Book Review: "Cosmopolitanism" by Kwame Anthony Appiah

I've recently been able to read Cosmopolitanism by Kwame Anthony Appiah. When I first picked it up, I thought it might be an interesting take on the issues of multiculturalism and immigration that Western societies have had to deal with over the last 2 decades (considering that this book was published in 2006). It actually turned out to be a bit different than I expected, being instead a more abstract philosophical work that lays out the arguments for a certain sort of cosmopolitan worldview and manner of engaging with other people, with these arguments being based on somewhat more abstract discussions of the histories of nations, cultures, and peoples. In particular, the author discusses how cultures have diffused throughout space and time and how people are capable of engaging with different issues and other people from across the world in an intelligent and active manner, so the framing of issues like cultural imperialism/theft or charity for the poorest around the world may end up being counterproductive in the long-term; additionally, the aim of conversation and engagement with strangers should be to reach a mutual understanding and (ideally, though this depends somewhat on the topic at hand) respect for different culture-specific values, because persuasion of people to change such culture-specific values is typically [though not always] a fool's errand. I realize this brief summary doesn't really do the book justice, because it is a rather dense book (at least for a layperson like myself) with so many different issues discussed at varying lengths and levels of abstraction.

Overall, there are a lot of arguments that seem disconnected, especially the anecdotes of his family or his childhood in Ghana (though those were nice to read), and there seem to be a lot of philosophical subtleties that may well have gone over my head, but while each chapter is a nice self-contained explanation of an aspect of cosmopolitanism, the overarching message seems rather muddled (especially comparing the last chapter to everything before it). There are other issues that I have with the book that I'll detail after the jump, but more broadly, I was somewhat disappointed by the ease with which I could use the author's own terms and arguments against the book. That said, I do agree with one main theme, and that is of respectfully engaging with strangers by critically examining "thick" beliefs on their own terms and as they arise from other "thick" & "thin" beliefs (to be explained after the jump), in order to find common ground while also understanding and respecting where differences arise; this is similar to what I learned from the last student-led discussion I attended at the Day of Action on campus in March. I suppose people who are interested in this sort of thing would be drawn to this book anyway, but I wouldn't really recommend this otherwise. Follow the jump to see more of my thoughts on this book.

Another Case of "Microsoft the Valiant Bloody Hero"

Journalists (original article reported by Diane Bartz, Reuters) aren't doing their jobs.
Some are good in areas like politics, the economy, and other stuff, but technology seems to be an area where all outside journalists do a poor job.
Why do I say this?
Just to summarize, a new report from Symantec has shown an increase cybercrime through use of disguised malware (as antimalware programs).
Not once does this report mention that this likely only affects Windows users.
Granted, Linux and BSD users are practically invisible to other computer users, but Mac users are pretty visible (especially through recent ad campaigns from Apple).
Why can't they add this little clarification?
That's because it ties into the next question: isn't anyone suspicious that the report on cybercrime is sponsored by Symantec, a company that deals almost exclusively with antimalware programs for charge?
I think that Symantec is using this as a platform to sell their products; "cybercrime is on the rise, so you should buy Norton security programs from Symantec!"
If they mentioned that Mac and Linux/BSD users are virtually immune to these attacks, people would take a second look at these OSs that don't require extra software just to keep the system secure to usable levels. Guess what that means? Symantec would basically go out of business.
This is far from the first instance of bad journalism in failing to mention that small but still significant portions of the computer-using population are immune to these attacks. That said, it's one of the worse (but not the worst) article of its kind that I've seen; in fact, there is not one mention of even the word "Windows" (in reference to the OS(s) at risk).
Come on, journalists. Can't you actually do some proper investigation again?