Corruption in Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu

It's been quite a while since I have last posted. I know, I'm pathetic. What's more? This post is not even written for this blog - it's written for my class. I'm just making use of it to try to mask how pathetic I am. But hey, Mid-December is my winter break. I do sincerely plan on writing one very good story here and posting it then. Until then, enjoy reading this paper I wrote on the state of corruption in Israel for my Politics class.

The eyes of the world have yet again shifted to the Middle East. This time it is for corruption scandals. Israeli Prime Minister (PM), Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu is under police investigation and public scrutiny for the third time during his reign as Israel’s most important political figure. Bribery, breach of trust, and fraud are all crimes for which he is currently under investigation for, and which plague his reputation this time. Niccolo Machiavelli is probably celebrating the decent use of his old guide to ruling The Prince, while Plato is likely turning in his grave at the clear injustice posed by Netanyahu, as per The Republic. This essay will aim to cover Netanyahu’s scandal through the lenses of two starkly different political theorists, by explaining their theories, and demonstrating how Netanyahu has not precisely fulfilled the criteria of being a good leader by either, but has exposed the fallacies and truths in both of their cases.

The PM has been questioned by police more than five times in the past month, though he has publicly denounced all charges as “fake news” (The Jerusalem Post, 2017). Having survived the previous scandals, Netanyahu seems quite certain that he can, survive the current issues as well. However, this seems less likely because of events that have taken place during this investigation, which undermine his innocence, that did not occur during previous ones.

Most notable is the recent departure of his Chief of Staff, Ari Harrow. Following two years of investigation, which culminated with police forces suggesting Harrow be indicted for bribery, money laundering, fraud and breach of trust, Harrow settled on a deal with State prosecutors. In exchange for testifying against Netanyahu in two corruption-related cases, prosecutors would give Harrow the lighter sentence (Reuters, 2017).

When news of this plea deal surfaced, Netanyahu’s innocence and prospects both became understandably bleaker in the eyes of the public. His Chief of Staff was all but openly admitting to the charges, and he was moreover admitting to knowing of Netanyahu’s wrongdoings. Nonetheless, Netanyahu, who stands to become Israel’s longest-serving PM if he can last the whole of his current term in office, has fervently deemed the charges to be part of a political “witch-hunt” (The Jerusalem Post, 2017). Netanyahu even went so far as to say, in Donald Trump-esque fashion, “We know that the left and the media — and we know that it’s the same thing — is on an unprecedented hunt against me and my family to bring down the government...” (The Jerusalem Post, 2017)

Netanyahu’s major accusations lie in Case 1000 and Case 2000. Case 1000 deals with Netanyahu accepting gifts from various businessmen. As per Israeli law, the PM can accept gifts from friends so long as he not then use political channels to repay the gifts, as this would constitute bribery and breach of trust. It is claimed that Netanyahu met with billionaire film producer Arnon Milchan, who gave Netanyahu and his wife, Sara (also implicated in the charges), enormous quantities of wine and cigars, in exchange for Netanyahu’s help and lobbying in getting a United States visa (Vox, 2017).

Case 2000 regards the possible collusion between the PM and the publisher of a major Israeli newspaper. According to reports, Netanyahu met with Arnon Mozes. Mozes pledged that he would ensure his paper would publish pro-Netanyahu content and help keep the PM in power, if Netanyahu took measures, such as introducing legislation, to ensure that Mozes’s main newspaper competition would be kept at bay (Vox, 2017).

With all these allegations swirling, and public approval ratings dropping, it seems unlikely that Netanyahu will manage to survive police prodding for a third time (The New Republic, 2017). At least he will not be alone in being an Israeli PM with a less than spotless record. He will join Ehud Olmert, his former political rival and past Prime Minister, in serving jail time for corruption related charges. After this, the people of Israel can only hope that they will have better luck next election.

When examining Netanyahu’s case from the lenses of two of the most famous political theorists to have ever been, Niccolo Machiavelli and Plato, two very different views are provided for why Netanyahu has behaved as he has, how he has previously gotten away with it, what can be done to remedy the damage that has built up, and what the future holds for Israeli politics.

Machiavelli and Plato write in very different styles, but their differences do not end there. The two writers also have starkly different opinions on what a ruler’s function is, how a ruler should approach his job and society, and even what a ruler should be.

According to Plato in his political book The Republic, the ideal city effectively consists of three types of people – those with bronze in their souls, those with silver, and those with gold. Though Plato is aware that this concept is a lie, he justifies it being told for the promotion of the greater good. The bronze people are the commoners, the silver are the auxiliaries of the Guardian class, and the gold are those who are most fit to rule. In this category of gold souls is The Philosopher King (PK).

The PK is a Guardian of the city who exceeds all expectations and can thus be promoted to Head of State. According to Plato, the PK must be incredibly smart, and use logic and philosophy as his basis to ruling. He also must be satisfied with very little material wealth because material wealth corrupts. Moreover, the philosopher king must be just and love wisdom. What separates the PK from others is that he has true knowledge by being the only person in the ideal city with access to the ideal forms, as opposed to simply being well-educated by schools and so forth. Philosophers, though occasionally looked down on in Athenian society, are defended by Plato and declared to be the most fit to rule, especially because they have no intention to rule.

For Plato, the PK needs to be the person who has access to the ideal forms because they will help him make positive decisions for the future of the city, they need to not have will to rule because only people who are not power-hungry can be trusted with power, and they need to have minimal material wealth because that will prevent them from becoming corrupted. Morally, the PK values the acquisition of knowledge above all else, and thus intellectually, he can achieve understanding of the ideal forms, particularly those of virtue, beauty and good. This, of course, goes along with that person being very smart, physically fit, and otherwise virtuous.

Niccolò Machiavelli has a more brutal and pragmatic approach than his counterpart Plato. Before that approach is discussed, it is necessary to note that Machiavelli wrote his famous political guide The Prince as a work intended for monarchs, as opposed to democratically-elected officials in republic nation-states. However, the content of The Prince offers enough political insight and opinion that it can easily be applied to democratically-elected officials and their own methods of ruling, too. Obviously, since Israel is a republic with regular elections, Machiavelli’s work will be used to describe Netanyahu’s time and dealings as PM.

Machiavelli uses very clear and systematic writing in The Prince. This comes with certain shortfalls. The most pertinent of these is that if any part of his chain of reasoning is flawed, the entire argument is invalid. Despite this, Machiavelli makes many arguments that are solid and even relevant in modern-politics, including those of Israel.

Machiavelli’s core difference from Plato is his opinion on society in general. He states that men are intrinsically “ungrateful, fickle, dissembling, anxious to flee danger, and covetous of gain.” He also proclaims that most subjects are “used to obeying” and they have trouble living when an authoritative figure is not telling them what to do. Men are inclined to follow tradition and feel comfortable when they are partaking in the “old ways of life”. These statements make it clear that Machiavelli considers people to be proverbial “sheep” and blindly follow their leaders. This is in stark contrast to Plato who believes that men like to be involved in daily politics and political biddings. For Machiavelli, even the almighty Prince himself is a follower. The Prince imitates the examples of previous successful leaders in attempts to be successful himself.

Plato is not the only one who would disagree with Machiavelli’s description of the populace. Aristotle, a prominent political theorist in his own right, declared man to be a “political animal”. He concluded humans are quite interested in politics and the welfare of their whole society. Being a political naturalist, Aristotle believed that politics is not just something that men invented and implemented, it is something that is intangible, yet intrinsically existent in human society. Men participate in it because it is almost instinctual to them.

Machiavelli would disagree. He thinks of humans as much more stupid. People either hate or love a prince, and that depends on if that prince harms or benefits them and their way of life. So, Machiavelli’s view on how a Prince should behave consists of many recommendations, though none of them really involve progressive, populace-based decision-making.

This autocratic idea can be discredited through historical examples, such as that of Christian VII of Denmark-Norway. Though he was mentally-insane, sweeping progressive reforms were introduced under his reign. Despite these being the actual doings of his wife and his physician, Christian was lauded by his people, who supported him ever-more strongly after the reforms (Struensee, 1772).

According to The Prince, a monarch can exercise cruelty, if that cruelty occurs all at once, because the people will forget about it in a relatively short span of time. Therefore, a prince does not need to be virtuous, he only needs to appear virtuous in the eyes of the public. But what does it mean to be virtuous, according to Machiavelli? It simply means doing things that are lauded by citizens. This is unlike Aristotle and Plato, who see virtuosity as being an abstract notion in relation to some utmost good and do not consider the practical consequences of it. In Machiavelli’s mind, ethics do not seem important, and only feasible results count when it comes to politics.  So in the end, it does not matter how a prince treats his people, or the way he himself is, if he maintains power, and this can be done through keeping the people minimally content.

For Machiavelli, a perfect prince is not someone who governs with aspects of philosophy, art and political theory, he is simply someone who focuses on military strength and public image. He should harm people only if he is certain that there will be no revenge, and should revolts happen, he should crush them and punish the rebels – these things can boost his image. Ideally, however, a prince should foresee issues and attempt to solve them before they get out of hand.

Good princes rely on intelligence and cunning prowess to obtain power (if they do not get it through hereditary means). They must continue the same pattern after they gain power. If contentious issues arise, the prince should “force the issues” through. It can be interpreted that in some cases that means using literal physical force. Some democratically-elected leaders have used force to pass legislation before. Donald Trump is one of these. During the first week of his presidency, Trump passed several Executive Orders. These orders bypass conventional methods of government in the sense that they do not need to be approved by Congress. Rather, these orders are granted to the President of the United States as a form of “discretionary power” (CNN, 2017).

Benjamin Netanyahu does not seem to fit the criteria of any exact theorist, though he certainly leans more towards Machiavelli’s ideology. That being said, the theories of these two political minds can always be skewed for personal benefit. Ayatollah Khomeini, former spiritual and political leader of Iran is thought to have based his rise and rule on Plato’s model of the PK (Biography.com, n.d.). Still, Khomeini did many things during his reign which would make it impossible for Plato to accept him as a PK.

Netanyahu generally rules with disregard for the means, as long as they reach a desired end. This can be seen by the state of the settlements on the West Bank. He also does his best to maintain a positive image, as can be seen by Case 2000, and he supresses political turmoil, as he did in his last two corruption investigations. Nonetheless, he continues to exercise a form of cruelty on his people by breaching their trust and being corrupt. Though Machiavelli would disapprove of this prolonged and constant cruelty of Netanyahu, he would accept it when he would learn about how Netanyahu works hard to maintain a positive political image and a veil of virtuosity, regardless of how dubious his channels for doing so are.

Machiavelli seems to have channelled many of Sun Tzu’s ideas from Art of War when it comes to his own ideas about military strength. (*see reference) However, Netanyahu would appear to have disproven Machiavelli’s ideas through his actions. Machiavelli says, “the presence of sound military forces indicates the presence of sound laws”. Despite having one of the most impressive military forces in the Middle East, Israel’s laws chronically fail the people when it comes to efficiently deposing corrupt leaders.

But Netanyahu does do Machiavelli some justice with the fact that he is Israel’s first Israeli-born PM. Seeing that he has managed to hold onto power for so long despite the scandals could be a result of him being raised in the same culture and speaking the same language as the people he now governs. Machiavelli does not understate the importance of being familiar with the culture and language of your kingdom.

Netanyahu has done good things for his people during his time in office as well. He has introduced economic reforms, which are well-liked by the people, and he has served as Israel’s first “presentable” PM – meaning that he wears a suit and blends in well with the rest of the world’s diplomats (Vox, 2015).

Plato would be horrified by Netanyahu playing in arguably the most pivotal role in the Middle East. Netanyahu has shown no philosophical knowledge of the ideal forms, and he is not just. His greed demonstrates that, though he may be conventionally well-educated, he lacks “true knowledge”. Most importantly, Netanyahu’s scandal demonstrates that material wealth corrupts, as Plato had stated. Karl Marx would agree with Plato here and probably use Netanyahu as an example of a Bourgeoisie – someone who is so enamored by the prospect of wealth, that they stop at nothing, no matter how vile, to acquire it (Marx, 1848).

In Marx’s opinion, as per The Communist Manifesto, the average people of Israel should rise and overthrow this obviously corrupted government, though it is unlikely that that will actually happen. In Plato’s opinion, Netanyahu should also leave and go fulfill a role more suited to his non-gold soul. He should relieve himself of his material wealth and seek to access the highest form of knowledge. In Machiavelli’s opinion, Netanyahu should continue as he is. Though Netanyahu is breaking a few of Machiavelli’s rules, he is doing so with the purpose of achieving the same desired end – the perpetuation of his rule.

As a student in the famed class Poli240 at UBC, and as a budding political figure, I believe that Machiavelli provides the most pragmatic and likely way to govern for Netanyahu, and for many other current politicians. As much as I adore Marx, I am doubtful that his ideal form of government will ever effectively exist. This is because I believe Plato when he says that wealth and material possessions corrupt – people naturally always want more. This is makes it very difficult for true communism to ever come to fruition. Likewise, Plato’s hippy-commune-style fantasy world is hard to implement. Citizens of Western Liberal Democracies have become accustomed to having money to spend on materialistic trinkets, and have an engrained notion that their quality of life and their worth as a person is equal to the sum of the value of their material possessions. This is an extremely difficult thought-cycle to break, and makes it unlikely for Plato’s Kallipolis to ever be.

I would like to see the world move through the necessary motions to achieve a peaceful coexistence, where people are content with more intangible things, like love and humor. Unfortunately, such a transition is very hard to incentivize because of the way that Westerners (and I am including Israelis in that) have viewed, and continue to view, the world.

The major differences between Plato and Machiavelli’s ideologies lie in their opinions on men’s nature, and the purpose of government. The purpose of Machiavelli’s guide to governance is, unlike Plato’s, not to create a perfect society where every citizen is content and presented with equal opportunities, rather Machiavelli is solely concerned with what actions need to happen to perpetuate a monarch’s control over his territory. Netanyahu embodies the theories of Machiavelli far more than he does those of Plato, or any other mentioned philosopher. He simply does what he sees to be the easiest way to achieve his desired ends. He is not just, he is corrupted by material wealth and thirst for power, and that is why he would make Plato upset.

The people of Israel can only hope for a better future, if they manage to depose Netanyahu. Considering their history, the prospects are bleak.

  

Works Cited

Aristotle. Politics. Harvard University Press, 2005.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini - Religious Figure - Biography.com. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 24, 2017, from Biography.com: http://www.biography.com/people/ayatollah-ruhollah-khomeini-13680544

Birnbaum, B. (n.d.). Benjamin Netanyahu Will Not Win Another Election. Retrieved 11 24, 2017, from https://newrepublic.com/article/121320/benjamin-netanyahu-wins-israel-election-5-takeaways

CNN, J. D. (n.d.). Trump's latest executive order: Banning people from 7 ... Retrieved 11 24, 2017, from ''CNN'': http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/donald-trump-refugees-executive-order/index.html

Griffith, S. (2005). Sun Tzu: The Illustrated Art of War. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 11 24, 2017

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Cambridge Press, 1975.

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Monthly Review Press, 1998.

Plato.  Republic. Oxford University Press, 1998.

Schioldann, J. (2013). ‘Struensée’s memoir on the situation of the King’ (1772): Christian VII of Denmark. History of Psychiatry, 24(2), 227-247. Retrieved 11 24, 2017, from https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24573261

Wildman, Sarah. “A Corruption Investigation Could Bring down Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.” Vox, Vox, 8 Aug. 2017, www.vox.com/world/2017/8/8/16107212/corruption-bribery-netanyahu-chief-of-staff-revelations.

Blood Donation

It is rational to be a freeloader and not donate blood despite being willing to accept it, despite it being not ethically permissible. In fact, it is likely more rational to be a freeloader than not. This is because rationality can be defined as making the best use of reason or logic. Not donating blood, while still being fully willing to accept in the case of need, is most rational because it accords with logical steps. This is because freeloading makes it possible for someone to potentially reap the benefits of blood donation, without causing themselves any trouble ever. One would never donate any blood and would spare themselves of the trouble of physically going to donate blood and possibly suffering from minuscule side-effects like temporary dizziness. Moreover, even if the situation arose and that person required a blood transfusion, they would then accept it and gain the benefits of it. This is very rational on the part of the person.

A person can rely on their fellow citizens to donate blood without ever doing themselves. That person can then potentially reap the rewards of his fellow citizens while having never caused any problem or inconvenience, as donating blood may be perceived to be, unto himself.

It is only true when personal benefits and costs are considered. Once factors, like societal moral and ethical ones, are considered, the questions becomes more complex and difficult. Once ethics are included, the question is no longer purely logical. Logically, it makes sense to do less and get more, which is essentially what the concept of freeloading is in this context. However, once a ethical viewpoint is included, it can be seen that not donating blood, but being willing to accept it in the case of a transfusion, is wrong and not morally acceptable. This is because it is impossible to justify that one should accept blood when in need whilst never donating it themselves, if they are physically capable.

The fact is that a healthy person, who is physically capable of donating blood, has a very small chance of ever requiring blood. However, that same person may be mildly troubled by donating blood, either by small physical side-effects, like temporary dizziness, or simply by the less convenient allocation of time (i.e. That person could be doing something more pleasurable with their time than donating blood). Moreover, even if that person did eventually need blood, they would most likely have some because of the goodwill of other people.

Therefore, when considering the personal benefits, it is completely rational to not donate blood because the chances of one needing it are smaller than the potential inconveniences faced when donating it, and because blood will likely be there for you should you need it.

This story changes especially when you consider the benefits to others. It becomes realized that other people can potentially rely on this resource and that, without donations, these people could suffer severe consequences. These consequences would not be brought about as a result of their own doing, but rather because of the fact that people did not want to donate themselves – a sort of collective action problem.

If all people believed that they did not need to donate blood because someone else would do it for them, then there would be little to no blood supply. This would cause a tremendous detriment to others (patients) in need of blood. So, from a societal point of view, not only is failing to donate blood immoral, it is irrational, too. No benefits exist to others when a person does not donate blood.

Overall, it is important to recognize the difference between rational and ethical. Though freeloading is rational, particularly in personal circumstances, it cannot be ethical under most circumstances. Also, it needs to be noted that though freeloading is rational on an individual level because it spares one from a small chore, it is completely irrational on a societal one because it fails to produce any benefits to other people.

It can be considered ethically wrong to not donate blood for a variety of reasons, but many scenarios need to be considered before making a definitive statement. Two major arguments exist to help determine the morality of donating blood. The first is the beneficence argument. This argument states that whenever a person has the ability to commit an act of good, they have a moral obligation to do so.

The second argument regards the wrongness of freeloading. This argument focuses more on immorality than morality (the beneficence argument does the opposite, in a way.) It states that it is ethically wrong, and makes you a freeloader, to reap the benefits of a collective good, to which others are contributing to, without contributing to it yourself. This argument elaborates that someone is only entitled to as big a portion of the collective good, as they themselves contributed.

Both of these reasonings do not apply to everyone. Most notably, a person who is physically incapable of doing good, as per the beneficence argument, or a person who is physically incapable of contributing to the collective good, as per the wrongness of freeloading argument, is not applicable under the reasonings. These people cannot contribute because they are simply incapable of doing so for no purposeful reason (since being sick cannot be intentionally self-imposed or purposeful).

When other reasons, like religious ones, come into mind, the arguments have a divergence in their beliefs. If someone follows the beliefs of a Jehovah's Witness, then that person is not permitted by their religion to donate, nor receive, blood. Under the beneficence argument, the Jehovah's Witness is still subject to donating blood. This is because blood is essential to life, and can therefore save the lives of people who need it for a medical reason. Any Jehovah's Witness, who is physically capable of donating blood thus has an obligation to donate blood because that provides society with a collective good and that is then their moral obligation. Under the alternative argument however, a Jehovah's Witness is not obliged to donate blood. This is because their religion also prevents them from accepting blood. This means that a Jehovah's Witness, though they would never donate blood, would also never accept blood. Therefore, they would not be freeloading because one is not a freeloader if they do not contribute to a system they do not use.

In another scenario, where the blood supply is already large and sufficient, the arguments have reversed stances. Under the beneficence argument, this scenario would not require anyone to donate blood. This is because their particular donation would not benefit the collective good, and is therefore unnecessary ethically. However, under the wrongness of freeloading argument, a person would still be required to donate blood if they ever need to use it. This is because if they did not donate blood, they would be using a public service without contributing to it equally and thus freeloading.

Selling blood, instead of donating it leads to a more complex situation. Under the beneficence argument, if you sell your blood and it ends up in the same place that it would have if you had donated it, then you are still providing the same good to people and fulfilling your moral obligation. However, if your blood ends up in a different place, where it is not providing a good, or as great a good, to society as it would have had you simply donated it, then you have not done good to society and therefore cannot be justified under this argument. For the wrongness of freeriding argument, the answer it situation-dependent. If the blood is sold and ends up in the same place that it will be withdrawn from one day by you should you require it, then it is not a problem because you are contributing to the collective good that you are using. Alternatively, if it is sold and ends up in a different place than the one where you withdraw the blood you need from, then you are freeriding because you are withdrawing the blood you need from a place to which you did not contribute.

In another scenario one may consider paying someone to donate blood on their behalf. This is ethically unjustified under the beneficence argument unless you are physically incapable of donating blood yourself. Under this viewpoint, you can still do more good if you go and donate blood by yourself, so if you simply pay someone else to complete this on your behalf, you are basically motivating that person to fulfill their moral duty under the beneficence argument, as oppose to actually satisfying your own. If however, you were incapable of donating blood for physical reasons and paid someone to donate on your behalf, then you are doing a good for society in the best way you possibly can, so you would justified as fulfilling your moral obligation. Alternatively, under the wrongness of freeloading argument, you would be backed-up ethically by paying someone to donate on your behalf. This is because if you ever required blood yourself, you would still have contributed to the collective good, albeit in a financial way. That financial way would have led to the same result as you physically donating the blood yourself and you could not be considered a freeloader.

Finally, under the beneficence argument, participating at a blood clinic as a trained medical professional would not exempt you from donating blood yourself. This is because this argument requires that any good that ca be performed by an individual be performed in order for that individual to satisfy their moral obligation. So, if someone can both participate in a blood donation clinic as a medical professional, and donate blood, which are both good things, then that person has a ethical obligation to do both things. Likewise, under the wrongness of freeloading argument, the person would still not be exempt from donating blood. This is because if that person requires blood, they would taking it from a collective good to which they had never directly contributed to (the only direct contribution would be donating your blood), thus making them a freeloader.

Donating blood and being vaccinated are inherently different things. Being vaccinated for a contagious disease, like the mumps, makes it significantly less likely that you will get the disease and therefore be a carrier for it. This means that you will be less likely to make other people sick. Donating blood, however, is different. By not donating blood, you are not making anyone sick or worse off, you are simply making it more difficult for someone who requires blood to get better. So the difference is that in the vaccination scenario, you are directly contributing to causing people to be sick and worse off. In the donating blood scenario, you are simply indirectly making it more difficult for those who are already sick to improve their condition. Therefore, it seems sensible to prevent people from getting others sick and compromising their own health by making vaccination mandatory. But, it does not seem sensible to mandate donating blood because that would not prevent people from falling ill, nor would it compromise the health of healthy people – it would simply make it far more difficult for people to improve their health when they require blood.

Myths

It's been a while since I posted last, so I'm sorry. I'll try to post my university essays and other things here so as to leave you reading, but I'm not sure how much fresh material I'll be able to write. University is not busy, but I have become increasingly pathetic and lethargic. Whenever I am presented with the decision of blogging or doing nothing, I choose the latter. So, forgive me, but then again, thank me for bringing myself to write the following:

I have officially completed one semester at university, and am fresh into the second one. I am really looking forward to the super long 4 month break that university provides, and am quite enjoying the relatively short duration of courses. In high school, it was annoying, I think, to have to deal with prolonged courses in high school. They were always full of meaningless homeworks and rather meaningless people. Spending every other day with the same teacher also, in a way, forces you to hate them. High school was not a good learning experience for me; neither was it especially socially enlightening, but that's beside the point. University has proved to be quite different.

For the first time in my life, I'm a straight A student. I did a sparkling job in the 5 courses I took in first semester, which impressed my mother, which is really important. This semester I'm taking 5 more courses, three of which are distinctly political, which means that I have an even better chance of getting straight As this term, too. I'm amazing - let's just get that out of the way. But what is less than amazing? University.

When I started university, I was presented with a series of myths as to how exactly my university life would be. I will now provide you with a detailed description of the myths, so that you, dear reader, can start-up your university life with a realistic perception of how lame university truly is. 

Myth #1: "You'll meet so many cool people!"

I was told that university would be crawling with new friends; meeting new people would be a breeze. Moreover, the wide-range of people would ensure that I would be able to find some like-minded individuals and strike-up friendships that would last a lifetime. What a lie! University is far from that. Perhaps it has a lot to do with the fact that I live in Vancouver and go to UBC, but no one seems interested in making new friends and talking. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that my generation of students -the kids that were accepted by UBC- have spent so long burdened under the darkness of AP courses, SATs and over-achievements that they have forgotten what socialization is. Perhaps they don't even feel an urge to make friends anymore; maybe they are perfectly content with the textbooks. No matter the reason, the fact remains.

Thus far, I have only met one person who has actually said "hello" to me outside of class discussions. This Indian boy called Animesh. He's cool. He really liked the fact that I introduced myself as someone who DJs  (the professors know that no one can make friends, so they forcefully request that everyone turn to the person sitting next to them in lecture hall and introduce themselves with a fun fact.) He, despite not at all looking the part, proved to be really into electronica. From that day forward, he always greeted me because he thought it was so cool that I DJed. Unfortunately, he was so timid that even greeting me seemed as though it caused him significant pain, so our conversations never really became anything more than pleasantries. I finished the course I took with him last semester, but I still occasionally see him on campus and he always smiles and says "hello". I don't know if it's appropriate to call him a friend, but he's someone distinctly new that I met at university and maintained some degree of contact with. Everyone else, well, they never speak to you again after the lecture ends. 

I would like to believe that it is all as a result of logistical reasons - each lecture has 300 people, so the chances of sitting next to the same person each lecture are slim to none. Sadly, I don't think that that's it. 

Myth #2: "People in university are paying to be there, so they'll be interested in the subject matter!"

Oh, if only. I'm studying Arts. I expected, as a result of the things I was told, that my classes would be brimming with kids who are really interested in politics and writing and humanities. These kids would love to interact and discuss topics akin to ones I enjoy, right? Maybe I'm deaf because that's completely wrong. All of the kids seem to be taking courses because they have to. No one has any real interest. Again, I think this is because no one had any time to develop interests in their textbook-burdened lives, but still.

Our professor asks a question and dead silence ensues. Our professor begs for a few responses and eventually the same handful of people that always raise their hands, raise their hands. The professor sadly chooses one of them and continues his lecture. Children who are vying to be the next Prime Ministers are too afraid to answer basic questions because 1. they aren't sure if they know the answers, and 2. they are horrified of speaking in front of people. These are not people who like to talk or who are interested in what they're learning. No, they're people who seem to be too preoccupied with holding in their poop from fear to think of anything regarding politics. It's really sad.

There are more myths that I'll reveal as university continues to unravel, but for now, that just about sums up my grievances. My next post will deal with some friend-grievances, but I won't pester you with that right now. Instead, I'll wish you a more eventful and fun time in university than the one I'm having. I wish you one that involves less unnecessary lectures and more normal children.