STEP ZERO: Build up the Basics

The reading assignment for our lecture on the Middle East is Chapter 37 of History of the World by Marvin Perry.

This is the presentation that will accompany my lecture from tomorrow, January 5 to January 17. Feel free to download and print this presentation.

STEP ONE: Know your team

I announced this after Win As Much As You Can. If you missed the groupings, here it is now in its full glory.

STEP TWO: Know your objectives

Here are the twelve issues you have to resolve in the summit. The participation of individual teams may or may not be even throughout the various goals. Part of preparing for the summit is knowing which are the ones most important to you.

Here are the goals in a convenient and easy-to-print page or image.

To accompany the objectives, a HIGH-RESOLUTION map of the Middle East!

STEP THREE: Work on your COUNTRY PROFILE as a team

The country profile is a multi-section document that will serve as your main resource for the summit. Don’t think of it as just another requirement; this assignment is your primary way of learning about your country and its involvement in the Middle East simulation we’re doing.

This document is due on January 17 (Tuesday) for everyone. This will be counted as LT#1A for the 4th Quarter. (LT#1B will be after the summit.)

Submit your paper in two ways:

(1) As a PDF document via e-mail. Use the following label for both the e-mail and the file name: MES CP SECTION COUNTRY

(2) As hard copy on 8 x 11 short bond paper. Prepare a duplicate (photocopy) for your own use. Place them in a short white  folder.

DOWNLOAD THE TEMPLATE for the COUNTRY PROFILE HERE. The template also contains INSTRUCTIONS on what you’ll have to for each segment of the paper.

STEP FOUR: Appoint a CHAIRPERSON

Between you and your teammates, choose someone to sit on the main negotiating panel. This person will be in business attire (like the lawyers in the previous mock trials). The rest will serve as secretaries. Don’t be fooled by the name. You’ll be very busy during the summit.

AND LAST STEP (FOR NOW): Psyche yourself up for the summit!

PICTURE THIS! We’re simulating something that looks like this in the world out there.

Good luck! Work well, have fun, and may you take away as much as you give into this activity!

I heard what I wanted to hear: he will not give in. He will fight. That’s enough for me for now. Now, process is king and I hope truth wins.

Alongside that ran other thoughts that remain untweeted. Things were moving too fast and I needed time to process. Listening to AM radio actually helped this time around as it gave me a better sense of how wide this debate is becoming. I wasn’t alone as I felt when I first called this the onset of tyranny over in Facebook.

The following is not an essay but a series of thoughts throughout the day. Let’s see if anything coherent comes out of it.

I

Though I didn’t vote for Noynoy, I’m not automatically for Corona. I just maintain my skepticism of the President and his politics. Suffice to say, he’s still not winning me over.

II

(From my Facebook comments) I have two concerns.

One, the long game. Aquino is expending A LOT of political capital in the short term to sell his crusade to the public. If it falls flat on his face — and I’m sure the LP’s calculations look like it won’t — the political fallout will be immense. I rather that we go through due process. Then if Corona is visibly seen as someone obstructing justice, then the case is clear. Less exposure to Noynoy. So yes, my first concern is largely political. But the means reflect your ends.

Second, the social agenda. So much is falling by the wayside. I can only speak of one example of a national initiative closest to our experience that is being badly mishandled as the administration’s priorities are elsewhere — K+12 reform. And education is just one part of a wider agenda that needs to get moving. Sure, making a firm stand against corruption will do wonders for his future agenda.

In the end, politics is process. It’s about making choices. And if all criticism is “That’s how I wouldn’t do it” then yes, this isn’t how I would do it and these aren’t what I’d choose.

To summarize: I am uneasy with the political calculus as it seems to signal that the current administration is prioritizing a political vendetta that in no way invests in a social agenda that the President has yet to even articulate. If only he showed more fervor in that, perhaps I’ll be inclined to call him less of a tyrant-in-the-making and more of a statesman-to-be.

III

(From actual tweets) An omission in the Pulse Asia survey: 17% have no opinion of Binay, 19% no opinion of Noynoy, 38% no opinion of Corona. What does that mean? If the Pulse Asia survey is anything to go by, people know Corona the least to make an opinion. So if we declare him the least trusted official relative to how popular Binay and Noynoy are, is that fair?

IV

Though it can be argued that Corona was put into power through extra-constitutional means, I prefer that he is not taken out through extra-constitutional means.

Though it can be argued that he was put into place because of the hubris of one executive, I rather that he be ousted through the humility of the other.

An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind.

V

Just because it is popular, doesn’t make it right. What is legal isn’t always what is right.

VI

Impeachment, like all weapons, is amoral. What matters is who wields it and how. Though impeachment is provided for by the constitution, what must also be weighed is the quality in which it was carried out.

Did every single signatory to the complaint exercise the proper discernment before they supported the motion? Did every single one of them carry out their due diligence? To what degree did politics — and not justice — curry the support?

VII

Every dictator in the history of mankind claimed to do what he did for the benefit of the people. They also amassed incredible popularity in the beginning which they harnessed to eliminate their political opponents.

VIII

The past days pretty much had a Star Wars Episode III The Revenge of the Sith vibe.

IX

(The introduction of an unfinished blog post) I tell my students that we are all inherently political creatures. Aristotle said that. Ibn Khaldun, channeling Aristotle, said that. Confucius thought it, though he never really said it. And that’s what poet John Donne meant in writing that “No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.” That every choice we make and position we take — even if, especially if, it is to choose to be indifferent or not to act — is a statement of our politics.

X

To paraphrase Fr. Joaquin Bernas: Impeachment is an inherently partisan exercise.

XI

Edwin Lacierda must be smoking something.

But Midas is still gay.

XII

(The conclusion of an imaginary blogpost) It is my hope that in the same way the RH Bill debate elevated our understanding of the role of religious institutions in our modern polis, I hope that the coming impeachment trial will elevate what we know about the role of government in our lives. May our exercise of democracy grow in sophistication as we realize that what is popular, isn’t always what is right. Politics is premised on the very negotiation of what is ‘good’ and ‘right’ for society, not on silent acquiescence or blind obedience to whatever is perceived as the overpowering majority.

XIII

Blaming GMA will take Noynoy Aquino only so far. There will come a time in his presidency when he will have to own up to the problems on his table and what will matter is not what has been done before but what he will do in the moment.

Obama, who blamed Bush, is learning that the hard way.

XIV

Many question the odd timing of the administration. Why so close to Christmas? I have a theory. They obviously knew that any trial in the Senate won’t begin until January 16. Depending on how things go, the administration will have the ultimate trump card to play.

February, the season of People Power, is just a few days away.

He better not.

SS2 Mock Trial Case-building Guide: THE 3-PART TEST

There are three big questions to ask in building your case. Once you are able to answer a strong, empathic “YES!” to each then you are ready to participate fully in the mock trials.

#1 Am I convinced of my own position?

This is the most important question and also possibly the most difficult one to answer. To effectively argue your case, you must eliminate doubt or, at least, minimize it to the point that it does not affect your own confidence. Some positions are more difficult to take than others, but what this only means is that you have to do more work in preparing for your case. Doubt can undermine your ability to focus and prepare, thus weakening your case even further. (Whereas ‘easier’ positions can lull a team to a false sense of confidence, thus leading them to under-prepare.)

So how does one gain confidence in one’s position?

1. KNOW YOUR STORY. The number one cure for doubt is information. Master the ins and outs of your case. Since we are dealing with history, most of the facts you can use have already been established. Your job is to find these facts and reconstruct those using primary sources and historical persons. Realize that you and your opponents have begun this activity at a similar place; it has been clear from the trials in the past that the teams who dig up more facts and data dominate the trial.

2. HAVE GOOD WITNESSES. Without good witnesses, you have no case. The mock trial is not a debate in a conventional sense where lawyers bring matter in the courtroom and then duel over who has the more convincing performance. The mock trial is designed to make you work together with your team. While you are graded individually, your work should be inherently collaborative. Find historical characters who can either (a) verify your position, (b) provide compelling first-hand evidence, or (c) directly support [for defense] or discredit [for prosecution] the client for the case.

Another tip for finding a good witness is to select someone your opponents do not see coming. This will require you to dig into other sources which are not commonly used; hence, you will not find much to surprise your opponents if you stick to the text book and Wikipedia. Dig into biographies, second-hand accounts, and primary sources to find compelling historical persons.

3. ANTICIPATE THE OTHER SIDE. You will be competing against a team with their own set of facts and witnesses. In preparing for your case, it will be very wise to try to anticipate how your opponents intend to argue, who they intend to bring to the witness stand, and – most importantly – what sort of questions they may ask your own clients during the cross-examination. It will be helpful to find time as a team to test each other, play the “Devil’s Advocate” (essentially a person from your own team who will pretend to tear your own team down), and predict the arguments that may be thrown against you. Put yourselves in the shoes of the opposing team and see how well you can defend your original position.

#2 Do I know the facts necessary to prove my point?

Once you’ve grown more confident about your position by knowing the basic story, finding the right witnesses, and anticipating the other side, the next step is to refine your knowledge into an airtight case. To use a metaphor, think of how iron is forged. In the beginning you dig up your iron ore (the basic facts), and then you smelt them into a liquid (finding witnesses and testing against the opposing side’s arguments) that you can use. The next step is to place the molten iron into its proper mould, allow it to cool, and then hammer it into sheets that you can use for whatever purpose imaginable. And in the case of these mock trials, you want to forge a blade.

Mastering your case and making it airtight can be achieved by following these principles:

a. Every statement you make must be backed up by evidence. It works against you whenever you introduce a statement or accusation without any proof. This is especially important when you allege that a certain person said or did something incriminating; it is most important that you have a document that clearly indicates so.

b. The statements offered by your witnesses are always relevant to the case. Introducing information that proves to be distracting or irrelevant can hamper your case and open up your witnesses to attack. While distracting your opponent can be a tactic employed in court, remember that there are risks in doing so.

c. Cross-examining the other side should help in making your point. When it comes to the cross-examination of witnesses, the goal of the lawyer is to find inadequacies and inaccuracies in the statements made. This is done to discredit the witnesses with the view of ultimately strengthening your case in court. An effective cross-examination will open up the opponent’s witness to error, and at times they can end up saying something that will help your case.

#3 Am I ready to present my arguments in court?

As you firm up the matter of your case, the last consideration to make is whether you are ready and able to present these facts in court. As one team, check whether you have:

a. Familiarized yourselves with the rules of court. The lawyers should know how to admit evidence into court, impeach witnesses, and object effectively.

b. Rehearsed the witnesses. It will help your team if the witnesses have been ‘rehearsed’ beforehand so that they do not panic when asked questions. And if possible, simulate the pressure and intensity of the cross-examination as well.

c. Prepared all your files and documents for court. Make sure that everything you need for court is prepared beforehand. You may bring notes, documents, and print-outs to the mock trial. Obviously, you cannot fabricate evidence as this will give your team the severest penalty.

Read this article in PDF.

I feel that I will destroy the series’ primary conceit by explaining it to you. By committing The Unwritten to words I may end up diminishing its power, so here’s my attempt to defend it: it is a story about story. Its main character is fiction, and the supporting cast is us — everyone and anyone who reads.

It began mundane enough. A man named similarly as the world’s Harry Potter-figure turned out to be more similar to that character in more ways than one. Soon enough he was journeying through various stories, myths, and tropes as he undertook one quest after another. First he sought his father, the man who created him, and eventually he ran after the source of the magical strangeness that has suddenly befallen his life.

It’s a gripping story, really. And one that my words can never — should never — do it justice.

But what caught me was the notion of how we create worlds through our words. I used to write a lot. However, a malady has struck me in the recent years of my life that has rendered me unable to write.

I remember, then, how writing got out of hand. I was literally creating new realities for myself that, ultimately, crumbled back into the fairy dust that it was. My excuse was that I was growing older. I took on more responsibilities. I had to be more mindful of the things I said; I had to be conscious of the effect my words had on others. The final conceit that killed my writing was thinking that the energies I devoted to writing would be put to better use working in the real world. I took on my teaching more seriously. I took on training leaders more seriously. I took on life, as a whole, more pragmatically. Everything was reduced to cause and effect, self-interest and collective gain, and actions and consequences. Along the way, the magic left.

Thus whenever I gaze onto a blank page or an empty screen to type, I do not see white. I see a blinding darkness. The page, which used to be my free sky, became a door that refused to budge open. A world of words was locked away from me and too often I grappled to find the key. But then I read The Unwritten, and within it I found some clues.

That perhaps, the reality I see before me now is not too different from the one I’ve written and ran away from before. The only difference is that this latest story was not made through words, but from ideas made into action. After all, they all come from just one source and it is to that source that all these stories lead. Too often I’ve felt that most of my life went on to be unwritten, but they’re actually still there. What I need to do is to acknowledge they exist so that they can come to life, and then perhaps I will be free.

I am pleased to unveil this year’s manual for the mock trial activity, Trial of the Heroes! It is now available in the SS2 Reqs 2014 folder for convenient viewing and downloading.

Also in that folder now are:

• Case Timeline Template
• Sample Mock Trial Script “Mary’s Missing Lunch”
• Supplementary reading “Love is a Fallacy” (for lawyers)

I enter the service road from Edison Avenue, one of the area’s larger side streets. Every morning I greet the expressway at a 90′ angle so upon facing it I can see the southward route out of the city to my right and to my left is the path deeper into Metro Manila. That left is the first big turn I make in the series of choices I make each day.

This intersection has always been problematic. Jeepneys stop on all four sides — before and after the intersection, both northwards and southwards — as they wait to fill their cabin with passengers. But lately it has gotten worse.

The volume of cars passing through the service road has increased tremendously. The higher toll fees could be a factor; a lot of those clogging the service road are delivery trucks and vans desperately trying to cut costs. Another consideration is that most of our area has recently been converted into a commercial/residential zone. Our subdivision used to be one of the smaller residential pockets in a sea of factories; now the factories are shutting down and new housing projects are being put up. There are simply more people now, and the jeepneys — whose drivers are assaulted by rising gas and food prices — are making the most of this demographic shift.

Hence, my dilemma every morning.

As I approach the intersection and see the jeeps docked around and within the intersection, I feel my blood boil. I feel rage (at 6am). In a flash I imagine myself driving a Humvee carelessly through. Or maybe don my own vigilante gear and teach everyone the Rule of Law. But then the heat eventually yields to compassion; if I am having a tough time making ends meet with my salary and the bills that don’t pay themselves, I am certain that they are having an even more difficult time. I then look into their eyes from behind my tinted glass and see not malice, but a desperate yet patient determination that they’re just doing what they have to do — blaring horns and battering curses be damned.

Then I am overcome by reason, and a deep, Confucian sort of righteous indignation. Do they not understand that rules are in place for the benefit of everyone? That perhaps if they kept the intersection clear then the traffic will flow more smoothly, avoid jams, and allow them to ply their routes more quickly? In the process they get to have more trips, save more gas, and eventually take home more pay. “If only they extended their concern to the whole world,” the Buddha within speaks, “then everyone would be at peace.”

However, is it truly their fault that they behave the way they do? I channel the Dao and see that the environment does not allow for them to act justly. They need to make a living and yet are unable to without inconveniencing others. And when others violate the traffic rules by counterflowing to avoid the jeeps, no one stops them from doing so. So we ask: is it not their fault that they counterflow? There is just too much in that intersection that is not in sync with the universal Way.

I hold this debate inside my head every time. I have found that it’s a great time killer; traffic moves before I realize it. But this thought process captures my so-called dilemma about rules and how they are used to establish order in a chaotic system. I use this debate to convert the stress of traffic into a stimulus that gets my brain running. By the time I reach work, I am ready for a day’s work as the school’s Discipline Officer. The irony of that is not lost on me.

In 2009, a talk by educationist Debashis Chaterjee largely shaped the way I currently see the world — that there are two: the human world and the systems world. The human world is defined by creativity, passion, and the human spirit. The systems world is shaped by laws, structures, and principles. The two both clash and reinforce each other: just as the human world cannot be contained, the systems world cannot be annihilated.

In the question as to whether the government or ourselves must be blamed for the ills of society, people too easily concede that we are all part of the problem. It’s a humbling response, but it seems to end there. What is lost in all this self-deprecation is the realization that we need to become part of the system in order to change it, and we need to change ourselves in order to inspire change in the system. (In principle I agree that some systems are so corrupt and ineffective that the only course is to subvert and destroy them; but those who propose to do so must be aware that another system will only inevitably rise in its place. Will they be ready when that happens? What if it’s them?) Change is truly an autocatalytic process, but neither side is often ready to take the first step. People remain cynical of government, and government is still incapable of harnessing and asking the best of its people.

[NOTE: Take system here in the post-modernist sense of the term. It's not so much a structure of governance but the sum of our interlocking web of relationships and their varying levels of power. System, in this sense, can be defined by the most fundamental things that link us such as language, ethnicity, and biology. A system can fully exist without government.]

In the case of our tiny intersection along the West service road, there must be both an effort on the part of the city government to provide for the structures necessary to allow the jeeps to dock and fill themselves up, and on the part of concerned citizens to stand up for the rule of law. A golden opportunity was missed when a recent Robinson’s housing project was established in the area; an access road could have been made to cut into Edison or perhaps a small lot could have been set aside for a public transportation terminal.

In the meantime, it wouldn’t hurt to enforce traffic rules more tightly. One small complication with this particular intersection is that it sits right on the boundary of Pasay and Paranaque. Edison Avenue is literally the dividing line on the map. There have been patrols before, but then the politics of jurisdiction (“That’s not my problem!”) got in the way. I hope they all grow up a bit. (Pasay police would man their side but not mind Paranaque’s at all. When things got testy, one side would just point fingers at the other. It’s really pathetic.)

But beyond enforcing rules, explain them. Communicate. The No Loading/Unloading signs do not work at all anymore. It would be great to have MMDA-style graphics and boards to demonstrate why the area must be kept clear. I also hope the city government(/s) reaches out to the baranggays in the area to engage the citizens and keep them appraised of the situation and what little things they can do to make things better.

Because at the end of the day, we all look forward to coming home. And while I share this daily pilgrimage with the anonymous people of Paranaque/Pasay, my mind hovers in a quasi-meditative state, pondering these questions. My dilemma is not so much whether jeepney drivers are to be blamed or forgiven. It’s not even whether we begin by putting up the right structures or by working on our people — we do both. At the heart of it, the question becomes whether I am doing enough to make a positive difference. It is the question I carry with me in every second of my work; it is the challenge that unnerves me in every minute of every day.

And that, in many ways, is what makes a traffic jam so agonizing.

Tomorrow’s list of non-compliance reports will have close to a hundred names, and almost all of them are due to the mass confiscation of bags and items on the ground around the bag deposit boxes. For those who haven’t claimed their items yet, you may retrieve them first thing tomorrow so you can have your stuff when you go to class.

I’m sure this afternoon’s events caught many surprised, so let me explain.

The DO devised the bag deposit areas in order to provide students a structure to place their things as they momentarily attend to matters around campus. This is largely to solve the problems of scattered bags and belongings and of lost or stolen items. I am pleased to say that the bag deposit areas have achieved the first and minimized the second. Only 1 in 20 cases of lost items occurred in the bag deposit area, and most of these instances were actually confiscated things.

However, as the months wore on, the problem of obstruction emerged. Your things now extend well beyond the shelves. They now sprawl across the ground and have incredibly limited our walking space.

I know that we need more bag deposit areas, and I completely respect the need for everyone to have a place where they can leave their things as they head off to PE, CAT, or an outdoor class activity. Carrying the bags together with many volunteers awhile ago, we can see that the bags — especially for the 1st years — are agonizingly heavy.

It is for this reason that I have requested for more. They are now under construction and are on their way. Our carpentry staff cannot name a date yet, and so I will not promise any date to everyone as well. They have nonetheless been marked urgent.

It is also for this reason that I’ve looked the other way in the past months. However, as the feedback about obstruction grew and I sensed that the behavior can no longer be corrected through simple reason, I used other means to get my message across.

Hence, this afternoon’s flash confiscation. And it is only the first.

The next ones will remain completely unannounced. Completely random. And each instance caught will be equivalent to an NCR.

In the meantime, we make do with what we have. In the past I’ve reiterated that your lockers exist. There are shelves outside the library too. Note that you are not allowed to leave your things on top of public tables (front lobby, gazebos, cafeteria). My advice is to maximize your locker, and to bring your bag with you to PE.

The moment I have a date for the next set of bag deposit areas, I promise to tell you.

In the coming days I will be coordinating with the classes assigned to the front and back lobbies for the Pisay Linis campaign.

But every single one can do their part in making the little we have work. Start with these:

• When you deposit your stuff, maximize the slot. Don’t leave just one small item or book. Fill in the entire space.
• If you catch someone leaving just one small item, confiscate it and leave it with us in the Discipline Office.
• When the things begin to overflow and there are some empty slots available, take the initiative to put some of the items (big bags in particular) inside the free slots.
• Take the initiative to confiscate items when they’re just deposited on the ground. Leave it with us in the DO. Seeing a clean, open space actually dissuades other people from leaving their things on the ground.

That’s it! Thanks very much and I hope for a more meaningful and responsible cooperation from everyone.

The complete collection of all SS2 presentations thus far is now available in my publicly shared Google Docs collection, SS2 Presentations. You may access and download the files there with or without a Google account.

My move to Google Docs will hopefully make access easier and more convenient. Google Docs also allows for better flexibility to those who want to view the presentations on their mobile device.

Below are the specific presentations for the 2nd quarter. Consult your respective teachers for the exact coverage of each PowerPoint. The periodic exam will be departmental and will cover the three main civilizations of India, China, and Islam. Not all slides may be covered in the periodic exam.

Click on the images to view/download the presentation you need. These are the current editions revised for use with Batch 2014.

What follows is the full text of the remarks –

Hope… I’m sorry but I don’t want to be an Emperor – that’s not my business – I don’t want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone if possible, Jew, gentile, black man, white. We all want to help one another, human beings are like that.
We all want to live by each other’s happiness, not by each other’s misery. We don’t want to hate and despise one another. In this world there is room for everyone and the earth is rich and can provide for everyone.

The way of life can be free and beautiful.

But we have lost the way.

Greed has poisoned men’s souls – has barricaded the world with hate; has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed.

We have developed speed but we have shut ourselves in: machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical, our cleverness hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little: More than machinery we need humanity; More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.

The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in men, cries out for universal brotherhood for the unity of us all. Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world, millions of despairing men, women and little children, victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people. To those who can hear me I say “Do not despair”.

The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed, the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress: the hate of men will pass and dictators die and the power they took from the people, will return to the people and so long as men die [now] liberty will never perish…

Soldiers – don’t give yourselves to brutes, men who despise you and enslave you – who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think and what to feel, who drill you, diet you, treat you as cattle, as cannon fodder.

Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts. You are not machines. You are not cattle. You are men. You have the love of humanity in your hearts. You don’t hate – only the unloved hate. Only the unloved and the unnatural. Soldiers – don’t fight for slavery, fight for liberty.

In the seventeenth chapter of Saint Luke it is written ” the kingdom of God is within man ” – not one man, nor a group of men – but in all men – in you, the people.

You the people have the power, the power to create machines, the power to create happiness. You the people have the power to make life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure. Then in the name of democracy let’s use that power – let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world, a decent world that will give men a chance to work, that will give you the future and old age and security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power, but they lie. They do not fulfil their promise, they never will. Dictators free themselves but they enslave the people. Now let us fight to fulfil that promise. Let us fight to free the world, to do away with national barriers, do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness.

Soldiers – in the name of democracy, let us all unite!”

As an observer far removed from the event itself, I cannot lay claim to the grief that I am certain still grips people who lost loved ones that day. The indignation I feel against those who perpetrate acts of terror is not rooted in patriotic anger, but in a shared disbelief over the worst that men can do to each other.

For sure, 9/11 taught me that the world was complex. It made me ask tougher questions about religion, politics, and humanity itself. But learning about the seemingly sophisticated intersections of faith and geopolitics only led me to develop a simple instinct. Early on I already began to hold on to the conviction that the key to a safer world was not more theory but more empathy. I grew convinced that though behind our borders lie our differences, there are values we can share which transcend race, region, and religion.

But the past ten years have also shown me that holding on to such belief isn’t easy. We seem even farther away from what many feel is an impending global ethos. History, after all, has been unkind to utopian dreams and those who have tried — from Mao Zedong to Osama bin Laden — have not been judged kindly.

In 2008, I saw in Barack Obama the type of leadership that this coming world needs. But looking at his performance now, that world is farther off still. Partisanship remains the political impulse;  new political battle lines are drawn each day. The hunger for redemption that brought Noynoy Aquino into the Philippine presidency is now exhausted, leaving in its place the same rancor and divisiveness that marks all politics. And all this is tragic. For in each day, a new reason for us to share and work together emerges. We feel it in our dwindling paychecks, our rising bills, the mercilessness of our climate, and the deepening chasm between those who can make do and those who can’t.

I often tell my students that 9/11 began me on the intellectual path that led me to become a social studies teacher. Then it was in being an educator that I discovered a deeper passion for forming student leaders and proactive citizens. After all, if there is one thing I learned in the past ten years, it is that ideas can be powerful things. All it takes is for one man to have the courage and will to wield it. In the hands of a terrorist they can destroy, but in the hands of a teacher, they can build.

Years ago my professors were caught in a world they can’t explain away. My objective is different: not to explain, but to put in my students the tools they need to help build a world no evil can take away.