Maybe I was just being Naïve. Coming to India this summer, I expected things to be different. All I had been hearing is how fast India was becoming the next China.

When I was here six years ago, I was amazed at the high level of poverty and corruption that existed throughout the country. Going from city to city, it was all the same. The basic necessities like food, water, and electricity were scarce. In many of the smaller towns, trash collection was non-existent. My most vivid memory of that trip was visiting the village where my grandfather grew up. He showed me the tree next to the lake he used to sit under to keep cool in the summer. Since then, the tree had been cut down and the lake had dried up and been turned into a landfill.

So you can understand why I would think things would be better, given the country’s impressive 8 % annual GDP growth rate.

What doesn’t show on paper is how few people are actually affected by this growth rate. In India alone, almost 400 million people still live in extreme poverty. That means that over 1/3 of India’s population lives on less than $1 per day. Why aren’t these people benefiting from this incredible growth? Its not that the money isn’t there, it’s just going to all of the wrong places. Let me give you an example. A family friend tried to pay her taxes on her property so she could sell her house. When she approached an official about the matter, he offered to waive the charge in exchange for a small “gift”. She refused, but he still wouldn’t give her the proper paperwork. She had to bribe him just so that she could legally pay her taxes!

It is important to note, however, that the growth rate is so high despite all of the corruption and poor infrastructure. How can a corporation run efficiently enough to compete with the rest of the world in a country where you are lucky if you have power 20 hours in a day? How can you find so many intelligent, motivated people in a place where over 1/3 of the population can’t afford food or clean water, let alone go to school? Yet despite the overwhelming odds, India still manages to grow.

There will be a day when every Indian is given the opportunity to compete in the global playing field. But that day isn’t today. The money that is pouring into this country must go to building up the infrastructure, not the vacation homes for a few government officials. An 8 % growth rate cannot be sustained forever under the current conditions.

Maybe the world isn’t quite as flat as you think, Mr. Friedman.

June 15, 2006: Today President Bush designates the Western Hawaiian Islands, a marine area near the size of California, as a national monument. This is the president’s second use of the National Antiquities Act; the first being the designation of the African Burial Ground in Lower Manhattan. The area west of Hawaii now protected will be completely off-limits to any commercial activity. It is about 140,000 square-miles in area and contains over 7,000 species of marine wildlife. This is the largest use of the National Antiquities Act in United States history, since it was created nearly 100 years ago.

Many of us aren't old enough to remember the period in the early fifties when Senator Joseph McCarthy, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, and their cronies engaged in a series of witch-hunts, suspending the rights of countless Americans who they accused of communism. For those who can’t quite remember that section of our nation's history class from high school, I can only suggest you read up on it. Those of us who are familiar with McCarthyism, even minimally through films like Goodnight, and Goodluck, however, can't help but recognize similarities between the actions of our government's intelligence agencies then and those of their modern counterparts.

This morning, the New York Times published two articles, one on an ACLU challenge to the NSA's eavesdropping program and one on the CIA's refusal to confirm or deny its involvement in the detainment suspected terrorists. The articles document only the most recent of events in a long chain of consolidation of power by top officials, one which even seasoned republicans admit is rather troubling.

As always, however, most of us are unconcerned with consolidation itself but rather how officials use such power. The similarities to McCarthyism are striking. In the 1950's, the FBI engaged in a series of illegal wiretaps, burglaries, and even murders; today, the NSA conducts covert operations, spying on American citizens without warrants. In the 1950's, Senator McCarthy conducted a series of witch-hunts, accusing many Americans of communism but refusing to offer proof because he claimed it was classified; today, the CIA holds accused terrorists outside of the United States, refusing to acknowledge that it does so or to offer proof of their guilt.

While many claim that such agencies would only spy on or detain those who are guilty, I can only plead, "read up on your American history." The screams from the witch-hunting of the 1950's, which harmed some of America's greatest heroes–names like J. Robert Oppenheimer, Arthur Miller, and Charlie Chaplain–echo in the actions of today's intelligence community.

Jurors found former Enron executives Kenneth Lay and Jeffery Skilling guilty of fraud and criminal conspiracy yesterday, in what the New York Times hailed as “a verdict on an era.” In fact, the Times chose a comment made by Sean Berkowitz, director of the Justice Department’s Enron Task Force, as their quote of the day: "The jury has spoken and they have sent an unmistakable message to boardrooms across the country that you can't lie to shareholders, you can't put yourself in front of your employees' interests, and no matter how rich and powerful you are you have to play by the rules," said Berkowitz.

Yet, yesterday’s verdict comes just weeks after the GOP pushed a shamefully diluted lobbying ethics bill, which failed to ban lavish gifts like exotic free trips, increase lobbying transparency, require ethics training for congress members, or even provide any means of enforcement for old and new rules. Despite the repeated dishonesty and wanton corruption of officials like Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, and Tom DeLay, most Americans seem apathetic to the fate of the previous bill, which would have put a significant damper on corruption.

Oh, the American hypocrisy! While our politicians parade around, demanding corporate transparency and responsibility, they feel little guilt when the accept bribes, lie to the constituents, and "stay the course" when every sign indicates a giant u-turn is necessary. One can only wonder what happened to doing the right thing; American Democracy has never been more of sham.

At just over a week since yet another bureaucratic reshuffling placed former Fox News commentator Tony Snow in the hot seat as White House Press Secretary, things don't seem to be settling down for the media–liberal or conservative.  In fact, the New York Times ran a startling three articles today, detailing the sale of two major papers, U.S. military bribes of Iraqi reporters, and yet another fascist move by the Irani government to shut down a major media outlet.

It's little wonder, however, that the press has been out of sorts lately; just look at how governments, both abroad and at home, have been reacting to the media.   While nobody has complained too loudly about the move to censor what almost everyone agrees is a terrible film (those ratings are almost as bas as the President's!), the struggle for power continues elsewhere.

Between American and European corporate-giant media, the government-backed BBC and Chinese Press, and a handful of radical newspapers and media outlets, those of us looking for any sort of moderation are shit out of luck.

The New York Times detailed one of the lesser known results of Bush's new tax bill in an article today: a tripling of tax rates for students with college savings funds.  Despite his 1999 promise to veto any tax increase, Mr. Bush has apparently decided that taxing those who need the money most makes perfect sense.  In other news, analysts expect President Bush's approval rating to drop another 2% by the end of next week; the Democratic Party sent President Bush a bottle of scotch with a note saying simply, "Thanks."

Today, the New York Times published an article entitled "Colleges Chase as Cheats Shift to Higher Tech." The article opens by describing three sets of students who recently 'cheated' via high-tech means: a student at the University of California who used class notes on a PDA during an exam, Students at San Jose State University who used their computers for spell check during an exam, and students at the University of Nevada Las Vegas who used cameras on cell phones to trade answers during a test. In the course of the article, a dean at U.N.L.V. states, "If they'd spend as much time studying, they'd all be A students." While these cases may seem somewhat clear cut, it's worth taking a few minutes to reflect on two questions: Why, exactly, do students cheat? and What can we consider cheating?

Professors and parents alike have been scratching their heads for quite a long time at what they consider an entirely mindless desire to cheat. Why, they wonder, do students cheat? If only they realized that they're only hurting themselves, they say. And, to some extent, they're correct. It is clear, however, that students continue to cheat despite these protestations, and, as Steven Levitt aptly noted, people don't act without incentives.

It is an unfortunate truth that, more often than not, there seems to be absolutely no connection whatsoever between what students learn in school and what they'll need to know in order to function in the real world. Pre-med students, for example, must take courses in organic chemistry, a field that, while related to medicine, has almost no use whatsoever for students hoping to become clinicians. Likewise, countless Professors require their students to memorize equations that they could easily look up if needed and that they would memorize through repeated use if the formulas were truly useful. When a student is required to take a class that will have no use in her future job and in which she has very little interest, it is clear that she has very little incentive to study other than a rather misplaced desire to get a good grade.

An even more important, though related, question should also be considered. What exactly is cheating? Implicitly, we must also ask what the purpose of testing is. The Times article cited students using technology to read notes, to check spelling, and to trade answers during exams. It is clear that such activities undermine the idea of modern-day testing. The validity of such tests, however, is quite a bit less clear.

Tests are, or should be, intended to asses the understanding students have about materials they will need to understand in order to function in the future. Quite a few tests, however, do not measure what they should. As noted previously, students are often tested on material they will find wholly useless. Likewise, as technology improves, the need for memorization seems to decrease dramatically. The case of the students who ‘cheated’ by using computers to check spelling is an exempli gratia. Why, one might wonder, is a college professor testing students on spelling? Even in a writing class, students’ spelling seems entirely irrelevant; while a student can spell pneumonia correctly, he may still be a very poor writer indeed. Likewise, the very idea of testing college students on spelling, something upon which they should have been tested in first or second grade, is ridiculous. The cases of using cell phones and PDAs to read notes and trade answers seem similar. If students can obtain such information so readily, it seems illogical to require them to memorize it.

Indeed, modern testing seems quite lacking as a means to prepare today’s students for their future roles as tomorrow’s professionals. Professional educators should focus on training their students to synthesize information, solve problems, and create new ideas rather than requiring them to memorize facts and formulas.

The New York Times published an article today discussing European/U.S. attempts to negotiate with Iran. According to the new offer, Europe and the United States would aid Iran in building a light-water nuclear reactor in exchange for Iran's ending of "activities suspected of being a cover for a weapons program." Ostensibly, such a compromise seems ideal for both sides. But is it?

As American and European politicians scramble to find a solution to the Iran problem, one might easily recall the ways in which the allies tried to appease Nazi Germany just before the onset of the second World War. Indeed, despite America's "shoot first, ask questions later" style of diplomacy, it is clear that American cannot afford– socially, politically, or economically–another war. Likewise, a lethargic Europe seems even more unlikely declare war over the matter.

As China and Russia drag their feet–an inaction which seems primarily motivated by a reluctance to prevent anything that might weaken Western Europe and the United States–causes one to wonder exactly what we should be doing about Iran.

The hypocrisy of nuclear-proliferated countries telling Iran it can't have a nuclear weapons program aside, every political analyst agrees that a nuclear-armed Iran would be incredibly dangerous–for the U.S., Western Europe, and China and Russia. What, then, should we do? Presenting an offer so clearly favorable to Iran when we really have nothing to bargain with is not the answer.

American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer is both a Pulitzer Prize-winning biography and an essential read for anyone interested in the politics of nuclear energy and warfare both historically and today. The book, written by Kai Bird and Tufts University’s own Martin J. Sherwin, details Oppenheimer's life from his birth in New York City in 1904 to his death of throat cancer in 1967. The story is beautifully told and provides great insight into Oppenheimer's art, work, and politics. Perhaps more importantly, American Prometheus illuminates the origins of many of the world's current conflicts. What has been called the only "truly comprehensive" biography of the father of the atomic bomb is well worth the read.

The debate for nuclear power in the United States has been an ever-inflamed issue since the Three Mile Island incident in 1979 at the plant's Unit 2 reactor. Since then, no new nuclear power generating stations have been built in the U.S. leaving us behind countries like France, who produce close to 90% of their power from nuclear energy. The American public has been pumped with anti-nuclear stigma for thirty years and is extremely reluctant in accepting nuclear technology of any type. The public idea of nuclear power associates a mushroom cloud to the technology. The idea can't be farther from the truth. The only "explosion" (if you even can call it that) that can occur is a steam flash event, or the effect of a steam-pipe leak within the reactor containment dome. The superheated steam rapidly expands once hitting ambient air temperatures within the reactor dome. The dome is specifically designed to contain this swift air expansion. The dome has near five-foot-thick, concrete walls reinforced with steel rods that form a woven steel grid. These steel woven "baskets" build on top of one another within the poured concrete. The result is a containment dome that can withstand never-before-seen tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, nuclear blasts, and specifically, direct impacts of military aircraft or missiles.

The incident at Three Mile Island was, in fact, a success in containing a reactor meltdown. The events at Chernobyl in Ukraine are completely different in that the reactors at the Soviet generating station were not contained in a reinforced dome, but in a conventional, industrial building. The lack of safety measures directly led to this "disaster," where 56 people (mostly firefighters responding to the reactor's fires) died from radiation exposure. Not one human being has ever died from nuclear power generation in the United States of America.

When considering the effects of power generation from coal or oil firing (asthma, respiratory failure, heart disease, mercury and lead poisoning, acid rain, strip mining, middle east relations, global warming, etc.) nuclear power seems like the "million dollar answer," as our Seabrook tour guide exclaimed when speaking about the country's energy issues. One pellet of unreactive Uranium, which is about 3/4 of an inch in length and 1/2 an inch in diameter, contains the same amount of energy potential as a train load of coal. The benefits of nuclear energy are obvious. When will the people of this country, after experiencing thirty years of safe nuclear power generation, wake up to this potential?