Reflective post for 12/8
Last class....well, that was interesting, and I must say that I was very frustrated. After Japan, and most of the rest of the groups, voted to kick McDonalds out of the conference, we went to the lounge in Leonard and tried to infiltrate the conference from the outside. We didn't have that much success, but alas, we returned to the conference fairly quickly so...
I was really frustrated by what happened, and afterwards Bob and I had a really intense chat about what happened. I told Bob that I was upset because I thought Japan was acting very childish and was just angry that we weren't voting with them. Bob told me that I was being unreasonable to think that McDonalds would be allowed to stay at an international development conference, we were the only non state entity after all. Anyway, we both tried to convince the other that we were right and didn't end up making any progress. Unfortunately Bob thought I was really mad at him about what happened (which I absoluetly wasn't). I just wanted him to understand that my main gripe was that we no longer had any reason to stay in the concert. Bob kept saying that just because we had no vote was no reason to leave - we still had a voice afterall. But I think that my group felt like we didn't, because since we didn't have a vote the other participants had no reason to listen to what we had to say.
PTJ said afterwards that we did exactly what he expected, but I guess it left me wondering - why wouldn't a business that had a GDP close to or exceeding that of some of the participants be invited to an international forum on development. This same question was brought up later when we were discussing Snow Crash, and there was some debate about working for the people vs. self interest. I think that corporations should be included in a discussion about how the rest of the world can help underdeveloped coutries change, and this project went a long way in changing my mind. I still think that McDonalds is the business form of the spawn of satan and I refuse to eat there, but I think that there is a good case for business, who often reach more people on a daily basis than governments do, to be involved in international affair. I guess we'll see what happens though, we may be closer to the ideas of Snow Crash than we initially expected.

Thanks for a good semester. It was fun. Good luck on finals and such.

Reflective post for 12/8
Last class....well, that was interesting, and I must say that I was very frustrated. After Japan, and most of the rest of the groups, voted to kick McDonalds out of the conference, we went to the lounge in Leonard and tried to infiltrate the conference from the outside. We didn't have that much success, but alas, we returned to the conference fairly quickly so...
I was really frustrated by what happened, and afterwards Bob and I had a really intense chat about what happened. I told Bob that I was upset because I thought Japan was acting very childish and was just angry that we weren't voting with them. Bob told me that I was being unreasonable to think that McDonalds would be allowed to stay at an international development conference, we were the only non state entity after all. Anyway, we both tried to convince the other that we were right and didn't end up making any progress. Unfortunately Bob thought I was really mad at him about what happened (which I absoluetly wasn't). I just wanted him to understand that my main gripe was that we no longer had any reason to stay in the concert. Bob kept saying that just because we had no vote was no reason to leave - we still had a voice afterall. But I think that my group felt like we didn't, because since we didn't have a vote the other participants had no reason to listen to what we had to say.
PTJ said afterwards that we did exactly what he expected, but I guess it left me wondering - why wouldn't a business that had a GDP close to or exceeding that of some of the participants be invited to an international forum on development. This same question was brought up later when we were discussing Snow Crash, and there was some debate about working for the people vs. self interest. I think that corporations should be included in a discussion about how the rest of the world can help underdeveloped coutries change, and this project went a long way in changing my mind. I still think that McDonalds is the business form of the spawn of satan and I refuse to eat there, but I think that there is a good case for business, who often reach more people on a daily basis than governments do, to be involved in international affair. I guess we'll see what happens though, we may be closer to the ideas of Snow Crash than we initially expected.

Thanks for a good semester. It was fun. Good luck on finals and such.

Reflective post for class on 12/1:
I would like my post to be about the creative process of making a movie. I did a large part of the editing for our McDonald's movie, and I found it to be a very interesting experience. I really liked doing it (even now I'm still messing around in iMovie when I have some free time). I found the process of making a movie to be very similar to what happened in the conference. You start with a lot of raw material and ideas, and slowly, after watching all of it and playing around with how it fits into the movie, it is edited out or included depending on what you need to make everything work.
I think this is really reflective of what happened in class, because a lot of the debate was about the movies and what happened in them and what parts of the ideas of each representitive were important for the conference. I also think this is a big part of what really goes on in world politics, there is a lot of raw material and ideas bouncing around about what is necessary for the world/country, and it is only after that material has been looked at and discussed and examined that its importance for the world can really be judged.
I really liked the process of making the movie, of mashing a lot of seemingly unrelated material together and finally seeing how it fit. I also really liked the end product because I thought it fit our group and represented the ideas we wanted to get across (this could just be me boasting about how good I thought our movie was). Overall I thought it was a good experience and I thought that the discussion in class represented a lot of really well prepared groups talking about an issue that is increasing important in world politics.

Call this a "time machine" question: try a thought-experiment, thinking yourself ahead one hundred years to 2106. Will "introduction to world politics" courses still begin with a discussion of sovereignty and the system of sovereign territorial states? Will world politics be organized into such a system a hundred years from now, or not? Why?
Yes, I do think that world politics will be organized in a system similar to the one that we operate under now. I think that even though the world is changing and globalization is becoming a huge force that politics and bearuacry are slow to change and as a result it is unlikely that the entire global political system will change in one hundred years. I think that soverign states and the system will still be discussed even if the system changes because for so long they have played such a large role, not only in practiced politics but also in political theories and discussion. Soverign states represent an interesting period in world politics, and they also represent a changing period in world politics, because in todays day and age it feels like every soverign state is jockeying for a position of power. At the same time there is an interesting dynamic of soverign states willingly joining larger blocs of states to advance thier society, economy, political system and any number of other reasons.
This phenomenom is something that will most certainly be discussed in the next 100 years as the force of globalization continues to grow. I'm not sure if that force will be wrapping up or just reaching its peak, but I do think that even though it influences global politics that we will still have soverign states. For one thing, just think how much work it would take to completely dismantle every semblance of soverign states. Snow Crash is interesting in the assumption that it won't take very long at all to destroy soverignty, but I tend to disagree with that, because I think that people will be reluctant to let go of the familiarity of life in "The United States of America". I had an interesting conversation with Dan and some of his acquantiances today, in which the idea that patriotism is the real religion of the United States. Even though patriotic sentiments are not nearly as prevelant in the rest of the world, I think it is important to consider how that sense of loyalty to the country will factor into the hypothetical destruction of the state.
I think that in 100 years freshman in college will still discuss how soverignty and soverign states impact world politics, even if it is only discussing how thier destruction is shaping the course of the world. I don't think that will change unless there is a catastrophic event in the next 100 years (entirely possible, but for the sake of my sanity, I think I will leave that speculation to an actual discussion).

World Politics Question #11
In his conclusion, Todorov argues that "The man who finds his country sweet is only a raw beginner; the man for whom each country is as his own is already strong; but only the man for whom the whole world is as a foreign country is perfect." Do you agree? Why or why not?
I do agree with Todorov’s assertion. I think that the idea of the entire world as a foreign country speaks to the thrill and importance of new experiences. Because Todorov’s book deals so much with communication, I think it is important that the idea of communication as a mode of discovery is discussed. I think that Todorov’s book made it clear that verbal communication is not the only way that we, as humans, communicate. Hand signals, body language, writing, use of the five senses, there are so many forms of communication that allow us to explore the world.
If we view the world as our classroom, in essence every country as a foreign country then we are perpetually willing to learn new things, experience new places, ideas and people. Todorov says that there are three stages, ownership, belonging and perfection (obviously not exactly in those words). To him it is very important that all people throw off thier ingrained experiences and discover the world around them (almost as a child). I absolutely think that he is correct in his assertion; that only the people who are willing to continually explore the world around them have reached a stage of perfection (not really perfection - more raw innocence and an opportunity to explore), in that they are willing to set off on an adventure and seek out that which they do not know.
I think that to the truly “perfect” person the world is a place much like a book, full of information that they don’t know, but are ready to find out.

World Politics Question #8

Do state governments have a responsibility to promote economic growth? Do they have a responsibility to promote economic growth even if doing so threatens other values and goals? How far should one go in promoting economic growth?
I do think that state governments have a responsibility to promote economic growth because economic growth has positive impacts on the state as a whole. Economic growth can improve living conditions, perpetuate more growth and lead to greater sustainablity. Economic growth is a positive aspect of a country’s success. However, economic growth has limits. When such growth destroys important social values and goals, then it is important to reexamine where the country is going.
What is most important is the people - if the economic goals of the state start hurting its citizens, then the state has gone too far in pursuing economic growth. I think that economic growth is positive up to a point, and after that point has been reached, then the growth of the country should level off. If the country has pursued positive economic growth over its history then it should be able to sustain its economy or citizens with very little economic stimulation.
But the real hear of this question is how far one should go in promoting economic growth. I think that economic growth should only be promoted in so far as it does not harm the citizens or the goals and values of the country. Because the goals and values of the country should reflect the goals and values of it’s citizens, any actions on the part of the government that subvert or destroy those values must be seriously examined.

World Politics Question #7
Is the world more secure now than it was on, say, 10 September 2001? Are you more secure?
I don’t feel that the world is more secure than it was on September 10, 2001. I feel that the only major change in my “security” is that a vast number of people feel that they are less secure. This shift in thinking marks a change in my security because more people feel that the government needs to be proactive in ensuring the security of its citizens. The attacks of September 11th, could just have easily occured on September 10th, so it seems logical that we were just as unsafe on the 10th as we were on the 11th. Why did it take a huge event such as September 11th to radically change the way so many Americans think about the world. Life is inherently dangerous, there is a huge risk every time we leave our rooms: the cars we drive, the food we eat, the activities we do - they all are more likely to kill us than a terrorist or an air plane crash, so why do so many people obsess about the relativley obsure chance of dying in such an event?
If anything I feel less secure following September 11th. So many people are demanding that the world be made a safer place, and consequently they have made it less safe. All their worrying makes it unsafe to live, unsafe to experience the world without wondering “what if there is a terrorist on my plane, or if that person on the street is going to blow themself up?”. People are so scared that they are going to die that they stop living. My safety on September 10th wasn’t defined by the fact that I didn’t worry about terrorists, it was the fact that I lived without the fear of what if. After September 11th, the same terrorist that always existed were still in the world, but there was a shift in everyone’s thinking - and that shift changed the world for everyone, making us fearful, timid and worrysome.
September 11, 2001 didn’t create more terrorists - it just brought our natural fear to the surface. That is what made the world less secure, we scared ourselves.

Question # 6:Should natural disasters be regarded as security threats? Why or why not?

I think that Natural Disasters should be regarded as security threats, if for no other reason than the fact that they temporarily destabalize infrastructure. Even though natural disasters aren’t caused by terrorist attacts or bombs, they present a set of problems that are largely the same as those events; resuce teams must be called up, roads and forms of communication are often destroyed, numerous casualites pile up in hospitals and chaos often ensues. Because the results of these two types of castastrophies are so similar, I believe that they must both be regarded as security threats. People react strongly to events that impact thier daily routines, and the ensuing confusion is dangerous to the security of everyone, regardless of the cause of the event.
One could argue that because natural disasters don’t generally cause the massive societal reforms that a major terrorist attack does that they are therefore not a security threat. However, I believe it is important to recognize the effect of a natural disaster on the society. The ramifications of Hurricane Katrina are still being felt, especially in the Souther United States, but also in Domestic policy discussions. Natural Disasters are Serious threats to the stability of a society, and for that reason it is essential that they are considered security Threats.

Wow, I cannot believe tihs is my final World Politics blog. This semester just flew by.

In Friday's class, we finished up our major simulation. There were a lot of interesting things that happened during this. Firstly, I think the fact that McDonalds was silenced by a suggestion by Japan was surprising. But, personally, I think it was something that needed to be done. This conference we were involved in was a development conference. Companies, such as McDonalds, should not be involved in these kinds of meetings for several reasons. McDonalds, and many other multinational companies, tend to feed off of developing countries. McDonalds can go into a country that is developing, buy up a good amount of land for a low price, build up their business, and then have a solid stand in that country as it becomes a developed country. McDonalds shouldn't be involved in developmnt conferences becauses they will try to pass things to ensure their own well-being in developing countries. It is only sovereign nations that should be involved in the decisions of developing countries; if companies were to be involved in things like this the wants and needs of the companies would be considered over the wants and needs of the developing country. This would cause many problems, obviously.

-Snow Crash-

To discuss Lauren’s question about the people who can’t afford a computer, the answer was in the book. Those poorer people have black-white avatars so everyone else in the Metaverse can tell they are poorer; these avatars are less detailed than the others, so its obvious what class they are in. This is very reminding of how things used to be; when royalty could only wear purple or even now when only certain gangs or whatnot can wear certain articles of clothing. It's very telling of who the person is.

I would like to also speak about the concept of reality in Snow Crash. I think that the Metaverse, and how people feel when they are in there is very telling of the kind of society Stephenson believed that would come about; and honestly, that kind of super-ficial reality is beginning to come about. People are now getting more into "How can I make myseslf look thinner, prettier, and/or more perfect." In the metaverse, people are able to escape reality and live through their avatar. They are able to be perfect and socially without leaving their own home. I think that's very similar to what is happening today; except for the fact that currently we do not have an alternate reality to escape to.

Major Simulation

The second part of the major simulation was very interesting- with McDonald's being voted out of the conference then leaving. I would just like to echo Katie's sentiments that no one expects McDonald's to act like the Red Cross. We recognize that McDonald's has their own interests which are different from the interests of countries

Japan wasn't wrong to move to vote McDonald's out of the Development Conference. It was said that Japan was being childish, but a lot of actions that countries take can be considered childish. And guys- storming out of the room? I think I did that when I was like 5...so being childish works both way.

I believe that the end results of the conference were beneficial to all parties involved. I was glad that we could come to a general consenus after all that had occurred.

Snow Crash

I would just like to point out again that it is amazing that book was published in 1992.

OK moving on...

I am honestly scared that the world may turn out the way it is in the book. Imagine if you spent most of your time in this imaginary computer animated world. Just sitting like Hiro did in his almost barren apartment in the slums. Imagine having the best thing in your life being imaginary? I just can't comprehend that. Additionally, to find out anything about you all a person has to do is scan your eye or barcode. That's just crazy.

I'm not much of a video game person, I sporadically play tetris and pacman on a little, outdated gameboy. I find it astonishing when people spend real money to buy this virtual money that we talked about in class. I personally think those people need to get a life (i'm seriously sorry if you are like that). If our world becomes this place where you need to plug in to have a life then the future doe not look too bright.

World Politcs

I would just like to say that I really enjoyed the UC World Politics program. It helped with my transition from high school to college. I made really great friends, I strengthened my debating skills, learned how to blog, amongst other things. I would also really like to thank PTJ. Without you I don't think that the class would have been the same. I really feel that I learned a lot and got to experience new things that I would not have had the opportunity to if you had not been the teacher. I would also like to thank Lennea for all the work that she did this semester.


Good luck finals and that stuff!

~A Restless Sleeper's Last Reflections~

Hmmm, I seemed to have caused some controversy by calling for McDonalds to be stripped of their vote on Friday... If I have upset some members of the McDonalds team, I am sorry for that. I am not, however, sorry for what I did by orchestrating the removal of their voting privileges. By calling for the removal of McDonalds voting rights, Japan, and every country that followed her was acting completely in character. I won't reiterate any segments of the argument because the polar opposite perspectives concerning the issue will not compromise on any points.

The thing is, this happens in the real world. More so, in the real world, if McDonalds was invited to a conference like this, it would be only as an observer/contributor. Yes, I know, an AU classroom is not the real world. On the other hand, it was clearly inherent within the objectives of the simulation that we should treat the conference as a real world situation.

On another note, I wish people would stop worrying about their grades. Clearly, if PTJ, allowed for McDonalds to be stripped of their voting rights, he would not let it reflect on their grades.

Anyways, I thought the conference went pretty well. Although I do believe we spent a good deal more time debating amendments than the key issues behind the Washington Consensus (the provided framework). That is probably how things work in the real world though, more attention to details and less to the big picture, so I don't really see anything wrong with that.

I'd just like to end by saying that I enjoyed this class and frequently looked forward to it. PTJ and Lennea, you were both great, as were the rest of the class. It was a great honor and pleasure to have been able to take part in such a course, and I look forward to working with all of you again.

Vidimo se
Au revoir
Adios
Ma as-alaamah
Ciao
Farewell

Restless Sleeper

Bob

My Last University College World Politics Class Reflection... Ever.

First of all, I would like to comment on the rash action to kick McDonald's out of the conference. While I am probably the biggest anti-McDonald's advocate in the class, I wasn't very happy with Japan's motion to dismiss them from the council. I understand that in a real life situation that is something that could very likely happen; but this is not a real life council and we are all in this for a grade. The assignment said nothing about a sovereign nation development conference, it was simply a development conference. We should have tried harder to make the policy work for everyone involved in the council instead of banishing the opposition. Overall, I was pretty surprised about the outcome of the simulation. Nobody proposed to ban any of the components already on the list for a development policy- we just added to it. Perhaps we weren't as productive as we could've been. Nevertheless it was a really great experience/experiment and one of my favorite classes of the semester.

In regards to Snow Crash, class discussion actually helped to convince me that Stephenson's model of the future is probable. While reading the book I thought the idea just seemed too out there. But when you relate the Metaverse to the video gaming world it makes so much sense. Videogaming as a means for developing globalization is an interesting concept. The players are able to interact with citizens of other countries learning about their cultures and perhaps participating in trade.

The question I posed at the end of class was, "What happens to the people who are unable to afford computers and are denied access to the Metaverse?" I don't really have an answer, that is why I proposed the question, but I can brainstorm. My first reaction is to say that Stephenson is wrong in that I believe computers will come down in price and more people will be able to afford them. I have no way of knowing that of course. Another possibility is that poverty increases and the lower class begins to loose importance in society. A class war could be an outcome. I don't know... I'm interested to hear everyone else's thoughts.

~A Restless Sleeper's Ramblings on International Politics a Hundred Years From Now~

Damnit, didn't see this question until later...

I'd tend to agree with Danielle in thinking that international politics will have taken on an entirely new landscape. I can't possibly claim to know what the major issues are going to be but I can give it a shot: given that the world's fresh water supply is not infinite, I expect that to manifest itself in the form of a minor problem; sovereign territorial states might not be an issue in the future, with the exception of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, a quandary which does not show any light at the end of the tunnel as of yet; AND, in lieu of the discovery of water on Mars, I'd like to imagine that Earth will be planning for the creation of a galactic empire, centered on life on Earth and Mars!!!

Okay, maybe a tad bit unrealistic. Who knows? Anything is possible.

Whatever happens, it will be interesting to see what happens when our generation, supposedly one of the most liberal ever, takes the reins of leadership.

So, I have been sitting at my computer, watching the battery slowly die and trying to think of my answer to this question. I have finally arrived at an answer, or rather a prediction. In 2106, I think the political system will be extremely different than it is today. I think there are two possible futures for world politics, and thus "intro to world politics" courses.

The first possibility is rather somber. If people don't learn how to live with one another without trying to impose their own views of what is right on others, there will chaos in the world of politics. Leaders will no longer focus on their own country but they will focus on imposing their beliefs on other sovereign nations. This will cause a shift in courses that introduce students to world politics; the teaching of world politics, in this kind of future world, will be different depending where you study it, even more so than the differences today. There will be vast differences in the views of "right" and "wrong" actions that occur in the world of politics. To one country, a course of action will be seen as completely necessary and correct, while another will see that same action as horrid and imposing.

The second possibility is much more positive. In a hundred years I would like to hope that, unlike what was mentioned above, people will actually be able to work together despite their differences. This will allow sovereign states to be just that, sovereign, unless inervention is deemed necessary by a majority. But at this point in time I would hope that humans learn that intervention isn't necessarily violence, eg- war, but diplomacy. This will cause courses taught to be more positive and less "this is who is right and this is who is wrong." It will be more encompassing of different views and such.

Let's just hope its the second one...

Friday's major stimulation went well. Personally, I think all the videos were very well put together not to mention entertaining.

Firstly, I would like to thank mcdonalds for their bribe, er gift, of fries.

Now, to get into the discussion of our stimulation, I want to bring up the topic of privatization. I believe that privatization in and of itself is not an evil thing, but for a developing country it is a horrible thing. When a country is in the process of developing there are usually a small number of people with wealth and a huge number of people who are living with much much less money than that small percentage. With privatization, the money that comes from different areas of the economy STAYS in the hands of those who already have the money. They are the ones that will have the money to buy the businesses and so they will be the ones to own the businesses and whatnot that have been privatized. This is horrible for the less fortunate of the country because it doesn't give them a chance to develop with the rest of the country. And as a representative as a developing nation, India, I feel that this is wrong.

Thank you

I thought that the videos we produced for the major simulation were all very good. I especially liked the videos from the European Union (nice chicken wing guys) and Japan.

I personally liked the proposal by the EU to add humanitarian considerations to the amendment. I think that gender equality, labor standards, and enviromental standards are very important and need to be addressed. Enviromental standards should be stressed while a country is developing so they can start out from the beginning with the right technology and techniques.

I did not agree with the Japan amendment. I did not think that human rights violations should be defined by issues of warfare. A human rights violations can happen at anytime there doesn't need to be a war going on.

I am looking forward to the conclusion of our simulation and talking about the book Snow Crash!

Discussion Question for Week 15... yikes, one week left.

First of all... if the future is anything like Snow Crash, I am a little scared!

I think it is probable that in the year 2106 "Introduction to World Politics" will still begin with a discussion of sovereignty. However, I don't believe sovereignty will revolve around territorial states because I don't believe there will be single territorial states left. I think the future is going to lead to states collaborating to form unions such as a more evolved version of the EU. It seems to be appealing to states to join together with nations they have things in common with, such as religion or history, for military strength and support.

I'm not sure how the governments of these unions would be set up. Perhaps there would be a leading nation whose leader is given precendence or maybe a council or parliament would be set up to give all nations a voice. Maybe it would depend on the union. I do believe the military would have be a strong basis in the government's of these unions.

As you can see I have no strong stance on this... it is difficult for me to think about the future in this way. For all we know there could be no world in the year 2106 because we've blown each other up...

Amendments to the Development Policy:

I really liked the set up of the simulation on Friday. The movies were funny but informative and it was effective to have the groups answer questions right after showing their movie. It was difficult to address the multiple topics needed to be discussed regarding a development plan in only five minutes. Therefore, answering questions directly after the movie allowed for more clarification and additional information to be shared.

I want to elaborate on my group's stance on the proposed amendment. First of all, I understand this is a project where people are supposed to be looking out for what's best for their country or corporation, but including human rights in a development plan just seems humane. When developing a nation one of the main purposes, all business and money making aside, is to improve the lives of the citizens of that country. How can we do that without including human rights in the proposal? In response to what India said, by proposing this amendment my group is not trying to FORCE gender equality on other countries. We are "promoting it"; allowing that option for the nation and helping them work towards it. We understand that this process could take time. As far as environmental standards go, these would be put in place to ensure that big companies don't come in and industrialize a nation to the point where their land becomes wasteland. Also, this is connected to human rights because it can ensure cleaner drinking water and breathable air for the people. I think labor standards can only help countries because it gives workers more incentives to be productive. For example, farmers in Venezuela will be more willing to produce quality crops if they know they are not going to be oppressed for it.

I have a feeling that if we had motioned to vote for this proposal on Friday it would have been voted into the development proposal. Although, it will be interesting to see where the discussion can take this amendment and who votes in favor of it in the end...