One Last Hurrah

In our class-after-penultimate-class on Friday, each of our groups posed as nations and debated a common framework for development in conjunction with the World Bank. As a representative of the McFatherland, my positions, as well as those of my group, were steadfastly pro-trade and privatization. As such, I was pleased to see that the dominant arguments presented by all sides fell on the pro-business side. It made my job a whole lot easier. I hadn’t expected that defending the free market would be so effortless, but this class has a way of surprising me.

More important, however, was the reason why nearly everyone fell on the pro-business side. As PTJ noted at the end of class, one group tends to get thrown out of every session, usually either McDonalds or Venezuela. This is to be expected; Venezuela represents a semi-socialist system built on government regulation and popular sovereignty, while McDonalds represents complete free-market values and a transnational drive for the aggregation of capital. They represent radically different sides, while Japan, India, and the European Union present far more moderate voices. That being said, everyone eventually takes a side, and among moderates, it tends to be in line with the popular consensus at the time.

Here, I must compliment the European Union. They devised and presented a clear-cut set of economic policies, giving everyone a basis on which to work off of. To our luck, they happened to be more favorable to business growth than government assistance, and so that viewpoint was adopted by all of the other groups save Venezuela, who had no wiggle room to adapt such policies. I have no doubt that if the European Union hadn’t come down on the side of business, it would have been our group, and not Venezuela, who would have been marginalized by the rest.

So three cheers for the Dollar Menu!

And sadly, it seems that our World Politics class has come to a close. It’s been a memorable experience dictating my opinions to you all, and I shall continue to do so next semester. On behalf of all the contributors to this blog, I bid you adieu.

Thomas Cole, "The Consummation of Empire", 1835.

Time to Celebrate

I have a reason to celebrate! Not only is today my 19^th birthday, but it is also the final blog post of the semester, meaning that it is also the end of World Politics class. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that I am happy about the conclusion of our class – I will miss it in all it’s quirky and intimidating glory. Rather, I wish to celebrate my completion of a course in which I highly doubted my success. My initial reaction to our World Politics class, especially after reading the syllabus and hearing some of my fellow classmates regurgitate ancient and obscure world politics history, was of utter terror; I felt that my failure was inevitable. But look at me now! I made it through all of the confusing and complex debates, read text that I would have otherwise never touched, spoke my mind despite how simple my arguments may have sounded compared to others, and even learned a little! I must admit that I did not speak in class as much as I wish I had – but, someone would always end up saying what was on my mind in a more eloquent was than I could have, anyway. I look up to my fellow UC-ers. Throughout the entirety of the semester my respect for their seemingly endless cache of knowledge never ceased to amaze me. While many others entered the class already possessing the knowledge about IR theories, I did not, and I am proud to say that I now have a strong handle on such concepts. My experience in this class was entirely different than for other students, but was still just as valuable. Furthermore, this class was much more demanding and difficult for me than it was for others. In class I often found myself struggling to understand the context of an argument for it would be referring to some past event of which I had never heard. However, I learned to deal with this and power through my initial frustration. We still have one more final essay to complete and I have no idea what I am going to write about. You would think that spending an entire semester in a World Politics class would provide a specific answer to such a question as, “What is the most important issue in World Politics?” but, it has not. Rather, I am more confused than I was at the beginning of the class for I now know more about the subject and, therefore, have more conflicting ideas to sort out. Then again, I see this as a good thing because it means I actually conquered some of the material that, at first, seemed menacing. I congratulate myself and all my fellow floor and classmates for job well done =)

Final Reflection

Y'all--we've been through.
(Or in none TX speak: You guys, we have accomplished an arduous task)
I'll admit this blogging thing worried me when I first looked at the syllabus. I'd put money on the claim that I'm the least technologically savvy among the group. But, I've come to have a love-hate relationship with this whole blog-o-sphere thing. I hate hate hate it until I finally suck up and start it. I rather quite enjoy getting my thoughts down on virtual paper.

World Politics has probably asked more of us than any of our other geneds ever will, but it is a serendipitous nuisance. My arguing skills have grown this semester more than they have in the last two years of high school, and my writing skills have been critiqued fiercer than in any writing or history class I have taken ever. I've learned time budgeting skills that will help me until I develop even better ones. I've learned how much it costs to take the metro anywhere, and that I need to remember to save $1.45 on my smarttrip so I can get there and back. I learned a few things about baseball, star wars, all american things I suppose. I've realized that I'm a control freak, but that I'm a pacifisct more. I greatly lack a sense of anxiety, which I suppose appears to be a good thing, but I'm starting to wonder why I'm really the only one who isn't stressed out about this, that, and the third. I hope most of all that I've helped y'all (you guys) learn and develop new skills just as much as y'all have helped me. Congrats guys, we're 1/8th of the way done.

Mags

Overall Class Reflection…it’s over, so what did I learn?

Well I definitely didn’t learn what I expected from this class, which was a greater idea of international organizations, and current issues. But now I think that these things are what one follows in one’s own time. Filling the mind with facts, and “being aware” is no good, if you can’t do anything with that knowledge. This is why PTJ focused our class on debate, and discussion. My favorite classes have always been class discussion based. Why? I would say because of that whole “critical thinking” skill that discussion and argument teaches and hones. I though PTJ’s description of our class of Friday was interesting. World Politics was simply the context of the subject we were focusing on, analytical argumentation. With this perspective in mind, I think our class was successful. The blogging component of the class kept us reading, analyzing and thinking outside of class. Blogging is definitely a new mode of discussion for me, one that I am just beginning to feel comfortable. However, being able to read and comment on everyone else’s thoughts exposed the vast and varying ways we all reason through and find conclusions to different issues. Even if most of us reached the same conclusion to a question, we did not always support that conclusion with the same reasons. To me this was the most interesting part of our class, seeing how and why other people think and act. I also appreciated the common thread that PTJ managed to pull through our in and outside class discussions, readings and lab visits. This class was difficult at times for me, because it touched many times on the issues to which there are no easy answers or which can seem too large to grasp at times. We were given questions that were tricky in their simplicity, Should we? Is it right that? Most of the time I didn’t even want to begin thinking about the questions, and I definitely did not want to think about what might constitute an answer. This class forced me past my unwillingness to struggle with unanswerable questions and for that I am most grateful.

Final post

Today was our final world politics class. My group was tasked to defend the economic development policy of Venezuela, which was difficult to do, considering Venezuelan government thrives off irrational economic policies. Overall, although difficult, I feel my group defended Venezuela’s interests against a group of hostile interests pretty well.
But never mind today's class, I’ve been very pleased with the University College World Politics program as a whole. I feel quite blessed to be able to discuss and debate people with different points of view from all over the United States. I have also enjoyed being able to continue these discussions outside of class back on Leonard 7. I feel that we have read a wide array of literature and have covered many theories that will serve as a foundation for later SIS courses. My favorite book was How Soccer Explains the World, and I enjoyed these alternative means of approaching world politics as opposed to a simple history of some historical event. I appreciated Snow Crash for similar reasons, and I plan to continue to looking for books that explain world politics through abstract means after class ends.
This class gave me the opportunity to think critically and develop opinions regarding relations between states and pressing international issues. While I still am uncertain which area of the world I plan to concentrate my studies in, I now have a framework to apply to any area of international relations I intend to further my studies. I’d like to thank Professor Jackson and Jacquelyn for an excellent class that has been very informative as well as a lot of fun.
To my classmates, I enjoyed talking with you all about international events and I look forward to our next semester together.

Human Nature

Do you find Stephenson’s view of the future (world politics) plausible?

I agree with Stephenson that businesses, in particular corporations, will increase their political influence. Stephenson’s view was of a completely capitalist oriented political system, without any sort of non-business oriented influential interest groups. This seems very unlikely to me given the prevalence of socialist institutions and goals that would certainly not support a political sphere ruled by franchises. I do not think that sovereign states will disappear because culture and identity will remain important. Stephenson addresses this issue with different ethnic franchises, but I think these oversimplify cultural diversity and would not be an acceptable alternative. The emphasis on technology and its manipulation as directly related to power and influence seems historically accurate. What was missing for me in Stephenson’s forecast was the humanitarian aspect of society. His book seemed to say that in the future human life will not be sacred and protecting it will not be a priority. I simply do not see this happening. Looking through American history at least, as time has passed people have become more concerned in involved with the human and political concerns of other nations. Overall I would say that I do not find Stephenson’s view of the future plausible.

Which franchulate would you like to live in?

Mr. Lees’s Greater Hong Kong because the Rat Things are amazing. The mafia, especially Uncle Enzo was cool but comes with a bit too much obligation and worry.

Power Outage & Snowcrash

So I was recently informed that there will be a power outage tonight, beginning in less than an hour. So basically, this blog entry is going to be pretty short and sweet until I can finish it!

I absolutely do think that Stephenson’s version of the future is plausible. Partly because we have no way of knowing what the future may bring, therefore anything can happen. Moreso because many of his visions of the future have already come true and are, no longer visions, but actual realities. Furthermore because his futuristic predictions seem to be a logical progression of what is already in our present world.

 

As I was being introduced to the role of computers in Stephenson’s future world, mainly the role of the metaverse, I kept thinking how uncanny the similarities are to the present computer world and generation. I’m not sure if it’s because I just lack the computer genius of a techie, but the metaverse seemed pretty realistic to me? I honestly can not figure out why we don’t have a metaverse thriving with digital pixel humanesque life right this moment.

“By drawing a slightly different image in front of each eye, the image can be made three-dimensional. By changing the image seventy-two times a second, it can be made to move. By drawing the moving three-dimensional image at a resolution of 2k pixels on a side, it can be as sharp as the eye can perceive, and by pumping stereo digital sound through the little earphones, the moving 3-D pictures can have a perfectly realistic soundtrack.” (p. 24)

See, now that (^^^^) seems perfectly realistic to me. Although it may not become the standard way of viewing the computer screen, I can definitely imagine specialty 3-D (even 4-D) glasses, headsets, and avatars coming soon to a store near you!

 

(THE END until I can finish … aka WHEN THE POWER comes back on. Grr)

Nationalism and the Critical Weakness of Man

On page 250, Todorov writes: "'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.'" Is he right?

Absolutely. It’s music to my ears.

This quote sums up a large part of my personal ideology. As I alluded to in a previous post, I have always taken steps to avoid identifying myself with any particular nation, and, I should add, any group or movement. To do so, I believe, would be tantamount to conceding one’s powers of observation and reasoning to a third party. As I see it, this leaves my options open; I am free to follow whatever course of action I deem most beneficial at the time. I won’t have to defend it from critics by framing it in a larger ideological context, nor can I be charged with hypocrisy. I also won’t be called on to defend ideals that aren’t mine, which is the persistent snare of nationalism.

Outside of an ideological context, the same holds true for human nationalist tendencies. Nationalism is nothing more than an evolved form of baseless sectarianism, fomented entirely by one’s circumstances of birth. It is a hollow ideology that somehow motivates men to give absolutely everything to further the will of their nation. I suppose this urge is rooted in the evolutionary clan-based defense mechanism, whereby humans instinctively felt the need to defend their property from outsiders simply because it was their property and livelihood. However, in today’s age of wealth and global interdependence, this need is not necessary for the immediate survival of the individual, though it does still exist as a collective. What should be said is that our relative prosperity and collective security is gained on the backs of these people, but the ideology that drives them is unnecessary for the individual and ultimately self-destructive.

This is exactly why I keep this knowledge from the plebeians.

We can’t all be perfect, of course. I’ll gladly admit that the relative safety and ease of my life has been borne of the sacrifice of many individuals towards their nation. But these are sacrifices that I myself would not make. I applaud the selflessness of those who came before me, and, to be honest, I’m entertained by the number of people who have purported and continue to purport their own nationalist identity. It’s fun to watch them bump heads, and I’d be lying if I said I didn’t view myself as superior because I reject such notions. I am motivated entirely by self-interest, and in shedding my sectarian and ideological constraints, I am free to pursue my own satisfaction. While I may from time to time lend my services to a nation or a cause, my allegiance will always be to myself.

The whole world is a foreign country

This is a very interesting quote. I feel as if I can feel comfortable in a room full of people that I seemingly don't fit in with. I try very hard not to judge others on anything other than their personality. BUT, everyone knows I take pride in my Texan heritage, or even being from the 'South' even though it isn't I still claim to be. Geography is important. Everyone has a home, even if it changes with wherever you are. I have to starkly disagree with Todorov. It is a horrible to lack a national identity. It's something you will have in common with everyone in the place you claim. The perfect man is one who has a home that he loves, even if it changes every single time he's somewhere new. I know nationalism is seen as very troublesome in our post-WWII society, but exhibiting a little bit is important. It's about a comradery over something perceivably assinine. I'll still feel comfortable in a room of people who assert they find the entire world a foreign country, but I'll feel warmer inside knowing in two I'll be surronded by people who find 'you guys' a bizarre alternative to 'yall' and who can participate in a conversation about Texas folk with me. (And know that folk is pronounced like 'foak' not 'fullkuh')

Pleasent Surprise

I hadn't really heard anything about the museum of the American Indian except that the food was totally ballin. I assumed this meant that the museum was rather forgettable, but had an excellent food court. I didn't really eat at the museum, so I can't really attest to the food being mind-blowing, but the museum was so much more than what I was expecting. I was especially impressed by how the exhibits could appeal to both small children and grown adults. I believe that's particularly the most difficult thing to do when arranging and exhibit. I saw many school groups and independent families where the children and adults were both captivated. The children weren't acting out because of boredom, and the adults weren't aggrivated with having to discipline them. I supposed teaching small children has warped my view of museums. I no longer analyze what the artist was trying convey, or the underlying theme of the exhibit, but rather "would an 8-year-old enjoy this?" or "How can I turn this into a lesson plan?"

Except,
for the Fritz Scholder gallery exhibit. It made me remember how much I truly love art galleries. I saw the art. I appreciated the art. I loved the art. I got to explore the evolution of an artist. IT was therapuetic. I'd love to go back and spend more time there if anyone wants to. I also still haven't been to the portrait gallery, which everyone tells me is the best everXcore *infinity. So if anyone would like accompany me there as well let me know.
Buddha

The City That Never Surfaces

It was a promising indication to see voters in the Maldives reject their longtime dictatorial president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom in last month’s runoff election with former political prisoner Mohamed Nasheed. It shows that there are at least a few Muslim countries where democracy and stability can both be accepted. However, just after the election, a curious headline caught my attention. Apparently, the new president of this tiny archipelago nation has decided to invest in new land elsewhere, in preparation for an eventual relocation of the entire country. Why, you ask? Because the Maldives is one of the lowest-lying countries in the world, with its highest point just two meters above sea level. With water levels around the world rising, and the growing frequency of tsunamis and other uncontrollable weather, there is a good chance that the Maldives will not be able to sustain a civilization in the near future (Tuvalu has also had this problem lately). In response to this, President Nasheed has presented plans to save up money from the islands’ booming tourism industry towards eventually buying a new homeland, either in the Indian subcontinent or in Australia.

This presents an entirely new concept in global politics: how does one go about moving their entire island to a different location? Unless Nasheed intends to use the Ben Linus method of island displacement, this will be an incredibly difficult task to accomplish. Aside from the obvious problems associated with moving half a million people and the contents of an entire city, there is also the problem of everything that cannot be moved. The buildings in Malé, the capital, cannot be moved, nor can they be sold to another owner. The current owners will not be pleased with having to abandon their assets, and the best they can do is to tear down the building and sell it for scrap materials abroad. The Maldivian economy will also take a hit when the tourism industry dries up, an expected occurrence since nothing is as picturesque as the Maldives. There is even the question of whether or not any nation will allow them sovereign land. As is universally recognized, land claims are extremely important to every nation, and it’s hard to believe that any government would fully cede land to foreigners for any price. The best the Maldivians can realistically hope for is some kind of autonomous status, possibly even a semi-self-governing settlement or region.

If the Maldives does go the way of Atlantis, don’t expect them to stay an independent nation. It’s very unfortunate, but that’s just luck for you. Until then, let’s hope they’ve got their levee system worked out.

Rag Doll

This is backtracking a bit to a blog topic last week, but this article shocked me to such an extent that my second reaction (my first reaction was of absolute horror and sadness) was to post the article to the blog. The article relates to poverty – more specifically, hunger and dehydration. Even more specifically, malnutrition and death. An area that is already consumed by a lack of sufficient food and water supplies, Haiti, has recently been hit with unstoppable natural catastrophes, such as severe storms, making their living condition all the worse. Children are dying by the dozen. Dropping dead. As disturbing as it is, I saw the picture of the “rag doll” little girl and couldn’t look away. I couldn’t look away because I could not possibly understand how she could still be alive, how the conditions in the world could get this bad, how unfair life is, and how just because of her location, this innocent young child, and thousands others, will probably die of hunger. She looks like an out of proportion baby doll. She has no life left in her eyes and no emotion on her limp face – and it really strikes me. There are efforts being made by doctors without borders and other organizations, but what happens when they stop the help and retreat away from these children? Will the situation in Haiti begin to deteriorate once more? If so – WHY. Why can’t this problem be fixed. I don’t have any answers and it frustrates me. I probably sound really whiny and all Miss America “Save the World”… but its how I feel. Even when reading articles like this one, and seeing the horrific pictures, I am still detached from the actual severity of the problem – I have no idea how bad it is… I couldn’t even begin to imagine living like that. That’s not life.

Read the article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081121/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_haiti_food_crisis 

History is Humanizing

Does anyone know a name for the phenomenon of once you learn/read/see/hear something; all of a sudden you notice it everywhere. Of course our follow up to reading The Conquest of America, this week was a visit to the American Indian Museum, not much of a coincidence of theme since both were done for the same class, but the fact that Evo Morales, first indigenous president in Latin America was on our campus and then in the museum with us was thought provoking. I know that I definitely googled Evo after hearing he was coming. My Spanish class right now is focusing on human rights, particularly rights of indigenous people in Latin America. And of course we have Thanksgiving only a few days away. Thanksgiving of course has come to represent, to some, the hypocrisy of America. Our traditional tale of the Pilgrims and Indians sharing a meal together in a harmony contrasts sharply with the destructive and repressive treatment which the Indians have received from America.
I am not quite sure what to make of all this and I look forward to the Todorov book keeping me thinking, but for now I would say that my concept of Indian, the so-called “other” has greatly expanded. Fritz Schoulder’s exhibit was a reminder of the modern Indian and his problems. At the same time, the museum exhibits showed how the modern Indian has taken what advantages that can be found in his identity. Unlike Jasmine, my school didn’t have a great emphasis on Indian history. Knowing another society’s history helps to humanize that society to others. This lack of history was a part of the problem with “the conquest” of the New World. Not knowing the indigenous people’s history, the Spaniards have no sense of them as humans.

Reflection on Columbus

While reading the more recent assignments in Todorov's book, there is a clear picture behind the motivations of Hernan Cortes; he wishes to take advantage of an aloof ruler in Montezuma and aquire as much riches from the new world as possible. Cortes' motives are fueled by greed and a desire for fame. Columbus has goals but I still am uncertain what is the driving force behind his ideals.
It is to be noted that Columbus was looking for a shortcut to the wealth of the far east, and did not intend to discover the new world. His reaction to the discovery of the native peoples I believe shows Columbus for what he wishes to be portrayed as; a pious explorer who attains wealth and documents his travels for the benefit of his investors (the Spanish monarchy in this case). I cannot determine whether he was motivated by a genuine religious devotion and a desire to attain knowledge, or if he was simply telling the Spanish throne what they wanted to hear.
I suppose my best guess is that it was a combination of the two theories. Todorov's book has several third party actors referenced who vouch for Columbus' religious devotion, which I'm going to make the assumption it worked well with King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, a couple of Christian zealots. However, I'm not as confident that Columbus' fantastical voyages are not as well-intentioned. Columbus set out to find the far east, and in this he failed. Fearing that future voyages would not be funded, he described rivers of gold, mythical creatures, and a wild land full of wealth and wonder. I believe that a good portion of Columbus' journal entries are delibrately made up. While others can cite a lack of scientific knowledge and harmless exageration, I believe that quite a bit of the events described were completly made up for the purpose of gaining fame and ensuring business remains good in the future.
I have thought for some time and I am still no closer to deciding whether Columbus was a pious explorer doing what he thought was right or a shrewd businessman, perhaps both. I do not believe I will ever feel like I have a definitive answer, but hopefully as I continue to read I will gain a greater understanding of Columbus.

Chris CBus

I find it inherent that our 'way' of knowing is 'better' than CC's 'way' of knowing. Let me rattle off my definitions:

way- what we know as fact, or how we deduct something as absolutely true (I.E. Water freezes at 32 degrees F or 0 degrees C)

better- more efficient, less likely to fail

We are living in a society that demands facts, and demands them quicker and quicker. We have access to technology and efficient resources CC couldn't even imagine in his wildest dreams. We have satellites that allow for GPS and images of the Earth in real-time. We can travel around the world in a matter of days. There's no argument that favors Columbus in this situation. He has no advantage. Some might view his disconnectedness as a benefit, but back then it wasn't a privilege but a requirement. People might like to have total authority over what they're trying to accomplish, but we set up heirachies and rules of command in society for reasons of efficiency. If we all could do our jobs however we wanted without having to deal with consequences for a great length of time, our society would be far less eficient. Honestly, there's no comparison. Our way of knowing is infinitely better than CC's way of knowing.

Judging Contemporary Exploration Techniques

Question: Is our way of knowing better than Columbus’ way of knowing?

In practice, yes. Our modern ways of “knowing” surpass those of Columbus, due mainly to vast innovations in the field of “knowing” over the past five hundred years. “Knowing” can be defined in many different contexts, but in relation to Columbus’ field of expertise, I would venture to say that his “knowing” encompassed what he believed about the world around him and how he went about learning more. In both senses, our modern methods have outmoded his.

Today, we obviously have a far greater insight into the working of our world than we did in the late-15th century. The most obvious innovation in exploring comes in the form of complete and accurate world maps, which contain only truthful information without relying on conjecture. Even more than that, we have recently completed satellite imagery of the entire world, down in most places (save Bovice’s house) to recognizable clarity. There is no longer any need to “sail into the unknown”, because there are no more blank spaces on the map. We know how large the Earth is, what shape it forms, and how it moves and cycles. In addition to geography, we also possess a greater understanding of the forms of life on earth and how they exist. Where a pious sailor in the late-15th century may have seen a mermaid or a kraken or some other apocryphal creature, modern researchers rely more on detailed records, observed and verified accounts, scientific reasoning, and new observational technologies to prove that such forms of life do not actually exist. Researchers today rely far less on divine explanations for phenomenal events and creatures, mainly because no divine account for such things has ever been solidly verified. It is the nature of today’s scientific method that the most logical reasoning is established.

The means of discovery, as well, have improved to the point where discovery itself is nearly obsolete. The simple ease with which reliable information can be procured proves the superiority of our current practices. Especially since the information revolution and the development of the internet, secrets that once had to be extensively sought out can now be summoned up by anyone in the comfort of their own home. There is virtually no information known to any humans today that cannot be universally known through the internet and mass media. Besides, that which is unknown lies almost exclusively in the scientific field, and realm that explorers such as Columbus are not equipped to deal with. In effect, the expansion of Columbus’s trade has cancelled out its own usefulness.

I see many in my class have answered this question in the opposite manner, pointing instead to the moral ambiguity between Columbus’s methods and actions and modern normative methods and actions. While I understand that the motives held by both parties remain more or less the same, I would say that their actions speak more to the subject. In Columbus’ day, the customary way of dealing with a newfound group of people was to somehow gain ownership rights to their land and subjugate them if need be. Today, this practice is unheard of; in the rare instances of meeting an uncontacted tribe, scientists are assembled and sent to them in a diplomatic way, not to gain their resources but to honestly study their culture and way of life. So to answer one of Totorov’s most important questions, yes, our modern ways of knowing outweigh Columbus’, on both an observational, logistical, and moral level.

better to be different

Our way of knowing... thinking… exploring – whatever. – is not necessarily better than Columbus’s way of doing such things, its just different. To call it better would be an unfair judgment. As was stated in the religious discussion tonight, no two people think exactly alike, nor can they think alike even if they try to do so. Thus, “better” is not an applicable term. Columbus did not have access to the same technology and knowledge as is available to the explorers of our (very very thoroughly explored) world today. It’s difficult to even begin to compare that far in the past to the present. And to switch it around, it would also be unfair to say that we (people today) are any less valid in our way of thinking today than was Columbus back in the day. Some may argue that Columbus’s way was the best way – but, why? Why would it be better than how people think and know today? Columbus used what was available to him – natural resources, information, memory, human work force, and faith, among other things. Today, we do the same… albeit, what is available to us today is exceptionally more efficient in helping our cause than what was available to Columbus – but, once again, that doesn’t mean that its any “better”. Furthermore, although there are aspects of Columbus’s values and actions that I definitely disprove of, I can not diminish them to any less than the values and actions that I disprove of in modern society, therefore, Columbus is just as correct and justified in his way of knowing as is anyone walking, or sailing, around the world today. 

On the Santa Maria

Is our way of “knowing” better than Columbus’ way?
(I have put knowing in quotations because to me it is a very openly interpretive word. Putting it into a noun, knowledge, for this post I would like to define knowledge as a truth/fact explaining the world)

No, because we essentially “know” things the same way Columbus did. Columbus based his beliefs and actions on what he had experienced and read. He trusted in the intellectual authorities of his age. We do the same thing. Most of us are not genius enough to work out for ourselves all the accumulated knowledge that science has produced. Instead we read summaries and conclusions from the authorities on such matters and then act or believe based on our understanding of these things. We are placing trust in these scientific authorities, even though science is constantly changing and known for a high turnover rate on its theories, as Akthor points out. Perhaps we have better facts and truths than Columbus, but our way of getting at the facts and truths is not so very different. We all do the best with what facts and truths are available to us, this is a continuous human thing, not a new approach to life. It is easy to think of our way of “knowing” as superior to that of Columbus, but in doing so we are acting foolishly arrogant. To be cliché, knowledge is a never-ending quest. We must realize that we are in the same boat as Columbus and that even now in our “modern” age we cannot fully explain the world and I don’t think that it is reasonable to think that we can ever fully explain.

Is our way of knowing superior to that of Columbus?

The question; which way of knowing is preferable, is a difficult question. However, I'd argue that human thought and motivation remains the same as it was back in the late 15th century.
Humanity has always sought to explain what is unknown through myth and religion. Columbus saw an unknown figure in the water and determined it to be a mermaid, a logical explanation during a time where oceanography was just beginning to develop and much of the western world remained unknown. Legends told Columbus that mermaids inhabited the ocean, and these myths were accepted by sailors who had no scientific response to refute such a claim. Today, while we have made numerous advancements in science and technology, there still are legends regarding fantastical creatures; from the chupacabra to bigfoot. While fewer people believe in the existance of these creatures, this is because science creates a sense of skepticism. But somehow, these legends endure and some to this day believe in these creatures.
As far as motivation, Columbus appears to have three driving forces behind his exploration and interaction with the natives: fame, wealth, and religion. Columbus wrote outlandish claims into his letters and journal entrys in an obvious effort to bolster his reputation and gain funding for his next journey. Today, lots of top-notch scientists take pride in their fame and their employers invest in their work hoping that technological development will translate into large profits. The pharmaceutical industry is a good example of such thinking. Religion still motivates many to subjugate others. All of the major religious faiths (the exeption being Buddhism) have expanded due to violence. While Columbus may have thought he was doing the natives a favor by forcing Christianity upon them, this sort of forced conversion goes on in other parts of the world to this day.
So no, our way of thinking is not better than that of Columbus, nor is his mentality better than ours in the present day. People's logic and motivations remain constant throughout time. We shall always try to explain the unknown, to aquire wealth and fame, and to push our agenda. These concepts have been in place for the entirety of human history, and will continue to have just as much importance as they always have into the future.

Reflection Krista Tippett

I was unaware that Thomas Jefferson was giving speeches in the 20th century, so this lecture was especially interesting. Really though, all kidding aside, Tippett gave some interesting insight. Initially, I hated the Q&A session. I thought it was a waste of my time and I didn't benefit from hearing her opinions that were just recitations of her book. Upon reflecting the seminar after the fact, I realized that she was entitled to her view, her opinion. My judging it as any less valid or 'correct' as my own was ridiculous. What I initially thought of her as avoiding the question, was probably simply her trying not to take a side. We all have several identities we assign ourselves, and politically/religously they can conflict. It should be preceived weak to not pick a bias, because it could risk us giving up one identity for another. The medley of identities is what makes the individual unique. I'm ashamed for my initial reactions, but feel I have re-opened my mind and am thankful for the common event to bring me out of the rut I was in. Plus, this common event ruled ten times more than the first one. Ohhh the awkward play fair.

This Week in World Politics

A reflection? You want a reflection?

I’d reflect on the Proposition 8 protests, but to be honest, I only went because everyone else was going. I know the protests won’t change California state law, nor should it. The motion was passed in a free and democratic manner, which is the most characteristic value of this nation, and if the majority of Californians want to block gay marriages, then that’s their prerogative. Of course, I don’t agree with that preference, and I’d say that most arguments against its legality are lame excuses for religious-based opposition or sheltered discomfort, neither of which should be written into law. But these are risks taken under a democratic system, so if one wishes to change the current policy through legal means, they should speak in a language the voters can understand. It’s a technique that won Barack Obama the presidency. Also, I got rained on, so I think God’s position on the issue is pretty clear.

I’d reflect on class this past week, but sustained praise of myself and my group would be haughty and arrogant. I mean, I’m certainly not going to criticize our presentation, since we’re being graded on this. But with regard to poverty, I see it as a necessary evil. It has existed as long as trade has, as scarcity is the basis of economics. As long as one person has more than his fair share, there will be those who have less. Marxist as that sounds, it is nevertheless useless to try to “eliminate” poverty, since there will always be a goods discrepancy. Until people are ready and willing to institute an Orwellian society where everything is mechanized and all needs are provided for artificially, people should accept that poverty exists, and understand why they place where they do on the wealth spectrum.

I’d reflect on Krista Tippet’s Q&A session on Wednesday, but I found it rather unstimulating. Her answers attempted to give deference to every religious practice, and as a result revealed nothing new about inter-faith dialogue. Her book, as well, was too muted to be of any use, and acted more as a testament to her various interviews than a manifesto on dealing with the worldwide religious divide.

Ranking What's Important

Well after reading others’ posts on the Proposition 8 protest I wish I had gone, it sounds like it would have been much more fun and interesting than working on my research paper. I really liked what we read about the Copenhagen Consensus for Friday. It paired efficiency with humanitarian concerns in what, at least without further research, seemed like a very good compromise. As much as we would like to be supreme multi-taskers in shaping up the world, the truth is that multitasking is not the best route. As Ziggy pointed out we prioritize our own tasks and responsibilities and it makes sense to do so on a larger scale. Hopefully our in-class exercise drove home this point.

I thought our common event with Christa Tippet was interesting and I was sorry to find that others didn’t seem to feel her commentary very thought-provoking. Civil discussion across religions is not a new idea, but at the same time I do think it is one that should be revisited because it is important.
Religion is a huge influence around the world and lack of communication between religious followers and the non-religious is damaging to humanity as a whole. For this reason I am looking forward to the dinner and discussion happening this Wednesday from 6-8 (looking forward to cooking for you guys). Hope everyone can make it and we can have a peaceful conversation that respects everyone’s beliefs and broadens everyone’s understanding.

Priorities

Initially, the article we read for Friday’s class rubbed me a little bit in the wrong way. As I read through the article, my humanitarian "save the world" side kicked in. I was a little bit spiteful towards Bjorn’s opinion that we should prioritize all of our world’s most pressing issues. How can you tell me that the numerous deaths caused by malaria is a crisis that should be deemed less important when compared to worrying about securing free trade and a reduction of subsidies? At the time, it just didn’t add up. After I read the article, I retreated back to my room and made a to-do list for the next day. In my normal fashion, I arranged the list in descending order from most important to least important. After looking through the list again, I realized what I had just done - I had prioritized my life. I determined which tasks needed my immediate attention and which assignments I could put off for a little longer. It all started to soak in. Without prioritizing, I would get nowhere. I would end up doing the tasks I most enjoy, rather than the ones that demand the most time and dedication. I would leave the hardest tasks to do last and I would, basically, get nothing done. I was wrong about the article... I had been naive - there is no way that our world could possibly solve any of it’s problems without setting up a prioritized to-do list much like the one that was created from the Copenhagen Consensus. Mind you, just as was shown through the activity in Friday’s class (which was really fun and creative, by the way!), this list should remain flexible. As new problems arise and the variables of the old problems fluctuate, the list of priorities should reflect these changes. Moral of the story: Bjorn, his speech, and the Copenhagen Consensus are right on the money in matters of saving the world.

Rally for Equality

I would breifly like to talk about the rally I went to today against Proposition 8, the California ban on gay marraige. The marchers went from the capitol building to Lafayette Park, chanting slogans such as; "1,2,3,4, love is what we're fighting for" and "gay, straight, black, white, marraige is a civil right". The protest was made up predominately of young people, and I found it very encouraging to see our generation so engaged in an issue that ultimately comes down to a group of American citizens that have been marginalized and treated as second class citizens. AU was well represented and certainly held up its reputation as the most politically active school in America.
The protest was very civil and along our path people seemed overwhelmingly supportive of gay rights. Many tourists around the Smithsonian took pictures of the march and we cheered everytime someone showed their approval. I greatly enjoyed when we ended our march in Lafayette Park, across from the White House, where people shared their stories of how they desire to marry the individuals they truly love. I found their stories inspirational and I definitely plan to continue to do what I can to support gay rights in this country.
I believe that this is one of the final chapters of the civil rights movement. Equality is a right every American deserves. In the near future, I'm hoping that America can put its prejudices aside and recognize the gay community as equal under the law of the United States.

Poverty

When trying to alleviate poverty I think it's a very noble to try to fix the basic infrastructure while clothing and feeding the impoverished. Maybe if we can fix why people become/are/stay impoverished we can get closer to ending poverty. Someone mentioned the trickle-down effect and having to deal with selfish rulers. I agree that private contractors come in and do what needs to be done, it will happen. I think it will be very hard to get this done because of allocation of resources. There will never be enough money for one group to throw money down and get it done. This goes back to what I was saying about not-for-profits. There's too many that there would need to be a collaboration and a probably an investor. When you get so many different sources of income, you get a lot of different expectations. Whereas if you're using that money to simply feed and clothe the impoverished, there are relatively no expectations. Also, fixing the basic infrastructure is (I would assume) very expensive. Before starting such a project, you would probably want to gather all of the funds. Feeding people and giving them a coat is not nearly as expensive , and would be much easier to collect resources to do so.

Although it's tragic, I'm not sure poverty will ever be eliminated. With capitalistic desires to have the most, there seems to be little concern about poverty. Someone also mentioned social darwinism, which I believe is another great example as to why there will always be a huge disparity between the poorest of the poor and the richest of the rich.

Shall We Sustain Impoverished Nations?

Question: When dealing with poverty, should aid be administered to those at the bottom, or used to build long-term economic infrastructure?

I think most modern economists would agree that charitable money is best spent on building up a country’s infrastructure. You can spend all the money in the world on individual needs, but those needs will still exist tomorrow. The best course of action is to take some losses and work to develop a stable self-fueling market that allows its participants to fulfill their own needs, and not rely on marginal payouts from others who have perfected the system.

Abiding by Social Darwinist concepts, a nation that wishes to remain a player on the world stage must look after its own interests. Nations are inherently self-interested, and the only nations that exist today are those that remained strong enough to survive until the present day. If a nation loses the ability to take care of itself, it has lost the right to survive. Framing the issue in a humanitarian context is not a sufficient excuse to keep such a country in existence – if it cannot survive naturally, it should not be kept alive at the cost of others. Now, if a country wants to keep another alive by investing in their infrastructure, then that’s their prerogative. But looking after their every need and feeding their people one-by-one is undeserved, illogical, and uneconomical. It takes away national pride through labor, and does nothing to create individual workers or a working environment. If aid cannot be used to promote growth, then there is no use in giving any aid.

All this being said, I hearken back to one of our original questions, whether or not powerful countries should even consider assisting less-powerful countries. As I stated before, there must be incentive present. If a country receiving assistance could become a sort of client state to the country assisting it, then it may well be worth it. However, if the state in need of assistance poses a security threat, such as North Korea, or is a burgeoning political or economic force, such as India or Brazil, then aid should be administered in return for major concessions, if at all.

food, water, shelter

1.4 billion people live in poverty, living on less than $1.25 per day. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7583719.stm)

Every five seconds a child dies from starving (http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basics/hunger-facts-international.html)

If you do not have water you will die. If you do not have food you will starve. If you do not have shelter you will be subjected to the cruelties of the natural world. You may freeze. You will be subjected to disease. And because you do not have the basic needs necessary to live, it is safe to assume you do not have money, in which case you will not be able to afford medicine. You will probably die. You will not have time to worry about the structural problems of the nation in which you live because, frankly, you may not be breathing the air of that nation tomorrow because you may stop breathing tonight.

 

Without fulfilling the aforementioned basic needs, the structural aspects matter little. To solve poverty we have to work from ground up, starting right at the roots, right at the basics. However, this does mean that the structure of a nations government, cities, workforce, etc does not matter. Rather, I mean to say that we can’t solely focus on stabilizing such structures and expect that this will give way to a solution to poverty. We have to work on both issues simultaneously because they are both interconnected. Although providing immediate food, water, and shelter to those who are in dire needs of it will save lives, it will only provide a short term solution – no real progress will be made because the second the helping hand recedes back, the death and poverty rate will rise once again. Furthermore, when poverty is a prevailing problem, the entire nation suffers, because every human who doesn’t have food and water is a human who is too weak to be a cog in the work force. The nation is losing money by not investing money in helping the poor acquire their basic needs. Basic needs are called basic because every single person should be able to easily afford them. There is something seriously wrong when our world cannot provide what it is has in mass quantities. It should not be this hard. 

How to Make a Dent in Global Poverty

In my opinion, poverty is structural inefficiencies and an approach to poverty alleviation that all too often advocates a sort of trickle-down economic approach. In states where authority figures rely on a series of kickbacks to supplement their salaries, it is impractical to trust governments with outside capital. Instead, loans must be given with strings attached and private investment must be made directly into private enterprises within the impoverished states.
Loans from the IMF and World Bank must focus on building the infrastructure of the third world nation, because it is a lack of basic necessities which stifle business and urban development. Roads, electricity, railroads; these are a few of public goods that enable development from an economy that is predominately raw materials based to a manufacturing economy that can be exported for greater profit. In order for the factories to ship their goods, they need a means of transportation to ports and a steady supply of power to ensure continuous production of goods to encourage investment. If states wish for continued loans from international organizations, they must follow guidelines (to a certain extent) set by these organizations. This enables a state to invest in its future while guarding against corruption in a way that public goods in time gradually become available to the populace.
Additionally, direct outside investment in entrepreneurs is the quickest way to alleviating poverty. Microcredit loans through private means (I’ve already discussed www.kiva.org in previous posts) have extremely low default rates, and are increasingly being seen as sound investments. These small loans enable average citizens to directly help business abroad and make a small profit. Third world business owners in turn can begin or expand their businesses through startup capital that would otherwise be unavailable to them. Investment must be made in these individuals without political connections, as these people have few other means to liquid capital. Land is another resource that is vital to agrarian communities. Organizations such as Rural Development Institute (RDI) provide land to people in agricultural areas in India, and through private outside investment, I see the alleviation of poverty by circumventing the structural inefficiencies of third world states.

Ghandi said, " Poverty is the worst form of violence."

What do I believe poverty is?
Poverty occurs when someone is lacking in a basic need: food, water, shelter, or clothing.

What causes poverty?
Unstable domestic political system
Lack of basic services and/or infrastructure
Spillover from external conflicts
Unresponsive government, no welfare
No system of order, police
Natural disasters
Lack of education
Underdeveloped medical services

In trying to alleviate poverty, should we focus on addressing basic needs or structural adjustments?
If you address the structural problems then the basic needs will consequently be covered. This though is a harder route to take. Covering basic needs such as food water and shelter through foreign aid is great in the short-term, but it is a policy that doesn’t have long-term vision. Though foreign aid might temporarily keep the poverty-stricken alive, they are dangerously dependent upon it and any fluctuations in aid that could occur. Humanitarian concerns are the driving force it seems to me behind the basic needs aid approach. I understand and sympathize with their stance, but at the same time I believe that in order to truly help those living in poverty one needs to change the position that the poor are in. I agree with Jasmine’s statement about stability. Achieving structural change, both materially by building up a country’s infrastructure and immaterially by examining the social and civil institutions to make sure that they are not creating systematic poverty, is how I think we can “solve” poverty. We, meaning the international community, need to keep up the battle against poverty, even though we can never entirely wipe it out.

I found Inayatullah’s article very interesting in his proposal of a tension between capitalist division of labor and the sovereignty of Third World countries. There is hypocrisy in the international community’s actions towards “poor” or Third World countries. The structure of Third World countries’ current economic system reflects these countries’ colonial history, which were systems designed to keep these countries dependent. The colonial economic systems were not structured with the interests of the colonized country in mind. We expect these countries though to pull themselves up by their bootstraps though, and ignore this legacy of inequality, believing that by simply having withdrawn intervention the country can fix itself. Sadly this method has not proven to work, and so through international aid, we (the international community) have again intervened in these countries. Foreign aid to these countries is often criticized as being ineffective, harmful in being misappropriated and damning in its continuation of a system of dependence. All these critiques have some merit and I think in considering foreign aid we should use these critiques to change the format of foreign aid. I believe that foreign aid is most useful through programs that are led by native peoples instead of foreigners. It is the natives who understand the best what their country needs and have the greatest stake in its success.

Why I Voted The Way I Voted

After reading this week’s blog posts, it's obvious that everyone still has the election results in their minds. It seems I’ve barely commented on this issue, which is tragic, to say the least. I figure I’ll give my two cents.

I can’t deny that I’ve swung farther to the right in the previous year. While I certainly wouldn’t classify myself as “right-wing”, per se, my views have certainly moved towards the center, and I have adjusted my priorities considerably. Today, I would tell you that there are more necessary evils in the world than are often perceived. What moves the world is a combination of innumerable actions and reactions, and I’m afraid I’ve adopted an almost nihilist perspective of goodwill and social heroism. The battle against suffering will always be a losing battle, and I’ve no choice but to put my own interests paramount to those of others. Besides, I’m a realist; I can’t expect they would do the same for me.

That being said, it seems almost hypocritical of me to have lent my endorsement to Barack Obama. Although he represents everything I have become disillusioned with, I couldn’t help but cast my vote for him. Why, you ask? My response is admittedly abstract and convoluted: my vote was in the direction of social movement, and I voted to usher in the next phase in societal development.

It logically follows that, after a wildly unpopular term of leadership, society should plot a new course, perhaps into the unknown, if only to show their dissatisfaction with the current path. And despite my attempts at nonpartisanship, I still find many aspects of the Bush presidency indefensible. The sheer number of scandals, the undisputed unilateralism, the anti-intellectualism, all of it combines to form a torrent of ill-informed policy decisions. It’s fun to watch this from the sidelines, but not when you are a direct subject of such failed designs. I try to see both sides of the issue, really I do, but so much of the past eight years of leadership seems, to put it bluntly, dim-witted, that it cannot go unpunished.

Let me be the first to say, I have always admired John McCain. People like him deserve the presidency, and it’s a shame that the tidal wave of disapproval had to hit him. But this could only rightly be an opportunity to teach the Republican Party the limits to power in a democratic state. It could only have been won by the opposition; otherwise, multi-party elections are all but meaningless. This election was the chance for those who would switch party affiliations if need be to follow through on their word.

I didn’t vote for Obama because he’s a political prophet. I don’t even have great expectations for his presidency; he, like John Kennedy, will have a beloved, inspirational, yet ultimately ineffective presidency (though I wholeheartedly support Joe Biden, my original choice for president). I voted for him because it is the logical next step for society, that an unpopular, arrogant ruling class should be rightly reprimanded by their constituents. The Republican Party needs to regain its humility; its backing of Sarah Palin as Vice Presidential nominee shows it hasn’t lost its drive against intellectualism. In the end, I backed Barack Obama, not because I see the country improving drastically under his leadership, but because it’s the natural next step in history.

Reflection Bread 4 da city

I appreciate everything that Bread for the City is able to accomplish, but the fact of the matter is that there are way too many not-for-profits in existence today. They have proven that they can successfully operate, but there are plenty of places that have similar missions that can only accomplish stay open for a few months. The elementary school I work at has four aftercare programs. They all only have varying levels of success, because attendance counts vary so greatly across the board. Many students are enrolled in two different programs, and choose which one to go to at the end of the day. Because funding is tied to enrollment, there are no measures to prevent things like that from happening. If programs could combine their efforts, efficiency could increase tenfold. I am also on board with the idea of raising some money for some of the thanksgiving dinners. If anyone wants to go volunteer sometime, I'd be happy to join them. Just let me know.
Buddah

Take the Twizzlers and Run

I felt that the exercise in class on Friday was helpful in getting our group to think in a political mindset. It reinforced the notion that political will is brought to reality through hard bargaining and deal-spotting. It also reaffirmed the importance of forming tactical alliances in order to further goals, and of prioritizing one’s objectives. Unlike our American economy, where everything is available as long as someone has the dough, attaining an objective in the global political economy can often only be done by besting another power.

I was initially uncommitted to any certain type of candy, though I was leaning towards the dark chocolate. However, I was curious to see what the Rainbow Twizzlers were like, and after observing their unpopularity among my classmates, I decided they were my best option. I had little trouble obtaining five blue chips the first time around. The second time, I went after the Rainbow Twizzlers again, but my hopes of private enterprise were dashed when I could only get four of them. Instead, I threw my lot in with Bovice and Syd and split the earnings with them.

It’s hard to draw a historical similarity to this case. Our particular situation was highly regulated and featured set parameters under which we were forced to do business. Most real-world situations have been regulated under the shadow of military force, and only lately have the terms of international engagement been laid out. I suppose this kind of negotiation is more common among business deals, perhaps between private businesses and governments. Such a contest for control over a set amount of newly-available resources is not uncommon. Take, for example, the privatization of oil fields in Central Asia following the collapse of the Soviet Union. States like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Azerbaijan were in desperate need of cash, so instead of granting their resources to domestic companies, as Russia did, they auctioned off their state-owned fields to American, British, and Russian firms. There was much backroom negotiation for these contracts, and in the end, some companies won huge deals while others were left out. Our class came to similar results.

On a side note, this is our blog’s 100th post. We still refuse to accept the 110th Resolution of the U.N. General Assembly, and will continue to do so indefinitely. До свидания.

POVERTY

I am really interested in our classes for this next week on poverty because to be honest it is not a topic I have spent much time before discussing or involving myself with. I was happy with our trip to Bread for the City and I think it was a good illustration of Akthor’s explanation of various levels of poverty, which did strike me as an odd concept at first. We didn’t visit a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen on Wednesday, which is what I expected; instead we visited what seemed to me to be a support and supply center. I was surprised when Bread for the City said they do not operate for the homeless. But rather they work towards helping those living below the poverty line.

One of the things I liked about Bread for the City was the feeling of community and interaction in what I heard and saw. It was great to see action taking place, people being helped and utilizing what was being offered. Matt, I believe, mentioned how their location in Anacostia had taken years to build up trust in the community. Trust, I guess, in the organization’s reliability, commitment, and capability. And of course trust is only one of the necessary indicators for success. How can you help the people who need it without their faith in you? They won’t come to you unless they have some belief in you.

The more I learn about poverty and those who seek to fight it, the more I realize how complex the problem is and how difficult a struggle poverty presents. At the same time though visiting places such as Bread for the City gives me hope, both idealistically in finally overcoming poverty and realistically in seeing poverty greatly diminished.

take you to the candy shop

I found our prosperity exercise to be a success! Yay! Although there were many aspects of the exercise that were inaccurate and don’t directly match up with economy out in the “real world”, I think that it still got the point across. It was fun being in charge… well, in charge as much as the other domineering and suppressing group mates of mine allowed me to be (cough cough, Ben, cough cough ). However, even that imbalance of power can relate to how the economy works; there will always be that head honcho that is calling the shots and that delegates responsibility and money how he sees fit… and even if it’s not fair or “right”, there is little that the little people beneath him can do about it. Similarly, I found it interesting that when our banker, Michael, did not give the right amount of candy back in return for a fixed amount of chips, no one really made much of a fuss. I would have expected there to be a riot! But, instead, they just accepted that there were “insufficient supplies,” and moved on, even though they did not receive their money’s worth. I found it interesting how there were so many different motives and tactics to achieve all the individual and unique goals. It really emphasized how intricate and varying the economy is – everyone is after something different. Less people cared about the final prize of the large candy bar than I initially thought. Rather, most of the class focused on the immediate gratification of trading in their chips for the candy of their choice. I guess that Dustin and Adam can boast that they possess the most knowledge about the benefits of making investments to achieve a greater end result. I’m glad that the consensus is that everyone enjoyed the activity! I just hope that in the future exercises the other groups will bring in more candy to repay us, because we got jipped!

Seamus = Caramel Wealth

I found the exercise we participated in Friday was an interesting take on prosperity. A series of colored poker chips with their corresponding significance in types of candy you could redeem for five or six chips. While not necessarily a representation of the current market; the group established the points that resources are scarce, people have unattainable desires, and oftentimes people must work together for mutual benefit. So, within a very simple exercise, the group established the basis of economics. I also appreciate how the group provided a number of chips so that not all of them are redeemable. There are numerous inefficiencies in the market that separated those with the ability to maximize their utility and those left with chips as a sort of deadweight loss.
The class responded in a wide array of manners, all accurately capturing various economic strategies/market structures. Dustin formed trade blocs with numerous other people, ensuring he got a large portion of several different types of candy. I decided I did not have to make deals, and consolidated all my wealth into the caramel market. I made the assumption that caramels, out of all the candy available, were least desirable to most people. I happen to like just about any candy, and gladly took my eight caramels, which turned out to have a large calorie count, for which I won an additional prize. Emily and Alex engaged in black market trading of candy to maximize their utility, which also proved effective. Overall, outside of Catherine’s give-away-chips-for-free approach, I’d say every strategy was fairly successful in obtaining resources.
In conclusion, I commend the prosperity group for an interesting exercise and discussion. I’m excited for the next presentation.

Full Employment

Ruggie's initial argument is totally logical. If the population is employed, they all have resources to stimulate the economy. The poorest of the poor, if employed, will still be using their resources to purchase food and water. If at least 95% of the population is employed then the overwhelming majority is stimulating the economy in some sense. Although, an individual who is employed is not necessarily wealthy. Morgan Spurlock did a spinoff show of his movie "Supersize Me" called "30 Days", where he would do basically the same thing he did in Supersize Me, but in the context of a tv series. One episode he and his girlfriend were going to attempt to live 30 days with a minimum wage job. Between the two of them they had five jobs and only truly paid the low minimum wage. Even with four jobs paying more than minimum wage and clocking 60 hours a week each, they could barely sustain themselves. I think it's impossible to say the employed are wealthy, if they can't sustain themselves. There needs to be a minimum wage that adjust with inflation. There needs to be stricter regulations of this wage. There needs to be more federal work programs. If a person can afford to save at the end of the month, then they are wealthy. Being employed is simply not enough.

Implications of the Employment Market

Question: Do you agree with the characterization of a wealthy state as one with full employment, and a wealthy citizen as one who is employed?

While a state that achieves full employment in a capitalist setting should be commended, it does not necessarily follow that the state is “wealthy”. John Ruggie’s description is based on his prior definition of individual wealth as a person who is employed. It follows, by his logic, that if every citizen is employed, and thus “wealthy”, then the state as a whole is “wealthy”. First off, I would have to agree with the viewpoint stated by several of my classmates, including Seamus and Tori, that the simple state of being employed does not constitute a state of wealth, this being primarily because many jobs do not reward the employed with subsistence-level returns. In a perfect capitalist system, those with a job with less-than-adequate pay would be able to find an appropriate job, until labor market equilibrium is reached. However, when there is a shortage of available jobs, it forces workers to go below their needs, to accommodate for the lesser of two evils. In this instance, subsistence is not reached, so by any other definition of the word, this does not constitute a “wealthy” person.

Concurrently, I find the use of the term “wealthy” to attempt to define certain economic trends and standards rather irrelevant. “Wealthy” is a relative term; it varies between regions, times, and personal values, and has not solid definition in the first place. When debating and measuring economic employment standards, there are two levels that matter: whether or not the employed worker reaches subsistence, and whether or not the employed worker has disposable income. Either of these levels are more realistic definitions of wealth than the one proposed by Ruggie, yet we wouldn’t nominally use the term to describe everyone in those two categories. It is most often used to describe a person with unusually high material and/or monetary assets, though the level of which is not specified. The term “wealthy”, therefore, has no practical meaning and cannot be used in official policy, so its use in a debate setting is entirely colloquial.

The possibility of full employment is a lofty one, but it would almost certainly be beneficial to the nation as a whole if it were obtained freely. However, if the problem of excess workers for a limited number of jobs were solved, then there is equal likelihood that there would be excess jobs for a limited number of workers. I’ll be honest, I’m uncertain of what the implications of that would be; I imagine it would entail a heightening of work-related immigration and higher pay for native workers, but a possible scarcity of services, most notably in blue-collar government jobs (i.e. the fire department). For all I know, this is a relatively common occurrence, and if it is, I invite someone to give me an example or two. Full employment, however, is a very precise target to hit in the free market, and while it may not define wealth, it would certainly prove the vigor of the economy in question.

The Alex Standard

Do you agree that a wealthy country is one with full employment? Or should we use other standards?

This question is complicated one I believe because it is interpretive in two parts, first in what constitutes wealth, and second in deciding whether full employment is a necessary component of a wealthy nation. Full employment is an economics term through and through. So then, using an economics standard, is a country considered wealthy because it has attained full employment? Keeping a macroeconomics perspective I would say that full employment is a necessary factor for a wealthy country. In the long run full employment better assures that a country will maintain its wealth. The problem with taking the macroeconomics perspective is that the definition and distribution of wealth is not fully explored. As we discussed in class, wealth can be measured beyond material possessions/economic resources, take for example the country of Bhutan. Instead of using a GDP, Bhutan measures its wealth by Gross Domestic Happiness, a measurement meant to reflect the values and intents of Bhutanese culture and government. Distribution of wealth is another issue. Is a nation with 15 millionaires and 15 million below the poverty line really a wealthy nation? For me the answer is no. I define wealth as having excess. All your basic needs are met and you have extra resources to dispose of how you please. When the average citizen of a nation lives within this definition then I consider the nation wealthy. This is the Alex standard.

Happy Guy Fawkes Day!
(Remember, remember, the fifth of November!)

$$$$

Having a job is important because having money is important. As we saw today, without a job, the odds of you ending up at a place like “Bread for the City” is very probable. It’s a great place to give hope and help to those who need it, but would I ever want to end up there? No. It’s an accepted fact of life that after school, and even during school, a job becomes as much a part of daily life as eating and sleeping. Come to think of it, many people compromise the basic needs of life such as food and sleep in order to spend more time logging hours at work to achieve greater digits come next paycheck. Money is not only what makes the world go round, but it’s also what makes your world and my world go round. So, if we’re talking about wealth in the terms of affluence, then, yes, having a job is necessary to be “wealthy”, unless, of course, you are lucky enough to win the lottery or inherit your millions. Having more money means having more availability to the luxuries of life. But money can’t buy happiness, right? AsI blurted out to Luke today while en route to Z-Burger, money is also a home wrecker. And didn’t all of us agree in class that the quality of family and home life are quite possibly the most important components to feeling wealthy? So then if having a time consuming, demanding, but high paying job comes at the expense of a healthy and happy home life, are you still wealthy? Or do the two negate each other and leave you with little to feel wealthy about? If given the choice of harnessing a 6 digit salary with no time to spend at home or having a middle to lower class income but a fulfilling home life, I would not think twice when choosing the latter. Merriam Webster dictionary states that wealth is, “an abundance of valuable possessions or money.” My most valuable possessions are my family, friends, and freedom – money has always taken a backseat. 

Wealth and how to define it

Ruggie argues in his work that a wealthy state is one that provides full employment for its citizens. While employment certainly provides citizens with disposable income and allows for the state to spend less on social services, it also hinders productivity. The benefits of employment are clear; a steady salary, a sense of worth, and a decrease in crime to state a few. However, full employment forces work to be created where it is unnecessary in the given context. Why employ thousands of people with shovels to build a road when a few people with modern machinery can do the same job? I do not view a state’s proximity to full employment to be the standard for determining if a state is wealthy or not. I simply view the strength of a government’s institutions to be the deciding factor in determining whether or not a state is wealthy. If roads are paved, the trash is collected, the children are educated, the mail is delivered, and sick people have ready access to medical care; I consider a country to be wealthy. Full employment provides for the state to spend less on welfare and social programs, but it alone is not a direct sign a nation is wealthy.
Ruggie also states that he considers an individual with a job to be wealthy. In regards to monetary wealth, having a job is certainly provides for a continuous influx of income, which allows for consumption and the addressing of basic needs. However, there are many Americans who are employed, yet they do not earn a living wage. Few can argue that these individuals, who can barely afford rent and food, to be wealthy. To me, being wealthy involves the ability to purchase non-essential goods for personal utility. This is much more concrete than Mike’s belief that wealth is a much more personal concept. He views his relationships with his family and friends to define what wealth means to him. Regardless of what you define as wealth, I feel it is unrealistic to assume that all people who are employed can be considered wealthy, so I must respectfully disagree with both of Ruggie’s arguments.

Halloween, All Saints Day, All Souls Day, aka da weekend

Class was okay on Friday. I felt the same topic kept getting pummeled into the ground by the same people. I noticed some potential roommate animosity spilling over into the discussion a bit. As a class when our peers are leading discussion we should all try to respect their authority over the class, and not ramble on about our dissenting view of a topic we've been talking about for 25 minutes.

Trick or Treating ruled. I don't know what the Burundi embassy man had against Texans, but he was really into making fun of the citizens of the ballin' Lone Star state. The South Korean embassy was the coolest, hands down. I mean we took a picture with the pseudo princess or something.

Election '08: it's here. It's epic. It's weird how much more hope I have for the blue living in DC. In Texas it was so red everywhere that we hoped for the best and expected the worst. Here in DC I feel like I can have my cake and eat it too, or whatever that phrase is. Y'all know how I rule at idioms.

Did y'all hear about the Canadian radio host who prank called Sarah Palin as Nicolas Sarkozy? I want to do that when I grow up.


Okay, hipster tuesday. GO

beauty and horror

I wasn’t entirely sure what to expect from my visit to the Arlington Cemetery. I haven’t visited many cemeteries to go sightseeing, nor would I want to. Something about being a tourist at a cemetery seems a bit twisted and odd to me, yet I was a tourist today and was also one when I visited the Normandy Cemetery while in France. In both instances, today and in Normandy, I felt overwhelmed by the landscape that sprawled out in all directions around me. I couldn’t quite manage to connect the image of the endless tombstones with the actual concept of each grave signifying a lost life; it’s quite a sight to behold. As I walked through Arlington Cemetery today, I took a moment to focus on just one row of headstones out of the hundreds. I tried to imagine each grave as a living human being with a family, a job, a history, and a passion to fight for and protect our nation. Keeping the worksheet in mind, I thought about how each life ended while taking measures to increase The United States security. I would never and could never willingly do the same. It’s a lot to wrap your head around and I definitely did not 100% succumb to the many emotions that I was feeling. It’s just sad – any cemetery is. When thinking about my experience as a visitor and how it relates to power, I realized that my visit made me feel powerless. I felt so small walking the paths through Arlington today. Every bit of the scenery, from the massive trees, to the infinite headstones, to the towering memorials, to the iron gate, made me realize how miniscule I am in the great scheme of things. I found a clash of both beauty and horror in today’s visit, yet I feel that this clash is necessary if one wishes to grasp the full magnitude of the cemetery and what lies within it’s gates.  

America's Hallowed Grounds

First, my congratulations to the group that led the class on Friday; it’s never easy to go first. There was one criticism I had with regard to the class, though: I felt as though the presenters did too much to downplay the security threats facing America. Their main gist was that the collective fear of a nation is often played upon by politicians and other interest groups to promote their own agendas. While I’m sure there is propaganda in the system as it is, they did not, in my opinion, give enough credence to the possibility that there are real security threats facing our society. They also did much to emphasize the social causes of certain security threats, mainly those caused by poverty and lack of education. True, in today’s world, many of our most prescient concerns are caused by poor, uneducated young people. However, I would say that this current security apparatus is made possible by the balance of power that permanently exists among the big players of the world. Though most large-scale warfare has been eradicated in our part of the world, this is due to America’s “victory”, or at least a strategic stalemate, against foreign powers that would attack us. Such a lack of major warfare in recent years has caused many to overlook a number of possible threats, instead pinning much of the blame on social issues. Yes, social issues are at least partially to blame for exacerbating these threats, but the fact remains that there will always be some manifestation of danger, and the United States needs to maintain its conventional defense capacity, if only in expectation of such events.

Unlike most of us, my visit to Arlington National Cemetery did not leave me with the impression that the gravesite is meant to instill fear in the nation’s enemies. I understand why people may view it as such, but I did not find it terribly imposing. It seemed more a permanent honor to deceased servicemen than a warning to future aggressors. What I noticed during our pizza-fueled discussion, however, was the kind of image that the designers of Arlington wanted to portray. Frequently, the topic of diversity was brought up. A few of us stated that the soldiers came from different backgrounds, held different religious beliefs, and espoused different political views. Despite this, I noticed how each of the graves, at least for most of the gravesite, were basically identical. Other than the name and religious symbol on the gravestone, there were no distinguishing characteristics to any of them. Each soldier was the same, at least in the eyes of the army, and that can be taken both positively and negatively. On one hand, their uniformity symbolizes their dedication to a common cause. On the other, it overlooks the personal characteristics of each man and woman who is so honored to be buried there. Both the praises and criticisms of Arlington National Cemetery reflect the views one may have about the army and its security challenges.

Arlington

I enjoy visiting graveyards, as strange as that may be. On entering a graveyard I generally gain a sense of complete calm and contemplation. The silence and solemnity of cemeteries is a welcome counterpoint to the clamor and frenetic energy of everyday life. Reading the inscriptions and seeing what people or families chose as their last memorial intrigues me. In reading the headstones you try to reconstruct a person’s life and place them back in the world. What did they live through? How long did they live? Were they married? Did they have children? This questioning and wondering is remembering. Remembering someone you never met, constructing a fantasy of their life that you cannot prove. The use and meaning in this stems for me in the acknowledgement of death, of a final sleep. Despite whatever fantasy life you construct, each of the headstones you see reinforces the fact that our time on earth is finite. Death is inevitable and unarguable.

I went to Arlington Cemetery on Saturday and I must say I regret not having gone sooner. Arlington Cemetery struck me as none of the monuments or any of the other sites in DC have. I realize of course that the effect is intended and the layout of Arlington is extremely manipulative, as we discussed earlier this evening. Even knowing this though, I still felt the stirrings of patriotism and certainly much pride in America for honoring her military in this manner. The sheer size of Arlington overwhelmed me, as did the views of downtown DC in the distance. At the tomb of the unknown soldier, I saw a demonstration of the extreme gravity in which the tomb is guarded. Yes Arlington impresses its visitors with security, patriotism, and power. Also presented though were the values of dignity and respect in remembering the departed.

I was quite pleased with the diverse viewpoints regarding insecurity. The class addressed questions relating to the relationship between individual rights and security, what is security, and if the government should continue with an offensive strategy in the War on Terror. Well done UC World Politics!
Insecurity is not a lack of security, but simply a philosophy that advocates molding defense strategy to actual threats rather than perceived ones, saving resources and the hysteria of the public. By reacting to a terrorist attack in a rational and effective manner, far less money would be spent than on the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Insecurity addresses the here-and-now rather than what might be, the trick is, how do you teach the populace of a state to act rationally? Security is a state of mind, and terrorism often seeks to prey upon this personal sense of security, creating political instability within a nation. If somehow we can educate people to react in a level-headed manner, a state can stay politically stable and terrorisms goals are not accomplished.
I found what Ben said about educating people to act rationally through education and media policy interesting. While all people view their actions as rational, and everyone has their motivation for acting the way they do, lessening the sensationalism of news I feel could be beneficial and begin a gradual process away from the perceived state of chaos in the world to a more reserved viewpoint, effectively enabling the government to react to threats and eliminating the purpose of global terrorism.

Fully Secure

I suppose it's logical to assume that we can never be fully secure, because there's an 'infinite' amount of security threats. First, infinity is irrational. There's going to inevitably be a cap on the amount of threats people can think up of.

Second, money makes the world go round. The terrorists, and computer geeks who keep hacking into the pentagon, will eventually get hired by the pentagon to stop people just like them. Hackers and terrorists do not get paid well hacking and causing terror for livings. They usually end up imprisoned or dead as a matter of fact. They'd eagerly go to the not dark side for a six-figured paycheck and a nice 401k.

Lastly, how much are people willing to sacrifice in order for security. Complete security would only be possible for a full release of personal freedom. We all know the Benjamin Franklin quote: "those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither". Frankly, since complete security is both unnecessary and impossible, the person will lack both liberty and security whether they deserve it or not.
Simply and Logically,
Buddha

Infinite Possibilities

Because of the infinite possibilities of perceived security threats we can never be fully secure.

This week’s question seemed particularly difficult to pin down. The amorphous nature of the question reflected the back and forth of our class discussion, during which I feel most of us got a little lost. I know I had to ask my group what exactly we were “arguing” about. After all, the definition of security is reliant on contextual reference. Personal security, local security, national security, environmental security each one involves securing something different and so requires different means for “security”. Security is variable on who you ask to define it. What do they want secure? In class we discussed how national security and national interest are often equated, mostly to the advantage of the government. Where though is the line between the two? Who gets to decide? The line will vary of course on who is the arbiter of national security. The president? Congress? The citizens as a collective whole? I don’t have an answer and I don’t think anyone could convince me that there is one.

And now I will move onto the question. There are an infinite amount of perceived security threats. This does not mean though that a state can never be fully secure. It might not be secure in the eyes of all, but others might have all of their perceived security threats met. Defining national security as having every citizen feel nationally secure is of course impossibility. You couldn’t get the entire nation to agree on any issue, even one of much lesser importance. The fact that “national security” is such a ubiquitous word in our everyday conversations has, as my group argued, diluted the significance of the term into almost nothingness because it is so outrageously linked to everything. Unable to agree then on what national security addresses and is limited to, we must settle more for a certain level of security. The best that could be hoped for would be that most of the nation would feel nationally secure.