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
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
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.
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.
Understanding and Obtaining National Security
Question: Because of the ambiguity of the term “security”, can any country ever be fully secure?
No, this is an impossible scenario. The simple fact of living on earth precludes the possibility of an entirely secure nation. Even when disregarding organized human security threats, there will always remain threats of disease, technological malfunction, acts of God, and innumerable other scenarios. That even assumes that a world without opposing human forces, such as countries or armed factions, is possible, which, given the needs and aspirations of a society, is about as unlikely as anything. Opposition will always manifest, because humans are inherently self-interested, not community-interested. It is in the nature of evolution that we continue to do battle.
In the past few classes, the notion of being fully secure has repeatedly been explored. It is a state that I term “perfect security” Perfect security implies a total lack of opposition, both military and ideological, as well as faultless deterrence techniques against unforeseen non-human dangers. It is implausible, if not impossible, to reach this state. As one prominent Eastern philosopher would put it, security is “not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.”
This builds upon our argument in class. The question we debated was whether or not “national security” could be realistically defined, and, by extension, whether or not it is a relevant term. The other group took note of the political use of the phrase “national security”, especially in campaigns, and concluded that its vague and open-ended definition could be used to promote essentially any policy, rendering it irrelevant.
I agree with their assertion that the political usage is entirely meaningless. It’s a utopian vision that can be tailored to promote any action or policy. However, looking at the concept of national security from a wider historical viewpoint, there exists one constant motivation in each argument: the desire for greater deterrence capability against specific threats. National security is not a state of being, nor is it a stand-alone political platform. Rather, it is a direction pointed towards an inevitably unattainable goal that may be reached any number of ways. It is, admittedly, a very wide definition, and in practice provides no solid path or endpoint. But it is a definition, and one that can provide at least a basic sense of intent. That common quality in all arguments for national security provides relevance for the term’s continued use, if only to frame an argument in the appropriate context.
No, this is an impossible scenario. The simple fact of living on earth precludes the possibility of an entirely secure nation. Even when disregarding organized human security threats, there will always remain threats of disease, technological malfunction, acts of God, and innumerable other scenarios. That even assumes that a world without opposing human forces, such as countries or armed factions, is possible, which, given the needs and aspirations of a society, is about as unlikely as anything. Opposition will always manifest, because humans are inherently self-interested, not community-interested. It is in the nature of evolution that we continue to do battle.
In the past few classes, the notion of being fully secure has repeatedly been explored. It is a state that I term “perfect security” Perfect security implies a total lack of opposition, both military and ideological, as well as faultless deterrence techniques against unforeseen non-human dangers. It is implausible, if not impossible, to reach this state. As one prominent Eastern philosopher would put it, security is “not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.”
This builds upon our argument in class. The question we debated was whether or not “national security” could be realistically defined, and, by extension, whether or not it is a relevant term. The other group took note of the political use of the phrase “national security”, especially in campaigns, and concluded that its vague and open-ended definition could be used to promote essentially any policy, rendering it irrelevant.
I agree with their assertion that the political usage is entirely meaningless. It’s a utopian vision that can be tailored to promote any action or policy. However, looking at the concept of national security from a wider historical viewpoint, there exists one constant motivation in each argument: the desire for greater deterrence capability against specific threats. National security is not a state of being, nor is it a stand-alone political platform. Rather, it is a direction pointed towards an inevitably unattainable goal that may be reached any number of ways. It is, admittedly, a very wide definition, and in practice provides no solid path or endpoint. But it is a definition, and one that can provide at least a basic sense of intent. That common quality in all arguments for national security provides relevance for the term’s continued use, if only to frame an argument in the appropriate context.
Security: Everyone Wants It, Nobody Has It
Security is an elusive ideal that is unattainable. Threats, both real and imaginary, plague a nation’s psyche, and national governments move to safeguard against instability. Terrorism, pandemics, drought; just some of the factors that politicians and military officials consider when investing billions and billions of dollars devoted to keeping the state secure. The fact of the matter is, the next threat is often something that has never been seen before, something inconceivable that no government official can protect against. Security is impossible due to the fears of the citizenry and the spontaneous nature of global threats.
National security has long been that two-word buzzword that excites the American populace. The words are associated with freedom, the armed forces, and an us-against-them mentality that divides Republicans and Democrats ideologically. Regardless of party, many Americans view terrorism as the single greatest threat to this nation’s security. This is widely due to the events of September 11th and the dramatic images of the carnage in Afghanistan and Iraq. The American knee-jerk feeling is one that the world hates them and wishes for the downfall of the American state. Of course, this is not fact, but rather the perceived state of what is true. Since security is a personal feeling, (can my government protect my rights?), what is considered true by mainstream America must be considered true by government officials who strive to create a general feeling of stability. Is this security in the sense that the American people are immune to the next great epidemic or food shortage? No, it is simply a basic feeling that others will not harm you, and Americans continue to worry about every security threat, rational and irrational, that they feel threaten their way of life.
The truth about security is that it is impossible to be completely secure. No one could have predicted that hijacked planes would be used as missiles against American economic and defense establishments. It was impossible to imagine the SARS epidemic and its impact on Asia before the outbreak. More often than not, security is against an unknown entity, often inconceivable to most. Realists argue that military buildup and a strong police presence secure a state, but it is time for people to accept that the world is a chaotic, insecure place. I’m stop here; it transitions nicely into what I’ll tell you all in class Friday.
National security has long been that two-word buzzword that excites the American populace. The words are associated with freedom, the armed forces, and an us-against-them mentality that divides Republicans and Democrats ideologically. Regardless of party, many Americans view terrorism as the single greatest threat to this nation’s security. This is widely due to the events of September 11th and the dramatic images of the carnage in Afghanistan and Iraq. The American knee-jerk feeling is one that the world hates them and wishes for the downfall of the American state. Of course, this is not fact, but rather the perceived state of what is true. Since security is a personal feeling, (can my government protect my rights?), what is considered true by mainstream America must be considered true by government officials who strive to create a general feeling of stability. Is this security in the sense that the American people are immune to the next great epidemic or food shortage? No, it is simply a basic feeling that others will not harm you, and Americans continue to worry about every security threat, rational and irrational, that they feel threaten their way of life.
The truth about security is that it is impossible to be completely secure. No one could have predicted that hijacked planes would be used as missiles against American economic and defense establishments. It was impossible to imagine the SARS epidemic and its impact on Asia before the outbreak. More often than not, security is against an unknown entity, often inconceivable to most. Realists argue that military buildup and a strong police presence secure a state, but it is time for people to accept that the world is a chaotic, insecure place. I’m stop here; it transitions nicely into what I’ll tell you all in class Friday.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Personal and Mutual Security
Three links were shown in class that I'd like to address. The East Coast Firearms website merits recognition simply because the issue it presents has been flogged to death by my classmates, so I’ll bridge the gap by attempting to connect it to World Politics.
The reaction provoked by the website among the class demonstrated the reaction of outsiders, including governments, to violent conflicts, or military buildup in anticipation of one. Despite that the website did not advocate violent acts, the images of weapons nevertheless conjured up images of their use, and many people reacted with shock and disapproval (though a few of us males reacted with excitement, because we’ve freely surrendered ourselves to gun culture). A similar type of negative reaction can also be observed frequently among outsiders appraising an armed conflict that they have no stake in. Nonpartisan nations, most frequently European and Asian states, as well as non-government organizations, supranational organizations, and individuals tend to issue a blanket condemnation of violence, stating that they regret the loss of innocent life and hope that peace and negotiations can prevail. They take no sides, even in some instances where one party has the moral highground. They state only that they abhor violence, a position than anyone, even a baby, can take.
And so it progressed in our class. The initial reaction by nearly everyone was a rejection of such weapons, regardless of their intent. The only reason it progressed to a debate about gun control was due to differing interpretations of what it meant to repel violence; while some were so disgusted by automatic weapons that they advocated a near-complete ban on their sale, others defended their necessity, though not necessarily the caliber of guns that were being advertised. It’s important to note, though, that no one advocated an upgrade of existing domestic weapons, and I would attribute this to expectations of what self-defense would actually look like in our own context. Surely, it was agreed, no one would need a fully-automatic weapon to protect their homes.
This summarizes a fundamental difference between ourselves and independent states: a difference of scale. While we may not need such weapons, national armies do, simply because military technology has progressed to that point. Unlike nations, we do not exist under constant threat, and our technological and tactical capacities have not increased by necessity to the levels advocated by East Coast Firearms. Thus, the sudden submersion into that mindset was alarming for many.
I will not state my political views on gun control. My personal view is “Guns for me, no guns for anyone else”, but I realize the impracticality of that policy. Ultimately, though, I see little link at present between that issue and world politics, so to keep with my running tactic of deliberate ambiguity on my political views, I will abstain from commenting on the pros and cons of gun control.
The next important link was the trailer for “The World Without US”, a documentary on possible U.S. isolationism. I was surprised to hear many in our class take an uncompromisingly negative view of it, deriding its “scare tactics” to promote “more U.S. influence” in world affairs. While there was an obviously propagandistic tone to it, I felt that the main point was missed. As I see it, it didn’t so much promote a course of action as defend the current one. It was making the case that the United States cannot be blamed for inciting so much violence around the world, and it opposed the widely-held view that if America were to stop intervention in conflicts, the world would be a safer place. Simply put, war existed long before the U.S. entered the scene, and it will exist long after it leaves it. There are an innumerable amount of interests competing with each other, and there is no shortage of people who will take up arms to further their ideologies. The United States can hardly be blamed for fighting “better” than everyone else. Viewing American withdrawal as a solution to world suffering is taking a dangerously two-dimensional, not to mention skewed, vision of world affairs. Going down such a path would be a strategic fiasco for everyone.
The final link I wanted to bring up was the cartoon on Social Security. It portrayed an elderly woman in a hospital attached to an IV tube, labeled “Social Security". In front of her, a politician preaches to his followers that Social Security must be converted to private accounts, because personal responsibility is an American value. His followers cheer, since they, as taxpayers, are no longer burdened by her healthcare costs. I see the relation of this message to world politics in modern economic cooperatives, particularly the European Union. The bare premise of the cartoon was the idea that those with more generally do not want to bend for those with less. This continues to be demonstrated by the EU in their induction process, their membership, and the promotion of their common currency. Upon the breakup of various ex-communist states in the early-nineties, there was a multitude of potential new members. However, their economies were not nearly as advanced as those of Western Europe, and had much difficulty adjusting to the capitalist system. Their GDPs were far below the common European standard, crime was on the rise, and all of it bred corruption and demagoguery in politics. Membership was stalled for each nation until they could kowtow to the rest of Europe, and even then the existing economic order would have to take a hit for the new fledgling economies. Now, this didn’t sit well with the most financially robust of states, including France and Belgium, and for a time they attempted to block membership even further. However, once they acceded, they assisted in defraying costs accrued while they were building their infrastructures.
This unfortunate fact has been the reason some Western European states still hold out on the EU and its common market. Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland have rejected calls for them to join, not wanting to pursue common interests with states that may not share their values. The United Kingdom and Sweden have not adopted the Euro as their currency, in part because they fear the effects of inflation once Eastern European states are inducted. They, like the voters depicted in the cartoon, prefer to keep their private economies, mainly because they’re better off by themselves. It becomes a question of security when these states have to decide whether to forsake their own security apparatus to defend another, which becomes an issue whenever states are included in the EU or NATO.
To close this, I wanted to post the finale of Scarface, as promised. Unfortunately, it seems to have been deleted from YouTube. Cursed copyright laws! For all you bloodthirsty folks out there, here’s the next best thing.
The reaction provoked by the website among the class demonstrated the reaction of outsiders, including governments, to violent conflicts, or military buildup in anticipation of one. Despite that the website did not advocate violent acts, the images of weapons nevertheless conjured up images of their use, and many people reacted with shock and disapproval (though a few of us males reacted with excitement, because we’ve freely surrendered ourselves to gun culture). A similar type of negative reaction can also be observed frequently among outsiders appraising an armed conflict that they have no stake in. Nonpartisan nations, most frequently European and Asian states, as well as non-government organizations, supranational organizations, and individuals tend to issue a blanket condemnation of violence, stating that they regret the loss of innocent life and hope that peace and negotiations can prevail. They take no sides, even in some instances where one party has the moral highground. They state only that they abhor violence, a position than anyone, even a baby, can take.
And so it progressed in our class. The initial reaction by nearly everyone was a rejection of such weapons, regardless of their intent. The only reason it progressed to a debate about gun control was due to differing interpretations of what it meant to repel violence; while some were so disgusted by automatic weapons that they advocated a near-complete ban on their sale, others defended their necessity, though not necessarily the caliber of guns that were being advertised. It’s important to note, though, that no one advocated an upgrade of existing domestic weapons, and I would attribute this to expectations of what self-defense would actually look like in our own context. Surely, it was agreed, no one would need a fully-automatic weapon to protect their homes.
This summarizes a fundamental difference between ourselves and independent states: a difference of scale. While we may not need such weapons, national armies do, simply because military technology has progressed to that point. Unlike nations, we do not exist under constant threat, and our technological and tactical capacities have not increased by necessity to the levels advocated by East Coast Firearms. Thus, the sudden submersion into that mindset was alarming for many.
I will not state my political views on gun control. My personal view is “Guns for me, no guns for anyone else”, but I realize the impracticality of that policy. Ultimately, though, I see little link at present between that issue and world politics, so to keep with my running tactic of deliberate ambiguity on my political views, I will abstain from commenting on the pros and cons of gun control.
The next important link was the trailer for “The World Without US”, a documentary on possible U.S. isolationism. I was surprised to hear many in our class take an uncompromisingly negative view of it, deriding its “scare tactics” to promote “more U.S. influence” in world affairs. While there was an obviously propagandistic tone to it, I felt that the main point was missed. As I see it, it didn’t so much promote a course of action as defend the current one. It was making the case that the United States cannot be blamed for inciting so much violence around the world, and it opposed the widely-held view that if America were to stop intervention in conflicts, the world would be a safer place. Simply put, war existed long before the U.S. entered the scene, and it will exist long after it leaves it. There are an innumerable amount of interests competing with each other, and there is no shortage of people who will take up arms to further their ideologies. The United States can hardly be blamed for fighting “better” than everyone else. Viewing American withdrawal as a solution to world suffering is taking a dangerously two-dimensional, not to mention skewed, vision of world affairs. Going down such a path would be a strategic fiasco for everyone.
The final link I wanted to bring up was the cartoon on Social Security. It portrayed an elderly woman in a hospital attached to an IV tube, labeled “Social Security". In front of her, a politician preaches to his followers that Social Security must be converted to private accounts, because personal responsibility is an American value. His followers cheer, since they, as taxpayers, are no longer burdened by her healthcare costs. I see the relation of this message to world politics in modern economic cooperatives, particularly the European Union. The bare premise of the cartoon was the idea that those with more generally do not want to bend for those with less. This continues to be demonstrated by the EU in their induction process, their membership, and the promotion of their common currency. Upon the breakup of various ex-communist states in the early-nineties, there was a multitude of potential new members. However, their economies were not nearly as advanced as those of Western Europe, and had much difficulty adjusting to the capitalist system. Their GDPs were far below the common European standard, crime was on the rise, and all of it bred corruption and demagoguery in politics. Membership was stalled for each nation until they could kowtow to the rest of Europe, and even then the existing economic order would have to take a hit for the new fledgling economies. Now, this didn’t sit well with the most financially robust of states, including France and Belgium, and for a time they attempted to block membership even further. However, once they acceded, they assisted in defraying costs accrued while they were building their infrastructures.
This unfortunate fact has been the reason some Western European states still hold out on the EU and its common market. Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland have rejected calls for them to join, not wanting to pursue common interests with states that may not share their values. The United Kingdom and Sweden have not adopted the Euro as their currency, in part because they fear the effects of inflation once Eastern European states are inducted. They, like the voters depicted in the cartoon, prefer to keep their private economies, mainly because they’re better off by themselves. It becomes a question of security when these states have to decide whether to forsake their own security apparatus to defend another, which becomes an issue whenever states are included in the EU or NATO.
To close this, I wanted to post the finale of Scarface, as promised. Unfortunately, it seems to have been deleted from YouTube. Cursed copyright laws! For all you bloodthirsty folks out there, here’s the next best thing.
Limited Gun Control
I too was horrified by the website seen in class on Friday. The website proves to me that gun regulation is an issue in this country. The selling of the weapons on that website should not be legal. I agree with the pro-gun control group that no one needs an AK-47 for their own personal security. However, I do think that citizens should continue to have the right to possess and carry a gun. I strongly supported Michelle’s statement in Friday’s class on how she would feel insecure if she couldn’t have the right to own a gun, because that ban would not stop criminals from using guns. I don’t like the idea of a country where only the police and the criminals have guns. That leaves the individual citizen in a weaker position, I don’t care how you try and argue it. The police and by extension the government, are not infallible. The primary interest of the police and the government is for the security of the whole of society, not for the security of every individual.
PTJ made a point about asking who in the class had shot a gun before. For me, I think it was telling how the people who had not shot a gun were so avidly anti-gun and fearful of guns in general (just an impression, correct me if I’m wrong). I have grown up in a house with guns and shot both rifles and handguns before. My dad likes to hunt and fish, so consequently my freezer at home always some fish and venison it and my family eats both on a regular basis. I don’t think of hunting as some archaic masculine pastime. The deer and javilena (wild pig) populations in some areas of Texas have caused extreme damage to property. Areas with such problems like to bring in hunters in order to control the population.
The kind of gun regulation that I would advocate for would treat guns like cars and be a national system overall. You need a license to operate a car and you should need a license to operate a gun. Obtaining this license would require a wait period, official identification shown and recorded in a local state office and a class taught on gun law, safety and use. Assault weapons should be illegal across the board, but the ban needs to end there.
PTJ made a point about asking who in the class had shot a gun before. For me, I think it was telling how the people who had not shot a gun were so avidly anti-gun and fearful of guns in general (just an impression, correct me if I’m wrong). I have grown up in a house with guns and shot both rifles and handguns before. My dad likes to hunt and fish, so consequently my freezer at home always some fish and venison it and my family eats both on a regular basis. I don’t think of hunting as some archaic masculine pastime. The deer and javilena (wild pig) populations in some areas of Texas have caused extreme damage to property. Areas with such problems like to bring in hunters in order to control the population.
The kind of gun regulation that I would advocate for would treat guns like cars and be a national system overall. You need a license to operate a car and you should need a license to operate a gun. Obtaining this license would require a wait period, official identification shown and recorded in a local state office and a class taught on gun law, safety and use. Assault weapons should be illegal across the board, but the ban needs to end there.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Cuz all i wanna do is BANG BANG BANG and KA CHING and take your money
Guns fah-reak me the heck out. I think they are horrible in every way. I don’t even think recreational hunting is something “recreational” or morally okay. I love animals… I know, I know… but I do. Why would you want to kill bambi? Because the deer population is out of control and humans are the only predator capable of seriously thinning the overpopulated species? Yeah, well the human population is pretty out of control, too. Don’t laugh at me. I actually understand, and can admit, that my stance on this issue is fueled more by my emotion and fuzzy love for fuzzy creatures rather than being based on the cold hard facts of reality. You probably think that I think guns are the absolute evil. And you’re right – I absolutely do! However, although I strongly abhor the use of guns and do not think that US citizens should be able to easily purchase an MP-5 or a TEC-9, I just don’t really agree with the disillusioned concept of what others believe to be gun control. Many of those who support gun control believe that they are supporting a proposal to completely ban the use of gun sale and ownership. This is not the case. Gun control is a proposal to regulate the sale of guns, not even to license the guns that have already been sold and dispersed out, it’s only to make sure stricter measures are taken for the sale and transfer of gun ownership. Gun control, although a step in the right direction, is not the answer. Handguns are the primary killer and, gun control, the way it is presently, does little to stop that because of it’s complete lack of background checks in secondary gun sales. There needs to be far more focus on this sector of sales. No one needs to be buying 20 handguns, and if someone does, this information should be shown to the appropriate authorities – which does not occur in secondary gun sales. Secondary gun sales need to be illegal, need to be regulated, and need to be stopped. Furthermore, can we please put a stop to such sites as the one that was showed in class and maybe prevent little parties known as firearm conventions (pictured below) from occurring? Thank you!
And as promised... Here is the link to the GAME on airport security! Enjoy!Class Reflection
I felt very bittersweet about class. It's amazing to think I knew so much about my other classmates (politically speaking), and then bring up such a hot-button issue like gun-control and realize how wrong my perceptions were. I don't understand even the smallest bit why anyone thinks they need an automatic weapon in order to be secure. I'm not sure they have a constitutional right to that weapon, but until the second amendment is clarified in the supreme court, people are free to legally acquire firearms like that I suppose. What I thought at first to be a gender bias, was quickly rejected. I have a feeling in our class, our views on gun control might correlate with the size of what we consider our 'hometowns'. I'm not even sure there is a correlation. It's very interesting to me. There are so many trends in politics, and our class does a fair good job fitting in those trends, except for the gun control issue.
I believe the constitution grants you the right to bear arms, for the purpose of forming a militia. You do not have the right bear arms if you do not plan on participating in the militia. There should be a limit on the number of fire arms you can possess. There should be tighter crack downs on arms trading. People should not be allowed to carry a concealed weapon, unless they work in law enforcement. There is nothing natural about firearms. I'm somewhat repulsed by it's sheer ability to destroy life. A firearm has never produced something positive without a tragedy happening somewhere else. I'm just very anti-gun apparently, but then again I've never shot a gun, my mom does not own one, so I may be the least qualified to judge on the topic. As far as the comment that can be construed as racist, that is for that person to clarify.
I believe the constitution grants you the right to bear arms, for the purpose of forming a militia. You do not have the right bear arms if you do not plan on participating in the militia. There should be a limit on the number of fire arms you can possess. There should be tighter crack downs on arms trading. People should not be allowed to carry a concealed weapon, unless they work in law enforcement. There is nothing natural about firearms. I'm somewhat repulsed by it's sheer ability to destroy life. A firearm has never produced something positive without a tragedy happening somewhere else. I'm just very anti-gun apparently, but then again I've never shot a gun, my mom does not own one, so I may be the least qualified to judge on the topic. As far as the comment that can be construed as racist, that is for that person to clarify.
If you never read another Seamus McGregor post, read this
I found the East Coast Firearms site to be eye-opening as well as extremely distressing. As you all are now aware, I am pro gun control, and I feel very strongly on the matter. The second amendment is dated and I feel misinterpreted. The second amendment was enacted as a means of preventing tyrannical governments from gaining power, and serves as an extension of John Locke’s social contract. This contract is for the government to serve the people, and for the people to overthrow the government if the government violates the contract of mutual trust. Today, militias are not a major force in America (although the Michigan militia wields significant firepower), and there is not an effective way of people to mobilize against the government. The government possesses Abrams tanks, Stryker fighting vehicles, and F-22 Raptor aircraft that cannot be combated effectively by any massing of ordinary citizens. Realistically, if a tyrannical regime was to assume power in the United States, it probably could only be overthrown by a military coup. Forgive me, but I’m not buying into this whole “an individual qualifies as a militia” business. This sort of Rambo mentality is not subscribed to by mainstream Americans, and I find the notion that an assault weapon is sufficient to defend yourself against the world unrealistic.
Others claim that a gun is vital to their personal protection. Many individuals have firearms in their homes and have concealed carry licenses. Although pro gun control, I realize that things must be taken in gradual steps; so I shall address assault weapons as the first things that should be taken off the streets and out of the hands of citizens. Assault weapons are manufactured to kill people; and lots of them at a time. A gun that is designed for military action is certainly not a necessity if a person wishes to defend themselves against a home invasion. I believe that firearms can be gradually phased out and that the United States can follow along the lines of Great Britain’s rules regarding gun ownership.
I will briefly address the people who enjoy hunting. I have yet to meet a serious hunter who uses an assault rifle or automatic weapon. Putting that many bullets into a deer for example takes away the skill of hunting and makes cleaning the carcass difficult. I cannot think of a hunter who would argue for hunting with a MP-5 or a TEC-9.
I would also like to point out the negative effects on households that own guns. Study after study has proven that households with guns in them have higher rates of suicide and homicide than houses where no gun is present. Most concerning to me is how often it is the children of the household who accidently kill themselves or others playing with guns. Harvard research has proven that child firearm deaths are directly tied to gun availability http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2002/March8_2002/injury_control.html. If for no other reason, we owe it to the youth to limit gun ownership in the United States.
While I realize Andrew’s argument that there will always be a market for these high-powered weapons, we can make it much more difficult for criminals to get their hands on these weapons. The recent trend of “community guns”, a practice where a gun is used for a crime and left in a park or an alleyway for other gang members to use, is very disturbing http://ncpc.typepad.com/prevention_works_blog/2008/06/community-guns.html. Renewing the Federal Assault Weapons ban would be a good first step. As for the next steps, I will talk a little about how Chicago has been gradually cutting homicide rates the past decade.
First, there has been a series of firearm buy-back programs through the mayor’s office that have been very successful. The no-questions-asked policy encourages people to turn in their guns for a monetary reward (less than market value for gun to prevent re-purchasing) that can be used to buy food or pay the bills instead of arming themselves.
Second, community groups, such as Ceasefire, have built a grassroots of concerned citizens to stop gang shootings http://www.ceasefirechicago.org/mission_history.shtml. These community members know who the gang members are, and with the community behind them, these organizations have been very effective in dissuading criminal activity and through a wide array of conflict management and peace counseling strategies, have greatly decreased gang violence in many neighborhoods in Chicago. Ceasefire began in 2000 in the West Garfield Park neighborhood, police beat 1115. In a neighborhood notorious for gang violence http://www.chicagogangs.org/index.php?pr=GANG_MAPS (north side map), shootings dropped 67% within in the first year of Ceasefire’s existence.
Last, police need to step up their presence and violent criminals need to be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law. A large police presence in Chicago coupled with massive operations against gangs and the drug trade has cut significantly into the structure and business of organized crime and street gangs alike. By weakening these groups, it makes it easier to seize their weapons and make them more compliant to the law.
On a slightly different note, I was most disturbed by the statement by one of my classmates that people need high-powered weapons because African-Americans and Hispanics often perpetrate crimes against white people. Outside the obvious question of why race is relevant in that discussion at all when criminal activity correlates to socio-economic conditions, I also would like to ask that classmate to state why he fears African Americans and Hispanics and believes they wish to harm him. If we are to make race relevant, you shall see studies have proven that a vast majority of crime perpetrated against a person of one race was committed by someone of the same race http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm. While it’s easy to look at the news and pass judgment on people, remember that journalism is sensationalist and that everything must be viewed carefully and impartially. I do not want to brand what I heard as racism, so I call on that classmate to clarify his statement.
Others claim that a gun is vital to their personal protection. Many individuals have firearms in their homes and have concealed carry licenses. Although pro gun control, I realize that things must be taken in gradual steps; so I shall address assault weapons as the first things that should be taken off the streets and out of the hands of citizens. Assault weapons are manufactured to kill people; and lots of them at a time. A gun that is designed for military action is certainly not a necessity if a person wishes to defend themselves against a home invasion. I believe that firearms can be gradually phased out and that the United States can follow along the lines of Great Britain’s rules regarding gun ownership.
I will briefly address the people who enjoy hunting. I have yet to meet a serious hunter who uses an assault rifle or automatic weapon. Putting that many bullets into a deer for example takes away the skill of hunting and makes cleaning the carcass difficult. I cannot think of a hunter who would argue for hunting with a MP-5 or a TEC-9.
I would also like to point out the negative effects on households that own guns. Study after study has proven that households with guns in them have higher rates of suicide and homicide than houses where no gun is present. Most concerning to me is how often it is the children of the household who accidently kill themselves or others playing with guns. Harvard research has proven that child firearm deaths are directly tied to gun availability http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2002/March8_2002/injury_control.html. If for no other reason, we owe it to the youth to limit gun ownership in the United States.
While I realize Andrew’s argument that there will always be a market for these high-powered weapons, we can make it much more difficult for criminals to get their hands on these weapons. The recent trend of “community guns”, a practice where a gun is used for a crime and left in a park or an alleyway for other gang members to use, is very disturbing http://ncpc.typepad.com/prevention_works_blog/2008/06/community-guns.html. Renewing the Federal Assault Weapons ban would be a good first step. As for the next steps, I will talk a little about how Chicago has been gradually cutting homicide rates the past decade.
First, there has been a series of firearm buy-back programs through the mayor’s office that have been very successful. The no-questions-asked policy encourages people to turn in their guns for a monetary reward (less than market value for gun to prevent re-purchasing) that can be used to buy food or pay the bills instead of arming themselves.
Second, community groups, such as Ceasefire, have built a grassroots of concerned citizens to stop gang shootings http://www.ceasefirechicago.org/mission_history.shtml. These community members know who the gang members are, and with the community behind them, these organizations have been very effective in dissuading criminal activity and through a wide array of conflict management and peace counseling strategies, have greatly decreased gang violence in many neighborhoods in Chicago. Ceasefire began in 2000 in the West Garfield Park neighborhood, police beat 1115. In a neighborhood notorious for gang violence http://www.chicagogangs.org/index.php?pr=GANG_MAPS (north side map), shootings dropped 67% within in the first year of Ceasefire’s existence.
Last, police need to step up their presence and violent criminals need to be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law. A large police presence in Chicago coupled with massive operations against gangs and the drug trade has cut significantly into the structure and business of organized crime and street gangs alike. By weakening these groups, it makes it easier to seize their weapons and make them more compliant to the law.
On a slightly different note, I was most disturbed by the statement by one of my classmates that people need high-powered weapons because African-Americans and Hispanics often perpetrate crimes against white people. Outside the obvious question of why race is relevant in that discussion at all when criminal activity correlates to socio-economic conditions, I also would like to ask that classmate to state why he fears African Americans and Hispanics and believes they wish to harm him. If we are to make race relevant, you shall see studies have proven that a vast majority of crime perpetrated against a person of one race was committed by someone of the same race http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm. While it’s easy to look at the news and pass judgment on people, remember that journalism is sensationalist and that everything must be viewed carefully and impartially. I do not want to brand what I heard as racism, so I call on that classmate to clarify his statement.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Security Implications of the Financial Meltdown
Question: Is the current financial crisis a global security issue?
Yes, the economic predicament unoubtedly represents a security threat. Any way you look at it, the conditions created by a weak national economy provide fertile breeding grounds for all kinds of drastic threats. Our economy is the backbone of our society, and a financial collapse signals less business, a drop in services, and a significant change in our way of living, which have always been dominant preconditions for the incitement of mass radicalism and violence.
Let’s look at historical examples. Did the Soviet Union’s economic overstraining in the late-eighties represent a security threat? Yes, it did, and it ended with the collapse of the Soviet government and its allies, and the loss of the Cold War. While the immediate threat was believed to be in Afghanistan, where the military was suffering an embarrassingly high casualty rate, the consequences of a prolonged anti-guerrilla war and overproduction to keep up with rivals were not explored in an economic sense, and the resultant inability of the Soviet government to keep public services running led to widespread discontent that reached the highest levels. Soon, a coup was attempted by top military generals, followed by a general disintegration of the public structure and, finally, the dissolution of the state. As late as the eighties, economic conditions, coupled with the incentive of greater freedoms elsewhere, triggered the end of one of the greatest powers the world had ever seen.
The spiraling trends of national economies greatly hinder their ability to combat crime and terror. Defense and law enforcement budgets become harder to maintain, and new technologies are put on hold. Meanwhile, the black market, which operates in large part independently of the world market, is not as harshly affected by the collapse, and those who partake in it gain ground against their competitors. Additionally, a weak market tends to generate crime, both organized and unorganized, placing an even heavier burden on law enforcement.
In the long term, economic recession, inflation, and food shortages give rise to political radicalism, which represent a severe internal security crisis. Food shortages, labor disgruntlement, and a prolonged war allowed the Bolsheviks to come to power in Russia in 1917, and severe inflation and unemployment gave voice to the ideas of the Nazi party in Weimar-era Germany. Though the United States has historically been largely devoid of radical politics (in seats of power, at least), there always exists the possibility that someone could capitalize on the moods of the time to promote an irrational set of ideas, leading only to greater damage.
In the government’s response to the financial crisis, all resources must be considered, including those of security. The Defense Department, intelligence bureaus, law enforcement bodies, and anyone else whose goal is to maintain a safe, functioning state, must consider the effects of the latest activities and calculate how best to respond. We need on our side the best and brightest minds to sort out this mess if we want to uphold the current world order.
Yes, the economic predicament unoubtedly represents a security threat. Any way you look at it, the conditions created by a weak national economy provide fertile breeding grounds for all kinds of drastic threats. Our economy is the backbone of our society, and a financial collapse signals less business, a drop in services, and a significant change in our way of living, which have always been dominant preconditions for the incitement of mass radicalism and violence.
Let’s look at historical examples. Did the Soviet Union’s economic overstraining in the late-eighties represent a security threat? Yes, it did, and it ended with the collapse of the Soviet government and its allies, and the loss of the Cold War. While the immediate threat was believed to be in Afghanistan, where the military was suffering an embarrassingly high casualty rate, the consequences of a prolonged anti-guerrilla war and overproduction to keep up with rivals were not explored in an economic sense, and the resultant inability of the Soviet government to keep public services running led to widespread discontent that reached the highest levels. Soon, a coup was attempted by top military generals, followed by a general disintegration of the public structure and, finally, the dissolution of the state. As late as the eighties, economic conditions, coupled with the incentive of greater freedoms elsewhere, triggered the end of one of the greatest powers the world had ever seen.
The spiraling trends of national economies greatly hinder their ability to combat crime and terror. Defense and law enforcement budgets become harder to maintain, and new technologies are put on hold. Meanwhile, the black market, which operates in large part independently of the world market, is not as harshly affected by the collapse, and those who partake in it gain ground against their competitors. Additionally, a weak market tends to generate crime, both organized and unorganized, placing an even heavier burden on law enforcement.
In the long term, economic recession, inflation, and food shortages give rise to political radicalism, which represent a severe internal security crisis. Food shortages, labor disgruntlement, and a prolonged war allowed the Bolsheviks to come to power in Russia in 1917, and severe inflation and unemployment gave voice to the ideas of the Nazi party in Weimar-era Germany. Though the United States has historically been largely devoid of radical politics (in seats of power, at least), there always exists the possibility that someone could capitalize on the moods of the time to promote an irrational set of ideas, leading only to greater damage.
In the government’s response to the financial crisis, all resources must be considered, including those of security. The Defense Department, intelligence bureaus, law enforcement bodies, and anyone else whose goal is to maintain a safe, functioning state, must consider the effects of the latest activities and calculate how best to respond. We need on our side the best and brightest minds to sort out this mess if we want to uphold the current world order.
World Politics vs. Gut Feeling
Is the current financial crisis a security threat?
I feel like I am forced by our class discussions to argue yes to this question. Security is an issue which can be linked, often tenuously so, but linked nonetheless to any and every aspect (even plumbing) of a nation. When one element or aspect of a nation is insecure, the entire can be considered threatened. I am taking this realist view because I feel that in matters of security, realism is the ideology that prevails.
The current financial crisis has caused great instability in our economy. From the stock markets crashing to the failure of most our major financial institutions and of course let’s not forget the subprime mortgage crisis ,“the current financial crisis” is happening on a scale that perhaps only our grandparents could comprehend. The public panic has only recently begun to subside. The rest of the world is reeling as well from this financial crisis and its consequences. The global economic system has been twisted to its knees, weakened and left in a fragile state for now. We can only wait and see whether the bailout plan will live up to its promises. While we wait we can reassess the damage that this crisis has inflicted, particularly in regards to our security.
Stability and a secure position in the international order are essential to pursuing realist security goals. The security threat in this crisis is not of course that we are being territorially threatened, but rather that our hegemonic status/identity has been weakened. The United States, the bastion of free trade and capitalism has just allowed its government a most heavy-handed market intervention. We are now up to our eyeballs in more debt than ever and the creditors who are staking us are foreign countries. For our security and national integrity this is an uncomfortable and dangerous position to be in. “On a lighter note”, many other countries are currently struggling with their own version of the financial crisis.
The above is my obligatory World Politics based answer. In brief though I would like to state that I actually feel that the financial crisis in not a security threat. I do believe the national government might view this crisis as threatening, but threatening to the current government’s security and not to our nation as a whole. Yes this crisis has caused instability in our nation, but it has not caused insecurity. We as a nation are not going to be brought down by financial insecurity (I realize this point is arguable). From an economics standpoint this is not another Great Depression, the statistics don’t match up and the differences in the financial worlds of each crisis are too different. My gut reaction to this question was no and I want to be honest about that, whether my logic, well-reasoned or not holds up I leave for you guys.
I feel like I am forced by our class discussions to argue yes to this question. Security is an issue which can be linked, often tenuously so, but linked nonetheless to any and every aspect (even plumbing) of a nation. When one element or aspect of a nation is insecure, the entire can be considered threatened. I am taking this realist view because I feel that in matters of security, realism is the ideology that prevails.
The current financial crisis has caused great instability in our economy. From the stock markets crashing to the failure of most our major financial institutions and of course let’s not forget the subprime mortgage crisis ,“the current financial crisis” is happening on a scale that perhaps only our grandparents could comprehend. The public panic has only recently begun to subside. The rest of the world is reeling as well from this financial crisis and its consequences. The global economic system has been twisted to its knees, weakened and left in a fragile state for now. We can only wait and see whether the bailout plan will live up to its promises. While we wait we can reassess the damage that this crisis has inflicted, particularly in regards to our security.
Stability and a secure position in the international order are essential to pursuing realist security goals. The security threat in this crisis is not of course that we are being territorially threatened, but rather that our hegemonic status/identity has been weakened. The United States, the bastion of free trade and capitalism has just allowed its government a most heavy-handed market intervention. We are now up to our eyeballs in more debt than ever and the creditors who are staking us are foreign countries. For our security and national integrity this is an uncomfortable and dangerous position to be in. “On a lighter note”, many other countries are currently struggling with their own version of the financial crisis.
The above is my obligatory World Politics based answer. In brief though I would like to state that I actually feel that the financial crisis in not a security threat. I do believe the national government might view this crisis as threatening, but threatening to the current government’s security and not to our nation as a whole. Yes this crisis has caused instability in our nation, but it has not caused insecurity. We as a nation are not going to be brought down by financial insecurity (I realize this point is arguable). From an economics standpoint this is not another Great Depression, the statistics don’t match up and the differences in the financial worlds of each crisis are too different. My gut reaction to this question was no and I want to be honest about that, whether my logic, well-reasoned or not holds up I leave for you guys.
Dolla Dolla Bill Y'all
Let me come clean on this question: In general, I am not comfortable speaking about economics, much less the current financial crisis … it is an area that I am interested and involved in, but have yet to conquer a sufficient understanding of and, therefore, I can only try my best at providing a probable response to this question.
This question brings back memories of a previous blog question inquiring about the very meaning of security. Professor Jackson did not specify if this question is referring to border security, social security, or so on, thus, I feel that it is safe to assume that we can apply the question to all security. From what I have gathered from class discussions and from the news, the current economic problem is threatening security in a very broad sense, touching upon food security all the way to the abstract, such as the mere conception of security, which is what I will be focusing this post upon. While many may be worrying about the damages this crisis will cause to the funding of our security defenses, I feel that, in taking on a constructivist approach, it is just as important to focus on the shift in identity that this economic whirlwind has triggered for The United States. We, as a state, incessantly try to project an ideal of the US being stable, powerful, and innovative – all aspects that depend greatly upon money and our state's affluency. This projected perception has remained an actual US reality for a good chunk of time, that is, up until now. This economic crisis has drastically shifted the national and international notion of The Unites States' status and, if money keeps wasting away, may even alter the very idea of what the US stands for in the eyes of other nations. Stability is the backbone of any type of security, and the stability of institutions, families, real estate, and government is wavering across a very fine line. It doesn’t matter in the least that this economic crisis has yet to be labeled as a recession, for either way, the mindsets of US citizens believe that we are in one… no formal declaration is needed. Even if there is some actual progress being made at the higher level, the people who make up the US and, therefore, constitute the nations identity, are not seeing this progress presented in plain view in front of them. They are not seeing progress in their jobs, their paychecks, or banking. Fear has infested the people of our nation and, for the time being, shaken and altered the idea of financial security that the US so proudly and frequently projects.
No $...Danger Will Robinson!!!
The global financial crisis has definitely created a more dangerous world and serves as a threat to state security. Economic insecurity has led to the rise of fanatical nationalist movements (the Nazi party) and brutal regimes who try to maintain power (Robert Mugabe comes to mind). Financial troubles hit the poorest nations hardest, creating further feelings of disenfranchisement and weakening the already flimsy social institutions of the state.
This creates a myriad of problems: higher mortality rates, food/water shortages, and a breakdown of education systems. This environment is also perfect for recruiting terrorists and other criminals that cause arm and do not abide by any treaty or sort of global framework. Brainwashed by extreme ideologies and lured by the prospect of money or glory, many young men and women see these mediums as a means of escaping their poverty-stricken lives. When law-abiding careers do not provide a family with a living wage and the threat of complete financial collapse looms over a person, turning to extreme means can seem like the only option for survival in such daunting circumstances.
Economic insecurity puts all states at risk because this is a problem that strikes from the bottom-up. Third world states with unstable governments are powerless to prevent terrorist networks or an extensive black market. Typically problems within a state spill into developed states, as radical ideologies brand those states that are prosperous as immoral and wicked. In other cases, civil war erupts and runs over the boundaries of the state into neighboring states. The fact is that a poor security situation due to financial insecurity in a single state can result in problems for numerous other nations.
The current global economic crisis is more than simply dollars and cents, stocks and bonds. With such high levels of economic interdependence, economic troubles can result in the destabilization of entire governments around the globe. This creates a dire security threat that all nations should be vigilant regarding the sudden flare-up of instability in the market. So in conclusion, many aspects of world politics are tied together, and economics and security are very much intertwined. Indeed, the current financial crisis does present a security threat on a global basis that world leaders will certainly need to consider when setting their national security policies.
This creates a myriad of problems: higher mortality rates, food/water shortages, and a breakdown of education systems. This environment is also perfect for recruiting terrorists and other criminals that cause arm and do not abide by any treaty or sort of global framework. Brainwashed by extreme ideologies and lured by the prospect of money or glory, many young men and women see these mediums as a means of escaping their poverty-stricken lives. When law-abiding careers do not provide a family with a living wage and the threat of complete financial collapse looms over a person, turning to extreme means can seem like the only option for survival in such daunting circumstances.
Economic insecurity puts all states at risk because this is a problem that strikes from the bottom-up. Third world states with unstable governments are powerless to prevent terrorist networks or an extensive black market. Typically problems within a state spill into developed states, as radical ideologies brand those states that are prosperous as immoral and wicked. In other cases, civil war erupts and runs over the boundaries of the state into neighboring states. The fact is that a poor security situation due to financial insecurity in a single state can result in problems for numerous other nations.
The current global economic crisis is more than simply dollars and cents, stocks and bonds. With such high levels of economic interdependence, economic troubles can result in the destabilization of entire governments around the globe. This creates a dire security threat that all nations should be vigilant regarding the sudden flare-up of instability in the market. So in conclusion, many aspects of world politics are tied together, and economics and security are very much intertwined. Indeed, the current financial crisis does present a security threat on a global basis that world leaders will certainly need to consider when setting their national security policies.
Seh-curr-tee
This financial crisis will bring about major security breeches. With all of these massive mergers, resources will be allocated illicitly or at the very least incorrectly. Or at least I think something like that will happen. In Lord of War when the Cold War ended Nicholas Cage picked up all the stock piled arms, because of the disarray within the Russian military. Therefore, while all these smaller banks are being eaten by Chase and Bank of America, there's a Nicholas Cage somewhere wasting our resources.
My logic is a little silly.
I suppose the appearance of a weak economy could incite an attack. Kick 'em while their down. But, a terrorist attack will cause our economy to plummet either way.
Or, to cut costs we might eliminate some military funding. If you correlate military and security, than a reduction in military spending will be a reduction in security funding.
All of my arguments are pretty weak. I don't think the financial crisis affected our security.
Love,
Buddha
My logic is a little silly.
I suppose the appearance of a weak economy could incite an attack. Kick 'em while their down. But, a terrorist attack will cause our economy to plummet either way.
Or, to cut costs we might eliminate some military funding. If you correlate military and security, than a reduction in military spending will be a reduction in security funding.
All of my arguments are pretty weak. I don't think the financial crisis affected our security.
Love,
Buddha
Monday, October 20, 2008
Quick Reflection on the state of the word
Bill Ayers- The whole scandal just makes me want to watch Weather Underground again.
Massive Attack- has an album titled Weather Underground that's amazing.
SNL- Best opening ever on Saturday. Love Alec Baldwin.
Colin Powell- is da man
Last week's class- ruled
Spy Museum- !!!
L-7 Weenies, yall are okay
Massive Attack- has an album titled Weather Underground that's amazing.
SNL- Best opening ever on Saturday. Love Alec Baldwin.
Colin Powell- is da man
Last week's class- ruled
Spy Museum- !!!
L-7 Weenies, yall are okay
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Marketing to the Modern Soldier
I was at the movies earlier today seeing Burn After Reading when I came upon this riveting commercial during the previews. Of course, I was pumping my fists in the air and shouting pro-America slogans by the end of it, but I still have no intention of joining the military. Maybe it’s just me.
Yet, in retrospect, the episode represented more than just the methods by which the military attempts to garner recruits. I studied the advertisement again once I returned to the Bro Palace, and concluded that it reveals certain characteristics of the American psyche. If you will remember, one of my recent posts detailed how the culture of the United States prohibits the maximization of the armed forces’ ability. This video, for all its grit and glory, personifies that notion; though Kid Rock screeches like an owl scaring away its predators, and recruits are shown driving racecars and humvees, no actual combat is depicted. I imagine that type of brutal honesty doesn’t appeal to American audiences. Compare it to this British Army advertisement. They make no apologies for what it takes to be a Redcoat, and it results in an army more in-tune with the customs of modern warfare.
These commercials also represent the capabilities of each nation, as well as cultural norms. This Russian army ad has the production quality of most American ads, yet it relies more on sex appeal and youthful fun and less on American toughness or British honor. Now, weigh that against this ridiculous commercial from the Ukraine. It plays upon the same incentive as the Russian ad, but in a significantly campier and transparent way. It certainly doesn't say much for Ukrainian PR techniques. That was just pathetic, and believe me, I’ve seen plenty of pathetic things in my time.
But then again, it’s from the same region of the world that produced Dostoevsky and Chekhov. I guess it’s good to see something lighthearted for a change.
The cultural differences shown in these ads reflect the reality that different populations are affected by different stimuli. The causes of this are numerous: differing histories, ways of life, societal aspirations, interpersonal influences, personal experiences, etc. Yet, the very fact that governments must now peddle military service to their citizens reflects an even greater generational change in society, one that steers away from nationalism and loyalty and towards individualism and personal benefit.
Yet, in retrospect, the episode represented more than just the methods by which the military attempts to garner recruits. I studied the advertisement again once I returned to the Bro Palace, and concluded that it reveals certain characteristics of the American psyche. If you will remember, one of my recent posts detailed how the culture of the United States prohibits the maximization of the armed forces’ ability. This video, for all its grit and glory, personifies that notion; though Kid Rock screeches like an owl scaring away its predators, and recruits are shown driving racecars and humvees, no actual combat is depicted. I imagine that type of brutal honesty doesn’t appeal to American audiences. Compare it to this British Army advertisement. They make no apologies for what it takes to be a Redcoat, and it results in an army more in-tune with the customs of modern warfare.
These commercials also represent the capabilities of each nation, as well as cultural norms. This Russian army ad has the production quality of most American ads, yet it relies more on sex appeal and youthful fun and less on American toughness or British honor. Now, weigh that against this ridiculous commercial from the Ukraine. It plays upon the same incentive as the Russian ad, but in a significantly campier and transparent way. It certainly doesn't say much for Ukrainian PR techniques. That was just pathetic, and believe me, I’ve seen plenty of pathetic things in my time.
But then again, it’s from the same region of the world that produced Dostoevsky and Chekhov. I guess it’s good to see something lighthearted for a change.
The cultural differences shown in these ads reflect the reality that different populations are affected by different stimuli. The causes of this are numerous: differing histories, ways of life, societal aspirations, interpersonal influences, personal experiences, etc. Yet, the very fact that governments must now peddle military service to their citizens reflects an even greater generational change in society, one that steers away from nationalism and loyalty and towards individualism and personal benefit.
Feminism Riff and Weekend Recap
Short Riff on Feminism: I agree with the principles of feminism that call for equality and breaking the glass ceiling and so on. However, feminists (and I realize there are different shades of feminism) seen to present a hypocritical view of their perfect society. In class Seamus McGregor brought up the first female president of Liberia, making the comment that she was a “tough cookie”. Rachel found this comment to be sexist, and I do agree with her. However, sexism goes both ways and a male president of Liberia would be subjected to similar remarks; Liberia is a difficult country for a man or a woman to preside over. Feminists though seem to want things both ways, in that they want women to have recognition for what they achieve, but at the same time they become angry over commentary that recognizes that the person achieving something is a female. Sex shouldn’t matter, yet as Amanda wrote in her blog, there are differences between men and women. These differences don’t mean equality isn’t possible, but rather that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses. I don’t think women are better than men or than men or better than women. Continued advocacy for equality is important, but at the same time feminists need to be sure they are addressing the women who really do need help in overthrowing repressive customs, not just those who get offended if a man opens the door for them.
Now for a quick weekend recap: Ahhhh lovely fall break…far too fleeting but much fun while it did last. On Friday I visited the Natural History Museum which was amazing, lots of great skeletons; the giant sloth was particularly impressive. For girls, even if you don’t really enjoy all the natural history stuff go for the gems and minerals section which has some of the most amazingly beautiful jewelry ever. The sculptural gardens are fun too and certainly thought provoking. How can I get paid to hand over a giant square sheet of metal and call it art? After that I went to the Sackler Gallery and saw their special exhibit entitled “Gardens and Cosmos: The Royal Paintings of Jodhpur”. I highly recommend taking the time to go see this collection, the color and miniscule detail of the paintings was astounding, they museum actually provides you with magnifying glasses to better appreciate the detail. Afterwards I got my first and certainly not last taste of Ethiopian food, nicely rounded out with some Cake Love. Saturday was sleep-in TDR brunch day and then a failed attempt to go costume shopping, followed up with some Target shopping. That night included some good bonding times with UC kids watching Get Over It, The Fifth Element, and the very odd opener for SNL. Sunday was time for church and but of course a good ol’ LOTR marathon. Sometimes you’re just jones’in for something epic.
Now for a quick weekend recap: Ahhhh lovely fall break…far too fleeting but much fun while it did last. On Friday I visited the Natural History Museum which was amazing, lots of great skeletons; the giant sloth was particularly impressive. For girls, even if you don’t really enjoy all the natural history stuff go for the gems and minerals section which has some of the most amazingly beautiful jewelry ever. The sculptural gardens are fun too and certainly thought provoking. How can I get paid to hand over a giant square sheet of metal and call it art? After that I went to the Sackler Gallery and saw their special exhibit entitled “Gardens and Cosmos: The Royal Paintings of Jodhpur”. I highly recommend taking the time to go see this collection, the color and miniscule detail of the paintings was astounding, they museum actually provides you with magnifying glasses to better appreciate the detail. Afterwards I got my first and certainly not last taste of Ethiopian food, nicely rounded out with some Cake Love. Saturday was sleep-in TDR brunch day and then a failed attempt to go costume shopping, followed up with some Target shopping. That night included some good bonding times with UC kids watching Get Over It, The Fifth Element, and the very odd opener for SNL. Sunday was time for church and but of course a good ol’ LOTR marathon. Sometimes you’re just jones’in for something epic.
Tina Fey For Vice President!
I’m still really confused about last night’s Saturday Night Live performance. All of us were in Dustin, Andrew, and Rob’s room watching my fantabulous movie, “The Fifth Element,” and we stopped the movie just to watch the skit. We switched to the channel expecting to see Tina Fey do her usual, absolutely dead ringer, impression of Sarah Palin. Well, Tina Fey impersonated superbly… but, then the camera shot to another Sarah Palin impersonator, who was also a spitting image of the potential (knock on wood) vice president! Wow. Actually, this woman was even better than Tina Fey! No way!
“Is that the REAL Sarah Palin?”
“Oh my god, it totally is.”
“Nuh uh”
“Yeah. It is.”
“NUH UH.”
Everyone watched the TV in a mixed state of horror and utter disbelief. Why is the republican vice presidential candidate on SNL? That is not supposed to happen. Sarah Palin could be accepting the position as the president’s right hand woman in the near future, and she decides to go on a show that has made her the laughing stock of the nation? Did she think it would benefit her? Maybe humanize her… you know, make her seem more like a maverick? I neither found it funny or clever. Rather, it further proved to me that she is in no way capable of helping to run our country. I deeply disliked her before, but now I just think she’s a joke. How can she expect anyone to show her any reverence whatsoever after Alec Baldwin says to her, “You look way hotter in person” and she just stands there saying nothing? It’s just way out of whack. Maybe she acknowledges that she has little hope left at winning this election and wanted to have a little fun while she still had her fifteen minutes of fame. But even if that’s the case, she didn’t even distinguish herself on SNL as anything worth watching. She just stood there and allowed Tina Fey, and everyone else, to dominate at poking fun at her weird accent and awkward winking. If a state governor and vice presidential candidate insists on going on a show such as SNL, shouldn’t they at least do so in attempt to gain support or make a point? Sarah Palin succeeding in doing neither, at least not in the room I was sitting in and not in any of the people I spoke to today. If her one goal was to surprise the American viewers, she succeeded at that. She also succeeded at showing the American public that they might as well vote Tina Fey for vice president, for she does Sarah Palin better than Sarah Palin does herself. Hey, I would vote Tina Fey for vice president, at least she’s funny!
Quick Reflection
This weekend, my twin brother came in from St. Louis to visit me on my fall break. It was a decent time: I took him to a few tourist sites and showed him a slight glimpse into my life. Overall I think he appreciated seeing what the city had to offer, and while talking about my life, he managed to interject little facts about his college expirience as well. My brother has long been a mystery to me, and I found these momentary insights enlightening.
World Politics is much like my relationship with my brother; complicated, mysterious, and you are not exactly sure what you are looking for. Well-intentioned as I (or a state metaphorically) may be; you are viewed with distrust by another state if you stray from the social norms of their mindset. Ideologies are often strikingly different between states; although they often are applied towards a set goal of a similar nature. Some states are more transparent than others, and outside states tend to judge them less harshly, but there is something to be said for cultures who are more reserved and keep their cards closer to their chest. Oftentimes it is because they possess a sense of self-determination, an independent attitude that shuts out all others not out of spite, but because of pride. I feel it wrong for western nations try to mold other cultures into something more palatable for them to handle. As a constructivist would point out, national identity is at the heart of every culture on Earth.
The same is true for a person's personality. There are a wide array of reasons people act the way they do: morals, emotions, and motivations to name a few. Everyone acts rationally through their own viewpoint, and I find my relationship with my brother similar to world politics in that sometimes I need to stop thinking the way I am accustomed to thinking, and to try to see the world through another person's eyes. It's often difficult, but I feel that mutual understanding can be rewarding in the end.
World Politics is much like my relationship with my brother; complicated, mysterious, and you are not exactly sure what you are looking for. Well-intentioned as I (or a state metaphorically) may be; you are viewed with distrust by another state if you stray from the social norms of their mindset. Ideologies are often strikingly different between states; although they often are applied towards a set goal of a similar nature. Some states are more transparent than others, and outside states tend to judge them less harshly, but there is something to be said for cultures who are more reserved and keep their cards closer to their chest. Oftentimes it is because they possess a sense of self-determination, an independent attitude that shuts out all others not out of spite, but because of pride. I feel it wrong for western nations try to mold other cultures into something more palatable for them to handle. As a constructivist would point out, national identity is at the heart of every culture on Earth.
The same is true for a person's personality. There are a wide array of reasons people act the way they do: morals, emotions, and motivations to name a few. Everyone acts rationally through their own viewpoint, and I find my relationship with my brother similar to world politics in that sometimes I need to stop thinking the way I am accustomed to thinking, and to try to see the world through another person's eyes. It's often difficult, but I feel that mutual understanding can be rewarding in the end.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
mellow
I think we all appreciated class on Friday, because most of us were sick. Or at least incubating an illness they now have. Wash your hands often! Take a vitamin! Don't stress out! Don't share cups!!
Dear World Politics,
I wish everyone the best with their coughs, ailments, and papers. As I'm writing this, we all have a little less than 15 hours to submit our final drafts. Most of yall are still awake, working on the papers I presume. I can hear you--quiet hours, hell-ohhh. Twelve hundred seems like a large number, but everything is comparative, so try to keep that in mind. St Augustine of Hippo spent 13 years writing 22 volumes for his book The City of God. Imagine trying to write 22 volumes on anything. Imagine trying to dedicate 13 years to writing 22 volumes on one singular topic. At least it's only 4ish pages, and at least it's only one quick week. It's not off hovering in the corner for more than a decade.
In conclusion, feel better and good luck.
Love,
Maggy
Dear World Politics,
I wish everyone the best with their coughs, ailments, and papers. As I'm writing this, we all have a little less than 15 hours to submit our final drafts. Most of yall are still awake, working on the papers I presume. I can hear you--quiet hours, hell-ohhh. Twelve hundred seems like a large number, but everything is comparative, so try to keep that in mind. St Augustine of Hippo spent 13 years writing 22 volumes for his book The City of God. Imagine trying to write 22 volumes on anything. Imagine trying to dedicate 13 years to writing 22 volumes on one singular topic. At least it's only 4ish pages, and at least it's only one quick week. It's not off hovering in the corner for more than a decade.
In conclusion, feel better and good luck.
Love,
Maggy
SOOOSTRESSED.
What to reflect on… we had no real discussion in class this past Friday… so, What to reflect upon? Oh, I know! How about how stressed out I am about this paper! Everyone seems to be looking at the essay prompt with a different perspective, therefore, everyone’s paper’s seem to be focusing on something different. It just makes me really confused! I get uncomfortable when I don’t have any one specific direction to follow. It provides me with too much room for my mind to wander, in which case I end up even more confused than I was before I veered off course. I may be feeling such anxiety about this paper because I have no idea what grade I have in the class as of now. I have no idea how I am doing, thus, I cannot begin to guess what grade I will receive on this paper. I wonder if anyone is feeling the same way – my guess is yes? I would hope that I am not alone in this concern. I have paper to finish writing and a midterm to study for. I have to go now!
Border Disputes Then and Now
Don’t you love it when conflicts spiral out of control?
To continue on my Horn of Africa subject from last week, I was reading recently about the late-nineties Ethiopian-Eritrean border war, and it got me thinking about the nature of modern inter-state relations. Since Eritrea formally gained independence in 1991, there had been a dispute over whether Eritrea or Ethiopia held jurisdiction over a small town near the border, called Badme. This town had a population of about 900, and the ambiguity of the existing border agreement placed its status in jeopardy. So, what did our two “responsible” state actors do? They rassled it out, of course! The ensuing two-year war left around 70,000 dead on both sides. Let me repeat: a dispute over a town of 900 people killed 140,000 troops. You don’t see this kind of thing in the first world anymore…at least, I don’t think you do.
However, in less-enlightened times, Europeans were capable of this kind of brutally efficient warfare. Minor border disputes sometimes provoked massive wars, especially when the reputation of the royalty was involved. This was the most likely occurrence when region’s status was left ambiguous; otherwise, the region was left in political limbo. Sometimes these forgotten regions even took the opportunity to declare independence. Sadly, we don’t see this kind of excitement anymore. Border disputes are left up to the International Court of Justice to decide, which automatically tells most states which side of the conflict to take. The intense political maneuvering and tangled web of alliances formerly behind international relations is moving slowly towards obsolescence.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I know that this new system saves more lives and permits less suffering than the previous methods. Yet, these new postmodern practices of legal arbitration of matters that would have once brought war is so mundane, so devoid of taste and character, it makes our field much less interesting. I realize I probably sound like an overly-nostalgic lunatic when I say this, but I miss the days when people battled all the time without thinking it through.
I also miss the Dow Jones Industrial Average. If found, please return to 18 Broad Street, New York, NY 10005.
To continue on my Horn of Africa subject from last week, I was reading recently about the late-nineties Ethiopian-Eritrean border war, and it got me thinking about the nature of modern inter-state relations. Since Eritrea formally gained independence in 1991, there had been a dispute over whether Eritrea or Ethiopia held jurisdiction over a small town near the border, called Badme. This town had a population of about 900, and the ambiguity of the existing border agreement placed its status in jeopardy. So, what did our two “responsible” state actors do? They rassled it out, of course! The ensuing two-year war left around 70,000 dead on both sides. Let me repeat: a dispute over a town of 900 people killed 140,000 troops. You don’t see this kind of thing in the first world anymore…at least, I don’t think you do.
However, in less-enlightened times, Europeans were capable of this kind of brutally efficient warfare. Minor border disputes sometimes provoked massive wars, especially when the reputation of the royalty was involved. This was the most likely occurrence when region’s status was left ambiguous; otherwise, the region was left in political limbo. Sometimes these forgotten regions even took the opportunity to declare independence. Sadly, we don’t see this kind of excitement anymore. Border disputes are left up to the International Court of Justice to decide, which automatically tells most states which side of the conflict to take. The intense political maneuvering and tangled web of alliances formerly behind international relations is moving slowly towards obsolescence.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I know that this new system saves more lives and permits less suffering than the previous methods. Yet, these new postmodern practices of legal arbitration of matters that would have once brought war is so mundane, so devoid of taste and character, it makes our field much less interesting. I realize I probably sound like an overly-nostalgic lunatic when I say this, but I miss the days when people battled all the time without thinking it through.
I also miss the Dow Jones Industrial Average. If found, please return to 18 Broad Street, New York, NY 10005.
Space Ruminations
I don’t know about the rest of the class, but at least for me our essay topic really got me thinking about our future in space. Staring off into space (no pun intended) pondering the International Relations theoretical implications of a space program, mind slid off tangentially into considering whether we would discover other inhabitable planets, what would space colonization look like, and how might the whole alien confrontation go? Hmmm…wonderful questions to move the imagination, but not so great for writing an essay. From the science fiction I’ve read, which is not extensive, I have come to believe that to make space exploration really viable, i.e. being able to send missions that don’t take years to reach the destination, requires a major technological breakthrough. At the very least we need to be able to travel faster than the speed of light. If we could manage that, then humanity is in for a new era like never before. An era I try to picture and reason out, but of course have no way of ascertaining. In my paper I argued that the United States should support the space program. I think that the initial space research and technological breakthrough will come from whatever hegemonic power is in the world, however, I think that eventually the cost of space missions and exploration will mean the reins get handed over to an international organization. Would a global space program lead to a single world government? Will space colonization be done by independent nations? Will colonized planets ever gain independence as planets or will Earth form an intergalactic empire? What new intergalactic theories will arise to challenge college students?
Why apologize Representative Lewis?
Friday's class did not involve much discussion, so I am taking the liberty of writing about a current event that struck me as interesting.
Representative John Lewis (D-Georgia) has recently apologized for his observation that McCain rallies are increasingly reminding him of rallies held by George Wallace. Lewis said he was, "deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign" and that the Republican running mates are "playing with fire" by not discouraging derogatory comments at their rallies. Lewis was a civil rights leader in Selma, Alabama during the 1960's, so I personally feel his words are credible when he witnessed the terror of segregation and Jim Crow laws in the American south.
That said, I do not believe John McCain is responsible for the crowd's reactions at his rallies. He has endured boo's when he said that Barack Obama was, "a man that should be respected" and "would make a good president". The audience at recent rallies have responded best when Republican speakers refer to Obama as a traitor and a terrorist. Sarah Palin certainly has fanned the flames of hatred, citing Obama's friendship to former radical William Ayers as evidence that Obama is unfit to be president. Some Republicans continue to spread the rumor that Barack Obama is a Muslim, which is not only untrue, but it spreads distrust and hatred. There are enough close-minded people who will vote based what religion a candidate practices, and I find it absurd that so many people are willing to believe what they hear from a bunch of people working in politics. Emily addressed in her blog that it should not matter who a candidate is friends with; but besides that, it should not matter what race they are, what religion (if any) they practice, their gender, their sexual orientation, their children's lives (yes, I'm sparing Sarah Palin), nor their socio-economic status. Americans too often consider these "image issues" rather that the policy decisions that the candidates plan to impliment. If this sort of thing continues, America will continue to decline, as I feel it has done for several years at this point.
So why apologize John Lewis? You're right, McCain's rallies have a hostile environment that breeds contempt between Americans. How are we supposed to overcome the partisan politics of our time when the politicians are continuously driving a division between Americans? To me it seems America is a very factious society; is there a hispanic America? Is there a gay America? Is there a wealthy America? Not that these are independent, sovereign establishments, but I often see divisions between groups of people over a wide array of issues. I may be overly idealistic, but I honestly can't see why we have so much trouble finding common ground and relating to each other (there are a few exeptions, read my post on sports), but for the most part, it seems as if various groups of society will never interact. There will always be the haves and the have-nots, but it is beyond my comprehension why people are so often spiteful towards other groups.
I call on the two leading political parties in this nation to contain their fervor a little. There is nothing wrong with a little mudslinging here and there (this is politics after all), but do not cross into questioning an individual's patriotism or morality. Barack Obama and John McCain I feel are both distinguished individuals, but their parties need to stop driving a division of bitterness and hatred between supporters of the two parties. I realize that it is important to state your case to the American public regarding how one candidate compares to the other, but some things are best untouched by politics.
Representative John Lewis (D-Georgia) has recently apologized for his observation that McCain rallies are increasingly reminding him of rallies held by George Wallace. Lewis said he was, "deeply disturbed by the negative tone of the McCain-Palin campaign" and that the Republican running mates are "playing with fire" by not discouraging derogatory comments at their rallies. Lewis was a civil rights leader in Selma, Alabama during the 1960's, so I personally feel his words are credible when he witnessed the terror of segregation and Jim Crow laws in the American south.
That said, I do not believe John McCain is responsible for the crowd's reactions at his rallies. He has endured boo's when he said that Barack Obama was, "a man that should be respected" and "would make a good president". The audience at recent rallies have responded best when Republican speakers refer to Obama as a traitor and a terrorist. Sarah Palin certainly has fanned the flames of hatred, citing Obama's friendship to former radical William Ayers as evidence that Obama is unfit to be president. Some Republicans continue to spread the rumor that Barack Obama is a Muslim, which is not only untrue, but it spreads distrust and hatred. There are enough close-minded people who will vote based what religion a candidate practices, and I find it absurd that so many people are willing to believe what they hear from a bunch of people working in politics. Emily addressed in her blog that it should not matter who a candidate is friends with; but besides that, it should not matter what race they are, what religion (if any) they practice, their gender, their sexual orientation, their children's lives (yes, I'm sparing Sarah Palin), nor their socio-economic status. Americans too often consider these "image issues" rather that the policy decisions that the candidates plan to impliment. If this sort of thing continues, America will continue to decline, as I feel it has done for several years at this point.
So why apologize John Lewis? You're right, McCain's rallies have a hostile environment that breeds contempt between Americans. How are we supposed to overcome the partisan politics of our time when the politicians are continuously driving a division between Americans? To me it seems America is a very factious society; is there a hispanic America? Is there a gay America? Is there a wealthy America? Not that these are independent, sovereign establishments, but I often see divisions between groups of people over a wide array of issues. I may be overly idealistic, but I honestly can't see why we have so much trouble finding common ground and relating to each other (there are a few exeptions, read my post on sports), but for the most part, it seems as if various groups of society will never interact. There will always be the haves and the have-nots, but it is beyond my comprehension why people are so often spiteful towards other groups.
I call on the two leading political parties in this nation to contain their fervor a little. There is nothing wrong with a little mudslinging here and there (this is politics after all), but do not cross into questioning an individual's patriotism or morality. Barack Obama and John McCain I feel are both distinguished individuals, but their parties need to stop driving a division of bitterness and hatred between supporters of the two parties. I realize that it is important to state your case to the American public regarding how one candidate compares to the other, but some things are best untouched by politics.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Class Debate: Postgame Show
I was quite content with President Jackson’s decision to remove domestic content restrictions on automobiles. Furthermore, I would like to inform his re-election campaign that a bag containing $35 million dollars is buried in Santa Rosita, California. Under a big W.
As for our rivals, I would like to particularly commend the UAW for their reliance on exact factual data. Their research was sound and their video presentation was enjoyable and persuasive. The one thing I would have liked to have asked them about, though, is the ratio of mechanized labor to human labor among American-made products. I think Rachel touched upon it during the question-and-answer period, and it seems to be the only piece of evidence left out of their case. Otherwise, good job, guys.
Next, the Consumers. They presented their arguments well, and supported the case against domestic content laws with the undeniable appeal of consumer taste. They were, however, a tad critical of our cars, which didn’t rub me the right way. Then again, I suppose they have the right to criticize, since after the president, they are the ones we need to ultimately appeal to.
The Sierra Club did well with what was dealt to them. Being given such a ideological position in the face of real interest groups is not a position any of us would want to be in, but they did a good job with their presentation, and gave their arguments in an orderly and thorough manner. If I could give them some advice, I would have looked at environmental standards around the world a bit more, especially with regard to the Kyoto Treaty.
The Foreign Auto Manufacturers also did a swell job articulating their positions, especially that creepball Lucas with his considerable on-screen persuasive prowess. Their positions were much in line with ours, and the only thing I would criticize them for is being thoroughly un-American.
I won’t award this match to any particular group. We all performed well with the materials we were given, and we all deserve a pat on the back, or, at the very least, a dinner at Z-Burger.
As for our rivals, I would like to particularly commend the UAW for their reliance on exact factual data. Their research was sound and their video presentation was enjoyable and persuasive. The one thing I would have liked to have asked them about, though, is the ratio of mechanized labor to human labor among American-made products. I think Rachel touched upon it during the question-and-answer period, and it seems to be the only piece of evidence left out of their case. Otherwise, good job, guys.
Next, the Consumers. They presented their arguments well, and supported the case against domestic content laws with the undeniable appeal of consumer taste. They were, however, a tad critical of our cars, which didn’t rub me the right way. Then again, I suppose they have the right to criticize, since after the president, they are the ones we need to ultimately appeal to.
The Sierra Club did well with what was dealt to them. Being given such a ideological position in the face of real interest groups is not a position any of us would want to be in, but they did a good job with their presentation, and gave their arguments in an orderly and thorough manner. If I could give them some advice, I would have looked at environmental standards around the world a bit more, especially with regard to the Kyoto Treaty.
The Foreign Auto Manufacturers also did a swell job articulating their positions, especially that creepball Lucas with his considerable on-screen persuasive prowess. Their positions were much in line with ours, and the only thing I would criticize them for is being thoroughly un-American.
I won’t award this match to any particular group. We all performed well with the materials we were given, and we all deserve a pat on the back, or, at the very least, a dinner at Z-Burger.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Class Debate: Extra Innings
Unfortunately, we ran out of time just before I was able to make my last point. Here's what I would have said had there been five more minutes to the class:
We at the American Automobile Manufacturers Association of America would like to take this opportunity to address the issue of sweatshops. Many have derided auto manufacturers who operate overseas for their treatment of foreign laborers, especially those working in large factories with unfavorable working conditions for long periods of time. We, the heads of industry, state that we too are opposed to such conditions, and will work over time to improve their working environment. However, let us point out this: these “sweatshops” never run out of workers, do they? Working there is entirely voluntary, yet despite the outcry over the terrible conditions there, there are lines outside the factories every day filled with people who would gladly take these jobs. What we know in America to be an acceptable working standard, they are not aware of. As they see it, they have a better-paying job than almost any other one they could get. Now, of course we stand in favor of improved working conditions, but we alone cannot unilaterally mandate them. It would raise production costs on our own business and surpass those of rival firms, putting our company at risk and passing along the costs to the consumer. Simply put, until a bill is passed that mandates all companies to implement working environment standards, it would be too great a financial risk to bear on our own.
We at the American Automobile Manufacturers Association of America would like to take this opportunity to address the issue of sweatshops. Many have derided auto manufacturers who operate overseas for their treatment of foreign laborers, especially those working in large factories with unfavorable working conditions for long periods of time. We, the heads of industry, state that we too are opposed to such conditions, and will work over time to improve their working environment. However, let us point out this: these “sweatshops” never run out of workers, do they? Working there is entirely voluntary, yet despite the outcry over the terrible conditions there, there are lines outside the factories every day filled with people who would gladly take these jobs. What we know in America to be an acceptable working standard, they are not aware of. As they see it, they have a better-paying job than almost any other one they could get. Now, of course we stand in favor of improved working conditions, but we alone cannot unilaterally mandate them. It would raise production costs on our own business and surpass those of rival firms, putting our company at risk and passing along the costs to the consumer. Simply put, until a bill is passed that mandates all companies to implement working environment standards, it would be too great a financial risk to bear on our own.
Looking at the Bottom Line
After considering each of the arguments made in our minor simulation I believe that most compelling argument came from the American and Foreign Auto Manufacturers in combination. As the president pointed out, the AAM hold quite a bit of political sway. The arguments of the Foreign Auto Manufacturers furthered the points made by the AAM, particularly the reasoning of meeting consumer needs and allowing for better business practices, especially as outlined by free market economics, which the domestic content rules infringe upon. For the president, siding with the AAM will also mean gaining the goodwill of consumers and reaping the benefits of improving relations with foreign companies, by removing tariffs.
In light of the current economic crisis, I thought that the economic contentions brought up by the AAM and the FAM were the strongest and best made arguments. The number one voting issue for this upcoming election will be based in economics, and until Americans can again feel financially stable, this will continue to be their main concern. What any president wants to do is to address the main concerns of his people, while also promoting the health and security of his nation. AAM and FAM, while perhaps not clearly outlining this thought, certainly implied it with their claims that there are actually better environmental regulations outside of the US, and with the AAM stating that with greater production and better business practices on their end, US jobs would not be lost, and America would benefit.
My problem I guess with the Sierra Club and UAW arguments is that they contradict what is currently economic common sense. Their protectionist arguments are very heavily criticized by most economists; most of their supporters are taken in by the emotional appeal and false logic that outsourcing means overall loss of jobs in America. Domestic content rules equal tariffs and trade barriers. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and other similar legislation is considered to be major causes of the Great Depression, of which we are presently trying to not repeat. The removal of tariffs and trade barriers has generally been accompanied by a large upswing in trade, causing growth in the economy. Economic logic supports the business sense of the AAM and the FAM. Practicality is what America needs to reign right now, which is why the ruthless pragmatism of the AAM and the FAM (both of whom amusingly put up the front of only being concerned with the customer) is necessary as we all start looking at the bottom line.
In light of the current economic crisis, I thought that the economic contentions brought up by the AAM and the FAM were the strongest and best made arguments. The number one voting issue for this upcoming election will be based in economics, and until Americans can again feel financially stable, this will continue to be their main concern. What any president wants to do is to address the main concerns of his people, while also promoting the health and security of his nation. AAM and FAM, while perhaps not clearly outlining this thought, certainly implied it with their claims that there are actually better environmental regulations outside of the US, and with the AAM stating that with greater production and better business practices on their end, US jobs would not be lost, and America would benefit.
My problem I guess with the Sierra Club and UAW arguments is that they contradict what is currently economic common sense. Their protectionist arguments are very heavily criticized by most economists; most of their supporters are taken in by the emotional appeal and false logic that outsourcing means overall loss of jobs in America. Domestic content rules equal tariffs and trade barriers. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and other similar legislation is considered to be major causes of the Great Depression, of which we are presently trying to not repeat. The removal of tariffs and trade barriers has generally been accompanied by a large upswing in trade, causing growth in the economy. Economic logic supports the business sense of the AAM and the FAM. Practicality is what America needs to reign right now, which is why the ruthless pragmatism of the AAM and the FAM (both of whom amusingly put up the front of only being concerned with the customer) is necessary as we all start looking at the bottom line.
I love the USA
So I am a realist tonight. And by being a realist, I must say, that the American Auto Manufacturer Association made the best case. Ahem, if you didn’t already know – I was a part of this group. Not only was our promotional video spectacularly well thought out and clear, but our viewpoint on the question also made the most sense. By eliminating the domestic content rule, we will be able to produce the auto parts at a cheaper price abroad and then ship them back here, to the US, where we will inexpensively assemble the materials. By doing this, we will be able to provide jobs for the UAW while also catering to the American citizens who, in lieu of the current economic crisis, can only afford the less expensive automobiles. In such times of economic hardship, we can not place any more financial stress on our buyers. Furthermore, and to prove the Sierra Club’s case as downright wrong, it will be better for the environment to produce the parts across our nation’s borders. Seeing as how The United States did not sign the Kyoto Protocol, we have no way of regulating how environmentally friendly we are in producing auto parts, thus, it would benefit mother nature if we manufactured the materials in those nations that did sign the agreement. I also feel that we remained consistent in our facts and arguments throughout the duration of the debate, never wavering under pressure and very rarely feeling hindered by an opposing groups comments. Our video was impressive in it’s quality and clarity. Did I mention that the American Auto Manufacturers are substantially wealthy and will be able to endorse those who support our side? Calling all politicians…
I am looking out for America’s own personal interest here. Our way is the best way and the only way to propel The United States towards a successful future.
(But props to the UAW group, too – you guys did really well!)
Foreign Auto Makers = Strongest Arguments
I personally feel that the foreign auto makers made the strongest case in that they appealed to both the domestic manufacturers and consumers. I would personally consider the points/arguments made by Ben to be the best of the debate. By simultaneously arguing points favorable to consumers and domestic producers alike, the foreign auto makers received the support of two of the largest blocs at the table, presenting a strong case to President Jackson which I believe enabled them to advance their agenda.
The foreign auto manufacturers managed to appeal to the domestic producers by stating the benefits of cheap overseas labor to make domestic auto makers more competitive in the market without domestic content laws. By outsourcing unskilled labor, domestic auto manufacturers could lower prices and remain affordable to Americans, while foreign auto makers would no longer have to absorb the massive costs from tariffs. This appeal of “competitive fairness” was a clever move by the foreign producers, who contended that this would be mutually beneficial by opening markets to American suppliers as well.
The foreign manufacturers also appealed to consumers by stating that the elimination of domestic import laws would make their cars more affordable to the American public. Out of the many interviews we conducted around the Smithsonian, it was apparent that a vast majority of Americans believe that foreign models have superior gas mileage and safety features. The elimination of domestic content laws will enable more Americans to purchase these foreign cars, which are considered superior goods to American models. The foreign auto manufacturers appealed to the consumer’s pocketbook extremely well, making their case very strong and ensuring that the consumers of the United States took their side.
The foreign auto makers, one of the groups with the least sway politically, presented arguments to gain the support of two of the largest groups. By focusing in on specific groups and on their particular interests, the foreign producers were able to advance their goals and present a strong case to President Jackson.
The foreign auto manufacturers managed to appeal to the domestic producers by stating the benefits of cheap overseas labor to make domestic auto makers more competitive in the market without domestic content laws. By outsourcing unskilled labor, domestic auto manufacturers could lower prices and remain affordable to Americans, while foreign auto makers would no longer have to absorb the massive costs from tariffs. This appeal of “competitive fairness” was a clever move by the foreign producers, who contended that this would be mutually beneficial by opening markets to American suppliers as well.
The foreign manufacturers also appealed to consumers by stating that the elimination of domestic import laws would make their cars more affordable to the American public. Out of the many interviews we conducted around the Smithsonian, it was apparent that a vast majority of Americans believe that foreign models have superior gas mileage and safety features. The elimination of domestic content laws will enable more Americans to purchase these foreign cars, which are considered superior goods to American models. The foreign auto manufacturers appealed to the consumer’s pocketbook extremely well, making their case very strong and ensuring that the consumers of the United States took their side.
The foreign auto makers, one of the groups with the least sway politically, presented arguments to gain the support of two of the largest groups. By focusing in on specific groups and on their particular interests, the foreign producers were able to advance their goals and present a strong case to President Jackson.
And the winner is.....
The real simulation:
No one.
We all argued our positions to the bitter death. We were biased and unwilling to change our view point.
The argument:
I guess one might say that the UAW won, because of their (Andrew's) breadth of knowledge on the subject. Or that the foreign auto manufacturers won, because they agreed with the consumers. But, its inherent that the consumers won, because we represent the largest constituency. If marketed correctly, the President could easily make the majority of the population the most happy. It's very Jeremy Bentham of me, but doesn't everyone kind of want to live in a unitarian state
No one.
We all argued our positions to the bitter death. We were biased and unwilling to change our view point.
The argument:
I guess one might say that the UAW won, because of their (Andrew's) breadth of knowledge on the subject. Or that the foreign auto manufacturers won, because they agreed with the consumers. But, its inherent that the consumers won, because we represent the largest constituency. If marketed correctly, the President could easily make the majority of the population the most happy. It's very Jeremy Bentham of me, but doesn't everyone kind of want to live in a unitarian state
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Somalia: An Epic Fail Visible From Space
While doing my daily Google Earth-Wikipedia procrastination session the other day, I happened upon a region of the world I had not kept watch on for a few weeks: the Horn of Africa. According to reports from the region, Islamist militant groups have re-taken nearly all of southern Somalia, an area that had recently been put under centralized government control for the first time since 1991. Here’s a little history lesson: in 1991, an alliance of Somali warlords combined their forces and overthrew the country’s longtime dictator, Mohamed Siad Barre. However, once they had ousted the existing government, a feud erupted over who would take leadership over the country. This quickly devolved into an intense civil war, with multiple factions gunning for the capital, Mogadishu. It quickly became the most violent and unstable country in the world, and remained in a constant state of warfare for fifteen years. At one point, the United States tried to send a strike force into Mogadishu to arrest one prominent warlord, Mohamed Farrah Aidid. The mission went horribly wrong, and several U.S. troops were killed and a Black Hawk helicopter was downed in the center of Mogadishu; this infamous incident became known as the Black Hawk Down mission.
Until 2006, Somalia was officially without a government. It had become a poster child for failed states, rife with violence, panicked emigration, and famine. An “official” Somali government was set up, with some international backing, but they could only hold on to the town of Baidoa, over two hundred kilometers northwest of the capital. Then, in June of 2006, a group called the Islamic Courts Union won a series of victories in the countryside and mounted a major assault on Mogadishu, taking it in its entirety. The Islamic Courts Union was not like other armed groups: they followed fundamentalist Sunni Islam, imposed Shariah Law on the populace of their territories, and maintained connections with al-Qaeda. For a time, they posed a major threat to the interests of all nations operating in the region, as Somalia threatened to become another Afghanistan. However, in late December of that same year, neighboring Ethiopia poured tons of military personnel and hardware into the Somali Transitional Federal Government, allowing them to fight the ICU on multiple fronts. They advanced toward Mogadishu, winning it back from the Islamists, before turning south towards Kismayo and routing them out of the country.
I remember that war so very fondly. School was out for Christmas break, and I would wake up every morning and check for the latest troop movements, territorial changes, and casualty estimates. Ah, those were the days, my friend. What a deliciously twisted childhood I had...
Now, however, I read that the Islamists have regrouped under another name: al-Shabaab, which is Arabic for “The Youth”. They have effectively re-taken about 99% of the land under TFG control, leaving them only with Mogadishu, Baidoa, and a small border crossing into Ethiopia. Much of the Islamists’ funding has secretly come from Eritrea, Ethiopia’s sworn enemy, simply to carry the fight between those two countries to a new front.
Also, beginning with the loss of government in 1991, separatist and autonomist movements have formed in several regions to ensure their own security. The first to do so, and undoubtedly the most successful to date, was Somaliland. An alliance of government and military leaders moved early in the conflict to detach this reason from the rest of Somalia and declare their own state. They, unlike the others, have historical precedent for this: while the rest of Somalia used to be an Italian colony, Somaliland was a British colony. The leaders of the Somaliland movement have, by and large, kept the violence out of their territory, and their citizens have grown quite attached to them. The only problem is, Somalia and the international community still recognize Somaliland as part of Somalia. If Somalia were ever to calm down, a re-integration would be attempted, which carries with it the possibility of throwing Somalia back into chaos.
Somaliland is not alone in this respect. Another region, Puntland, has mounted an autonomist movement, which stops short of declaring outright independence. While they do declare their allegiance to the TFG, they have their own government, civil institutions, and standing army. However, the TFG does not recognize this group either, despite their allied status. Another region broke off in the midst of the conflict in 2006, declaring autonomy under the name Galmudug. Yet another autonomous region was formed last year, as a result of both a border dispute between Somaliland and Puntland as well as clan rivalries. This new entity is called Maakhir. And finally, earlier this year, the Dulbahante clan, noted for its fierce independence and anti-colonial attitude, declared its own autonomous region in the south of Maakhir, called Northland.
All of these separatist regions and Islamist influences pose great dangers to the TFG. In its current fragile state, it is a miracle that it has survived this long. The president and prime minister of the TFG have both been targeted in multiple assassination attempts, often occurring right outside their homes. The government has also come under fire internationally for not effectively combating piracy, which has increased exponentially in the waters near Somalia. All predictions look dire for the world’s most unstable state, just as they have for the last seventeen years.
Until 2006, Somalia was officially without a government. It had become a poster child for failed states, rife with violence, panicked emigration, and famine. An “official” Somali government was set up, with some international backing, but they could only hold on to the town of Baidoa, over two hundred kilometers northwest of the capital. Then, in June of 2006, a group called the Islamic Courts Union won a series of victories in the countryside and mounted a major assault on Mogadishu, taking it in its entirety. The Islamic Courts Union was not like other armed groups: they followed fundamentalist Sunni Islam, imposed Shariah Law on the populace of their territories, and maintained connections with al-Qaeda. For a time, they posed a major threat to the interests of all nations operating in the region, as Somalia threatened to become another Afghanistan. However, in late December of that same year, neighboring Ethiopia poured tons of military personnel and hardware into the Somali Transitional Federal Government, allowing them to fight the ICU on multiple fronts. They advanced toward Mogadishu, winning it back from the Islamists, before turning south towards Kismayo and routing them out of the country.
I remember that war so very fondly. School was out for Christmas break, and I would wake up every morning and check for the latest troop movements, territorial changes, and casualty estimates. Ah, those were the days, my friend. What a deliciously twisted childhood I had...
Now, however, I read that the Islamists have regrouped under another name: al-Shabaab, which is Arabic for “The Youth”. They have effectively re-taken about 99% of the land under TFG control, leaving them only with Mogadishu, Baidoa, and a small border crossing into Ethiopia. Much of the Islamists’ funding has secretly come from Eritrea, Ethiopia’s sworn enemy, simply to carry the fight between those two countries to a new front.
Also, beginning with the loss of government in 1991, separatist and autonomist movements have formed in several regions to ensure their own security. The first to do so, and undoubtedly the most successful to date, was Somaliland. An alliance of government and military leaders moved early in the conflict to detach this reason from the rest of Somalia and declare their own state. They, unlike the others, have historical precedent for this: while the rest of Somalia used to be an Italian colony, Somaliland was a British colony. The leaders of the Somaliland movement have, by and large, kept the violence out of their territory, and their citizens have grown quite attached to them. The only problem is, Somalia and the international community still recognize Somaliland as part of Somalia. If Somalia were ever to calm down, a re-integration would be attempted, which carries with it the possibility of throwing Somalia back into chaos.
Somaliland is not alone in this respect. Another region, Puntland, has mounted an autonomist movement, which stops short of declaring outright independence. While they do declare their allegiance to the TFG, they have their own government, civil institutions, and standing army. However, the TFG does not recognize this group either, despite their allied status. Another region broke off in the midst of the conflict in 2006, declaring autonomy under the name Galmudug. Yet another autonomous region was formed last year, as a result of both a border dispute between Somaliland and Puntland as well as clan rivalries. This new entity is called Maakhir. And finally, earlier this year, the Dulbahante clan, noted for its fierce independence and anti-colonial attitude, declared its own autonomous region in the south of Maakhir, called Northland.
All of these separatist regions and Islamist influences pose great dangers to the TFG. In its current fragile state, it is a miracle that it has survived this long. The president and prime minister of the TFG have both been targeted in multiple assassination attempts, often occurring right outside their homes. The government has also come under fire internationally for not effectively combating piracy, which has increased exponentially in the waters near Somalia. All predictions look dire for the world’s most unstable state, just as they have for the last seventeen years.
Turkish Festival and Other Musings
Another Sunday night, another reflection and so, though I realize this is the World Politics UC group, for a change of pace or rather focus, I would like to reflect upon cultural experiences instead of political observations. Today I went to the Turkish festival downtown in Freedom Plaza. It was beautifully warm and sunny; perhaps by consequence then, the plaza, which is definitely not particularly large, was packed with people. All the necessary and traditional elements of a festival were evident: the wall-like line of food stalls, “handmade/exotic” handicraft corner, kid’s craft booth and performance stage. On the stage I saw traditional Turkish dances and music played. The dancers were decked out in full regalia, covered with heavy looking embroidery and intricate hats. Their dances were beautiful and interesting because the dances visually represent Turkey’s cross of European and Asian cultures. Saxophones were included in the musical performances, of whose origin I question the authenticity; however the music was lively and had people up on their feet dancing, which is the most any band can hope for. One of my main ambitions for attending the festival was to taste Turkish coffee. My friend and I, after paying for the coffee waited and watched our coffee being made. Turkish coffee is prepared with very finely ground coffee beans and sugar, both of which are boiled together in, for lack of knowledge I will call, a Turkish coffeepot. The coffee was delicious, hot and thick with the powder of the coffee beans. I didn’t spend much time at the historical booths on Turkey, I can read up on Turkey any day, but I don’t get to see much of anything resembling Turkish culture in action on any given day. Words and pictures cannot replace three-dimensional experience, as cliché as that is to say.
Now, for a return to the UC, I think some of the frustration in our class( or is it only my frustration?) about the intangible grayness of discussing IR theories and their applications stems from the limitations of our classroom setting, of which we only reach beyond in our lab trips. Lacking any definite conclusions or hard evidence and with the end of each discussion still left “up in the air”, it can be difficult to grasp what we have gained, or if anything/ semblance of clarity was gained at all. Instead of spending the majority of our time on the intangible, I think it might help, at least me, to spend time with the tangible and finding that connection between the two. Realism, liberalism and constructivism are such broad concepts whose actions we describe as warfare, trading, and identification. Do these concepts translate to a smaller more individual scale? I believe so; so why can’t we explore these concepts through (it hate to use it, but) a more hands-on approach. Hearing ya’ll discuss what these theories are and how they apply is great, but were all rookies in the IR field. I feel that it would be beneficial to continue our current method of discussion but with the addition of hearing and seeing more outside experienced sources. Articles and readings provide good basis knowledge but I don’t they are always sufficiently engaging considering the importance and relevancy of their topics. My mind is giving out on me now, so I will have to conclude and hope my thoughts are adequately clear.
Now, for a return to the UC, I think some of the frustration in our class( or is it only my frustration?) about the intangible grayness of discussing IR theories and their applications stems from the limitations of our classroom setting, of which we only reach beyond in our lab trips. Lacking any definite conclusions or hard evidence and with the end of each discussion still left “up in the air”, it can be difficult to grasp what we have gained, or if anything/ semblance of clarity was gained at all. Instead of spending the majority of our time on the intangible, I think it might help, at least me, to spend time with the tangible and finding that connection between the two. Realism, liberalism and constructivism are such broad concepts whose actions we describe as warfare, trading, and identification. Do these concepts translate to a smaller more individual scale? I believe so; so why can’t we explore these concepts through (it hate to use it, but) a more hands-on approach. Hearing ya’ll discuss what these theories are and how they apply is great, but were all rookies in the IR field. I feel that it would be beneficial to continue our current method of discussion but with the addition of hearing and seeing more outside experienced sources. Articles and readings provide good basis knowledge but I don’t they are always sufficiently engaging considering the importance and relevancy of their topics. My mind is giving out on me now, so I will have to conclude and hope my thoughts are adequately clear.
Keeping things interesting
I searched “fair use” and “copyrights violations” on youtube. What I found in my search results varied from old men carefully laying out the laws of fair use while dressed in a super villain costume (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8haQWuenxhY) to a video of an angry teenage boy ranting about how youtube deleted his video of him dancing to “candy shop” by Fifty Cent (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtmUiCgGO7I ). I then just browsed around youtube and marveled at how many videos are clearly infringing on copyright laws. Most of the people who put videos up on youtube probably don’t even know what a copyright law is and most of the video’s uploaded by such people, and which do violate various copyright laws, will most likely never be taken down. I get the point of fair use, and think it’s legitimate and important – but there is no way that it will ever be strictly enforced on such websites as youtube – youtube wouldn’t be as popular and fun to waste time watching if all the video’s obliged by the pamphlet of the “code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video” that was handed out to our class on Friday. Isn’t that just how our world works, too? If everyone obliged by the rules, life just would not be as interesting, nor would politics. For example, while I had an absolute adverse reaction to Sarah Palin’s vice presidential speech, the debate would not have been as hilarious or interesting if she had been a true politician and had not given shout outs to the third graders or winked cleverly at the camera. I honestly did not have any real urge to reflect upon anything tonight, so if this reflection seems incredibly scattered and confusing, that’s because I am incredibly scattered and confused. I wonder if anyone from our class will end up infringing upon copyright laws in the process of filming their videos. I wonder if anyone will even notice. If they do notice, at least it will make things more interesting!
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Sorry Michelle, but Sarah Palin just got served!
The lack of a class discussion Friday leaves me with the luxury of talking about any recent event I choose, so I will give you a short rant on something that has bothered me ever since the vice-presidential debate ended.
How could anyone say that Sarah Palin held her own? Yes, she did not die on-stage nor did she display her deer-in-the-headlights look like she did talking to Katie Couric, but I believe the criteria a candidate is held to should be much higher. Given McCain’s age and poor health, I was terrified by the prospect of having a president who would wink at the camera during her State of the Union address.
America, I am not happy with this turn to “folksy” politics. I recall many people liked George W. Bush because they said he was a man who you could have a beer with. That’s all fine and good if you plan on being drinking buddies, but the voters must think a little more for criteria to be leader of the free world. Slips of the tongue and oratory gaffes might make him seem relatable to some, but these actions duplicated on the world stage is embarrassing and reflects poorly on our state. Sarah Palin’s folksy appeal I found revolting, and I cringed with every utterance of “y’know” and “darn right”. I almost died when I heard her “shout out” to a group of third graders in Alaska. She needs to realize that she needs to act like a professional, not like some uneducated backwoods bumpkin.
I also took issue with how Sarah Palin responded to the moderator as well. She openly stated she wasn’t going to answer questions the way the moderator wanted her to. Way to be a maverick Sarah, and simultaneously dodge any question you feel uncomfortable handling. I can’t tell you how many questions turned into energy questions, which is a very real concern to many Americans, but a little out of place in some contexts.
Last of all, the top commander in Afghanistan is General David McKiernan, not General (George) McClellan, who fought at the battle of Antietam and was the 24th governor of New Jersey. Regrettably, I find this shows Palin’s ineptitude when it comes to foreign policy. I would be a little perturbed if it turned out our top commander in Afghanistan died in 1881. I give Joe Biden a lot of credit for just smiling and not going for the jugular after this mistake, it shows a lot of self-restraint on his part.
Try as I might, I can still not wrap my mind around how people can say Sarah Palin managed to mount a respectable defense against Joe Biden in the vice presidential debate. Folksy mannerisms and an interesting accent alone do not qualify an individual to hold public office, especially one of such importance. I’m not saying that Sarah Palin is a bad person or a total cretin, but she clearly was well out of her league in nearly every field of political expertise. I believe this Washington outsider would be best outside of Washington.
How could anyone say that Sarah Palin held her own? Yes, she did not die on-stage nor did she display her deer-in-the-headlights look like she did talking to Katie Couric, but I believe the criteria a candidate is held to should be much higher. Given McCain’s age and poor health, I was terrified by the prospect of having a president who would wink at the camera during her State of the Union address.
America, I am not happy with this turn to “folksy” politics. I recall many people liked George W. Bush because they said he was a man who you could have a beer with. That’s all fine and good if you plan on being drinking buddies, but the voters must think a little more for criteria to be leader of the free world. Slips of the tongue and oratory gaffes might make him seem relatable to some, but these actions duplicated on the world stage is embarrassing and reflects poorly on our state. Sarah Palin’s folksy appeal I found revolting, and I cringed with every utterance of “y’know” and “darn right”. I almost died when I heard her “shout out” to a group of third graders in Alaska. She needs to realize that she needs to act like a professional, not like some uneducated backwoods bumpkin.
I also took issue with how Sarah Palin responded to the moderator as well. She openly stated she wasn’t going to answer questions the way the moderator wanted her to. Way to be a maverick Sarah, and simultaneously dodge any question you feel uncomfortable handling. I can’t tell you how many questions turned into energy questions, which is a very real concern to many Americans, but a little out of place in some contexts.
Last of all, the top commander in Afghanistan is General David McKiernan, not General (George) McClellan, who fought at the battle of Antietam and was the 24th governor of New Jersey. Regrettably, I find this shows Palin’s ineptitude when it comes to foreign policy. I would be a little perturbed if it turned out our top commander in Afghanistan died in 1881. I give Joe Biden a lot of credit for just smiling and not going for the jugular after this mistake, it shows a lot of self-restraint on his part.
Try as I might, I can still not wrap my mind around how people can say Sarah Palin managed to mount a respectable defense against Joe Biden in the vice presidential debate. Folksy mannerisms and an interesting accent alone do not qualify an individual to hold public office, especially one of such importance. I’m not saying that Sarah Palin is a bad person or a total cretin, but she clearly was well out of her league in nearly every field of political expertise. I believe this Washington outsider would be best outside of Washington.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
I'm terribly annoyed right now, so this will be a very pessimistic post.
A theory is a theory, because it cannot be proven as a fact. It applies generally to the area, but can be contradicted with ideas from other theories. IR theory just can't be proven as fact.
For instance, if I had a theory that left-handed people are more likely to favor the color yellow than right-handed people, I could isolate subjects and collect data. There would be statistics to back my theory. We can't isolate countries and enact certain scenarios in order to determine how they are likely to react. We can try to use historical references to justify IR theory, but there are too many variables.
The theories we study are closest to fact we can get. They are general enough to apply to almost all situations, but they're still impossible to test.
A theory is a theory, because it cannot be proven as a fact. It applies generally to the area, but can be contradicted with ideas from other theories. IR theory just can't be proven as fact.
For instance, if I had a theory that left-handed people are more likely to favor the color yellow than right-handed people, I could isolate subjects and collect data. There would be statistics to back my theory. We can't isolate countries and enact certain scenarios in order to determine how they are likely to react. We can try to use historical references to justify IR theory, but there are too many variables.
The theories we study are closest to fact we can get. They are general enough to apply to almost all situations, but they're still impossible to test.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Definitive Answers to Ideological Questions
Question: Are theoretically informed analyses of empirical events and situations anything but opinions?
I don’t like to toy with abstract and metaphysical questions, so here’s my answer in a nutshell: If there is a definitive goal in a particular ideology, then it can be effectively proven or disproven. If there is a generalized or perceptive goal, then there is no “right” or “wrong” answer, and depends more on other elements to become a perceived success.
Allow me to briefly explain. If an idea is put in place, in a constructivist “social experiment” sense, and a specific measurable quota is set, then the idea can be judged by whether or not the quota is met in the time allotted. Suppose, for instance, socialism were suddenly instated in a country, upon the promise that wheat production will rise by 50% over the next three years. After three years of working with this system, if wheat production has actually risen to the amount promised, then the proposition has been successful.
Then again, one experiment cannot produce the end-all truth. This particular scenario would not “validate” all socialism; rather, it would prove that socialism under those certain conditions can produce that certain amount over that certain period of time. Plus, it may not take into account any variable conditions or other scenarios that may arise, or the motivation of the people involved.
On the opposite end, ideas without defined goals cannot, in my observed opinion, be proven or disproven. Suppose socialism was instated by the same means as before, but under the promise that it will “improve people’s lives”. This cannot be effectively measured, since one’s opinion of their own life is subject to personal perception and preferences. An overarching ideology such as this will never inspire a consensus, and cannot be classified as “right” or “wrong”.
Speaking of which, here's a bad idea that has yet to be proven wrong.
I don’t like to toy with abstract and metaphysical questions, so here’s my answer in a nutshell: If there is a definitive goal in a particular ideology, then it can be effectively proven or disproven. If there is a generalized or perceptive goal, then there is no “right” or “wrong” answer, and depends more on other elements to become a perceived success.
Allow me to briefly explain. If an idea is put in place, in a constructivist “social experiment” sense, and a specific measurable quota is set, then the idea can be judged by whether or not the quota is met in the time allotted. Suppose, for instance, socialism were suddenly instated in a country, upon the promise that wheat production will rise by 50% over the next three years. After three years of working with this system, if wheat production has actually risen to the amount promised, then the proposition has been successful.
Then again, one experiment cannot produce the end-all truth. This particular scenario would not “validate” all socialism; rather, it would prove that socialism under those certain conditions can produce that certain amount over that certain period of time. Plus, it may not take into account any variable conditions or other scenarios that may arise, or the motivation of the people involved.
On the opposite end, ideas without defined goals cannot, in my observed opinion, be proven or disproven. Suppose socialism was instated by the same means as before, but under the promise that it will “improve people’s lives”. This cannot be effectively measured, since one’s opinion of their own life is subject to personal perception and preferences. An overarching ideology such as this will never inspire a consensus, and cannot be classified as “right” or “wrong”.
Speaking of which, here's a bad idea that has yet to be proven wrong.
Validity of Opinion
There will always be the odd man out; complete consensus is a statistical anomaly for the human race. For every matter discussed under the sun, whether it is religion, child-rearing, driving or politics, opinions vary. Even within a single theory such as realism you would find different interpretations (i.e. opinions) on how realist goals are best acted out. To this point then I would “theoretically informed analyses of empirical events and situations” are always opinions.
However I would question whether the validity of the opinion can make these “analyses” something more. When discussing validity of opinion we might consider the expertise and experience behind the individual or group responsible for the opinion. Do they know what they are talking about? With what authority do they speak on this topic? If the individual’s or group’s opinion is well correlated and easily understood to be connected to the event or situation at hand, does that lend more weight to their opinion. It has often seemed to me that many people are more willing to believe in the answer/opinion that is most easily understood, instead of taking the time to consider the more complex solution/analyses. The problem with the validity question is that validity is subject to opinion as well. Just consider how we are all most likely to give more credibility to the opinions espoused by our respective political parties. One person might believe (opinionate?) that republicans have more credibility while another person might believe that democrats have more credibility. As I believe Akthor stated or implied, what isn’t based in opinion, what is objective, other than facts?
Now to continue to the second part of the question, does this something more mean that opinion can be right or wrong? On individual basis if you grant an opinion great validity, as compared to other opinions on the same topic, I would say that that individual is judging that opinion right. On an individual basis then there are right or wrong “theoretically informed analyses of empirical events and situations.” We all decide in the end which opinion we believe, going with gut feeling or cool logic. Clash comes of course when a “right” decider meets a “wrong” decider, at which time yes, it simply depends on point of view. Why can’t the “analyses” be right and wrong, depending on your point of view?
However I would question whether the validity of the opinion can make these “analyses” something more. When discussing validity of opinion we might consider the expertise and experience behind the individual or group responsible for the opinion. Do they know what they are talking about? With what authority do they speak on this topic? If the individual’s or group’s opinion is well correlated and easily understood to be connected to the event or situation at hand, does that lend more weight to their opinion. It has often seemed to me that many people are more willing to believe in the answer/opinion that is most easily understood, instead of taking the time to consider the more complex solution/analyses. The problem with the validity question is that validity is subject to opinion as well. Just consider how we are all most likely to give more credibility to the opinions espoused by our respective political parties. One person might believe (opinionate?) that republicans have more credibility while another person might believe that democrats have more credibility. As I believe Akthor stated or implied, what isn’t based in opinion, what is objective, other than facts?
Now to continue to the second part of the question, does this something more mean that opinion can be right or wrong? On individual basis if you grant an opinion great validity, as compared to other opinions on the same topic, I would say that that individual is judging that opinion right. On an individual basis then there are right or wrong “theoretically informed analyses of empirical events and situations.” We all decide in the end which opinion we believe, going with gut feeling or cool logic. Clash comes of course when a “right” decider meets a “wrong” decider, at which time yes, it simply depends on point of view. Why can’t the “analyses” be right and wrong, depending on your point of view?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)