The conclusion of the deliberation was the shortest part of the event. It served to collect finishing statements from each of the audience members highlighting new information learned and new perspectives created. For myself personally, I was able to say that I learned of a new process in our society and was able to form my personal opinions as well.

Pennsylvania’s Been Hacked!

For a truly democratic election to take place, all voters need to have equal representation. That is not the case in almost every U.S. election however. A few weeks ago, I talked about how the setup of the electoral college messed up the idea of having a truly fair national election. Today it’s gonna be something similar, albeit on a much smaller scale and much closer to home. Since the maps for congressional districts can actually be changed as opposed to the national map, many elections have been rendered unfair due to the practice of gerrymandering. This is when the individual congressional districts in a state are manipulated into isolating voters on one side and unfairly uniting the other side on arbitrary border lines. Pennsylvania has been notorious for having gerrymandering present to a very high degree since the old district map was put out in 2011. It was different from the racial type gerrymandering that was outlawed in the past, allowing it to go unchallenged for a while. The map was designed to ensure a congressional republican majority by the use of voting districts meant specifically to unite republicans. One of the most infamous cases in this map was the “Donald Duck” district, which was drawn in such arbitrary directions to the point where the map resembled a sketch of donald being kicked by goofy. The district’s 2 main sections were united by a tiny strip of land that was occupied only by a restaurant and a parking lot. This wasn’t drawn by accident.

Even with a fairly drawn congressional map, republicans would still have the advantage in PA most likely. Even so, it is necessary for voter representation to be fair because the government should represent the will of the people. If attitudes changed in PA and it became a bluer state, it wouldn’t make sense for republican officials to be elected. This is an outcome that was definitely possible in the old map however. While it is almost inevitable that this map will be changed, what it will be changed to is still up for debate. There has recently been a impeded push by the PA democrats to change this map to something more fair however the final implementation has yet to be seen. The PA republicans issued an alternative map that gave more power to democrats in upcoming elections, but this alternative map was struck down by the democratic governor as still being unfair. Despite what form the new map takes, it would have to be something that accurately represents PA as a state. Republicans would still take the majority, but removing gerrymandering practices from the map is a necessary step for future elections.

This viewpoint ties in with my previous argument of the electoral college. The system of collecting votes should be done in such a way that it represents the people’s will as best as it can. The system exists to serve voters, not suppress them. Despite this, there is still a sound republican force actively trying to block the redrawing of this map. I’m not trying to draw partisan lines as this is a non partisan issue at its heart. But the president shouldn’t be trying to serve the interests of his own party by pushing for a map that suppresses its own voters. Especially since the map edits only serve to aid democracy and representation. Fairness and equality should be an issue for all of those in politics, and at its heart is a non partisan issue. This is because the roles could be reversed in any given situation. If the gerrymandering practices were aiding democrats, it would also be the job of the democrats to keep things equal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/19/pennsylvania-supreme-court-draws-a-much-more-competitive-district-map-to-overturn-republican-gerrymander/?utm_term=.21dbe80afd2d

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/12/this-ridiculous-gop-gerrymander-could-give-democrats-a-better-shot-at-the-house/

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/state/scotus-justice-alito-pennsylvania-congressional-redistricting-map-gop-20180228.html

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Supreme-Court-Grants-Democrats-Gerrymandering-Pennsylvania-475455023.html

https://www.wired.com/story/pennsylvania-partisan-gerrymandering-experts/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pennsylvanias-new-map-helps-democrats-but-its-not-a-democratic-gerrymander/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/the-great-gerrymander-of-2012.html?pagewanted=all

Origami In You

Last time we discussed the possible use of origami to model polyhedra using multiple units. Now we’re gonna take it one step forward by looking at the applications of origami within real-life medicine and surgery. As medicine deals with smaller and smaller parts of the human body, there is a need for tools and fixtures that are able to shrink down to microscopic sizes but still have the ability to do work. Folding patterns generated by the use of origami can fill this gap, allowing robots to do work on a scale much smaller than what would normally be possible. For example, by using origami to fold up electronic components it is now possible for a small robot to be ingested orally and used as an internal surgeon to complete basic medical tasks. This robot in question also has the ability to generate a magnetic field, letting it retrieve batteries and other debris from different parts of the body. Origami applications reach farther than the microscopic area, however. Any area where an object would need to change from a tiny size to a large size is a worthwhile application. This has proven to be very useful in the development of satellites that depend on huge solar panels to keep running. When launching a satellite, these solar panels need to fold up to a very small size. Using origami-derived collapsible fold patterns, solving this problem is simple.

Thoughts and Prayers

Most of us send “Thoughts and Prayers” after a terrible event through the use of social media platforms as a way to express our sorrow for the tragedy that occured. Many support this practice because it’s net benefits are positive. Expressing gratitude in that way triggers similar feelings in any other person that views the statement. Others argue that the sentiment is meaningless, because it symbolizes a form of “slacktivism” (action performed on the internet in the interest of a social or political cause but requires little to no time commitment). Personally, I believe that the practice is okay because there’s really no way for normal people to have a huge effect on the situations that plague our society almost every day at this point. The real problem is when heavily influential politicians have the resources to fix these problems, but choose to express empty sentiments of “Thoughts and Prayers” while taking contradictory actions and in some cases actively working to worsen the cause. Just last week, the president offered these same condolences over the recent shooting in Parkland and a survivor of the incident labels the president as a “fucking piece of shit” for his lack of real effort to combat the issue.

A popular sentiment amongst the anti gun regulation platform is the idea that it is mentally illness that is responsible for the repeated shootings occurring in our country. It is true that in a society without mental illness, gun regulation laws would not be needed as much in order to curb violence. However, the actions of top players in the government seem to contradict this platform, as very little real action has been taken in response to the so-called “mental health crisis” that is apparently responsible for all these tragedies occurring. As of now, it is possible for someone in florida to get a gun if they’ve been admitted to a mental hospital for other reasons than a court order. Furthermore, background checks are not required for private gun sales so it is very possible that someone who fits under the definition of “Mentally” disabled to acquire a gun. The sentiment from the other side backing up these loopholes brings the point that if laws were to be tightened it would affect those with mental illnesses such as eating disorders. However, this is not a sentiment expressed publicly by those that have the means to actually change these laws.

Why don’t the congressmen and political players take real action? Marco Rubio, one of the more popular congressmen to express “Thoughts and Prayers” like many before him also had his campaign funded by the National Rifle Association. The total of that funding adds up to over 3 million dollars, still paling in comparison to the total funding given to the current President in campaign donations. Marco Rubio’s statements on the news are reflective of this campaign funding, saying that “I think it’s important to know all of that before you jump to conclusions that there was some law that we could have passed that would have prevented it. And there may be, but shouldn’t we at least know the facts?” This is a platform that is very similar to that of the N.R.A.’s without actually mentioning the organization. With the main players in the current government bought out with huge sums of money from special interest organizations, the true problem can never truly be resolved.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-nra-politicians-20180215-story.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/florida-shooting-latest-updates-trump-twitter-condolence-tweet-piece-shit-parkland-school-student-a8211896.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/trump-gun-legislation-mental-health/index.htmlhttps://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/16/florida-shooting-rampage-sparks-review-mental-health-restrictions-gun-purchases/345910002/

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/mental-health-gun-possession-explainer/index.html