One particularly interesting part of the assigned chapters is when Friedman describes the topic of lifetime employment. He calls this the "fat that a flat world cannot sustain any longer."

The common thought in the world today is that the days of a person working for the same company for 30 years is over. No longer will a person be able to build up a pension and retire after a lifetime of devotion to a one specific company. The times have changed. There are employees who worked for GM for decades only to be laid off. What happens to their retirement account? Many of them are too old to find a new job so they are destined to finish their years working a medial job

Is this what should happen to those who have served a company for so many years? Friedman argues that what a person in this situation would need is portable benefits and lifelong learning. He would want every person to be open to a life of learning. This way if a person would lose his job, he might be able to procure some sort of new employment.

However, I wonder about this idea. For instance, if my life's work was suddenly ended, I am not sure that I would want to continue with a new career. Maybe this is the way that other people would feel. I am not saying that I am not open to learning; learning is a process that never ends. I had a teacher in high school who was in his 60's and he was still taking classes at a local college to further his knowledge. He is one of the most learned men I have ever known.

The portable benefits that Friedman speaks of try to solve the problem that I presented. With these benefits, a person's retirement account would move with him to each new job. This seems like a very good albeit, lofty, goal. This would allow a person to freely move between jobs if he feels he hit a "cul-de-sac" in his current job. This would also help improve the economy because people would be contributing their most efficient skills to the workforce.

My parents are from the generation that devoted their life to one career. My father performed his job for 30 years and my mother for 25. They had a retirement plan set up and were very pleased with their time working for the government.

My brother-in-law, however, is from a different time and currently works for a marketing firm. Since I have known him, he has held more jobs than I can count. He is routinely the victim of restructuring and companied being bought out. I do not think he has ever worked for the same company for more than 3 years. However, he is not bothered by this. He tells me it is the way his field operates. He said the days of my parents are over.

Even though I am a senior this year, I still have no concrete plans as to my career goal. I know I want to do something having to do with the sciences, but other than that, my options are pretty much open. My parents both worked for the US Fish and Wildlife Service until retirement and during the final phase of both of their careers, they sat behind desks. The job they did could have probably been done by anyone. There is no reason that a person must be located in Georgia or even the US to do a job such as theirs. My mother performed assessments to evaluate the environmental costs and benefits of construction projects. She did not need to be in a certain place to do this—only have access to proper resource materials.

My father’s job required more travel to certain locations to evaluate accessibility concerns for refuge visitors. Sometimes, he would travel around the southeast and give his opinion on different refuges. That part of his career had to be done by someone local, but other aspects could have been done remotely.

They both retired while I was still in high school, so I am not sure what their replacements’ job descriptions are. While I have no definite plans for after graduation, I will probably become involved in a similar career path. I do not necessarily desire to have a job behind a desk, which is probably good for me because those jobs are more difficult to outsource.

One positive benefit of the flattening of the world is that more opportunities are available. While my parents were generally confined to concerns in the United States, in ten years it would expand to be a global career. This particularly interests me. I really enjoy traveling and seeing other parts of the world, and it seems to me that global expansion would be a positive benefit.

It also seems that the United States has more career opportunities for environmental scientists than other nations. We express many concerns about sustainability and the preservation of biodiversity. I am not suggesting that other countries do not care about the environment; we just place more emphasis on it. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is an organization run by the government, so if I chose to work there, I would have very little fear of losing my job to someone overseas.

In 10 years, I believe the rest of the world will begin to understand the need for environmental scientists, which will hopefully give me more opportunity to find a job. There are some organizations around today which fit that description, as well. However, in time, I am sure that even more countries will begin to form their own conservation organizations, but I also hope that they will find the need to invite some American scientists as consultants.

In his book, Thomas Friedman brings up the idea of intellectual property ownership. He wonders that if, in his "flattened" world, people should have any right to their intellectual property or if it should belong to the people. I take a rather strong stance on this topic.

I do not like the idea of working hard for something and then having to share that with others. It can be applied many ways in life. For instance, if I am doing a group research project with several other of my peers, I want to be sure that I receive a good grade. That means I will work as hard as I can in order to receive the best grade possible. My GPA is important for me as I am trying to maintain a minimum standard for myself. Well, say the other members do not care about their grade. I will work hard and they will reap the benefits of my labor. Of course, that would make me unhappy because they did nothing yet were still rewarded. That would put me in a position of doing the entire project alone so at least I would have the satisfaction of it being done right. If others would not contribute, they should not be able to be rewarded.

This is what would happen if for some reason copyrights and patents were done away with. No one would spend the time to invent or improve upon an item because it would give him or her no direct benefit. For instance, why would a person devote his life to developing an innovative piece of computer software if it would just be shared with everyone? That person would not want to just give his work away. Maybe he could develop it for himself, but why should other people be able to free ride on another's hard labor? It could then be possible that the world would miss out on incredible technologies or products.

It is for this reason that copyrighting and patenting were devised. It is a way for the creator to be able to reap some benefit from his hard work. That would motivate the individual to pour his time and energy into his work and possibly come up with something amazing. If copyrights and patents were ignored, that person would likely not work as hard at his task.

Recently, there has been some discussion in Washington about pharmaceutical companies and the length of time they should be able to hold exclusive rights to the formula of a medication. The theory is that if the companies hold shorter patents, then generic brands will be able to manufacture cheaper alternatives. This is said to be better for the average American consumer because it will allow them to purchase cheaper, generic medications sooner.

But I ask, is it really better for the consumer? I think not for the following reason. If big name drug companies like Pfizer or Merck would not reap as much financial reward from their research, would they be as inclined to pour years of research and nearly a billion dollars into a new product? Even if they did produce new medications, they likely would not be of the same quality as before.

I became a victim of theft of intellectual property a few months ago. I took a picture of an item I was selling on a popular internet auction site. That picture made me quite a bit of money over the course of the several months I was selling the product. I later saw another person using my exact image to sell his product (which was similar--not identical). It took me several weeks of phone calls and letters to get the situation rectified. I am not saying that my experience was on as grand of scale as the music or motion picture industry, but I became angry with the person who stole my picture. If he liked it so much, maybe he should have taken the time to take his own pictures.

In conclusion, there is a reason we have patents and copyrights today. They protect the individual responsible for the material and give that person some sort of financial benefit for his time and effort invested. If we get rid of that, we would only be inventing for the good of the people. Leave that for Mother Russia.

The idea of a flattened world government is an interesting one. It only makes sense that as the world becomes flatter and more integrated that a more powerful governing force would step in to enforce laws and regulations. A country can make all the rules it wants and a neighboring one could make laws that are either stricter or more liberal. This, in a way, makes the law of one county ineffective. After all, if I do not like the laws governing prescription medications in the United States, I could go to Mexico and get any drugs I wanted, no questions asked. Also, say I wanted to buy a Cohiba or bottle of Havana Club, I can go to Canada where there are no trade sanctions with Cuba. This undermines the laws of the United States, but there is little that can be done to stop me.

This same problem is seen on a larger scale in countries with differing foreign policies. The United States and the United Arab Emirates are friendly countries. However, the United Arab Emirates and Iran are also friends. This them in a difficult position because our county has placed certain sanctions on products imported from Iran and will not allow us to visit the country. The world cannot be flat if different countries have so many differing opinions of other countries. The world may be getting flat, but certain individuals do not want it to get too flat. There is still a list of countries that Americans are not allowed to visit or buy products from: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea. There are some interesting places in those countries we will never be able to see. Additionally, the State Department compiles a list of countries it does not want Americans to travel to, for security reasons. Obviously, the world cannot be too flat if there are so many places we cannot go and trade with.

The other set of complications arising from so many different governments arises from the different environmental policies. The United States banned the use of the pesticide DDT in 1972 because it was weakening the eggshells of the bald eagle leading to their precipitous drop in population size. In the years following the decision, bald eagle numbers have risen. However, the chemical is still in common use in Mexico. Is it too far fetched to think that some of it is still affecting animals in America? Of course not.

There are other examples of conflicting environmental regulations. In most of the world, whales are protected by numerous marine laws, yet in Japan, there is still a viable whaling industry. Also, sea turtles are another endangered species that are protected by most countries. However, there are some that still allow the eggs and turtles to be harvested for food, jewelry, et cetera. The US Fish and Wildlife Service has laws that state what can and cannot be brought back into the country as an effort to curtail some of the killing of endangered species, but it is rarely enough. Until marine animals either learn to stay put or all the countries band together, there will always be threats to endangered species.

There have been efforts to try to flatten the world governments such as the United Nations and the European Union; however the UN has been shown to be relatively ineffective as certain countries choose whether to obey decisions or not. I am not advocating a worldwide government, but I do think that there need to be some regulation in certain laws or else the country with the most liberal laws will set the standard.

Thomas Friedman makes several very compelling arguments that the world is becoming flat. By “flat” he means that today, we have the means to communicate instantaneously with people form around the world. It is difficult to argue that because we are presented with so much evidence from our daily lives. I can take a 12 hour plane ride and end up on the other side of the world. And, when I am there, I can call home on my cell phone and talk to my loved ones. There is no delay or feeling of distance. It is the same as if I were only a mile away.

Because of our experience, it is easy to accept what Friedman says; however, he would make an even more powerful effect if he were to present some of the evidence proving otherwise. It seems that he is ignoring some of the effects that keep the world round.

Much of his criticism stems from his writing style. He relies extensively on metaphors which seems to irritate many of his readers. He does seem to enjoy metaphors, as the title of his book is a metaphor. I tend to agree to an extent. Maybe he should speak in reality instead of abstract terms.

He was also extensively criticized over his stance concerning our invasion of Iraq. Glenn Greenwald stated that Thomas Friedman is “one of the most frivolous, dishonest, and morally bankrupt public intellectuals burdening this country.” I think this is unfair because it really does not have anything to do with his writing but rather his personal political views. Maybe his methods should be criticized, but attacking the individual is wrong. Needless to say, Thomas Friedman has made quite a few enemies in his life, but none of those criticisms deal with his book The World is Flat. For those criticisms, we must look to Jack Schafer. He makes the first criticism concerning the book. He says that Friedman spent many of his New York Times columns promoting his book. Maybe this is taking his authoritative position too far. Perhaps Friedman’s readers do not always want to be bombarded with reminders of his stance on society.

One of Friedman’s harshest critics is New York Press writer Matt Taibbi. His first criticism is that Friedman always mentions the names of businesses in his work, even when it is not necessary. He uses one rather brash statement to refer to The World is Flat: “Friedman's new book is the worst, most boring kind of middlebrow horseshit.” This is mainly because Taibbi thinks that the book is very repetitive, which it is. I think that most of it could have been summed up with the statement, “The world is flat; it is becoming more incorporated than before.” This whole idea is ripped up by Taibbi in his article because he says the Friedman’s “10 flatterers” are just a recap of the past 2 decades of history. Of course, these events have impacted the world. They have drawn people together.

Thomas Friedman likes to use metaphors in his writing, and that is why many people despise it. Sometimes, examples such as that help the reader understand the material, but other times, it can be overwhelming and confusing. This is how many of his critics view his writing.

The first few times I encountered Wikipedia.com was in the fall of 2005. At that time, I was not sure what to make of it. It did not seem to be very well put together and looked sort of unprofessional to me. I remember searching for some obscure subjects for a high school speech, and the only place that seemed to contain any information was Wikipedia. I was a bit surprised that it actually even contained articles related to my subject. I choose to find material at other sources because it did not seem like something that could be trusted with my grade.

Now, 4 years later, I think Wikipedia has come a long way. I still would probably not trust it with my grade for a class, but I find myself constantly crawling back to that site for general knowledge information. For instance, if I want to find a famous person’s birthday or some of their accomplishments, there is no better source. All the information is right before me in a very easy to read format that filters out a lot of the fluff compared to other websites.

I remember in my First Year Seminar class, my professor instructed us to never use Wikipedia for any of our papers. He cited several sources of erroneous information that appeared as fact on the site. Most of them are not serious and are typically seen as a joke, but others stem from actually misinformation. Here are a few websites with errors contained in Wikipedia at one time or another. Link 1 Link 2 Link 3

Apart from some of the discrepancies in the content, Wikipedia really is an amazing concept. People from all over the world are able to give their input on a specific topic. This is a place where you do not just get one view of a subject—many people can give their view or a person, event, or object. Friedman was correct in asserting that this is one of the ways the earth has been flattened in the past several decades.

I like to watch The Office, and one of my favorite quotes involves Wikipedia. Steve Carrel’s character says in an interview why he likes Wikipedia so much.


Of course, this is meant to be a joke; however, it is the way some people view the site. I do not think it should be used for primary research, but rather as a source of guidance.

The example of Wikipedia is one of several that Friedman uses to assert the world is flat. However, there are many other websites that offer equally flattening experiences. Youtube, for instance, allows users to upload videos from anywhere in the world. This gives me, as an American, to see a clip from the life of someone in a different part of the world. I can see how a group of European teenagers spends their free time, and I could also see someone’s videos from their African Safari.

Another site that I believe contributed to a flat world is Facebook. I have friends from all over the world. If I wanted to find out what is happening in a specific place, there are only a few keystrokes away. I remember a year ago hearing news coverage of a story in Dubai. I was interested in learning more about it, so I asked one of my friends who is from there and got the rest of the story.

The world is definitely becoming flatter as the years go on. The Internet is a major contributor to that, in my opinion and in Friedman’s. As more websites pop up that allow people to voice their opinions and experiences, we will learn more about other people’s view of the world.

We hear all the time how horrible outsourcing is for America. After all, it takes jobs from hard working Americans and gives them to some unknown person in Asia who probably doesn't even speak any English. Additionally, so many American made products are now being produced overseas. I mean, what about our beloved Little Red Wagon? No longer will they be made in America, but now they are a product of Chinese labor. As if this were not bad enough, many of our patriotic products are also made abroad. What about those American flag that are stamped "Made in China?" Surely, we should not giving a foreign country the opportunity to manufacture a product that is to important to our country. OK, well we still have our American classics such as Levi's Jeans and Etch a Sketch's, right? Oh yeah, they are also now made in Asia. Maybe we should also have Asia make our apple pies while they are at it.

But, hold on a minute. Maybe this outsourcing is not such a terrible thing after all. For instance, this is not a one-way street. We also can benefit from some forms of outsourcing. For instance, German auto giants Mercedes and BMW have chosen to relocate some of their manufacturing to the United States (in Alabama and South Carolina). Maybe this is not such a terrible thing after all. But the main difference with this is that the automobiles manufactured in American stay in America. They are no shipped back to Germany and the rest of Europe. These automakers must have decided it is cheaper to move some of their engineers and equipment to America rather than to export all of their automobiles.

However, we have some products that are made from American components that are assembles abroad. Can it really be cheaper to sent the materials over seas, have some foreign factory workers assemble the materials, and re-import the final product? It must be, because this is done every day. So, the question arises as to how much less they are paying these international workers? In the example of the Etch A Sketch, American workers made about $9 per hour while the Chinese workers made $0.24 per hour (Link). It is easy to see how tempting it would be for a company to take advantage if this cheap labor. On top of that, many of these international employees are happy to work at all. These factory jobs are usually much better than what they would be doing otherwise.

My eventual career goal involves environmental degradation and policy. I think it would be rather difficult that someone in an office around the world would be able to perform a job the same way as a local person would. Environmental concerns span the globe which means that there will always be a site to be researched or a plant or animal that needs saving. I imagine that maybe some parts of that job could be done remotely, but the physical observation and collection of data needs to be done by someone who is actually at the location.

Dipping the Basketball in a Bowl of Change

In The Dip, Seth Godin attempts to motivate his readers with the concept of "The Dip" in every endeavor. It is during this dip that many people begin to grow weary of their activity and are tempted to give in. I think that this dip he speaks of can be applied to one's life in several ways. The first is the way that Godin applies his lesson. However, I believe that there is another instance of a dip in a person's life.

I mentioned in class that I am involved with teaching elementary and middle school children basketball skills during the summer. I have done this for around 8 years now and have coached several hundred young people. During that time, I have observed two main types of players and mentalities.

The first group of players believe they have all the right answers and are the best at every drill. Many times, it is obvious that they are mistaken. They do not want to be told what to do, and they generally like to talk and socialize instead of listening to their coach. Because of that, they rarely know what to do.

The second type of players are those who are receptive to criticism and instruction. They are usually not the best at each drill, but they are willing to change their actions so they may be able to improve.

Usually the first type of player is actually better than the second, but because they do not use the correct form in the exercises, they will never be able to improve beyond a certain point. That second type can very well be less skilled than the first, but they have a better chance of being a better player due to their receptive attitude.

I have told players before they need to change their shot in order to become a better player. However, they do not want to hear that. They respond, "But I can make 60% of the shots my way." That may be true, but they will never be able to make more than that. These players are on a cul-de-sac path. They can practice as much as they want, but because they are practicing the wrong way, they will never improve upon that 60%.

Say, for instance, that the receptive player also makes 60% of their shots, but they listen when they are told to modify their form. Their percentage may drop to 40% during their period of "re-learning." This is their "dip." Some players to not like that their shot percentage drops when they change their form and revert to the incorrect method. These are the players who give up when they are faced with a difficult dip. However, there are those players who heed to our advice and stick it out through that dip. True, their percentage will drop for a time, but after several weeks or months it will steadily increase. Eventually they will be as good as they were before, and before long, they will far exceed that initial skill level. They may be shooting at a percentage of 80-85% or even higher.

Those players are rewarded because they stick with it during the dip. That is what separates mediocre players from those who play at the college or professional level. They best players that I have ever coached is also the most receptive. When he is told to do something differently, he goes home, works through that dip, and returns much better than before.

The same goes for any other skill in life. If one refuses to modify bad study habits, that student may never be able attain grades better than a "C." If an athlete does not routinely change his exercise regiment, he will reach a plateau and never gain any more strength. And, if one still types "hunt-and-peck" style he will never be able to attain a very high word per minute score.

While it is very tempting to quit when one is in a dip or before one ever reaches a dip, it must be realized that if there is no dip, there is only mediocrity.