World Politcs are a Changin'

2006-12-11T14:57:00.001-08:00

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.

2006-12-11T14:57:00.000-08:00

2006-12-11T14:49:00.000-08:00

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.

2006-12-11T14:33:00.000-08:00

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).

2006-12-11T14:16:00.000-08:00

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.

2006-12-11T13:59:00.000-08:00

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.

2006-12-11T13:45:00.000-08:00

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.

2006-12-11T13:23:00.000-08:00

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.

2006-12-11T11:19:00.000-08:00

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.

2006-12-11T10:27:00.000-08:00

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!

2006-12-10T19:35:00.000-08:00

~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

2006-12-09T10:54:00.000-08:00

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.

2006-12-07T20:09:00.000-08:00

~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.

2006-12-06T16:49:00.000-08:00

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...

2006-12-05T21:45:00.000-08:00

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

2006-12-05T16:18:00.000-08:00

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!

2006-12-05T13:43:00.000-08:00

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...

2006-12-02T12:08:00.000-08:00

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...

2006-12-01T00:46:00.000-08:00

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 completely agree with this statement. Although we discussed this in class, I have a completely different interpretation of what Todorov means by this statement. Sentence by sentence my interpretation is:

- Those who find their country to be and to have the best of everything are ignorant.

- Those who think that all countries have the things that are the best for those who inhabit it are fine.

- But those who view all countries, including their own, as something that is foreign and knows there is always something new and better to discover, no matter where one is, has the best state of mind possible.

I feel that this is a great way to look at it. Personally, I think that those who are so entangled in their own culture that they cannot move away from it are sad people. The thing about a global world is just that, it's global. There are different people, different things, new things to find and partake in. It's necessary, for a peaceful world, to be curious and understanding of other cultures. It's usually those who feel the way of their country is the best way, the only, that cause problems in other areas of the world. They cause turmoil because they can't seem to accept others' ways of life. If more people were to learn that they don't even know their own country as well as they know a foreign country, that there is always something else, even in their own homeland, there would be a lot less problems in the world.

2006-11-23T18:21:00.000-08:00

During Tuesday's class I found that people brought up some valid points. While we were discussing the conclusion of Todorov's book, Liz said that you should respect your homeland, but be a citizen of the world. I strongly agree with this statement. You to need to be a citizen of the world. You need to be respectful of other people's background and culture whether they be from a different country or town.

I also agree with Lauren about PTJ's statement about you're from until you leave. To quote a song by Joni Mitchel, "You don't know what you've got til its gone." I didn't realize what Pittsburgh meant to me until I left it.

During class Lauren T., Kristen, and I were talking online. We discussed our views on abortion and the enviroment. Our discussion on abortion could have ended up like the kind of discussions we discussed in class where people just yell at each other without even listening to others because Lauren is republican and Kristen and I are both democrats. Because we all respect each other we were able to have a civil converstation about a hot topic. We also talked about how we wished we could debate about the movie An Inconvenient Truth in World Politics because our groups during the UC symposium weren't the best debaters.

Happy Thanksgiving!!!

2006-11-22T11:52:00.001-08:00

.-Discussion Question for Week 13-.

I agree that the person who believes the globe is a foreign country would be perfect (or as close as you might be able to come)... however I don't believe this person is realistic.

If a man (or woman) sees the whole world as a foreign country they are more likely to enjoy exploring and discovery. This person is not only interested in other cultures but open to all of them. He or she can possess multiple qualities from multiple regions and be a well-rounded person. This person would be fearless of other regions of the world and ready to take on whatever he or she may find. I guess this would assume the person is not biased towards any cultures or civilizations. To me.. a well-rounded, cultured, open, unbiased person comes pretty close to being perfect.

However... is this really possible? I say no. I have never met a person or group of people who isn't biased towards other cultures. Many people believe their way of life is superior to other ways of life because it is what they are familiar with. Curiosity is one thing... but a desire to explore the entire globe and incorporate new customs into your life seems extreme. I believe a person who is loyal to their country but is very open to other cultures is about as close to perfect as an average person can get today...

2006-11-20T22:55:00.000-08:00

Columbus is a man of his time, in my opinion. But of course, looking to past vision is 20/20. So looking back at Columbus' actions from today's pont of view, he should be held accountable or his actions. Nowadays the treatment of the indigenous people that Columbus came into contact with when he first came to America is viewed as horrendous and wrong. But at the time, Columbus and his crew didn't view those people as equals, they were considered lesser than the Europeans so they were treated in the way that they "deserved." (In the eyes of the Europeans)

Honestly, because of the times I don't think that Columbus could have understood those whom he came into contact with any differently. These people have been socialized by their culture at this time in history that Europeans were the most dominate race in the world. They were the ones doing the exploring, whichever culture they came into contact with they dominated over. So even if Columbus had encountered these indigenous peoples in a different way, he still would have most likely treated them in the same way due to the way that he had been socialized.

Basically, Columbus was a product of his time. European culture viewed themselves as the best and no one could ever overcome them in importance. He should be held accountable, the way in which he treated these men and women, just because they were different, was inhumane. But it was they way in which he was raised and the culture in which he lived that "made" him act in that way.

2006-11-20T10:48:00.000-08:00

~A Restless Sleeper's Reflections on a Trial and a Visit to a Museum~

I was a little disappointed about the outcome of the trial of La Malinche... We all knew Cortes was going to get it unless the prosecution was extremely lax in their presentation of evidence. With La Malinche she couldn't just be convicted. Both teams played out the arguments they were expected to and, big surprise, she was acquited. The prosecution defamed her character and the defense made her the intersection of cultures. Just think, if the Aztecs had won, would she have survived a trial? Probably not, if she had even been given one. And then people will say she could never have gotten a fair trial, etc. So La Malinche would have been killed by the Aztecs and the Spaniards would just have let her been... I wonder if the Catholic Church has beatified or made a saint out of her yet... Just a random thought. Anyways, I guess I am just disappointed that we had predictable trials in many ways. I don't know why, or how things could have played out differently, but that is how I feel.

The National Museum of the American Indian was more recognizably symbolic than the first time I went there, probably because of the reading material we were assigned. Let's see, main points of the museum... Core to the Native Americans was the idea of duality. Right and wrong, light and dark, good and evil. The rooms were also very interesting as they, quite frequently, were organized in a north, south, east, west manner. I could not discern the reasn behind this. Did anyone else notice this or know why this is so? I thought it was interesting that the museum itself resembled a Pueblo or Anasazi building built into the cliffs. It definitely stands out in Washington. I like the fact that there were Indian cultures from all over the Western Hemisphere and not just North America. There were several ideas that were prevalent throughout the museum. Survival, continuance of tradition and memory, and a subtle depiction of the Europeans, and thus, Americans, as the ones whom are at fault. I wonder how those are connected, hmmm... Oh did anyone see how they placed all that gold in with the swords exibit? Not hard to catch the drift there. Anyways, I found the musuem to be more of a memorial than a museum. Overall, I found the museum to be very refreshing and enjoyable.

BTW: PTJ was right, their cafeteria food kicks ass!

2006-11-19T22:34:00.000-08:00

I found class on Friday to be interesting. I enjoyed defending La Malinche, who I believe was just doing what she had to do to survive.

I really liked the last question that PTJ asked about if we were Cortez and imposing our ideas on other people. I think that we are. We are trying to spread our idea of democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan aren't we? People have been raped, tortured, and have died on our quest. Sounds like Cortez to me.

I also found our trip to the American Indian Museum to be worthwhile. I found the different cultural aspects interesting. I really like all the artwork and traditional outfits. The show we saw there was entertaining and interesting.

2006-11-19T06:51:00.000-08:00

Reflections on a trial...

I really enjoyed the set up of class on Friday. The trial forced us to focus on one aspect of the reading in great detail rather than talking about it as a whole. It was interesting to look at Cortes from the other perspective because if I had a choice I certainly would not have defended him! It was fun to throw a little competition into our analysis of the reading as well! I'm looking forward to the major simulation now!

The question was raised by PTJ: Does it make sense to hold these types of trials and condemn a man over 500 years old?

I would have to say yes. I feel the most important reason we study history is to learn from the past. By studying it it can guide us in the right direction or serve as a model for how not to do something. As Liz mentioned, if we don't learn from histories mistakes we are doomed to repeat them. I also agree with those in class that said we should be comparing it to modern day using modern day morals. We can't learn from something if we don't put it in the context of our everyday lives. For instance if we decide that what Columbus did to the "Indians" was morally wrong today we can apply it directly to wars today in which countries are fighting over land and ethnicity. Furthermore, morals are constantly changing and I don't believe it is possible for us to have a full understanding of the morals in the 1400s. Therefore the only way we know how to judge is by using our present day morals.

Finally, Frank's comment in class has had me thinking all weekend. He said that he doesn't believe in a conventional right or wrong but rather everyone creates their own rights and wrongs in their head. While I am still tackling it I really like this perspective. I have always struggled with the question "Who decides what is right or wrong?" However if I completely give in to this idea then I don't know how I would answer the questions of why do people get imprisoned and is that an excuse for huge disasters (like Sept. 11th). I'll keep thinking about it...

2006-11-16T15:17:00.000-08:00

~A Restless Sleeper's Ramblings on Christopher Columbus~

It is difficult to imagine Columbus understanding the indigenous people he encountered in a different way due to the fact that we have to rely on written record in regards to the attitudes of the peoples of those times.

I think most all people are the product of their times. Whether or not one can be exonerated on those grounds is another matter entirely. Exonerating him for being "a product of his times" would excuse people for matters that today seem trivial, but in a few hundred years could be considered terrible crimes. Ours is not a perfect society. Neither was Columbus'. Columbus could be exonerated for not being as understanding an individual as he could have been, however, if his not being understanding was a result of the times then I guess that you could possibly exonerate someone for being a product of the times. Hmmm, maybe it is just the wording. I guess it is just the sound of "being exonerated on the grounds of being a product of the times" just sounds rather lax and inappropriate. Kind of seems like, excuse the language, half-assed justice.

2006-11-16T14:08:00.000-08:00

Is it better to be wealthy than otherwise? Is wealth always desirable?

Wow, I definitely did not see this question last week, I thought we had the week off, silly me.

Personally, I think it is better to be wealthy than otherwise. I mean, face it, its much easier to have money at your personal expense rather than living pay check to pay check. Wealth, however, can be very disconserting. When people have money, especially when they have large amounts of money, it seems to do something to them.

Wealth can change people, but it doesn't always do so. There are wealthy people who do not act as if they have the world at their fingertips; but then there are those that do. That's when the idea of wealth is not desirable. Even thought it is the American Dream of making money and being financially very stable, there are those that view wealth as a vice. This is because there are many wealthy people whose minds seem to have been affected by their full wallets and multible bank accounts.

Even so, I think wealth is usually desirable. People know that money makes life a whole lot easier. When an emergency occurs its much easier if you have money sitting around to pay it off rather than taking from other parts of a budget, such as food or heat. Being wealthy is a much easier lifestyle than otherwise, for sure.

2006-11-15T20:31:00.000-08:00

I'm just going to put this out there, Columbus reminded me of Mr. Magoo. He was just bumbling around out on the open seas and when he landed he continued to bumble. He misinterpreted what that Indians were saying and made things up to suit his own needs. I would also like to say that I liked this reading because it doubled as research for my religion paper : )

On to the question...

I like some of my fellow classmates believe that Columbus was a product of his times. I think this because Todorov states, "Not for a moment does Columbus doubt that the Indians distinguish, as the Spaniards do, between nobleman, governor, and judge; his curiosity, quite limited moreover, bears only on the exact Indian equivalent for these terms." This shows that Columbus believes that his Spain is superior, therefore everyone else should think the same as Spaniards do. This thought is backed up when Todorov states, "Columbus wants the Indians to be like himself and like the Spaniards. He is an assimilationist in an unconcious and naive fashion; his sympathy for the Indians is 'naturally' translated into the desire to see them adopt his own customs." Columbus feels that his people are so great who wouldn't want to be like them? He feels the need to spread his culture wherever he goes. This includes renaming people, places, and things. He is claiming them for his homeland, Spain. I agree with Todorov when he says, "There is never a justification of this desire to make the Indians adopt the Spanish customs; its rightness is self-evident." This proves that Columbus is a product of his time, because it shows how he believes that world revolves around his culture.

I don't think that he should be completely exonerated on the terms that he is a simple product of his times. But I think that I believe that because I am a product of my times. I view the things he did, as human rights infringements and atrocious. Such as sending Indians back to Spain by the boat full to be slaves. Also his just giving the Indians to his officers as if they were pieces of candy. I do understand though that in the context of his time, he was acting as it was expected of him. That being said, I can't personally justify that Columbus should be completely exonerated on the terms that he was just a simple product of his times because in my mind he committed as I stated before atrocious crimes against humanity.

2006-11-15T20:27:00.000-08:00

Discussion Question Regarding Columbus...

I have mixed feelings about whether or not we can judge Columbus based on his actions.

On one hand... his actions can certainly be blamed on the fact that he was a product of his time. I think any male from Europe, working for his King or Queen of the time, would have reacted to the Native Americans the same way Columbus did. He was trying to make a good impression for the royalty and convince them that his journey was just. If he could "conquer" land for Spain he knew Ferdinand and Isabella would be happy with him and possibly give him more funding. I'm sure part of it was that Columbus wanted to make a name for himself... who wouldn't!? Also, correct me if I am wrong, but Europeans were/are pretty snobby. They are going to think they are better than "indians" and more deserving of their land. Christopher Columbus was one of these Europeans.

However having said that his actions were pretty inhumane. Columbus could have made a name for himself with less extreme measures than spreading fatal diseases and driving natives off of their land. I have a hard time respecting people who believe they are better than everyone else, especially to the extent that they can take over their homeland. I believe Columbus was capable of treating the Native Americans like human beings. I think where he draws the line between product of his time and scoundral is the extent to which he destroyed the Native American's home and lives.

PS: I was born on the actual Columbus Day... so I have to have some sort of respect for the man, he choose a good day to discover America!

2006-11-13T08:29:00.000-08:00

Reflection from Friday's Short Class:

I left class early to catch a bus to NYC but I want to thank Lennea for the work she put into the class. I think we were all in need of a breakdown of Bretton Woods and she presented it clearly to the class. I now actually understand what the World Bank does! The media center presentation was helpful although brief. IMovie looks like it is going to be a lot of fun to work with.

The articles we read for last week were much easier to read than articles for previous weeks. The language used was much easier to understand. Inayatullah's article was the first account I have read that in a sense dismisses Adam Smith's assertions. I didn't agree with the comment that division of labor only applies to factories. I think the concept can be applied to many aspects of society. For instance, families use "assembly lines" to get the dishes done. I have used it in many projects where one person will complete one part of the project and pass it on to the next person to complete it.

I enjoyed reading the interview with author Bjorn Lomborg about his book Global Crises, Global Solutions. The Copenhagen Consensus is a brilliant look at the prioritizing of economic resources. I think the idea of spending $50 billion on world aid is an incredible idea. If countries were encouraged to donate an amount of money (proportional to their GDP) to a fund that sought to cure some of our world's worst issues they would only be benefiting their own country in the long run. Cleaning up third world countries and supporting their economies causes the world economy and trade amongst countries to increase. I believe the experts chose the right issues to focus on... AIDS being a top priority.

2006-11-12T16:25:00.000-08:00

The list that we had in class from the Copenhagen Consensus was:

Climate

Communicable Diseases

Conflicts

Education

Financial instability

Governance and corruption

Malnutrition and hunger

Population migration

Sanitation and water

Subsidies and trade barriers.

That list got me thinking about what needed priority attention. I would have to go with education. With education anything is possible. With education people can work and solve the other problems. That way they are helping themselves improve. Countries stricken with the things on the list do need help, but they need to help themselves. I don't mean that we shouldn't help them, what I mean is that we need to help them learn to help themselves. We do that through education.

2006-11-09T09:15:00.000-08:00

By the way the layout looks a lot better, now we don't have the same one as a bunch of the other groups. Too much grey though >__<

2006-11-09T09:00:00.000-08:00

Is it better to be wealthy than otherwise? is wealth always desireable?

I just posted something along these lines on Grete's wall, and I think that it is important to think critically about how we define wealth before we can say if it is better than alternatives or desireable. I would say that I am wealthy, materially, spiritually, with my family and friends as well as with my education. I would say, that when all of these aspects are considered as wealth, I would much prefer to be wealthy than not. And when most of these are considered individually, I would still choose to be wealthy. Although I may take some heat for this, I have to say that I would much rather be materially wealthy than not. I say this because in my life I have been fortunate enough to experience some incredible things, places and people that I would not have experience if my family was not wealthy. I believe that when wealth is used to experience the world, to discover new things and teach people about the world, then it is a very desireable thing. I am so blessed that I have lived the life I have, and I recognize that I have had some rare and incredible experiences that most people never get. But I also realize that material wealth is not the only wealth that makes me lucky. My parents are divorced, and for some children, having divorced parents is a difficult life, but my life has been enriched because my parents are divorced. I'm not glad that they are divorced, but I know that I have gained some incredible family members (my step parents, aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents), who enrich my life, and exponentially increase the love in my life. I would not trade my family for all the material wealth in the world, because I would rather be happy with my family than lonely without them. They are an intrinsic part of who I am, and they increase my wealth every day.
So I would have to say that, yes, wealth is desirable, because when all aspects are considered together, the material wealth aspect makes up so little a part that it hardly seems to matter. I would say that I am wealthy in all aspects (good friends, good family, good life, good education, good spiritual exploration), and I much prefer this to the alternative.

2006-11-09T08:57:00.001-08:00

~A Restless Sleeper's Ramblings on Wealth~

I must briefly add in how awesome it is that we have a Democratic Congress now! It should be interesting to see where this Congress takes us. All's well I guess, as long as the Dems keep their promise of change and don't get anything done because they are too embroiled in partisan bickering.

What is wealth? People can have very different definitions of wealth. To one person it might be a suitcase of greenbacks, while to another it might just be a roof over there head, a warm bed to sleep in, and enough food to get by on. When most people think of wealth, they tend to lean toward the former. Because the fact is that most of us have our daily needs satisfied. The question of how wealthy you are generally boils down to how many of your wants can you afford.

On another note, everyone would like to be wealthy. I mean, come on, how many of us would not mind being wealthier than we are now. How many of us are satisfied where we are at right now? Some of us might be quite content. Some of us might not because, a lot of times, our happiness can be dependant upon how wealthy we are. Which is unfortunate but true because most of the time we fail to stop, look at our lives, and appreciate what we have, not what we don't have and want.

Wealth creates several problems though. Wealth can lead to people being disallusioned with the world around them. So while although it is desirable, it isn't the best thing in the world and nor should it be the most desirable.

2006-11-09T08:57:00.000-08:00

~A Restless Sleeper's Ramblings on Wealth~

What is wealth? People can have very different definitions of wealth. To one person it might be a suitcase of greenbacks, while to another it might just be a roof over there head, a warm bed to sleep in, and enough food to get by on. When most people think of wealth, they tend to lean toward the former. Because the fact is that most of us have our daily needs satisfied. The question of how wealthy you are generally boils down to how many of your wants can you afford.

On another note, everyone would like to be wealthy. I mean, come on, how many of us would not mind being wealthier than we are now. How many of us are satisfied where we are at right now? Some of us might be quite content. Some of us might not because, a lot of times, our happiness can be dependant upon how wealthy we are. Which is unfortunate but true because most of the time we fail to stop, look at our lives, and appreciate what we have. Dale Carnegie once said "

2006-11-08T20:25:00.000-08:00

First and foremost I just have to express my elation that SANTORUM LOST!!!!! : ) And that the Dems control Congress!!! It makes you feel really good to realize that your vote counts and that it accomplished something. Ok on to the topic....

Is it better to be wealthy than otherwise? Well, I like Kate, prefer living in a nice house, having access to a car, being able to go shopping, to living in a cardboard box down by the Monongahela River. BUT, I do believe that it is better to be wealthy only to a certain extent.

When someone has too much money they can develop a mistrust of the people around them. They don't know if people are friends with them because they actually like them or because the person just likes their money. I don't think that I could handle not being able to trust anyone, always being paranoid about someone's motives. Always looking out for the gold diggers (thank you Kanye West).

Also, a lot of people who are excessively wealthy are messed up. Just look at the Hiltons and the Luce Family where the grandma, wife of the late Henry Luce III the Time Inc. heir, is acused of molesting her granddaughter and her own children.

Like Robert Kennedy Jr. said at this speech here at AU these wealthy people have become celebrities, made by our media (ie. Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie). Some people know more about celebrities than what is going on in our world. These people cannot make one move without being photographed and have all their dirty laundry hung out on the line for everyone to see. If that is wealth than it is definitely not desirable.

2006-11-08T19:11:00.000-08:00

Discussion Question for the week:

Is it better to be wealthy than otherwise? Is wealth always desirable?

As I stated in my previous post my definition of wealth is an excess supply of goods and means to pay for those goods. I do not believe it is necessarily better for everyone to be wealthier than otherwise. Some people are not able to handle wealth well. They can become corrupt or not know how to handle it properly. Some of the most corrupt people in this country are wealthy individuals. People become greedy for money... take for example the late president of this institution. He was in a circle with very wealthy people and was pressured to have as much wealth as they did. This led to corruption and eventually the loss of his job. With regards to handling your wealth well, if you don't know how to properly invest and save your money you can loose it very easily.

People don't NEED an excess of goods and money. However I believe wealth is always going to be desirable. You're always going to want more than what you have. I know personally I probably go/like to go shopping more than I should. I don't NEED all of the clothes I buy.. but I sure do desire them. People want to be promoted so they can have higher paying jobs and will even go into professions for the high pay. Money makes us greedy and it will always be desired...

However, like Ashley stated her in post, I don't believe money and material goods make one happy. Having a support system and loving family and friends constitute happiness.

2006-11-07T08:10:00.000-08:00

So today's election day! How exciting yet nerve racking... Over the weekend, I went with the college dems to Columbus and canvassed for Strickland, Kilroy, and the rest of the democratic ticket. We caught our bus at the Democrat National Headquarters, which was really interesting. The staff there were really hyped up and appreciative of our willingness to help them out in such a major state.

On Saturday morning we went to the Ohio Democrat Headquarters. It was here that we were trained on how to canvas effectively. A group of students from Mississippi came up to Ohio as well. We were all split into groups of two and given maps, democratic literature and a bagged lunch. My partner and I were dropped off smack dab in the middle of OSU's campus housing. All we had to do was go up to the houses whose addresses we had, knock, and do one of two things. If no one was home we left literature that included things about where to vote, what to bring to the polls, and the democratic ticket. However, if someone did answer the door we were to hand them the literature, but explain to them who we were, what we were doing, and remind them to vote on Tuesday, as well as suggesting to vote democratic.

Most of the neighborhoods we visited were college students - both undergrads and grad students. Some of the younger people we talked to weren't very interested; but it's probably because it was around noon on a Saturday. But most of the people we talked to, of all college ages, were really interested. They asked us questions about the positions of different candidates, what district they were in, and general questions about why we were doing this. One of the neighborhoods wasn't a college neighborhood, they were middle-aged people. They were most interested in talking to us. One man was really excited to see Nicole and I. He brought his wife out to talk to us, he asked us to "talk some sense into her, because shes a republican." It was funny; but she did listen to what we had to say and seemed to consider it. After canvasing around four streets - visiting about a hundred homes, we went back to phone bank.

Phone banking wasn't as successful as canvasing. There were many rude people that were called; some used foul language, some just hung up, and others used a combination of both. So, needless to say, I didn't enjoy calling people as much as I enjoyed being face to face with them.

Sunday was another full day of canvasing. This time, my partner and I went to a lower income area on the outskirts of Columbus. The houses weren't as nice, there weren't as many college aged kids, but the people were even more willing to talk to Javier and I. One of the apartments we visited was an older man. He was so excited to see "young people being involved." We had a political conversation with him for about 15 minutes; he told us how impressed he was by our dedication to our cause (it was COLD outside) and he just knew that it was going to help. He also told us that its good that we came to this area because so many people feel that because of their lower class status that their vote doesn't matter. And that by personally coming here rather than just calling it will show them that their vote does matter. As Javier and I made our way back to where our van was picking us up we got into a nicer area. Yet, these people were super rude to us. One man who answered his door said, "Yes? Oh, you're selling politics?" And we said "No, we're just coming around area neighborhoods to remind people to vote on Tuesday." This elderly man just scowled at us and said "No, not interested" and he slammed the door in our faces. It was horrible.

So I'm wondering if theres a pattern here. Many of the middle class people whose homes we went to were either rude and didn't want anything to do with us, or they just took our literature and said goodbye. While the lower class people, college students and middle aged people alike, were really interesed in what we had to say. They didn't just take our lit and close the door; they took it, looked it over and talked to us about it. I thought that was really interesting...

2006-11-06T15:45:00.000-08:00

~Class Reflection 11/3~

Well I have to admit that class on Friday didn't help me understand that article any more... but the discussion was interesting.

It was amazing to me how difficult it is to come up with a definition for wealth. That is a word everyone feels as though they know what it means but when it comes down to putting it in words it is very difficult! I have to agree with Katie and Jackie when they argued that friends are not a measure of wealth. Although I feel VERY lucky to have to friends that I have I consider wealth more of a material possession. Someone is wealthy who has a plentiful supply of goods and means to pay for those goods. Based on my definition I don't believe we should classify having basic necessities as having wealth. Only having the basic necessities to live does not provide you with a plentiful amount of goods.

I did learn a considerable amount about the market. I find it really interesting that stores rely on the Christmas season to get them out of debt. Has anyone been to the mall lately? It's Christmas time already...

2006-11-05T20:18:00.000-08:00

One interesting thing that caught my attention in class was how everyone has a different definition of wealth. I believe that all of the definitions the class had for wealth are correct. Wealth can be friends and family like Emily said. Or wealth can be materials things as some people said in class. What wealth comes down to is what you value most.

Some people are fine living in a one bedroom apartment in a not-so-nice area of town with their entire family and believe that they are wealthy because they are able to spend time and live with their family. Other people, such as Liz, believe that they are wealthy because they have multiple homes, designer clothes, planes, nice cars, and are able to travel to exotic places.

My belief is that wealth is what you percive it to be. I personally think that I am wealthy because I have my health and like Emily said I have my friends and family. Without any of those things I would not be happy and I would be in need of, thereby not being wealthy.

I think that the culture today builds up material things as signs of wealth. Which has in effect increased illicit trade which in effect increases globalization. People today feel the need to have designer labels even though they are knockoffs. When one turns on the TV one is saturated with designer clothes and expensive cars. There are whole magazines devoted to fashion. People feel that to look good and show that they are wealthy they must have Louis Vuiton bags, Chanel sunglasses, and so on. Therefore they buy knockoff goods on the streets. These goods are made in sweatshops in China for pennies and the profit could be going anywhere maybe even funding terrorists.

2006-11-05T11:01:00.000-08:00

~Friday's Class 11/3~

We had some really interesting arguments today. I thought the argument regarding real vs. perceived necessities was worth reflecting on. Now as we all know, a human needs food, clothing, and shelter to survive. Those are generally considered necessities and everything else is generally considered not. I disagree with this. While humans may survive without something such as friendship, I'd like to see some people try it before arguing it.

On another point. I believe patents and copyrights are abosutely necessary. Like Emily mentioned, patents and copyrights promote entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is an idea central to the advancement of our country's economy. People may blast the idea all they want. But in the end it is patents that motivate people to create wondrous things. Actually it is fame and money that motivate people. Oh well, humans are only human. Would these people come up with brilliant ideas and amazing inventions if they knew that their ideas or inventions were going to be swallowed up by the human masses, leaving them no better off financially and no less obscure than before. I believe the answer is a resounding no. Thus, I do not fault these people for being motivated by fame and money. Why should you?

2006-11-02T14:58:00.000-08:00

~A Restless Sleeper's Ramblings on State Responsibility~

If state governments don't have a responsibility to promote economic growth then who does? The question becomes how far should a government go to promote economic activity. What shoud a government do when promoting economic growth threatens other values and goals? Obviously, it is the government who must ultimately decide what is more important when promoting economic growth threatens other values and goals. The values of our country should not be taken lightly, nor should our other goals. Like with all other conflicts, the middle ground must be sought. A compromise must be reached that equally treats the conflict of interests and allows for economic growth to continue to grow as unhindered as possible. It is my belief that the government should always promote economic growth as long as the values of that country are not totally compromised. Goals can be easily changed and reworked to allow for an economy to flourish. Values cannot.

2006-11-01T21:59:00.000-08:00

Yes, I think state governments have a responsibility to promote economic growth. But not to the extent where it threatens or presses against other values and goals. People normally don't rely on the national government for their economic well-being, they rely on their homestate, or whatever state they live in. If one lives in Maryland, he or she prolly won't be affected by a bad economic situation that's occuring in Kansas. But if there is a bad economic situation in Maryland, then of course that person will be affected. The state government should be aware of the economic situation, and be sure to promote growth of its own state. If a certain state is doing horribly economically, with inflation and such, then it will reflect bad on the state government as well as the growth of the state's economy.

However, I most definitely do not think that in order to ensure economic growth that a state government should impede upon other values or goals. Economic growth should be high up on the list of priorities, but in no way should it be the only goal of a government. The state government should only push economic growth when it starts to take away from other goals of the state: things such as healthcare, safety, thing of that sort. States should always be looking out for the welfare of their population. If the promotion of economic growth begins to be the single goal of a state and the state stops looking out for the well-being of its population, they should refocus their goals.

2006-11-01T21:33:00.000-08:00

Friday's class was really interesting, I think at least. What we talked about, or at least most of it, was stuff that runs through my mind when I feel like thinking intelligently.

As Emily said during class, a murder in a small town is much more controversial than a murder (or two for that matter) in a big city. I think this is so true. She said this when we were talking about how when terrorists attacked in New York and DC everyone was so shoked and distraught; but when bombs and such go off in other countries, especially Middle Eastern countries, its not that big of a deal. I think that's so sad. Because there is so much violence in that region, most everyone has become so desensititized to it.

We also talked about the increased security measures in airports. As a personal example, when I was flying out of Baltimore to go home over fall break I starting talk to this man while we were both waiting to get our tickets. He was flying abroad and he was telling me how it was easier to fly from a different country and get items in than it was to fly inside the US. He said that he flew from Saudi Arabia a few weeks ago, which is where he was returning to, and he brought a lighter, liquids, and other items, in his carry on to the US. While now, he can’t do that. So basically a lot of countries have increased airport security, but not all of them. Even if only one country doesn't have the same security measures as the US, it still negates what the US is trying to prevent. It only takes one person from one country. Airport security can't work unless it works both ways, all ways.

2006-11-01T19:45:00.000-08:00

World Politics Question #8

State governments should have a responsibility to promote economic growth. Economic growth is GDP growth and the expansion and use of resources. First of all, states house all of the business in our country. They have a closer watch and a tighter connection to industries and businesses than the federal government does. They should use those connections to further production of resources and promote spending amongst its citizens. If each state contributes to economic growth we will be more prosperous as a nation.

However, I don't believe state governments should be responsible for promoting economic growth if it forces them to compromise other values and goals. A state should not become corrupt and greedy for money. A state cannot and should not further pursue economic growth if their economy itself is ineffective. In order for a state to contribute to economic growth the state itself must have a healthy economy. It must do what is best for the state and should not compromise goals for money. Although, if the nation is in a real economic crisis, such as a depression or a war, it might make sense for the states to step up and promote economic growth to help the nation as a whole. In this case I can see goals of the state being broken. We are supposed to be a unified country and if the country is faultering the states surely won't survive.

2006-11-01T19:32:00.000-08:00

some of UC kids at the UC party...we were totally robbed just putting that out there.

#8 Short and Maybe Sweet

The definition of economic growth is, " an increase in a nation's capacity to produce goods and services" . So yes, I do believe state governments have a responsibility to promote economic growth. After all what's a state without an economy? A strong economy not only helps the government, but the people of the state.

When you throw values into anything it is bound to get messy, but should a state government promote economic growth even if doing so threatens other values and goals? I say yes. Nobody becomes wealthy and powerful without compromising some values. I know that sounds completely amoral and bitchy, but its the truth and you know it. And that's the stance that these governments have to take in order to promote economic growth. An economy doesn't grow when you give everything away and don't have any jobs, or businesses producing.

2006-10-30T10:07:00.000-08:00

~Friday's Class Reflection and Exercise~

The Arlington experience was actually more remarkable than I expected it to be. Although I have been to Arlington numerous times for a variety of reasons, I'd never actually gone people-watching in Arlington before. As Grete pointed out people had a variety of reactions to what they were being presented at Arlington.

"Silence and Dignity" pretty much describe Arlington and how people are expected to behave. The graves are, for the most part, simple yet not too humble. At times I felt a little intimidated by being surrounded by so many graves. I do not think that is the goal of Arlington though. I do not believe Arlington is pro or anti war. I think proclaming it to be either is way too overanalytical. It is "Our Nation's Most Sacred Shrine". I do not believe the people who planned Arlington intended it to be pro or anti war. Arlington's purpose is to serve as an eternal, respectable reminder of the memory of the people who served in our armed forces. It is the memory of those who have sacrificed their lives to protect the freedom and security of our country that Arlington serves. It shows how many lives it has costed our great country to retain that freedom. And thus, in memoriam, we honor those who have protected us.

2006-10-29T21:06:00.000-08:00

Like I stated in class, I don't think that we should live our lives according to a color coded chart. By no means should we forget 9-11 or act like it didn't happen, but we shouldn't let it hang over our heads like a dark rain cloud. For example, last year I had cancer and I know that going through everything only made me stronger. That is how we should look at 9-11, as something that will only make us stronger in the long run. I don't let the fact that I had cancer rule my everyday life, I still live my life. Am I more careful? Yes. But I don't let it rule my life. Just as we should not let terrorism rule our lives. We should still fly, take public transportation, and go to work. We just must be more vigalent. Early detection is key.

On another note I really enjoyed the trip to Arlington. My partner Adam had never been there( I have been there numerous times) so it was interesting to see how his experience was and to inject my random knowledge of Arlington into our conversations. We focused on the questions how tourists experience Arlington and the landscaping of Arlington. Here are some of our thoughts:

Tourists hit all the major spots (ie. JFK's grave, Robert E. Lee's house, and the Changing of the Gurad at the tomb of the unknown soldier).
When they are at these spots and when walking through the cemetary they are very nonchalent.
When at the changing of the guard people seem to be overrighteous - glaring at someone when they cough, when people walk too loudly, or whisper something.
The landscape is Greco-Roman, which gives it an air of permanence
The cemetary itself is sprawling, which is a symbol of our national security - large, constantly expanding as time goes on.

2006-10-29T10:53:00.000-08:00

:::Reflection on Friday's Class:::

I got a sense that most of the class did not agree wtih Mueller's argument that terrorism is not a security threat and I would have to agree. I liked Alex's point that the idea of terrorism is more important than the actual action of terrorism. There is drama associated with a terrorist attack and people are certainly drawn towards that drama. Terrorism is a word that catches peoples attention when spoken.

Just about everyone either knows someone who has been in a car accident or has been in one themselves... until September 11th not everyone had a connection to a terrorist attack. This ties into what Bryan was saying about the attack not just causing deaths but having an effect on other things. There is a web of people effected: friends, family, coworkers. The economy was certainly effected. President Bush implemented certain policies to get people to spend their money and not store it away for security purposes. People's day to day worries have also changed. Some people in class were saying that terrorism shouldn't run our lives... but I'm not sure how that can be possible. To an extent people are always going to be thinking and worrying about it, especially when they travel. Yes, we shouldn't stop doing things we enjoy because of the possibility of terrorism but I don't understand how it can be eliminated from the daily lives of people right now.

2006-10-26T18:57:00.000-07:00

PTJ, how do you come up with these questions?

The question of whether or not the world is more secure now than it was on September 10th 2001 is so difficult to answer. I honestly don't think it is. Because, honestly, ignorance is bliss. Before September 11th no one in the US really knew that terrorism existed. And if they did, terrorism was "there" but after Sept 11, 2001 terrorism came to the US and is now "here." So due to the fact that people are more aware of the terrorism in the world there is more, for lack of a better word, panic. So, basically, Septmeber 11th didn't necessarily make the world, or the US, less secure; but it made people feel less secure which leads to the thought that the world is less secure.

Honestly, I don't feel any more or less secure now. Maybe I'm naive or maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't think people should worry about things that could possibly happen. Our government is more focused on anti-terrorism for our homeland, so its not really a worry point for me.

2006-10-26T12:28:00.000-07:00

Discussion Question #7: Security

Whether or not the world is more secure now than it was before September 11th is a difficult question. I am inclined to say that September 11th made the world aware of the consequences of not being more secure and therefore because we are aware of it we have become more secure as a whole. Since security policies overlap and become international policies, each nation is essentially protecting other nations. For example, when you fly into another country you not only pass through American security but must abide by the other country's security measures. We are certainly more aware of the people coming in and out of our country. When I took a day trip to Canada last spring with my friend, security getting back into the United States was ridiculous. Border patrol asked us so many questions and studied our passports. I personally certainly feel more secure, especially when I fly. I remember going to the Altanta airport with my Granny just for fun when I was younger! We would walk the moving sidewalks and get frostys. There is NO way you could do that now, which, although it is sad is also comforting.

However, because of all the new technology, terrorist groups, and secrecy it is difficult for the world to be more secure. We're going to have to constantly keep updating our security devices and polices to keep up with the new tactics and issues arising. Take for example the subway bombings in London... that was something somewhat unexpected and now we have more restrictions for our subway systems in the US. I think it is going to be difficult to keep up...

2006-10-23T21:28:00.000-07:00

I really liked what we talked about during Friday's class. It was interesting to see how our security strategy has changed just by comparing these two documents.

When the NSC 68 was written we were just becoming a super power, or we were a new superpower. Now, in 2002 when the national security strategy was written, the US is used to being a superpower, so instead of being defensive, the US thinks that its both strong and respected enough to take the offense. So basically the NSC 68 was the US not being "egotistical." The US was testing the waters, to see how other countries would react. Now, (okay, I may be a bit bitter) the US either doesn't care how other countries will react, or the government is confident enough in its own "superpowerness" to take a premptive approach to national security.

All in all, these two documents are different in just about every way. One promotes the promotion of safety of the state, while the other promotes the safety and promotion of democracy. I mean, seriously, democracy is the only sure way to ensure peace. (Okay, maybe a little more than a bit bitter).

2006-10-23T08:35:00.000-07:00

In Friday's class we discussed if the handing out of pills to people around nuclear power plants would actually help or if it was just a PR ploy. I'm not sure if it is a PR ploy, but it doesn't hurt the government's image. I believe that it is the government doing what it can to help. I personally don't think that people should have to live around Nuclear power plants or development labs. I think it causes a lot of harm to the body. Areas around such plants have high cancer rates. I was talking to my friend who lives near a test plant in Chestertown MD. She said that there are a lot cases of cancer. Also think of the Erin Brockovich story. It is not healthy. And if anything can be done to save people from having cancer, it should be done. These plants should be put in the middle of nowhere. Not only to protect people from getting cancer, but in case of an attack. It could in effect lower the damage done to the population.

On another note... I really enjoyed the visit to the spy museum. I find all the espionage stuff fascinating.

2006-10-23T07:33:00.000-07:00

~Reflections on Friday's Class~

It was quite interesting to discuss the differences in the documents NSC-68 and the 2002 National Security Strategy. Both were focused on threats that were considered dire to our nations security. However, the NSC-68 focused almost entirely on the Cold War between the United States and the U.S.S.R., whereas the 2002 NSS was broader and included threats that in nature are economic, related to mother nature, and a variety of other issues. This difference is interesting because it shows the shift our government has gone through in terms of what it considers a threat to our national security.

I would just like to point out a little point regarding the Theory of Mutually Assured Destruction. The problem with this theory is that implicit in its argument is the assumption that the two countries who have nuclear weapons pointed at each other have RATIONAL leaders who understand, accept, and support the idea that the consequences of starting a war with the other country would far outweigh any success that could be achieved. If the leaders aren't rational, don't care about the country or the people they are governing, and don't understand the way that rational people do that nuclear war would be catastrophic for both sides; then I don't believe the Theory of Mutually Assured Destruction applies as it does, supposedly, with almost every country that possesses a nuclear arsenal.

2006-10-22T07:14:00.000-07:00

Reflection on Friday's Class:

On Friday I shared with the class that when I used to live by a nuclear power plant they handed out pills to the citizens of the town in case there was an exposure of radiation. I remember my parents having to sign a form saying the school could administer them to me. I always wondered if they were actually effective... obviously the best thing you can do is get the hell out of there. I agree with Emma, Emily M. and Ashley when they said it is the only thing the government can do to try and help. Most people are under the understanding that there isn't much you can do to stop radiation from affecting your body. But the pill provides some comfort when the time actually came and people are feeling helpless.

I think it is really interesting to think about what is going to happen with the new Prime Minister of England. My personal opinion, and forgive me I don't know much about British government, is that the new Prime Minister could cater more to the people's recent desires and perhaps start to pull away from its support of the American war and government. However, depending on when the new Prime Minister takes office he might just wait out the time until America elects a new President and then build ties with him or her. I'm really interested to see how this works out....

2006-10-19T15:19:00.000-07:00

~A Restless Sleeper's Ramblings on Natural Disasters~

Natural disasters ARE real life security threats. It isn't debatable whether or not Katrina was a threat to out security. It most certainly was. Anarchy, havoc, blatant looting, rampant destruction, hundreds of freed inmates... Ya know, you'd have to be pretty stupid to not call in the army when something like that happens. Mother Nature isn't always going to be happy with us, and we need to protect ourselves for when she comes a' swinging. Natural disasters are the real deal. To say they do not threaten our security is a little out-of-hand. Was there any unnatural disaster that was more devastating than Katrina since the turn of the millenium (with the exception of September 11th)? I can't think of one single incident that caused more trouble than Katrina in recent times. If natural disasters can do all the things I mentioned above, as well as upset our economy, displace millions, and render 80% of a city as big as New Orleans, I believe they are a very real threat to the security of our country.

2006-10-19T10:41:00.000-07:00

Question #6:

Yes, natural disasters should be regarded as a security threat. They are security threats because of the choas and havoc the aftermath of the natural disasters creates. Countries that have taken a hit are more vunerable to criminal acts and more likely to be taken advantage of. If a country is focusing on the restoration and aide needed after a hurricane or tsunami, for example, they are more likely to turn an eye to the looting and other criminal activity going on within the region. When Bob came in my room and discussed this with me he brought up the good point about inmates escaping from prisons. That is certainly a security threat to the people!

In short... natural disasters should be considered security threats because of how vunerable the countries become in the aftermath of such a disaster.

2006-10-19T06:56:00.000-07:00

Should a natural disaster be viewed as a security threat? No. I agree with Danielle on this one, that the natural disaster itself is not the security threat, but it is the aftermath of the natural disaster that lays the foundation for a security threat. Panic and confusion are not a good combination. In addition, there are always people that prey on the victims of natural disasters, whether these victims be people or businesses. Also when a natural disaster hits a town can be destroyed and with that the economy, police force, and government are additionally damaged. This combination causes a climate that enemies can use to their advantage and attack us. Therefore showing that it is the aftermath of the natural disaster which poses a security threat.

2006-10-18T19:30:00.000-07:00

Should natural disasters be regarded as security threats? Why or why not?

Is a natural distaster a security threat? Good question. However, I believe this question is worded incorrectly (no offense PTJ); it should ask if a natural disaster increases the possibility of a security threat, which it does. Think about it, when a large scale, or small scale for that matter, natural disaster occurs what happens? Panic, chaos, loss of electricity, loss of normality. Sure, these things aren't all that rare, but when its a large mass of people in a single place it for sure affects the security of that place. Those who threaten our security pray on this type of environment. A chaotic environment is the most vulnerable. People do not know what exactly is going on; and things will not get back to normal the next day. For example, (yes, I had to use this one) the areas that Hurricane Katrina hit are still not back to the standards that were present before this huge disaster. Many people still do not have homes, electricity, or a "normal life" (whatever that may be). So, this fact alone shows that the region was made vulnerable and still is vulnerable. A security threat, in any form, be it terrorist or something else, would devistate a place that was wrecked by a natural disaster even more. In addition to ravaging the area, it would deplete the people's morale even more. So, all in all, a natural disaster is not a security threat in and of itself, but rather gives the possiblilty of a security threat a rather large boost.

2006-10-15T21:57:00.000-07:00

Yes, I do realize that this is a very belated reflection on our minor simulation - chalk it up to my excitement about going home getting the best of me. Anyway, on to the actual point of this post, the minor simulation. I thought that it went very well, I think it showed how IR theory plays a role in everything, including seemingly boring domestic/economic affairs. While the simulation was not simply a domestic affair, nor an economic one for that matter, I think it is important to not that globalization is taking a decided role in domestic affairs. Look to who is setting content rules for American corporations (hint, it isn't a regulatory committee in Washington). Increasingly, the demands of the global market regulate what we can and cannot do in terms of goods, business and even governments. Lets turn again to my favorite example, Europe (I know I talk about Europe a lot, and for the sake of clarification, let me say that I find Europe fascinating, especially the growing power of the EU, it is (as of now) my intended area of study, and I really dig thier accents). The EU plays a major role in the decisions of the American government (tax credits for major companies that trade overseas), major international business (Jack Whelch anyone?), even small town farmers (if American farmers want to trade with the largest single market in the world, GMOs are out of the question.). So is it any wonder that something as mundane as automobiles would turn out to be a big deal on the global scale? And while I think that the whole class did an excellent job, I must commend my "partners" at the UAW and the Sierra Club, and thank Mr. President for a sound decison for America!

2006-10-09T06:35:00.000-07:00

I thought that the simulation went very well. I thought that all five groups presented compelling arguments. I also noticed aspects of the three IR theories in our presentations. The UAW had a realist approach. They argued that the United States needed to be self sufficient by making our own tanks and other cars such as humvees. They made an argument for national security, which is a realist argument - as PTJ said in his podcast "States that do not look after their own security are taken over by someone else." The consumers and the foreign auto manufacturers presented a liberalist (and when I say liberalist I don't mean left) argument. Those two groups argued for the elimination of the domestic content laws , for free trade. The group that I was in took a constructivist approach. We used the "because we are X, we can do Y" argument. Because we are the Sierra Club we can make the world better. We used that stance to fight to keep the domestic content laws, which was the ultimate decision. Nice decision by the way Mr. President.

2006-10-08T20:19:00.000-07:00

~A Restless Sleeper's Ramblings on Baseball and a Minor Simulation~

Alright, so my last post was not about world politics in any way shape or form. I remember reading somewhere that we are allowed to write stuff other than world politics. So how about them Tigers! They look like they are on the prowl! Tough luck for the Yankees... But they really only have themselves to blame after losing to a team that only three years ago broke the season record for most losses ever with 119... It will be an interestig series... It might come down to being the Tigers vs. the Cardinals, in which case I will be in anguish over which team to root for. The New York Mets are a good team, but they will fall to the onslaught of Pujols and the Cardinals! The Detroit-Oakland game will be much more difficult to predict... They are pretty evenly matched teams in terms of pitching, fielding, and firepower... I didn't expect either of them to make it this far... If Detroit keeps playing like they have then I believe they will persevere, if not, well, then I will take consolation in the fact that they beat the best team in baseball! That the Detroit Tigers eliminated the New York Yankees from the playoffs in itself is an achievement worth mention!

Anyways, the minor simulation went pretty I believe. However, as Beka states, this simulation was biased from the start. There was no way the AIAM and the consumers were going to successfully argue that the President and the Secretary should revoking the DCRs... It would go against self-preservation and self-interest. The advantages to revoking the DCRs are far outnumbered, and are of much less significance, than the consequences of revoking them. To vote in favor of the AIAM and the consumers would be self-destructive. Besides that, I think the simulation went along pretty smoothly.

2006-10-08T09:28:00.000-07:00

WOOHOOOOO!!! TIGERS BLOWOUT THE YANKEES 8-3!!! YEAHHH! GO DETROIT!

2006-10-07T20:16:00.000-07:00

I thoroughly enjoyed our minor stimulation. I never realized how controversial the issue of tariffs could be; but by the end of class on Friday I thought about what my position on the issue is. The only thing I wish would have been different about this would be more debate amoungst the groups, as in more one-on-one conversation between each group. I think that would have been more interesting. After going through this, I cannot wait for the major stimulation! However, I am a little upset at the outcome, Mr. President. Honestly, by getting rid of tariffs on automobiles it would increase competition. And if American car companies were to worry about losing out to the foreign companies because of this, they would be forced to make better, more efficient cars; which is best for the consumer.

2006-10-07T15:48:00.000-07:00

Response to our Minor Simulation:

The minor simulation was a lot of fun! I thought it was formatted very well because it gave people enough time to speak without it going overboard. The presentations showed everyone put in a lot of effort. Also, I had a lot of fun being part of the Sierra Club and researching a topic I didn't know much about!

The combination of the Sierra Club, the American Car Companies and the UAW was incredibly strong and effective. Liz did a wonderful job explaining why the American Car Companies would support the domestic content rules. She made a good point about the fact that foreign car companies are not as invested in the US as the United States companies are. Cameron brought up the point of National Security, something the Sierra Club didn't encounter in our research.

If the Foreign Auto Manufacturers and the Consumers weren't so outnumbered their arguments would have been more effective. I thought Daniel's point that the rules don't apply anymore because lines have blurred and the foreign companies have blended with the American companies was very innovative. At least I had never thought of that...

I really enjoyed working on this project and I'm getting even more excited for the major simulation!!

2006-10-05T21:22:00.000-07:00

This question is extremely hard to answer one way or the other. If you take one extreme over the other there will always be a hole in the reasoning. I think that there is appropriate times to evaluate an international organization on moral and ethical grounds as long as logical means are used in the process as well. This will ensure that both sides are properly represented in the solution, which will, ideally, make the best solution possible.

2006-10-05T14:40:00.000-07:00

~A Restless Sleeper's Ramblings on the Proper Evaluation of International Organizations~

Is it ever appropriate to evaluate an international organization (like, say, the IMF) on moral and ethical grounds, or should we confine ourselves to the realm of practical efficacy when discussing such matters?

International organizations are all usually set up with a purpose of sorts. As there are so many different types of international organizations (Red Cross, The United Nations Organization, World Bank, The International Monetary Fund, etc.), I believe any evaluation confined to EITHER of the aforementioned choices would be counter-productive. These sorts of organizations should be dealt with on a case by case basis if there is to be any sense of fairness. Each organization and it's goals are unique.

The IMF is "working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty". Faced with such enormous tasks, I believe it would be advisable, even prudent, for the evaluation of the IMF to be confined to the realm of practical efficacy. If an evaluation were based on ethical or moral grounds, it would be quite controversial. I haven't heard of a common set of morals or ethics that every international organization traditionally abides to. Different people have different sets of ethics and morals. There are some common morals and ethic codes the majority of the world adheres to. Common morals and ethic codes that extend to society, NOT business matters; even those of an international organization as important as the IMF.

The only time when I believe morals and ethics should come into question in regards to the evaluation of an international organization(like, say, the IMF) is when the international organization in question has clearly deviated from its intended purpose, which should periodically be evaluated; thereby, preventing any misunderstandings which might occur.

2006-10-05T08:36:00.000-07:00

I think it is important to evaluate any organization on moral and ethical grounds. With the problems cropping up in businesses around the country and world, why should governmental organizations be held to lower standards? I was recently reading about the attempted merger between GE (with the now infamous Jack Welch behind the wheel) and Honeywell. That deal was rejected by the European Union on the grounds that it limited competitiveness. Mr. Welch was floored by this action, because the merger had sailed through the U.S. Antitrust hearings. The point of this is not to say the the U.S. regulatory committees for mergers are bad, it is simply to say the the European Union is setting an international precedence by holding companies and governments to higher standards.
So what does this have to do with judging organizations such as the IMF on moral and ethical grounds? Well, I think it is evident that if a major, multinational organization (such as the EU) can come down on companies for what could be perceived as ethical violations, why can't nations and governments judge important international organizations to the same code? Organizations such as the IMF play an important role in global politics and international financial matters, and in that role, it is important that the global community demands ethical and moral actions. Removing those moral and ethical judgments from the global perspective of such organizations would, I believe, allow the IMF to abandon its commitment to aid the global community and influence financial matters in a positive manner. In this day and age, we can not afford to abandon moral and ethical judgments.

2006-10-04T21:35:00.000-07:00

Question #5:

I believe international institutions should be kept within the realm of practical efficacy. To me this means sticking to the business side of things and not letting emotions or ethics dictate global decisions. For example, let's say the IMF were trying to decide whether or not to loan money to Zimbabwe today because of their devestating political and economic situation. In my opinion the IMF should only refer to its business practices and rules (the fact that they already loaned to Zimbabwe but they didn't pay back the loan yet so they no longer have a vote) when making its decision. Getting morals and ethics involved in corporations that are already hard enough to control will only make things more controversial. You would then have to come up with an international code of ethics to try and incorporate all cultures viewpoints, otherwise someone is always going to be offended. Let's leave the moral and ethical issues to the humanitarians and the governments.

Of course I'm not saying that institutions like the IMF should completely disregard all morals and ethics when dealing with their business. We are humans and we need morals and ethics to guide our daily lives. There are always going to be morals infused in our business and hopefully the IMF is a humane institution. I just don't think international institutions should make it a point to base their business off of a set of morals or ethics.

2006-10-03T14:22:00.000-07:00

How are we to decide if something is appropriate or not? What is appropriate to someone could be inappropriate for someone else. Should an international organization be held to higher moral and ethical grounds? Or should we confine ourselves to the realm of practical efficacy? Who are we to say? Different situations call for different means of approach. Some situations may need a more practical than ethical approach or vice versa.

I think we need to be open-minded and keep that in mind. As Katie said a balance needs to be struck when the situation is able to afford one. What I do believe is that any organization needs to be held accountable for their actions ethical, practical, or whatever.

2006-09-28T08:56:00.000-07:00

I felt that Wednesday's class was very interesting. Unlike some, I didn't feel that the discussion about "Aliens at the Whitehouse" was completely ridiculous. We made some very interesting observations about global politics, even if we didn't recognize that right away. We talked a lot about what we would do in that situation, and that revealed a lot about human nature - human nature is always a driving force in negotiations, so isn't it important that we understand some of the emotions and reactions that drive our interaction with other people?
I also felt that our discussion about realism vs. liberalism vs constructivism was very pertinent to our world today. Reflecting back on the events immediately following 9-11, it is important to ask if we could have done something different. I brought up the point that perhaps we are playing into the terrorists' hands, I believe that they knew we would respond in this manner and expected that our own actions would destroy us, so they wouldn't have to. If we remember what happened on 9-11 and immediately after it, and for once, learn from our mistakes, then perhaps we can avoid another catastrophe in the future.
Maybe the next time aliens land on the Whitehouse lawn, we won't shoot first and ask questions later.

2006-09-28T08:35:00.000-07:00

When the question was asked "What would happen if aliens landed on the lawn of the White House," I was completely excited for this class. It was an interesting question that could be taken in many different ways. For example, it could be taken as what if actual intergalactic beings were to land on the White House lawn. But it could also be taken as people from different countries were to come to ours and "land" on our government. It's very interesting to think about. I'm really glad we talked about this in class.

We moved from talking about actual aliens to al Qaeda and terrorism. Liz brought up a good point: Al Qaeda may have realized that they couldn’t destroy the US, but what if they were thinking that they could provoke the US to destroy itself by creating more weaknesses.

Liz's question is very haunting, but to me makes a lot of sense. Al Qaeda may have always been a threat, but now they have gotten to the core of America. America is at one of its most politically divided point in history. This is due to the War on Terror the al Qaeda has started. These divisions are causing the US to be more and more at odds with each other rather than with the actual enemy. Al Qaeda could not have planned this more perfectly. So maybe al Qaeda did plan this, or maybe this is just an offshoot that wasn't thought of but is now used as a launching pad. I mean, seriously, al Qaeda wants to destroy the US; what better way to do it than to use our own population to do the "destroying." I don't mean a physical destroying, but a destroying of our culture, our way of life, our identity.

2006-09-27T20:22:00.000-07:00

I am in awe that we spent an ENTIRE class period discussing the question, "What happens if aliens land on the White House lawn tomorrow?" hahaha...

I believe that if aliens landed on the white house lawn America's first response would be to fire on them. I agree with Cameron's point that we would treat them like any other person who landed on the White House lawn. It is a security threat. Ideally America should try to talk to them first and somehow figure out their motives for coming to earth. Like Kristen said, it is a big risk to take action immediately on them because of the force they could have back home. I stick with my point I said in class that it can't be easier to communicate with aliens directly than humans because we don't know their way of dealing with situations. They could have an entirely different approach or a response completely alien (ha..ha.) from anything humans have ever seen. I'm not sure how we would bridge the language barrier.

I agreed with Adam, Liz and Katie in the question about our response to September 11th. I think it was justified to attack Afghanistan and try to break up the Al-Queda build up there. We had to use some sort of force as a response because we were attacked in a major way. I also believe that Al-Queda wanted our image to be damaged in international politics with our response to Sept 11th. It is the perfect way to take down a superpower... turn the rest of the world against it.

2006-09-27T07:58:00.000-07:00

These are just some things that I wanted to say today, but didn't get a chance to:

Elliot- People have aways been judgmental and always will be.
Think back to the landing of the English thinking that the Native Americans were savage. They didn't even know they existed until they met them and automatically thought they were savage. Most people who are judgmental, are judgmental because they are misinformed or don't know anything about the situation or people.

And just in general, how do we know who the superior beings are? Is it us or the aliens?

For most of the class I wrote a running commentary on what was going on before I stopped to type this. Here's what I wrote:

What would happen if aliens land on the white house lawn tomorrow?

Dan: Wait for actions then respond
Alex: you don’t know what they’ll do or what they want.
Frank:they don’t know what the white house is
PTJ: Why the White House?

It has been ingrained in us that the white house is the center of power and the president is the most powerful man.
Represents the power of the Western World

Would aliens get that?

Emily C.: If they could get to earth maybe they are smart enough to intercept some radio waves (able to figure out power location)

Lauren: Not even that big (the white house)
Adam: situation is metaphorical
Beka:they don’t know us, or our history, an ambassador would.
Emily C.: easier to deal with aliens, wouldn’t have to deal with all these rituals and red tape
Grete: more diplomacy
Cameron: Emily is condescending to aliens/risk of alienating the aliens

We don’t know what they know about us.

Alex: outsider has a different perspective/ consider every aspect

Response depends on their motivations

Lauren W.: We couldn’t be direct with them. They have their own rituals and we have our own.
PTJ: Mutual outsiderness
Elliot: Assuming they haven’t already been introduced to democracy, introduce it to them, but do not force it on them, we don’t know how they will react to it. Be sensitive to their beliefs. There is another option out there not just ours. Be open to ideas.
PTJ: alienocracy
Emma: best thing for diplomacy is to be open. Sit down and have an open conversation.
Frank: so much of how we initially react to how they show up is important – first impressions. Need to watch what message we send. First impressions are really important.
PTJ: What the government do if they were coming to earth:
Lauren T.: Rather be safe than sorry. They would start preparing for military action. Don’t know what they’re coming for.
Frank: Not that short sighted.
PTJ: the first thing of human contact was the Indians meeting the English here.
Katie: The rest of the world would look down on us if we just attacked them. They would have a bad impression of us.
Kristin: We don’t know what kind of back up they might have
Emily: We don’t know what their cultural responses are.
Katie: We don’t know if they are telling the truth.
Emily: We don’t know what their actions mean.
Shoot first, ask questions later?
Cameron: Treated like anyone else on the White House lawn. We would shoot.
Danielle: I wouldn’t shoot myself. Excuse me what are you doing here? Then flip out. We aren’t use to superior beings. We are used to being on top. They have a different way of life that we aren’t used to which makes us uncomfortable.
Adam: I think of the Ender’s Game series when I think of this situation. Human responses to alien cultures.
PTJ: If we see something that is unlike what we’re used to we tend to project what we are use to and act accordingly, we might be wrong.
Liz: We have perceptions that they have a plan. Maybe aliens will be mistrustful of us.
Bob: Our images come from what we have seen in movies. (Hollywood)
Emma: Thinks this question is ridiculous. We don’t know what we would do, we could say we do, but we don’t
Beka: You don’t know (maybe we are the aliens)
Elliot: We are too judgmental as a society. Media has completely destroyed the alien image. All very contextual.
Jackie: We have always been judgmental. Maybe this is the first time you have experienced people being judgmental. Always have been and always will be. We create these stereotypes.
PTJ: aliens landing on planet same as people flying planes into buildings. Black swan is an inherently unpredictable but significant event 9/11= black swan

I agree with Cameron, that if aliens landed on the White House lawn, they would be taken care of the exact same way that anyone else is. Except I think that it would be on a much larger scale. I also agreed with what Cameron said in response to Emily C. saying that it would be easier to deal with aliens, than with other countries because we wouldn't have to deal with rituals. Cameron said that, what she said was condescending towards aliens and that we could risk alienating the aliens. I think that we would actually have to deal with more rituals, red tape, and we might risk a galatic incident.

2006-09-27T07:08:00.000-07:00

~Wednesday Class Reflection~

Class today was a little ridiculous. We don't even know if aliens exist. All the different subjects we were talking about were completely theoretical, and almost entirely based on assumptions. Inherent within most people's arguments is the assumption that aliens think in rational terms. We assume we would be able to communicate to them. We also assume that their capabilities would far outstretch our own. Why do we make all these assumptions, Hollywood. Most of our arguments are made on the various movies we have all seen on extraterrestrial beings. Which is absolutely ludicrous. What concrete foreign policy ever came out of a Hollywood movie? We have no data whatsoever on the mere existence of alien life. How can we have a serious discussion on such a subject then?

And why in hell would aliens land on the White House?

2006-09-24T15:29:00.000-07:00

Although I was only in class for the first half I took A LOT of notes about discussion points that were brought up.

The question that stuck out most for me during class was PTJ's question to Elliott about why we didn't just starve the Nazi's with an embargo. I agree with the fact that Elliott said WWII was an exception and I feel that the reason was because of the number of people needing aid. It wasn't just the Jews but the Polish, the gypsies and the gays. If we had starved the Nazi's we would have been contributing to the starvation of all of those groups of people as well who were already dying from lack of food and proper care.

I also strongly agreed with Alex's comment at the beginning of class that history cycles from liberalism to realism. I feel as though nations tend to lean more towards realism but there is that point after a war where people are certain they never want that to happen again and take on more characteristics of liberalism.

2006-09-24T14:31:00.000-07:00

I thought Friday's class was pretty interesting. I really like he fact that we started off on one topic that we had from our reading, then that lead to a completely new topic that had nothing to do with the reading. Take, for instance, the tangent of invasion vs embargos. I REALLY enjoyed talking about this subject. Everyone, for the most part, had differing views, which made the conversation seem more like a debate than a simple discussion.
A trade embargo doesn’t necessarily mean there will be an end to whatever wrongdoing is going on. An invasion more than likely will. that's my feeling on this issue. I mean a trade embargo could make a point, but it could also backfire on the country that created the embargo. I mean, sure a trade embargo could cause a country to relinquish the action that caused the embargo in the first place. But if a country feels strongly about its ideas, then a trade embargo could cause that country to become more self sufficient and have less need for other countries.

Point was also brought up about rushing into Iraq and Afghanistan; this was paralleled to Vietnam. I do agree that the US did rush into Iraq and Afghanistan. However, I feel that we would have been much more successful in both Iraq and Afghanistan if we had gone slower and planned ahead. Due to the fact that we went into these countries so quickly, we are planning as we go rather than following a clear cut plan that was made before the invasion. If we would have planned ahead for all the "unexpected" things that have been going on, we quite possibly could have been out of a stable Iraq by now.

All in all, I think Friday's class was very interesting. We hit so many different topics that all seemed to go along with the previous. It was an extreely good class.

2006-09-24T09:06:00.000-07:00

I thought the disscusion on Friday of liberalism vs. realism was interesting. Ashley said that history repeats itself with realism being chosen over liberalism. I agree with this. Countries see how well realism has worked in the past and use it again and again and again.

I thought another intersting thing that we talked about was invasions vs. embargos. I personally am in favor of embargos. Invasions (such as the invasion of Iraq) can turn messy real fast. With embargos, as was stated in class, the people affected by the embargo do the work for you. They do the work for you because they get upset that they are not being provided for by the government and that their economy is nonexistant. This causes the people to want a change...sometimes they are willing to make this change by force.

On a personal note I think that if the American people really truly wanted to drive the price of gasoline down they could. They can just sit there and complain about it on TV, the newspaper, or in line in the grocery store or they can do something about such as a boycott. That's something that makes me mad people complaining about something, but yet they just sit there and moan not doing anything.

2006-09-22T10:48:00.000-07:00

~Friday Class Reflection~

I don't see the connection that was made between Woodrow Wilson promoting liberalism and the United States' involvement in WWI. The US declared neutrality at the beginning of the war, that wasn't fighting for the liberal cause. Only after the Lusitania was sunk did the US get involved. Woodrow Wilson did not get the US involved in WWI because he wanted to ''fight for the ideals of liberalism''. President Wilson got the United States involved because the public was outraged at the attack on the Lusitania. Saying we got involved because of ideology is twisting the circumstances of the United States' involvement.

I agree with Emma completely when she says that full scale invasions are more effective than embargoes. That is not to say embargoes are uneffective, because they are. The problem I have with embargoes is that they do not sit well with the people of the involved country, as do invasions. Embargoes and invasions both damage the United States' global image, the question is which one delivers results, favorable or not, more often. Embargoes don't do much to hinder an enemy, as that enemy always has friends to help smuggle goods, and the regular black market. I just believe there is more chance for success with an invasion than with a trade embargoe. With embargoes it is the common people who suffer. Dictators will comfortably sit in their mansions sipping bourbon, etc. Like Liz has said though, most invasions we have had since WWII have been failures. Kate also brought up an important point when she mentioned that it was not a failure of our military's capabilities, but the fault of interferring politicians.

The class started off a little slow, but ended up being very productive and involving.

2006-09-21T15:08:00.000-07:00

Oh geeze, this is probably the hardest question to answer so far. I myself am a very pessimistic person when it comes to the notion that military force will one day be eliminated. Now, I'm not saying that it is a necessary part of world politics. However, I am saying that human beings are the only players in world politics. So basically I don't think military force has to be a necessity in world politics, but due to the fact that humans are the ones running the "show" there will always be friction between the different nations in play. And it seems to me that the way that humans, especially "powerful" humans, solve their problems through force. And when world leaders have the military at their beck and call they will use it whenever they deem necessary, and when its approved. So all in all, I don't think military force will be a necessary part of world politics, but it will always be a central part due to the fact that world leaders are, for the most part, powerful, power hungry, and greedy. That means that when friction arises there will most likely, in my humble opinion, be military force used in some way or another.

2006-09-21T08:51:00.000-07:00

Question 3 Response:

I would love to believe that rational discussion could take the place of military force, however, I think that military force is something that will always play a role in world politics.
Military force has been so ingraned in our collective consciousness, and plays such a huge role in global politics already, that for it to simply disappear as a solution would take something akin to a revolution. Rational discussion is a lofty goal, but over the centuries, it has failed time and time again when the option for military force is present. So what if the option for military force simply disappeared? That would be great, but I don't think military force can ever simply disappear; it would require the U.S. and other nations destroying nuclear weapons, the disarmament of all armies, and the complete destruction of radical forces that breed terrorists and other such groups.
Rational discussion and negotions are important today, but I believe military force will always exist as a safety blanket.

2006-09-21T08:27:00.000-07:00

~A Restless Sleeper's Ramblings on Military Force in World Politics~

Military force has always been a central factor in world politics. Naturally, the country with the most powerful guns gets listened to. However, to say that military force will always be a central part of world politics is quite an ambitious statement. Even at this moment, military force isn't involved in every aspect of world politics. Military force isn't a factor in the global warming crisis. Military force does not have any positive or negative effects in relation to the AIDs crisis in Africa. It doesn't routinely affect the outcome of what is happening to these two ongoing problems.

There may come a time when nations get rid of their weapons. No, now I am being ambitious. If any such probability were to occur it would be a long time in coming. The possibility that rational negotiations can overcome the need to settle disputes by force is one that should never be overlooked. Diplomacy and negotiations can save the lives of untold numbers of soldiers. That is not to say that diplomacy and negotiations are always to be preferred to the use of military force. There have been times in history when military force should have been executed immediately and it wasn't due to diplomacy and negotiations being the favored action of the day. For example, military force should have been the option immediately used by the British and the French when dealing with Hitler. The appeasement of Hitler was a dismal failure, and led to the worst conflict in humanity's history. Had military force been enacted immediately Hitler would not have had the chance to do what he did. The failure of diplomacy and "rational negotiations" should have been obvious to the leaders of Europe after the invasion of the Rhineland, Anschluss Osterreichs, the annexation and of Sudetenland, and the return of Memelland from Lithuania. Had they acted swiftly Hitler's name would not have had the same implications on history as it has today.

Neither the liberals nor the realists are correct in asserting their respective viewpoint is the "right" one because both are correct and both should be utilized as tools in conflict resolution in the world today. This does not change the fact that liberals will push for peace, when decisive force is needed, and forestall the inevitable, or that realists will call for war when times of negotiations could solve conflicts quite readily. No argument that any philosopher, lawyer, academic, student, or blogger makes will stop the world's most powerful countries from asserting their power and influence over world politics by reminding the rest of the world that they have more devastating weapons than them.

2006-09-20T17:45:00.000-07:00

In response to Discussion Question # 3 I would say that I agree with the realists ( even though this is unfortunate) that military will always remain a central part of world politics. Liberals do hold out for the possibility that rational negotiatons can overcome the need to settle disputes by force. I think that we can use the coup that just occurred in Thailand as an example of how military force gets things done, while talking doesn't.

I would like to hope though that in the future the liberals will be right and we can negotiate, but for the now I don't see that.

2006-09-20T16:39:00.000-07:00

Question #3:

As difficult as it is to admit, I believe that military force will always be a part of world politics. Now that certain nations have established themselves as superpowers... there is no turning back. Although nations might try to negotiate peacefully, leaders will always threaten opposing countries with their military capabilities. This is a terrible example but think about how when you get in a really heated argument with someone you just want to HIT them. There is that human instinct to use physical force against an opposition. Until leaders learn an alternative to military force when it comes to getting what they want they are going to use that as a threat.

I do believe that even if military force is inevitable states need to practice peaceful negotiation more often. That needs to be the first line of thought when a conflict arises. It would help if the UN was able to be effectively utilized as a mediator for the peaceful negotiations...

2006-09-17T23:07:00.000-07:00

Friday's class was very interesting for me. I really enjoyed taking a different perspective on The Prince. By actually analyzing the text rather than just reading it. I actually changed my opinion on my view of Machivellian politics. I didn't remember this single idea that he had, but it actually angered me. The statement went something like a leader should only listen to his subjects when he wants to. That's totally the WRONG idea, in my opinion. When a leader isn't responsive to the people's will he's obviously not a leader, he's more like a dictator. He'll listen only to what he deems necessary and true, and that's not a leadership quality in the least bit.

I really enjoyed the debate of Friday's class; not only was it difficult for people to defend the different side, but it was interesting to see what points people would bring up and how they would rebut against the very points they believed in. So all-in-all this past class was one of my favorites. I enjoyed loking more closely at the Machivellian ideas of how a leader should act. I also really enjoyed seeing the different conclusions members of the class pulled from The Prince.

2006-09-17T12:30:00.000-07:00

Friday's Class:

Friday's class was very interesting, and like others, I also found that the format made me reevaluate my ideas about The Prince. I do agree with Machiavelli, and I think that a lot of his points are still relevant today. I really liked the point-counter point format, especially because it gave everyone (or most people) a chance to talk.
I didn't realize that we had completely ignored the morality issue until Professor Jackson brought it up. I think it brings up a very interesting set of questions about how today's society views issues of morality. Do we ignore Machiavelli's lack of morals because of the greater scope of his book, or because society has shunned morality as a necessary value? I think that this is very important to discuss, especially when considering the future of international politics. If Machiavelian philosophy plays a role in international politics and globalization, does that mean that morality will play an increasingly minimal role, or will the people of the world step up and demand that politicians, businessmen, and people adopt a stricter moral code? I certainly hope it is the latter.

2006-09-17T07:00:00.000-07:00

~Friday's Class~

Friday's class was made very interesting by the fact that we had to defend a viewpoint that directly contradicted our own. As Professor Jackson noted, it was amazing that none of us brought up the question of morals throughout the entire debate. I believe those who did think about bringing up the morality of the issues we were discussing chose not to for fear our debate could turn into something quite nasty. It defintely had the potential to become a major hash. You could see that a few people were frustrated by the fact that they were only allowed to speak once.

Personally, I find it quite disturbing that some people believe the United Nations is solely a peacekeeping organization. I understand that the U.N.'s credibility would be severely tarnished if it did not ask countries for their permission to enter. However, the first point mentioned in the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations is that WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS ARE DETERMINED TO SAVE SUCCEEDING GENERATIONS FROM THE SCOURGE OF WAR, WHICH TWICE IN OUR LIFETIME HAS BROUGHT UNTOLD SORROW TO MANKIND http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/. If the United Nations is to make good on this statement, they must enter Darfur. Time and time again the Sudanese Government has denied the U.N. permission to enter Darfur and put a stop to the horrors. If the United Nations is to make good on its word and save the Sudanese people, it must enter Darfur without the explicit permission of the government that is letting it's own people slaughter each other.

2006-09-16T10:35:00.000-07:00

Friday's class actually tweaked my opinion on the UN question a little bit. Originally I said that I thought the UN should have the authority to go into a nation and intervene. I still believe that but now I believe there should be some sort of limits placed on that intervention. I agreed with Katie when she said that if the UN is going to intervene for something like genocide there needs to be a universal understanding and definition of genocide and methods for getting aid to that country need to be figured out ahead of time. I also agreed with Liz when she said that the UN would also need to have a point where they pull out of the country, otherwise they will overstay their welcome.

The point that was brought up in class that got me thinking the most was Professor Jackson's comment that geneticists say there is nothing in the genes that qualifies us as different races, it is just political terminology. I had never thought of it that way before. It fits in perfectly with my belief that we are all way more alike than we believe we are...

2006-09-15T18:43:00.000-07:00

I thought that the separating into groups and then having us point/counterpoint for the other side was both interesting and fun. It was something different and had us put ourselves in another pair of shoes.

In class today Professor Jackson stated two reasons to why we (we being the US) do not intervene in Darfur. They were:
1. Conflict of Interests
2.The risk of angering other countries and having them turn their back on the US.

I agree that these are the reasons that we have not gone into Darfur yet. I also think that we have not gone in because we do not have the UN's support. We didn't have the UN's support to go into Iraq and look where that got us. I think that the US is now (hopefully) thinking before it gets involved in another military conflict, even if it is just peace keeping forces. The US does not want the blame placed squarely on them if things turn sour.

2006-09-15T08:50:00.000-07:00

Response to Question # 2:

I do not believe that the United Nation should be allowed to send troops in without the permission of the nation. This is not to say that there is no basis for UN involvement in certain volatile situations, but if the UN is allowed to intervene in any situation without the government's consent, more problems will be created than solved.
Many of my concerns about the UN are related to the beauacratic problems that have plagued the organization for years. While the UN has done a great deal of good for the people of the world (through organizations such as UNAIDS and UNICEF), the disorganization, power structures and coroption lead to choas in the international agency. As much as I hate to agree with President Bush, the UN needs a serious face lift before it can resume international peace and conflict resolution. As my intelligent and good looking friend Gideon Forman says: Another problem with the UN is America - in the sense that America is playing the role of Athens in the Athens League of ancient Greece. Essentially, America has taken over the UN, but refuses to actually do any work to significantly impact (for the better), the course of the organization.
America's overbearing actions in the UN (and in global politics as a whole), make me doubt that the UN can be trusted to intervene in international crises. I feel that if the UN is allowed to take action without permission, that ability will be abused, and lead to more conflict as well as increased economic, social and political upheval.
UN action without the express permission of the country will lead to unfair actions on the part of other countries, and an inefficient and corrupt organization. Situations like that in Darfur, obviously require assistance, but that assistance would be better recieved in the form of more local input and administration.
If the UN is going to continue to be effective, serious changes need to be made, starting with the United States paying dues and taking a more passive role. International communication, instead of fighting, should be the order of the day.

2006-09-14T21:02:00.000-07:00

This is a very tough question to answer; not because of the question itself, but because of what it entails. The UN is only able to have more authority and capacity if the member nations allow it to. The UN is only as strong as its members give it power to be. And as of right now many nations are holding it back; especially the United States. The US has repeatedly ignored several UN policies: both domestically and internationally. If I'm not mistaken the US didn't allow the UN election inspectors (the actual title may be different) to come in and inspect one of Bush Jr.'s elections. That same action is the one that made an independent nation (Iraq) to be invaded by the US. Very hypocritical in my opinion.

Now with that, and to answer this question, yes the UN should have more authority and capacity to intervene in events taking place within the borders of a single state. Why? The UN is comprised of many different nations that are to be seen as a single entity. If these nations agree that it is their "duty," for lack of a better word, to become involved in a single state conflict then its obvious that something is wrong with the situation. Now, there will be nations that do not agree with these actions, if they occur. Taking Darfur for example, if the Sudanese government doesn't consent then of course there will be problems; however, if the invasion is supported and backed by the UN (which is basically a group of several nations working together) then there will be the ability to overcome the dissent caused by an invasion not supported by the Sudanese government, or any government for that matter.

That's my thought. I think that the UN should have more authority as long as a strong majority of its strongest members are in support of the effort in question. The the real question here is whether or not the member nations will give their approval which will in turn give the UN more authority. In order for the UN to have more authority and capacity, the member nations need to see that the UN is a powerful tool, and to respect and abide by that fact.

2006-09-13T18:31:00.000-07:00

I always hear people talk about how ineffective the UN is. And after participating in Model UN for a couple of years I can understand why they think that. I think that the UN could be more effective if they did have more authority and the capacity to intervene in events taking place within the borders of a single state.

I’m not claiming to know a lot about the situation in Darfur, because I don’t know much about it at all. What I do know is that what is going on there is horrible. I think that the UN should go in with peacekeeping forces even if it does not have the consent of the Sudanese government.

Not only should the UN go into Darfur, but other countries such as the US should too. Now I know that the US is spread pretty thin now with the Iraq and Afghanistan, but I think we should and need to do something to stop the genocide.

2006-09-12T18:00:00.000-07:00

Yes, the United Nations should have more authority to intervene in issues taking place inside a state. If nothing else I think it is incredibly important for multiple nations to have a place and way to convene on issues and decide to take action together.

UN intervention is incredibly important for the provision of aid to countries that aren't able to provide their own. After the Tsunami the UN was able to provide clean water and plan disease prevention in India. If Darfur would allow it, the UN would be very diligent about getting aid to the people.

UN intervention is also important in places like South Korea and Iran because so many countries are fearful of their potential. I'm not so sure how effective the UN is in talks with these countries because I don't normally follow up on the UN but it seems logical to have a peaceful place to discuss logistics with each of these countries. Can anyone fill me in on how effective UN talks are/could be with these situations?

Also... how do you get titles for your individual blog posts???

2006-09-10T14:24:00.000-07:00

Friday's class was a nice change of format, I only wish that we had more time to discuss the issues, because class felt a bit rushed. Other than that, I felt that some very pertinent issues were discussed. I really feel like the diversity of issues shows how many different ideals and perspectives are impacting world politics. I think that all of the groups had valid points, especially because there are so many ways to interpret the events impacting world politics. The communication group was really articulate, and they had very thorough points and ideas. I think that communication is a major issue, especially since so few people are actually educated about world events. I also think that the other very important point that was brought up in class was that all of these issues are interconnected. One can hardly discuss religion without delving into the complicated issues of money, communication and radicalism.
Overall, I like the new format, but I would like to see more communication among the class as a whole. I'll see everyone for Pizza dinner, and I hope you all had a good weekend.

2006-09-10T12:33:00.000-07:00

Friday's class was very interesting to me. I enjoyed hearing all the different views of what others thought the biggest issue concerning world politics today.

Personally, I feel that the biggest issue facing the world today is communication. Not only lack of communication, but too much communication as well. These are the two aspects we discussed in my group. Lack of communication, for one, embodies the whole world. The world has now grown from a global world to a global villiage. Everyone is able to be connected; the internet and the telephone has made this possible. Due to the fact that the ability to communicate has grown the willingness to communicate needs to grow as well. If countries are willing to communicate and actually listen to each other many of the world's problems, such as poverty, religious problems, and others, could be dealt with on a much better level than it is right now. Maybe the problems won't be solved, but with better communication nations could know what exactly the problems are and work with each other to find a solution for them.

On the other hand, the other aspect that my group discussed was to excess of communication. This may sound contridictory to the last point I just discussed, but it isn't. The point is is that the media sometimes over does the amount of imformation given to its audience. One of the points we brought up was the fact that Iraqi insurgents would watch CNN in order to find the location of the US troops. Another point that was made was the fact that the media is everywhere; if you tried to get away from it, you most likely couldn't. And that's the truth of it all. But what can be done about this? Our group decided that the media can't be limited without risking other freedoms being taken away as well. So a perfect medium must be found; but who's to say what that perfect medium is? Anyone have any thoughts on that one?

2006-09-10T10:53:00.000-07:00

Friday's class really got me thinking about a lot of issues I haven't even considered before... I like how the class was structured but I'm not sure we should do it again just because I think there was a lot people wanted to say that went unsaid.

I really liked what the economic/poverty group had to say. They almost made me want to switch sides ;-) (almost..) I agreed strongly with their argument that poverty encourages people to join different political or religious groups that can offer them hope. This does seem to promote extreme views and can sometimes lead to terrorism with examples like Al-Queda. I was impressed by Dan's presentation of the religion groups thoughts but the question was never asked "What can be done to solve these issues?" Some of the other groups had solutions or at least hinted at ways that their issue could be solved but what can be done to heal relations between religious groups??

When my group (the communications group) was discussing amongst ourselves we talked a lot more about the media than what came across in our presentation. It is interesting how the media shapes our perception of certain issues. In my Understanding Mass Media book (mentioned by Cameron in our discussion) they wrote about how the media used up airwaves during Hurricane Katrina basically limiting the amount of aid that could be brought to that region.

I still believe that communication is the most important issue facing world politics today but I am now more aware of other incredibly important issues that should also be focused on...

2006-09-09T09:04:00.000-07:00

I really enjoyed today's class. I liked the presentation and debate set up. I agreed with the communication group's key points that communication helps with humanitarian aid and can help to avert humanitarian disasters, that communication clears up misunderstandings between nations and organizations, and that communication helps one to learn other perspectives. Communication is key in world politics today.

To tie in with my previous entry I think that the President George W. Bush should have communicated to the general population that the secret CIA prisons his administration has been denying did in fact exist. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5321606. )

I also agreed with the religion group's statement that religion has been influencing societies for centuries dating back the Babylonians. Look at the Code of Hammurabi for example, according to Patrick V. Reid’s Readings in Western Religious Thought, “The code is written on a diorite stele, topped by a bas-relief showing Hammurabi in the act of receiving the commission to write the lawbook from the god of justice, the sun god Shamash.” Thereby fusing law and religion.

2006-09-08T07:04:00.000-07:00

I believe that the most important issue in today's world is the perception of America as ugly by the Mid-Eastern world. This feeling has been fueled by events at Guantanamo Bay.

After 9/11 and the subsequent U.S. led War on Terror the United States needed a place to put its captured suspected enemy combatants. They chose Guantanamo Bay, a naval base in Cuba. According to the Human Rights Watch these detainees are held without charges, without access to lawyers, and do not have communication with their families. The detainees are also held indefinitely. In addition, there have been numerous allegations of psychological and physical abuse at Guantanamo Bay.

In May of 2005 Newsweek published a story that a Quran had been flushed down a toilet by a U.S. soldier. This ignited protests across the Muslim world. The protests resulted in several deaths and numerous injuries. The Pentagon launched an investigation and stated that there had been five cases of Quran abuse, but they could not validate the claim that a Quran had been flushed down a toilet. This too ignited protests in the Muslim World.

As well as the reports of abuse to the Quran, there were reports of physical abuse. According to an article in the New York Times published in May of 2005, male detainees were shackled naked to the floor for an extended period of time. Female interrogators have also been accused of saying sexually explicit things during interrogations amongst other things.

Because of the happenings at Guantanamo Bay and other places such as Abu Ghraib, Erich Follath, a foreign correspondent, states that these places are representative of America’s shame in the world’s eyes and that the Mid-Eastern world does not trust America anymore. I believe that America needs to rebuild its reputation. William J. Lederer and Eugene Burdick, the authors of The Ugly American wrote, “We must … show by example that America is still the America of freedom and hope and knowledge and law.”

2006-09-07T18:56:00.000-07:00

Response to Question # 1:

Why yes, this is a very broad question, and also a challenging one!
I believe that radicalism is the biggest issue in world politics today. Radicalism is a growing problem across the world, and the rise of radicalism is a greater threat to global stablility than perhaps any other issue. In crises across the world, radical feelings are rapidly taking the place of logical solutions. As current problems (the war in Iraq, Iran's nuclear ambitions and the conflicts plaguing the Middle East), and new problems arise, I believe that radicalism will stand in the way of solving problems.
In the past, radicalism in different forms (extreme nationalism in Italy and Germany as an example), have provoked world wars and led to the slaughter of innocent civilians. While I am not equating the current problems with the horrors of the Holocaust, the violent actions perpetrated against people because of thier race, culture, etc., are eeirily reminiscent of that time. In an era when the world is growing steadily smaller through technology, global economies and soccer (sure...soccer, and Bush)....radicalism is the enemy of progress. Non-state entities such as Hezbollah and the drug cartels of South America often times weild more power than legitimate governments, and thier radical ideals prevent those governments from bringing thier countries into the 21st century.
Even the United States cannot escape the rising tide of radicalism. In response to international radicalism in the form of terrorism, rights and freedoms of the American Public have been violated. This radical response to radicalism (yeah, I know...just work with me) is the most terrifying aspect of this new problem. If radicalism provokes further radicalism, than the cycle contiues and the world can never achieve stability.

2006-09-06T21:01:00.000-07:00

~A Restless Sleeper's Ramblings on the Most Important Issue that the World Faces Today~

There are just so many issues facing the world today I can't imagine singling out one as the biggest or most important. There is the crisis with the environment, the ongoing problems of globalization, extremism due to religious zealotry, the state of the world’s health (more specifically the AIDs epidemic), rapid population growth, terrorism, violations of human rights, and terrorism among so many others.

I don’t think any of those are the most important issue facing the world today.

I believe that the most important issue facing the world today is the prevalent lack of cultural understanding and communication. I see this lack of cultural understanding and tolerance as the source of many of the problems that the world faces today. Not only does the majority of the world not try to understand or communicate with tolerance towards other’s cultures, the majority of the world doesn’t seem to give diddly-squat. Most citizens of the West would rather not think about the starving orphan in Sri Lanka whose entire family was swept out to sea, or of the child soldier in Burma who dutifully serves under the threat that his mother and sister will be raped if he doesn’t do what his superiors tell him to. Most, not all, of those citizens would rather sit comfortably in their living rooms and let the world’s troubles pass them by. This is due to the prevalent rationalization that because something is happening over there, and not to them, it doesn’t matter or affect them. All the while the citizens of the Third World suffer diseases that have long been stamped out in the West, deal through the agony of countless wars and regional conflicts, lack the freedom to live their own lives the way they would want to, deal with corrupt governments, struggle to satisfy their daily needs, and curse the citizens of the First World because of the comparably luxurious lifestyles they live. And we wonder why we are hated so.

But now I am going off-topic…

I firmly believe that if countries took to trying to give each other a chance and understand where each other was coming from, the world could turn out a lot better than the course it is heading right now. I understand that this does not always fit into the national interests of each and every country. I am also aware that it would be ridiculous for one country to base its actions on another country’s cultural values every time they had to make a decision. I would not ask for something as irrational as that. But rather, I would like the World to reverse its indifference towards cultures, and actually start caring.

I may sound a bit crazy, but if I was a leader in the world today I would try to cultivate something I will call – for lack of a better term – a culture of the world. I don’t mean culture in the traditional sense; such as, ideas, languages, and beliefs from which we may differentiate distinct ethnicities. This world culture would be exactly the reversal I am speaking of at the end of the aforementioned paragraph, centered on communication and cultural understanding.

Surely a world where cultural values are observed would be better than a world in which they are blatantly ignored? Maybe I really am just rambling at one o’clock in the morning…

Any thoughts?