Last Relection

When our discussion on Friday turned to sovereignty, I began to question what determines sovereignty.  Is sovereignty determined by power, in the sense of ability to rule, or by power, in the sense of money and influence?  It has always been the former, but should sovereignty ever switch to the latter, the entire international system would be forever changed.  It would certainly undermine the realist perspective.  I do not think I would like my governing power to be McDonalds or DeBeers or any international corporation.  I think that while profit is a consideration for these groups, they should not have more power than influence.  As a representative for McDonalds, I know that we voted for whatever would help us increase profits and for whatever would improve our reputation.  If reputation is the only reason for corporations to help others, I do not want to put my faith in said corporations to actually accomplish anything.  Admittedly, money does help more than good intentions, and there are some people in corporations who have both.  However, such a drastic change with no understanding of the outcome is too risky to consider as a viable choice.  And for those of you who believe that Snow Crash is an example of the result, then such an option should really not be considered (for my personal feelings on this, see previous blog post). 

            On a personal note, I want to take some space in this post to mention how awesome this learning community was.  I would not have wanted my freshman year to begin any other way.  Living with all of you has been fantastic and extremely entertaining.  Sure, when some class conversations continued on the elevator and on L7, they tended to be less academically focused, but I enjoyed them nonetheless J.  Thank you all for being my classmates and good friends!  

Final Reflection, Woohoo.

Over the course of the semester, I've learned more about how to analyze global affairs in a critical manner. I can now look at an issue and say, "Well, this happened, but why?". This sort of skill is vital in any sort of economic or political line of work. I may not have learned a lot about various global issues, but that wasn't the point of the class. Rather, it gave me the analytical framework necessary to further success in international relations. It was a lot of work, but I found a lot of gratification when debates in class continued over blogs or in 721. These discussions played a large role in shaping the way class itself functioned, and our actions were really what shaped the way the course was directed and what was taught. In that regard, I found the class a fascinating experience. I certainly don't walk away from the class with any regrets, nor do I have any about my blogging experience. As to whether or not I will blog in the future, I can only really wait and see what I feel like doing. I've found it an interesting way to carry on debates, but they're only fun when you have other people discussing your ideas with you. As a result, this sort of involvement will likely only continue in a sort of community where I can expect regular feedback from a regular body of readers, like I had this semester.

One way or another, I'm glad for the things I've learned in the course. It's altered my perspective on a lot of things and changed the way I look at the world, and that is far better than regurgitating information that I would have learned in some of the other classes.

As Daft Punk would say...

One more time
One more time we're gonna celebrate yeah
Oh yeah all right don´t stop the dancing


Alright, we've reached the end of the World Politics course. Now what?
Who knows? But I'll reflect on it one more time (we're gonna celebrate).

This class has been...an experience. I'm not placing any particular adjective on that, partially because I am such a neutral person (really) and partially because no word could adequately describe this class. Not even 1500 words.

There were good times, bad times, what the hell are you talking about times and oh snap times...all in all, I think I'm glad I took this class. But I don't know.

This class probably has made me a lot more ambivalent than I ever thought I could (or wanted to be).

Oddly, I think that might be the point. PTJ said this class was about learning to argue, learning to make a point and then convince someone else that point is the correct one (or just the better one).

Whether or not I've learned how to effectively argue is debatable (lame pun), but...maybe by being less sure in what I've said, I had learned how to argue better.

If I'm not sure in what I say, then I'll listen more to what others are saying. By listening, I'll understand what they are saying....and then figure out how I agree or disagree based off of that, not based off of the assumptions I made walking into the discussion.

So...I guess this class made me less sure of who I am, but more sure of who I am because I'm less sure. WTF.

“I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing.” (Socrates knows what's up.)

Oh, and totally going to say Venezuela kicked ass in the debate today. Why? Because my two goals were accomplished: get us kicked out of the debate [I actually wanted that to be the first motion, because it was going to happen anyway] and don't get a solidified development policy passed...whoo! The Venezuelan Way = the kick-ass way.

Question 14

I would prefer to live in Mr. Lee’s Greater Hong Kong for one reason: the Rat-Thing.

Under normal circumstances, I would not call myself a realist – not by a long shot. However, that label is based upon the times in which we live, and the international political structure in which we find ourselves immersed. In the world portrayed by Snow Crash, security simply must be the ultimate worry. There are no laws, no international frameworks or organizations that govern conduct between states / franchulates. The only generally accepted, common rule seems to be that of sovereignty – and that is only accepted because of the security measures taken by each individual franchulate. For instance, one would not violate the Mafia’s sovereignty because, well, they’re the Mafia. One does not argue with Reason. Some of the security measures are preventive – the book describes the gate systems used by many franchulates, and how one needs a bar code signifying their citizenship in order to gain access.

One security measure seems to trump all others, however: the Rat-Things, the security measure implemented by Mr. Ng for Mr. Lee’s Greater Hong Kong. A gate is insufficient; it can be bypassed or knocked down. A police force is insufficient; it can be tardy. The Rat-Thing solves these problems: by having equal parts ferocity and speed, nothing can get by them unless the Rat-Thing wills it to be so.

The Jews and the Native Americans have much in common. Well, okay, only one thing, really: genocide. Six million Jews and six million others died in the Holocaust in Germany; similarly, a massive proportion of Americans in the North, Central and South Americas were massacred when the Europeans arrived. It’s hard to think about genocide in a rational manner, and so my people, the Jews, dealt with the Holocaust with humor.

My favorite example: the Gestapo spent much time bullying Freud, and would not give him an exit visa permitting him to leave Austria without writing a letter stating that the Gestapo had not bullied him – that they had, in fact, given him total freedom in his work. He added a single sentence – “I can heartily recommend the Gestapo to anyone!”

I like to think that America has done the same thing – dealing with horrible actions via humor – even when it is us perpetrating the horrible deed. Case in point: the bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War. We dropped more ordinance on Cambodia than on Japan during World War Two. The operation titles were: Operation Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner, Dessert, etc. If that’s not humor, I don’t know what is.

Question 13

“The man who finds his own country sweet is only a raw beginner” – that much I agree with. This, to me, invokes the image of the American hick who proclaims that America is the best country on earth, having not actually been to any other country in person. This sort of base ignorance is repugnant. If the quote is to be interpreted as saying that any man not yet jaded by his country is only a raw beginner, I would agree with that, as well; no country is perfect, and it only takes a small amount of insight to see that this is the case. Therefore, any man who does not have some gripe with his country is not looking very hard – and is therefore a raw beginner.

“The man for whom each country is as his own is already strong; but only the man for whom the whole world is as a foreign country is perfect”. Here, I agree also, but with a slightly different take on what the quote means, exactly. Here, I interpret it as being about the people inhabiting those foreign countries. “The man for whom each country is as his own”, to me, signifies a man who views his country as being equal to others, and so the people within those countries are just as important as the citizens of his home country. “The man for whom the whole world is as a foreign country” signifies a man who is entirely blind to the entire concept of a country, who views the citizens of his country as being equal to those of any other country the same as the previous sort of man based on the sole merit of everybody involved being human.

Assorted Ramblings

I've filled my blog requirement, so I actually want to use this occasion just to write about things important to me. I'm watching a documentary as we speak about genocide around the world and those who have tried to stop it as the years have past. I look at history as a realist. I don't hold a lot of countries accountable for not intervening in many cases. For instance, I see it as being so difficult to actually provide any element of stability in Darfur, and American intervention could make the situation worse. Yet somehow, I can't just sit by and look at something like the genocide in Rwanda and, knowing it's more than wrong, let it happen. Probably my favorite part in Quantum of Solace was the part where Felix Lighter was sitting on the plane with the American officer right after meeting with the movie's antagonist. The mustachioed American, when Lighter questions why the US was allying with someone with so clearly negative intentions in Bolivia, replies that if the US allied only with good people, there wouldn't be an ally to be had. I agree with this statement. Sometimes, allying with a Pervez Musharraf can be necessary to maintaining a status in the larger context of regional stability. But when I look at every instance of genocide around the world, the United States does not stand to gain from allying with a Juvenal and Agathe Habyarimana, Slobodan Milosevic, Omar al Bashir, etc.. However, I see the United States historically tying itself to Pol Pot or Saddam Hussein in a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of mentality, and I can't help but feel disgusted.

Genocide is an unforgivable crime. The fact that these situations keep occurring, even though we say "never again" repeatedly shows me how humanitarians are all too often all talk. They don't have the power to stop what happens. States are the only ones with those powers. If Srebrenica or Rwanda are any indicators, the UN only makes situations more disgusting when soldiers stand by and do nothing. It's why Romeo Dallaire nearly killed himself when he was unable to do anything for the people he had worked with for months before the genocide began following Juvenal Habyarimana's assasination, possibly performed by his wife Agathe and her inner circle (the akazu). But at the same time, I don't see states as providing the necessary stability in the recooperation of genocide-ravaged communities. When I view modern reconstruction efforts, I see the Ethiopian intervention in Somalia, the Iraq War, the Hutu-Tutsi tensions coming to a head in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (and their previous manifestations in Burundi), or the other numerous attempts at reconstruction, I don't think we've had a truly successful attempt at restoring a society since World War II. This provides so many complications to my ultimate instinct that intervention is vital to prevention of genocide.

As the documentary comes to a close, I see how TV can't possibly portray how horrific genocide is. It didn't even get the point across as strongly as I have seen done in literature, such as in Philip Gourevitch's We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families. Yet even this book can't display how horrendous genocide is. What shocks me more than anything about genocide as a crime is the instinct it creates, where people are more shocked to survive than to die. In Rwanda, Tutsis had just had this instinct driven into their minds that they would die. I hate sitting here knowing that I have these opportunities before me, solely on the basis of my birth in this nation, and other people live only awaiting death. I don't know what can be done about genocide. Don Cheadle isn't going to stop Darfur, no matter how many celebreties think he has the right idea. Ideally, yes we can stop any genocide. We can stop the janjaweed in Darfur. We could have stopped the genocidaires in Rwanda, or bombed the camps in Germany during WWII. But could we have done what is required to stop further perpetration of the crimes? Would American intervention in Darfur stop the JEM from coming into power and oppressing Arabs? Or would intervention in Rwanda have prevented the rise of Laurent Nkunda and his Tutsi backlash? Somehow, I don't think so. I just wish there was something that could be done.

Here's To You, Mr. Stephenson

I would not want to live in the world of Snow Crash.  I would rather not live in a world where a dentata is necessary.  Especially for 15 year-olds.  I suppose we read this to remark on globalization and anarcho-capitalism, but I could not quite get over the really, really messed up social…stuff.  Most of this stuff seemed unnecessary to the plot (a detailed pedophilic sex scene for instance) and makes me wonder a lot about the character of Mr. Neal Stephenson.  I don’t know if he is getting out repressed feelings, but I felt uncomfortable. Why does Hiro have to find his computer erotic?  Why is Y.T. such a sexually experienced person with a hot body when she is 15, an awkward age for most humans?  The many descriptions of every move that Y.T. takes while “pooning” waste a lot of time.  Maybe this book as a movie would be better seeing as most of the descriptions are akin to when someone tries to describe a “you had to be there” moment.  I know I am being extremely critical, but I do hope that our world will not escalate to that state. 

I know I did not really answer the two questions, but I suppose since I have no technological knowledge that the functions and structures of this world is possible, but I cannot believe that most of the characters and their actions could occur.  Since Jasmine, Athkor, and I have labeled our room Mr. Lee’s Greater Hong Kong, I suppose that is the franchise I would want to live in.  But only if I were a Rat Thing.  Because then I could run super fast and no one would want to kill me.  Plus I’ve always envied the lives of dogs.  In view of the upcoming week, lying around and occasionally playing catch seems like an enjoyable alternative to papers and finals.  

Objectivity and "Citizenship"

I can see a few ways in which the question can be interpreted. Given the connotation of the novel in which it is contained, it refers to the process of constructing "the other." It likely implies the best and worst ways of doing this. It can hold a sort of universalist "the best person is a citizen of the world" sort of connotation. Potentially, it could even be used as a critique of nationalism, in that nationalism blinds someone to the glories of other cultures. However, all of these interpretations skirt around one critical fact, and that is that nationalism obscures objectivity. I would argue that this is true, but ultimately irrelevant, as this nationalist bias cannot be overcome in the short term.

Nationalism certainly implies a certain bias in favor of one's own culture and way of life. In establishing this bias, one removes any semblance of objectivity in discussing foreign affairs. I consider myself a fairly worldy individual, but I can't deny an obvious bias in favor of the United States in discussing global politics. This likely wouldn't exist if I saw myself as a "citizen of the world," but I don't feel as though I can realistically do this, as I will discuss later. This bias is key to nationalism's existence in a discourse. In order to remove this bias, one has to completely remove the lens through which one sees others. Regardless of one's status, one will see the world through a certain constructive lens. This is affected by basic psychology, upbringing, surroundings, etc. and cannot be overcome, especially in the short-term. Governments operate in the same fashion as individuals. Even the most objective of governments will see affairs only in the capacity with which the observed thing will affect them, and at worst will view them with a severe inferiority bias. To remove this lens would be to defy the very aspect of the current national construct.

I'm a big fan of the idea that people join into a family, city, nation, etc. only because they feel a sense of belonging and a desire to belong. This is the reason Americans connect with Americans in a national sense, why Quebecois see eye-to-eye with other Quebecois, or why Thai live in Thailand. These connections run deeper than a simple familial construct. I don't sit here as a Tennesseean and feel a fundamental connection to every other person who lives in the United States today. The ties that bind us together are far more shallow than those that connect me to my family. Yet these ties still exist, and "cloud our judgement." To overcome these ties is to remove the lens through which one views the world. I would argue that because of humankind's fundamental grouping instinct, it is difficult, especially right now, to overcome this barrier. Though the world is more connected than ever before, humans still do not feel a fundamental connection to each other on the basis of their mere humanity. We see that all other humans are humans, but see no "other" to unite us as humans. Rather, Americans see Mexicans as "the other," because though vastly similar in cultural values and similar histories, the two have not lived together and shared identical cultural experiences. This fact inhibits the abilities of the two cultures to effectively communicate because they do not feel enough in common. I would argue that this bias exists even among the "global citizen" Todorov sees himself as. This character still views the world through a certain lens, that of multiculturalism. All nations are foreign to him, meaning he doesn't have a firm grounding of a national home (which establishes a large part of my critique of this statement, as it's pretty hard to get someone to give up identification with their home). This very fact gives him a bias: in quoting Said, he feels an element of connection with other expatriates, ascribes to a certain set of values expatriates typically hold, and as a result, makes himself no different from the nationalist. He still views the world through a lens, and this lens is just as cloudy as mine.

This fundamental desire to belong is nearly impossible to overcome. Though it is possible for it to be taken away in regards to global affairs, the creation of a new "other" is the only thing that will bring us to that point. Alien invasion, anyone?

Air and Space Museum

As I walked round the Air and Space Museum, I realized that I would never be able to merely enjoy a museum like a tourist anymore.  Thanks PTJ, but the entire time I could only think about who the audience was and what message the audience was intended to receive.  I think the sheer size and complexity of all the missiles and engines and shuttles are intended to show off how unbelievably awesome America is.  When I looked at all the rockets, I could not comprehend how a person could figure out how to make one.  The ingenuity of scientists at NASA boggles my mind; I am in awe of that type of intelligence. 

The exhibits also liked to impress how the US space program compared to the Soviet’s program.  The arrangement was such that each landmark design from one space program was put next to the other’s similar design.  So you could compare Gagarin’s space suit to John Glenn’s because they were in cases right next to each other.  And since Glenn’s suit had thirteen zippers and his gloves, boots, and helmet were custom made, America is clearly superior.  And Glenn’s suit is aluminized nylon, not that lame orange nylon atrocity.  A classmate tells me that this shows how America is a shining beacon of excellence in space explorations compared to the Red (orange) Commie  (insert explicit word here). 

I enjoyed my trip to the museum, but no longer for the freeze-dried ice cream or the Imax adventures, but on an intellectual and critical level.  Okay, enjoyment on that level is not really as good, but I guess I will have to reinvent my childhood in ways other than going to museums.  Next best thing is the merry-go-round on the mall.  I dare anyone to think intellectually while riding that.  

Euthyphro

In light of last week’s spaghetti-dinner discussion of religion, I’d like to present the Euthyphro dilemma. It was titled such due to its origin in Plato’s “Euthyphro”, in which Socrates poses the following question: “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?". This can be restated as such: “Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" This might not appear at first to be such a dilemma, so let’s rephrase it.

There are two options presented:
[1] What is moral is commanded by God because it is moral.

Another way of phrasing [1] is this: God does not determine morality; what he instructs humanity to do is based on an objective morality. If this is the case, however, then God has nothing to do with morality; to look at God as the teacher of morality is to look at the middleman, not the source.

[2] What is moral is considered moral because it is commanded by God.

Another way of phrasing [2] is this: God determines morality. The problem then: that means that morality is arbitrary, as God just as easily could have determined that it is a moral act to, say, be a Somali pirate, or to rape and pillage villages, et cetera.

I’m going to anticipate the counterpoint to the above paragraph: “But God is all-good, and would not, therefore, condone something so blatantly evil as rape and piracy.” To you who say that, all that you are doing is agreeing with me, when I argue that morality is objective, that it is not determined by God; for if it were determined by God, he could go ahead and condone whatever he wanted, and it would, by definition, be good.

So, in conclusion, either:
[1] God has nothing to do with morality; morality exists separate from God
[2] Rape and piracy are not objectively wrong, but only wrong because such is God’s will
[3] God does not exist, and the conclusion for [1] holds.

I invite and welcome any counterpoints.

A Restful Weekend Reaches its Midpoint

So I wasn't in class Friday, so obviously my reaction will exist in a vacuum. I will use this opportunity to talk about things that interest me as a result. The pirate talk, though fascinating, has been beaten to death by this point. Everyone wants to stop it, but no one really really wants to other than the French and Indians, who have already killed several groups of pirates. So going a little deeper than superficial pirate battles, let's look a little deeper here. I'm interested to see how this could destabilize the region further, and to see the extend to which Yemen becomes involved in the process. It certainly won't be doing much to stop it. But could the economic instability already prevalent in the country expand even further as damages to the minor shipping out of the nation penetrates deeper into the national economy? How could this affect the prices of oil?

So as if we haven't talked about the election enough, I read a fairly interesting blog post about race and the election. To many on the left, Barack Obama somehow indicates that somehow everything is going to be okay in America, that racism is a thing of the past, and that somehow, even though he isn't in office yet, "yes we did." I think Obama's acceptance speech was great, in that it realized this. But I fear many among his supporters think that now, he has it covered from here. Just because someone you agree with has been elected doesn't mean we need to stop being vigilant about government accountability and its involvement in the private lives of American citizens. I'm not going to believe in change until I actually see it. Seeing disheartening numbers such as these go to show how there really hasn't been a value shift in the American voter. The same blocs exist in American politics; the only thing that has shifted is the relative power of the northeast and southwest over that of the southeast, the traditional "swing vote" of American politics. Clearly, a much deeper, long-term change in demographic perception must occur in the United States before "change" becomes a reality.

Justify this.

Once again, getting this reflection typed off early so I have one less thing to do Sunday.

Let's talk about today's class.
Was it the best run? Probably not. PTJ gave us the suggestion to put Cortes (and actually La Malinche too, but whatever on that) on trial. And that's it. Since he's in Italy right now, he couldn't give us a lot more guidance, so we had to come up with what he meant by "put on trial".

Mnadler said he couldn't come up with a better way to practice justice than the current legal system because we're all "just freshmen". ...Alright, on that same vein, we're just freshmen who aren't exactly experts in the legal system, so how to run a court trial without witnesses and without a real clue as to the formal proceedings of any court means we did the best we could with what we thought.

Whatever, some will think I'm just trying to provide excuses. Don't care.

The point of the debate/trial was to look at how you discuss justice. What is justice? What is just? Is something that is just and justice two different things?

And, going with this week's question, is our way of practicing justice better than older forms of "justice"?

Let's look at some fiction, which reflects pretty well the court system in the 1930s, and apart from that is an excellent piece of writing (with an amazing performance by Gregory Peck):



Sorry to spoil it for those who haven't read the book (and you should, by the way), but they lose the case. Racism (combined with fear and ignorance) meant thousands of people died because of how they were. Not because they necessarily committed a crime, but because they were considered inferior.

Let's go back farther, to the Salem Witch Trials. Were the people convicted of being witches really anything of the sort? Probably not. Fear and ignorance, however, are powerful things, and in this case resulted in the deaths of innocents.

Let's go into the 1950s and the Red Scare. Untold numbers of people were blacklisted...even if they had nothing to do with communism (and so what if they did?). Lives were ruined based off of fear and the need for a scapegoat.

Let's look at now. The more money you have, the better lawyer you can get. The better lawyer, the more likely you are to win a case. Even if you are, in fact, guilty.

Where, throughout history, is the justice in that? And yes, I realize I'm only looking at the American court history here, but that's the history I'm most familiar with. But, it can be imagined similar occurrences happen in other court systems across the globe.

So where's the justice? How is it just?
I don't know. Yes, I'm looking at just certain examples of when the court system in all likelihood failed in its duty to uphold what is right (or what is law? There's a difference there too.) There are countless times when people are tried and correctly convicted.

...Maybe that brings in another question. Do we maybe just have to settle for an imperfect system? Is "just" a perfect abstract, and we, as imperfect beings, can never hope to fully practice it and deliver the fault to the correct party?

I think yes to that last one.

And finally, because you know that Common is fantastic:





Testify.

A Series of Tubes

Our way of knowing makes knowledge extremely complicated.  Columbus saw what he thought were mermaids, so mermaids existed.  Nowadays, for someone to say that they saw a mermaid that would not be enough.  Someone would have to catch one; scientists would study it, and then decide that it was in fact a mermaid.  The problem is whether the only people who know the truth are those scientists or those who believe that the scientists found that truth.  Scientists have proven that protons, neutrons, and electrons exist, but I have never seen them.  I know that they exist, but does that mean I am as superstitious as Columbus for believing in something that I personally cannot verify?  I am not so sure. 

However, when I take the technological aspects of knowledge that are open to us, I would say that, yes our way of knowledge is better.  If I desire to see subatomic particles collide, I can google it or look it up on youtube.  The Internet makes puts knowledge of just about anything at our fingertips.  On the other hand, anyone can put something up on the Internet.  So, just as easy as it is to gain knowledge via the Internet, you can gain false knowledge.  This can be very harmful.  For example, one of my relatives found a scientist in Europe who believes that global warming in happening because the Earth’s atmosphere is actually cleaner than it was a century ago.  Our relationship is strained because I agree with the majority of scientists after doing research on reliable websites.  I generally think that the positives outweigh the negatives, but I agree with Jasmine in the feeling that our way of knowing is still not the best way.  Better, but not perfect.  I do not think that we ever will achieve a perfect way of knowing, but it is a good thing to strive for in the scientific sense.  

In his post, Bovice compared the mindset of the general populace in Columbus’ day with the mindset of the general populace in our day.

He cited Columbus’ assertion of
“locales with darker skins = wealth (thusfar in experience)
ergo
darker skins = locales of wealth”

in comparison with the admittedly similar fallacious modern assumptions that
“individual Muslims = rioters/terrorists
ergo
all Muslims = bad

“communists = atheists
ergo
atheists = communists”.

He concludes that “A bias will still exist without the lengthy analysis the average individual is unwilling to undertake. Most things are viewed at face-value, creating a situation much akin to that of Columbus.”

I disagree with his assertion for one reason. In Columbus’ day, the kind of logic demonstrated above was far and above the norm. Columbus was not alone in reasoning that darker skins = locales of wealth, and nobody called him out on that statement. It would not be unfair, I think, to state that the vast majority of Westerners in Columbus’ time agreed with that sort of logic, or at the very least with the conclusion.

In our time, however, we deride those who use such obviously fallacious reasoning. For Bovice’s atheism example, pointing out how more people distrust Atheists or think that they (we) are out of touch with American values than any other minority (39.5% think atheists don’t share American values according to this study), there is still the other 61.5% to consider.

Sure, 39.5% of the people might be happy to jump at the chance to use fallacious reasoning such as that of Columbus – but 61.5% are most certainly not, at least in this very narrow example.

So, yes, our way of knowing is better than Columbus’ way of knowing. Then, people presented false logic, and that was that. Now, people present false logic, and many agree with it, but even more point out just how incorrect and dangerous that false logic is.

The Construction of "The Other"

We live in a world today where everything can be answered and all known if enough money is spent and creative power employed. We have removed gravity as an obstacle to expansion, tied the world as one with the Internet and telecommunications services, and are close to discovering the exact nature of matter itself. Yet through it all, are we truly any further along in advancing knowledge and the human understanding of the creation of this knowledge than we were when Columbus made arguably the greatest discovery of all time in finding the Americas? I posit that the psychological processes through which we view and ethically judge our problems have only shifted slightly and the actual means of obtaining knowledge, though far less-limited and based far more in empirical observation, are still limited by the same constraints that restricted Columbus's thoughts of mermaids.

I'm essentially viewing the human experience on a Normal distribution (forgive me; I just got back from a statistics test.). In discussing the views of the most intelligent parts of society (who I will consider outliers), one distorts the actual distribution of human knowledge and understanding. Just as Newton's ideas were novel for his time (viewing him as the genius he was), the scientists creating the Large Hadron Collider are not of your typical human cut. It's not fair to include the upper echelons of the intellectual spectrum, all while ignoring the lack of contributions from the mentally handicapped. Therefore, we have to look more toward the middling parts of the spectrum, where Columbus likely would have fallen (perhaps he was even a part of the lower half of the curve, as exhibited in Todorov's discussion of Columbus's outdated beliefs). The way the average human being observes situations has changed little over time.

Assumptions made about individuals and "others" are based in largely superficial value-based judgments, just as those Columbus made about the Native Americans were. We view people as indicative of natural and social trends. Columbus's belief that parrots and dark-skinned people were indicative of gold. Similarly, widespread beliefs about non-Christians in America inspire a deep-seated fear obviously unjustly held. I'd actually like to compare the two, using this case as a sort of empirical example of these biases and their penetration into the broader human worldview.

Columbus saw personal traits indicative of naturally-occuring tendencies, whether they be in the Natives or the land itself. Likewise, the American distrust of atheists, Muslims, and to a lesser extent, Jews is held because of fears of the events supposedly surrounding them. Excitement surrounded Columbus's discovery of a darker-colored people, as his historical experience had led him to believe that finding those of darker tones was indicative of wealth. Portuguese experiences in particular in exploring the West Africa led the nation to great wealth. Seeing that those who lived in hotter environments were dark-skinned, Columbus drew a connection betweeen the two.

locales with darker skins = wealth (thusfar in experience)
ergo
darker skins = locales of wealth

Though I think correlative-causative analysis has shifted this perception among the intellectual elite, the average person does not think in these terms. Take, for instance, anti-Muslim backlash following the 2005 banlieue riots in Paris or the deepened fear exhibited in Americans following 9/11. In both cases, people drew connections that logically ran as follows:

individual Muslims = rioters/terrorists
ergo
all Muslims = bad

or

communists = atheists
ergo
atheists = communists

The logic is exactly the same. It relies on a simplified assumption that conditional analysis is a two-sided coin. If I am white, I therefore must follow a certain trend or be indicative of certain broader conditions. This backward analysis obviously still persists, as atheists remain America's most distrusted minority. My conclusion in this case is that the vast majority of people have not viewed the way they view indicators within a society, and as a result, the actual interpretation of knowledge has not changed. It is still dependent largely on experience rather than empirical analysis, even though with time those empirical facts discovered by more elite figures can come to be accepted.

Onto my second point, that the actual means of obtaining knowledge have not altered so far beyond the manner in which Columbus gained insight into viewing the Natives. As Athkor pointed out in her post, the actual way in which we view knowledge is still based strictly on observation. Even Columbus's analysis holds true here. We still draw conclusions about things, whether it be gravity or the geopolitical order, on previously-existing historical trends or current observations. As Hume pointed out, our knowledge is based in expectation. All we can do is reasonably (very, very reasonably, at that) assume things to be true. That being said, I'm not sitting here denying the existence of gravity. But I am saying that it is still a theory, as by some freak chance it could be disproved. I wouldn't put any kind of money on gravity being disproved any day soon. But the fact does remain that it is a possibility, and is just as great of one nowadays as it was during Columbus's.

So how does this connect to our discussion topic, "how do we construct our perception of outsiders?" Intellectuals can logically extrapolate a perception based on social norms, values, geographic barriers, etc.. But the average individual will not take into account these same conditions when discussing "the other." A bias will still exist without the lengthy analysis the average individual is unwilling to undertake. Most things are viewed at face-value, creating a situation much akin to that of Columbus.

"There's far too much to take in here, more to find than can ever be found"

First off, it wasn't Locke that I meant to say for the philosopher. It was Hume, although Locke had a similar idea so it doesn't particularly matter.

Is our way of knowing better than Columbus' way of knowing?

Nope. It doesn't even matter how you define better, our way of knowing isn't better than Columbus', and 600 years from now when some college kids are reading some book by some guy about the other and are asked the same thing, their answer should still be nope.

Knowledge is completely subjective. You don't know what I know, and I don't know what you know. We may know some similar things, but you, in all likelihood, don't know what it's like to have my maternal grandmother as your grandmother, and I don't know what it is like to grow up in your hometown (unless you're from the Fresno/Clovis area, in which case, we can relate, but doesn't mean we know the same things).

Getting back to our sporadic discussion of the "Here be monsters"...we all assume that now what it is placed on a map, it's done in jest. There are no monsters there. That's a silly notion. ...But how do we know? What if there are "monsters"? What if mermaids, dragons, minotaurs, yetis and all those other cryptids exist? What if just one of them exists? How do we know they don't?

Bringing Hume up again, let's look at some causation: (ok, yeah, I'm going to copy this off Spark Note's summary of Hume from Sophie's World [which is a great history of philosophy book] because it just explains it better than I can at 12:30 at night.):

Hume believed that what we cannot know for sure that what we call laws of nature are unbreakable. Just because every time we have seen a stone dropped it has fallen to the ground does not mean that it has to do so. We simply expect it to fall. We impose our idea of cause and effect on the world. ....we ascribe causality to what we have seen occur again and again. ...He warned against concluding that what is is what ought to be.

Alright, so, what if that stone doesn't fall (what if a mermaid is found)? Columbus expected the stone to fall too. If it didn't, he'd have his own explanation for why it didn't. If it didn't for us, we'd have our own explanation. In our case, we assume the stone falls thanks to gravity.

Gravity, by the way, is just a theory. It, feasibly, could be proved wrong (like say if a stone doesn't fall).

We discussed in class that we listen to physicists and such in order to garner knowledge about the world.

...Physicists mostly come up with theories, which can be proved wrong. Einstein? Yeah, can be proved wrong.

So just because we think we proved a lot of the beliefs during Columbus' time "wrong" doesn't mean that whatever we replaced for those beliefs couldn't happen to us as well.

Going with the whole "disenchantment" thing, I don't think we've become disenchanted. We've just replaced one type of mythology with another and dubbed it science. We can say it's based off of logic, reason, analysis, facts, experimentation, whatever, but, who knows? Maybe we're missing something BIG. Or something little? You don't really know either way. You can't really know either way.


But you know what, Circle of Life, man, Circle of Life. (Please, you know it's amazing.)

Reflection on Poverty and Statistics

I was really interested in our Friday discussion about cause and effect relationships regarding poverty and health.  I do not know how we should decide what we base our comparisons off.  I agree that since countries with similar geographies have to deal with similar issues, but there are so many variables to consider, such as a history as a European colony.  Since I am not an expert on any of this, I looked up some interesting statistics. 

In 2003, Niger and Eritrea were on the same economic level in terms of GDP per capita, but Eritrea had a 91% child survival rate compared to Niger’s 74%.  India and Eritrea had the same child survival rate, but India’s average income was 3 times higher.  Vietnam had the same GDP per capita as India, but higher child survival.  However, South Africa had 3 times the average income per person of Vietnam, but the child survival rate is significantly lower.  South Africa was on the same economic level as Malaysia, but Malaysia’s child survival rate was 6.3% higher.  The United States had 4 times Malaysia’s GDP per capita, but similar child survival rate.  However, Singapore and Sweden have higher child survival rates than the US even though the US had a higher GDP per capita.  (http://www.gapminder.org/downloads/presentations/human-development-trends-2005.html)

These statistics make the point clear that there are many factors that determine the state of each nation.  Unfortunately, people love to compare things, because that is how we understand things.  In this case, we should look at countries individually to solve poverty and health problems in that country.  We are not going to find a panacea for poverty.  Aid has to be specialized for the particular problems of each nation.  If two countries are having problems with child survival, the causes of the problem may differ.  We cannot generalize in regards to eradicating poverty.  

The Pointlessness of the Prop 8 Protests?

I thoroughly enjoyed the Poverty group’s presentation and simulation. It really did a compelling job of portraying the message of the reading in a practical setting and forcing us to examine how various factors – some of which we likely hadn’t previously considered, like geography – effect the level of poverty in various nations. I’m still a little pissed off about Yousef the Berber’s tragic death. The Sultanate of Marzuq has been in a constant state of mourning.

Anyways, I’d like to pose a question to you all:

What, in your opinion, are the effects of a protest?

My answer to the above question would be that, politically, the only effect of a protest is making legislators aware of the will of their constituents.

I ask this both inside of and outside of the context of the Proposition 8 protests in D.C. on Saturday. In regards to the Proposition 8 protests, I did not attend, for two reasons:

1. I had work. (I have since quit, coincidentally, so no more free pizzas for all y’all. Sorry!)
2. I don’t see the point.

Being a homosexual myself, I obviously am tremendously in support of gay marriage. But I just don’t really see the point of this specific protest, the one in D.C. As I stated above, I believe that the main point of a protest is to express to legislators the will of their constituents. But Proposition 8 is neither a D.C. issue nor, currently, a national one – it is a California issue. Protests in Los Angeles serve to inform the state legislators from that area that they will not be re-elected if they don’t vote how LAers want them too. But protesting a California area issue in D.C.? Pointless.

The reason this bugs me is that it is wasted positive energy. The tremendous amount of energy expressed on Saturday could have been directed towards, say, fundraising efforts for Californian pro-gay marriage groups. But it wasn’t.

So, where’s the flaw in my argument? Is it that there are more effects of protests than I believe? Is it that the protest does, in fact, make direct change? I invite all comments.

Gay Rights Protest/Poverty

Today, I attended the DC segment of the Prop 8 protest. For me, this was the first time I've showed up at a protest. Not really a whole lot of political controversy worth getting riled up over in Tennessee. Well, I mean, there is, but I'd probably be the only one to show up. You wouldn't get thousands to come out in force like there were in L'Enfant Plaza in front of the White House today. I mentioned this briefly in the comments on Michele's blog post (not going to link to it; most of you all have read it already, and we don't need further activity on that front.), but I didn't show up in front of the White House today hoping to make change. I knew that my presence wouldn't drive anything forward. Yet I stood there in the pouring rain as a show of solidarity with my fellow human being. I'm a realist; I don't expect change to come until there is a widespread alteration in understanding among voting constituencies. Protests in California won't do anything. For me, this wasn't about Prop 8. Throwing money at problems isn't going to fix it, here or in LA. It was a moral imperative that I show up and support a cause I believe so strongly in, one that is the primary reason I am a social liberal.

Epic typos set aside, I felt that class was fairly successful. Prioritization of resources, as discussed in the Copenhagen Consensus, is an immensely complicated process. Obviously, our model was, as stated, a model. There were a lot of things that it didn't even take into account. It didn't provide a means of measuring wealth in a relative sense. But the aim wasn't to show a winner of some kind. It was merely an attempt at displaying the difficulty nations potentially see when they have so many various problems to juggle, whether it be poverty, corruption, or disease, and I felt that was a successful endeavor.

What I do find to be fascinating, though, is how we can fight poverty today in the face of corruption. When I see situations like those in Somalia, I see the abuse of foreign aid and the inability of a state to monopolize force in such a way that warlords don't steal all of the food or medicine. How do you fight corruption on an empty stomach? What is the tipping point? How is it that a nation like the United States could have a revolution over something so simple like taxes, but the means of survival are so lacking in these countries that taxation doesn't even happen? I still struggle with what could be done to provide Africa with the strong, just leadership that it needs, yet still help feed the people there that need it. I'm tired of trying to throw money at the problem. It doesn't work, and it's not enforcing change. It all seems so hopeless. There just seems like there is so little that we can do about the problem, and we almost just have to wait for strong leadership to emerge in Africa in a situation where this leader's adherence to institutional standards is almost required.

I was going to pwn.

While everyone gallivants off to TDR, I will quickly jot down my reflection for this week.

...Dang it. That's my summary of today's class. Mostly because the reading we had to do this week, on Lomborg, I would of totally owned. Why? I'll tell you why.

I'm an environmentalist. I care about the environment. Although I'm not sure where I want to go with this International Studies thing, I know it will involve one, if not more of these things: international development (especially education), communicable disease, and the environment.

As an environmentalist, I absolutely hate An Inconvenient Truth. I find Kyoto Protocol stupid, and Kyoto II even worse. AIT is propaganda, plain and simple. The facts are distorted and warped, creating sensationalism that is more harmful then beneficial. Kyoto Protocol is a lot of money, and I mean a LOT of money, for very little benefits.

Lomborg's book, Cool It, which was released in August, agrees with my mindset. The book is a discussion about global warming in relation to his Copenhagen Consensus. Essentially, he goes, fact by fact, through the wild, and when you truly look at them they are wild statements that supposed experts on global warming are making and then logically states how they were warped, what was really said, and what will probably happen (just so you know, it isn't complete meltdown of the ice caps, or the ocean level rising 50 feet or fiercer hurricanes in large quantities). Then he discusses what should be done.

More importantly, what should be practically done. As much as I care about the environment, I agree with him: cutting carbon emissions, doing everything Kyoto says doesn't serve a lot of purpose, but putting money towards disease prevention and malnutrition, for a fraction of the cost, can save millions of lives.

Even with the environment, merely changing existing policies, not radically revolutionizing how we live (by the way, he makes an excellent point in his book, saying, as much as we don't like global warming as a population, when people on an individual level actually have to change how they live, they aren't so receptive anymore) will have a much larger, much less costly, impact.

Lomborg got a lot of crap for his Copenhagen Concensus, and his books. Priotizing people and issues? How scandalous.

How necessary. We don't have infinite resources. We can't do everything at once. We can find where we will have the most positive influence with the least amount of resources and say, "Yes, that's doable."

Sorry, Al Gore. Kyoto isn't doable.

Panda Eating Cake

I am struck by my inability to state my claim on this question with confidence.  I find it hard to say that the international community should help a poor nation in fulfilling their basic needs while the national government deals with building up infrastructure.  While I think it is a moral imperative to help those in worse conditions than you, I cannot expect or force this on others.  As much as I would like this to happen, it is really idealistic.  Sometimes I feel like college is beating the idealism out of me.  I am on the fence as to whether it is a good thing because I am seeing more sides to issues, or if it is a bad thing for destroying my dreams (of saving the world).  To cheer myself up, I go here:

http://echelon.mirror.waffleimages.com/files/51/51b9b2b57c412542b2f6596b84903df01ab7490a.jpg

 

I suppose my natural inclination would be to say that everyone should try to help in this way.  But, every time I write the word “try,” it is ingrained in me to think, “Do, or do not.  There is no try.”  So, I guess since my ideas have been called silly in Brotopia, I will have to respond to others in hopes that I will discover my own thoughts. 

I was particularly interested by Lucas’ post because he mentioned how the international community can help by helping to fulfill some basic needs, but also to provide aid that will promote sustainable development.  I was hoping he would give more specific examples, but in my opinion, the best example is education.  If some aid goes to supplying basic needs and other aid goes to building schools and paying for teachers, then the citizens will be educated and there will be greater entrepreneurial activity.  This will create jobs and people will be able to build up the nations infrastructure in a grassroots fashion. 

I do think that we should still provide some basic needs for the people of these countries.  However, as we do so we must help them by giving them the tools to produce food and make efforts to teach them methods of sustainable development.  There should be education on the consequences of deforestation and desertification and pollution in general.  I like mnadler’s innovation on the giving a man a fish saying in his post (http://propranololitics.blogspot.com/2008/11/if-there-is-nothing-left-to-burn-you.html) because it acknowledges the complexities of poverty.  The wealthy nations should do more in the ways of education about sustainable development with regards to aiding impoverished nations.  

If There Is Nothing Left To Burn You Have To Set Yourself On Fire

When addressing the problem of global poverty, it is better to concentrate on modifying structural conditions over meeting people’s short-term, basic needs.

On the one hand, everybody needs things like food, water and health care. That’s undeniable. And, while some would disagree, I suppose, I personally think that we should do our best to provide said food, water and health care to impoverished states. No person should go without a full stomach, when we pay farmers not to produce corn; no person should have a parched throat, when fresh water lays abundant; no person should have a disease to which we know the cure.

However, if one examines the matter at hand at an even slightly deeper level, it becomes apparent that short-term handouts or programs are vastly inferior as a method of implementing effective change as compared to modifying structural conditions, such as infrastructure and trade routes. It follows the age-old aphorism of “if you give a man a fire, he will be warm for a day. If you teach a man how to make fire, he will be warm for the rest of the life.”

My version, which is significantly less poetic, would be something like: “If you give a man food, he will be full for a day. If you give a man increased capacity to produce food in the long-term through disaster prevention/control, advanced agricultural technology and techniques, and improved road/port systems through which he can produce and trade his produce for other goods, he will be full for the rest of his life.”

In short, it is better to concentrate on modifying structural conditions than on meeting people’s basic needs, simply because the former will lead to the latter while the latter, on its own, would not lead to the former.

Being dead doesn't help.

I just got back from seeing an awesome production of Carmen at the Kennedy Center and I am STILL putting up a blog post. That's right, commitment. And Toblerone = slight sugar rush.

Anywho.

People might say I am ridiculously naive when it comes to international development. I don't know who, but if you search long enough you can find someone who'll say anything about you. However, I'm not. Impoverished nations, regardless if they are in Africa, Asia, Europe or Latin America, are screwed. Whether new economic systems are given, free aid is doled out, subsidized aid is passed around or Barack Obama is president, countries where the majority of the population is labeled as "living in extreme poverty" are up shitake mushroom creek.

So what do we do, what do we address, when even if we do everything we can't guarantee an eradication of poverty and all the symptoms and causes (which may be the same thing, creating a cycle-o-vicious) of it? As much as I realize the need for structural stability, for roads and such...I remain firm in my statement that we must address basic needs of humanity first and foremost. A strong infrastructure in a nation means nothing if there are not people to utlitze it or even build it. Infrastructure, as important as it is, doesn't matter when people are too sick and too weak to use these services and structures.

A majority of people in extreme poverty live in rural areas (because it is pretty difficult to build up when you have nothing to build up upon). Within the broad affirmation that basic needs are the base of aid, perhaps it is easier to look at those in rural poverty. Afterall, even on a minimum level, urban dwellers have some sort of, at least, physical infrastructure. Ok, now that we've gotten all of that Lake Titicaca out of the way, what are basic needs?

....What do people need to survive?
Water, food, basic health care, shelter.

In order to make this blog not a KAJILLION bytes long, I'll just talk about water: Perhaps more than anything, water is the most basic of needs and one of the hardest needs to satisfy. Despite most of this planet being covered in the big blue wet thing, getting clean water for most of the human race isn't as simple as turning on the tap. Water-related illnesses are numerous (short list: cholera, malaria, ringworm, anaemia) and untold numbers of people die each year because they didn't have access to clean water, whether it was for drinking or sanitation. As the WHO tells us: In 2002, 1.1 billion people lacked access to improved water sources, which represented 17% of the global population (and just so ya know, 2/3 of that are people in southeast Asia). If wells, or as I mentioned in class, LifeStraws that filter water are provided, then, not only is the ability to get clean drinking water increased, the likelihood of getting water-related diseases decrased, but the time spent going to a water source (which could be 11 miles away in some regions) is drastically reduced.

Water = essential. No water = not really healthy. Not really healthy = DALY (not you Bovice.) is drastically decreased (or is it increased...whatever, you're gonna die sooner). Dead = not really useful to anyone. Not productive = kinda hard to build an infrastructure outta dead people. Yeah, they did it for the Great Wall, but how great was it, really? Didn't stop anyone from climbing it.

And I'm done. Opera high has worn off.

Structure or Basic Needs?

In solving Inayatullah's poverty crisis, a nation first must correct basic structural issues before addressing the provision of basic needs. In my mind, the progression from poverty to developing society is first achieved through the construction of basic infrastructural assets. Modern society tends to revolve more around the import-export dynamic, something impossible to achieve without strong infrastructural support and a system of stable institutions. With roads, ports, airports, etc., nations can create a vastly improved diet, service structure, industrial machine, and more. This is the most effective way to address Inayatullah's clash between the global division of labor and sovereignty. Farming societies, particularly in Africa and Southeast Asia, are highly specialized. I would argue this fact has more to do with geography than Western colonialism, but that is beside the point. What I'm arguing is that agricultural societies exist in a way that they can only produce one of several crops, many of which (especially in the case of Inayatullah's example of Egypt) can only produce cash crops that are inedible, creating a reliance on the import-export structure. As a result, there is no way for impoverished communities to provide for themselves until corrupt governments are broken down and roads are constructed to facilitate trade. Most would argue a sort of Maslow's hierarchy of needs here, but I want to provide my critique of Maslow's application to modern society construction. I best fulfill the hierarchy of needs with this argument, in that I have proven that providing for economic infrastructure modification you can provide for these needs, where the agricultural or medical basics can't be efficiently distributed without roads.

We also see issues arrive in regards to the pricing of food without easy means of transportation. With no roads, we see increased transportation costs. When we take a look at the already extravagant prices of transportation, whether due to fuel costs or piracy(!), something as simple as roads can reduce prices, making it easier for the impoverished to afford food.

Infrastructure and corruption reduction will go a long way toward on decreasing the costs of providing aid, removing bureaucratic impurities and infrastructural issues.

Oh, in other news, I want to discuss my excitement over Liberty Prime, the communist-killing freedom-loving robot of Bethesda Software's Fallout 3. Watch the video, and appreciate his ultra-patriotism in all its glory. As I finally advanced upon the Jefferson Memorial and activated Project Purity on Tuesday night, I was driven into fits of joy and happiness upon hearing the robot shoot planes out of the air while saying such phrases as "The last domino falls here!" or "Death is a preferable alternative to communism!". This kind of awesomeness brought so much joy into my life, and I just thought I should share it with you all.

Heck Yes We Did! but we still have work to do...BUT YES WE DID!!!!!!!!

This Tuesday was the most exciting night I have had at AU.  At the beginning of the night, I was still nervous because I have had my hopes dashed before.  However, when the results started coming in and the electoral map was turning the most beautiful shade of blue, I started to get very excited.  However, I think I still had the feeling that I should not expect the best and that some things are too good to be true.  The fact that I was still worried that something would go horribly wrong, that the Bradley Effect would come into play and I would be stuck wondering how I can be proud of this country and its people if racists and bigots can still determine the course of our history.  With the passing of Proposition 8, I have some of that feeling, but hopefully the gay rights movement can be achieved faster than the civil rights movement.  I hope that gay marriage can become a right because when America is less forward thinking than South Africa, I think there is reason for concern.  If any of you feel similarly, attend a protest with me!!!  Here is the link to the facebook event:http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=39739681959&ref=mf

            Back to the election.  I have no idea how to put into words exactly how I felt just after Virginia was called and CNN flashed a screen announcing that Barack Obama is the President-Elect.  I do know that Brotopia erupted into cheers and hugs and was even able to drown out the din from outside.  We all ran down to the quad and chanted “Yes We Did!” and there was much rejoicing.  The peaceful riot was glorious. 

            I thought the acceptance speech was incredible.  I agree with what Matt from Bread for the City said, for once a man was humble and touched by the vindication of the country and understood that the election was not for him, but for us.  We took the White House back, not him.  Obama also made clear that we all face serious problems, especially the economic crisis and the Iraq War.  He made sure that we knew that electing him does not make the world a magically perfect place.  This was necessary, and I am glad he did so. 

            However, I did feel a bit of magic called hope when we went to the White House at 1:30AM.  The sense of pride in our nation and real camaraderie of the DC residents was overwhelming.  Cars honked, people waved flags and sang goodbye to Dubya, and it was a beautiful night all around.  I was torn of whether I should go because I had Chinese at 8:30AM, but I decided to be a witness to history.  I would choose that over sleep any day.  

Bread For The City

Bread for the City was excellent.

I’ve been keeping tabs on many various sort of non-profit organizations over the years, and most of them provide grand disappointments. Take, for example, that a candidate for Afghanistan’s presidency campaigned on the platform of kicking out several hundred corrupt NGOs, who, along with United Nations, were said to be “even more corrupt than the Afghan government”.

And even when the organizations aren’t corrupt – spending large percentages of their money on “marketing” or “administrative fees” instead of on the issues they claim to care about – they sometimes miss the mark.

Take, for example, the myriad NGOs who free slaves from around the world by buying them from their owners and subsequently letting them go. Think about that for a second. What’s wrong with that picture? That’s right, boys and girls: buying slaves – and therefore increasing demand – will only lead to an increase in supply of slaves! In attempting to do good, these moronic NGOs are only perpetuating the problem.

This is not to mention the NGOs in Cambodia who buy $75,000 luxury SUVs to drive past starving children. These ones are often the same who forget the mantra of “it is better to teach a man how to fish than simply giving him some fish”. Note that this does not apply to Bread for the City; in Cambodia, impoverished individuals could literally benefit from increased agricultural skills, technologies and techniques.

In short: some NGOs miss the point, or are straight-up corrupt. BFC gets the point, and, I hope, is not corrupt.

Conclusion: Yay BFTC!

The Election/Bread for the City/Assorted Musings

So the election was pretty much incredible. I personally didn't have much at stake in it until Palin was nominated, but I'll talk about that later. My room hosted the floor election party, which was a wild success. When Obama won, it was hard not to get caught up in the fervor that caught the campus in a state of rapture. I'm a Red Sox fan, and Obama was almost as cool as the '04 World Series win. But I was actually there, in DC, celebrating, instead of sitting at home in Tennessee with my family. Actually showing up to yell in front of the White House was incredible. Love or hate Bush or the election, it was historic, and being there in front of the White House was one of the most moving, fascinating experiences of my life. To see a people whose trust in the nation and government has been crushed singing God Bless America and the national anthem was a genuinely inspiring moment. I can say that I've always been proud of my country, even when I don't like how a political process ends. George Bush was my president, Barack Obama is my president.

One thing I can say about the outcome is that I would still be proud of my country if Sarah Palin were vice president. Though the hatred I have of that woman runs deeper than the blackest pits of Hell, she would still be my vice president. One thing that I see in the right now is the discombobulation of the left during and after the 2004 election. I've seen conservatives falling into the same traps liberals did with the "not my president" shirt fad with Bush. I see a party where Sarah Palin has become the "intellectual elite." This was a party that used to stand for causes I believe in, particularly small government. Conservatives like to say that Bush betrayed the party, but this is part of a long-standing evolution of the Republican Party into a socially conservative, economically liberal populist party. And don't expect this to change anytime soon. So far, with the distancing of the academic community from the Republican Party, I don't see anywhere the party can go. If the Libertarian Party were to temper most of (if not all) of its views, it could seize on this chance as the party of the future. But for now, until the 9/11 Truthers, isolationists, and conspiracy theorists get out of the game, nothing will happen on that front. For now, expect a Democratic majority that will not lose its grip on power until corruption sets in like it did to the Republicans in 2006.

Anyway, I want to agree with the vast consensus that Bread for the City was probably our coolest visit so far. It was just a pretty moving trip. I felt like I saw a nonprofit that was really making change, not issuing broad-based policy initiatives with no substance. It was in the community working and representing its interests. It doesn't change my perspective on the vast majority of NGOs, but I saw how they can do good. It may not change the world like a lot seek to, but it went a long way toward improving the lives of the community it lived in, and that's something to be proud of.

I thought this was a fairly interesting twist on the Russian-Georgian conflict and its newfound ethnic conflict. Possible re-emergence of tensions?

Opportunities

I'll be honest, this past Wednesday's visit to Bread for the City was my favorite lab excursion so far.

For those of you who didn't sign up to get their RSS feed for the blog, Beyond Bread, they just put up a post giving a shout out to us, and to Amanda, B.A. Baracus and Ziggy for putting up posts dealing with our visit. So, congrats to those three for getting a nod and even comments from Matt. It's exciting to think that our little blogs are attracting outsiders.

To get back to what I wanted to discuss....

I realize that this upcoming week is "poverty week" in our class, but since this week's visit was obviously dealing with the relationship between poverty and prosperity, I'm jumping in on the issue a little early (besides, they are two ends of the same wealth spectrum...you can't discuss one without the other, really).

As I mentioned in my last post, I've begun reading Jeffrey Sachs's The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. I haven't gotten too far into it, since other readings have gotten in my way (Regarding the Pain of Others is the most pointless book. It makes schaudenfreude no fun.) but of what I have read, it is going to be an interesting read. Immediately within the book there is a distinction made. Sachs is discussing an end to extreme poverty. Bread for the City isn't an institution meant to alleviate what Sachs and the U.N. determine as extreme poverty, or living on less than $1 a day. There is even moderate poverty, where people living on only $1-2 a day (that's moderately poor?). Finally, there is relative poverty. Relative poverty is "a household income level below a given proportion of average national income. The relatively poor, in high income countries, lack access to cultural goods, entertainment, recreation, and to quality health care, education, and other perquisites for upward social mobility." Simple as that, almost 40 million people's lives in the United States is summed up in that one definition.

Extreme poverty is just a strange term to me. For someone living below the poverty threshold in the U.S...isn't that poverty extreme in its own way? The fact that we classify people's suffering into extreme, moderate and relative takes out the humanity, in my opinion. And, though I may be in the wrong here, in some ways it may be more extreme, more psychologically frustrating, to be living in poverty in America. Even looking at it from a "relative" level, it isn't hard to see someone and say, "Yes, that person is definitely wealthier than me." Even though we can move upwards in society, to be one of those who lack "perquisites for upward social mobility" and living amongst it on a day-to-day basis...to be one of the "invisible working poor" in America...yeah, not so great.

Even though you can't help but take a step back at that point and say, "I'd rather be poor in America than poor in Kenya."
I'd rather not have to be in a situation where relative poverty is an issue.

Yet, it is. Poverty can't be eradicated. Not when there is risk in society. And you can't get rid of risk, just like you can't get rid of chaos.

...One last thing to this long post (which is usual). I admire what Bread for the City is doing. They are taking a direct, head on approach to fighting poverty, offering services to help the vulnerable in DC. Even though I'm not sure where I want to go with my international studies major, for some reason, poverty, regardless of the adjective attached to it, compels me. It makes me want to do something, because I have those "perquisites for social mobility."

Because I'm a bit lame, I come up with aphorisms in my free time (really, I just want to be someone who people quote). One of my favorites is "I want to make a difference in the world; maybe not to mankind, but of somekind."

Maybe I'm looking that somekind in the face.
Hey, BFTC, you'll be hearing from me.

Wealth

Is a wealthy state one with full employment? No, and here’s why: capitalism. The concept of a state holding full employment isn’t bad in-and-of-itself, assuming that everyone holds the jobs which they are best at doing. However, that would not be the case, given the means by which a state would bring about that full employment. To bring about full employment, industries would have to be more heavily regulated. Heavily regulated economy != laissez-faire economy. When the economy still has some elements of laissez-faire economics within it, social forces will ideally automatically realign towards maximal efficiency. When there is too much government intervention, this capacity for maximal efficiency is diminished or destroyed.
Note: I do not advocate laissez-faire economics; I am simply arguing that policies resulting in full employment would necessarily incorporate an excessively high rate of government interference in the economy that would have deleterious effects.

Is a wealthy individual one who has a job? Not always, and here’s why: individual wealth is defined by those individuals, and them alone. To someone, material wealth might be of the utmost importance, and for them, yes, a wealthy individual is one who has a job. For me, however, material wealth is far from the top on the list of things I desire. First and foremost, for me, is the effort to have a positive net effect in terms of humanity’s happiness. So, for me, one who is wealthy is one who has made positive change away from chaos, and towards love.

P.S.: Yes, I know that I sound like a hippie. Deal.

Wealth for Individuals and States

I’m starting with micro and then moving to macro.  An individual is not necessarily wealthy if they have a job.  When illegal immigrants come into the southern US, they can get jobs, but these jobs are usually below minimum wage and the working conditions are not always up to legal standards.  If people have jobs, but do not have rights or are not making enough money to support themselves and/or their families, then they are definitely not wealthy.  However, as we heard about at Bread for the City today, sometimes people who have jobs still need assistance.  People who have jobs may still need some assistance with food from non-profits.  Having a minimum wage job is not helpful if minimum wage cannot allow for sustainable survival.  I may have just invented this term, but I say it means survival on more levels than just living.  One has to live at a level where their life is ensured to survive for the long-term.  If all the person can afford on their wages is to eat at McDonalds or other cheap fast food chains, their life is not being sustained because of the lack of nutrition in the food and the health complications associated with that diet.  In this situation, I suppose I define wealth as having decent wages and working conditions and being able to ensure survival for the long-term. 

Does high employment in a state make the state wealthy?  I am seriously divided on this one.  Originally I thought that unemployment is obviously a bad thing.  I want people to have jobs because I want people to have money and get to work and provide for themselves and their families.  However, I realize that there are exceptions because if nearly everyone in a nation has a terrible job with low pay and are oppressed by their bosses, then the high employment is not good for the nation and does not make the nation wealthy.  Most people would agree that this would be true if the country was the US.  But what if this were true in Somalia?  Would people think this was a really good thing for the people of Somalia or a really good thing for the state of Somalia?  I think that our understanding of wealth is a perspective when considering the wealth of a particular nation.  We consider the country’s past wealth and compare that to the present to determine whether it has improved.  I think this is not really fair because the US will believe it is a success if more people in Somalia have jobs, but the majority of people may still be struggling to survive.  We can have higher goals for the wealth of every nation and of all the people in the world.  We can increase employment in ways that will improve the lives of those employed.  And we can do so much to help everyone experience a bit more wealth in his or her lives.  (Yes we can)

Unemployment-Inflation Trade-Offs

The question essentially asks us to compare a monetarist unemployment policy, in which adjustments in the interest rate affect the rate of employment, to a more active role of legislative properties in handling economic externalities. Is controlling inflation more important than staving off unemployment? Do we buy into the idea of the Phillips curve trade-off or the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, or in other words, do we trade off inflation for unemployment, or in the long run does it even matter?

We could start this off prefaced with a little bit of history. As most know, the big result of the Great Depression economically was the rise of Keynesian economics. Fundamental to this system of the idea that if we work to lower unemployment rates, we face an inflationary trend. Milton Friedman in the late 60's advanced an idea that posited there was no long-run trade-off between the two. He argued we should keep inflation in check, because unemployment would naturally gravitate toward NAIRU. The collapse of the Bretton Woods system and the resulting policies of Volcker in the United States and Thatcher in Great Britain essentially marked the death of institutionalized Keynesian policy and the rise of Friedman's Chicago School of economic thought. But as is pointed out in Martin Wolf's analysis of the situation, rather than Keynes falling into obscurity and Friedman reigning supreme, we see "a world of fiat money has supplied modest inflation and supported stable growth." Though we now see this system that has existed since Bretton Woods's collapse coming under question once more, I still find the current monetary policy a suitable means of ensuring long-run stability versus storing wealth in a commodity bubble.

So yeah, you're probably doing pretty well if you're able to gravitate toward full employment. I buy into the idea that in the long run, we gravitate toward full employment. But the vast majority of the time, we aren't there and we're in a recessionary phase. So we could say we're wealthy, but it's all subjective.

AC/DC said it best: Money talks.

This week's question: Do you in fact agree that a wealthy country is a country with full employment? And that a wealthy individual is one with a job?

No.
Maybe.
Depends.

...No, it's back to no.
This question is basically asking: do you agree with this definition of wealth: in relation to countries, having full employment.

And, no, I don't agree with that definition. I reject your definition, good sir, and replace it with my own:

...
I don't have one yet. I'm working on it.
Besides, rarely are countries at "full employment", which doesn't mean there isn't unemployment. According to my WordWeb (since I'm too lazy to pull out my macroecon book), full employment is: "The economic condition when everyone who wishes to work at the going wage rate for their type of labor is employed." ...Hmm. That isn't what I remember from econ.

Ok! Got my macroecon book. The term "full employment" is also referred to as "natural rate of unemployment". My book defines this as: "The normal rate of unemployment, consisting of frictional unemployment plus structural unemployment." Frictional unemployment is "short-term unemployment that arises from the process of matching workers with jobs" and structural unemployment is "unemployment arising from the persistent mismatch between the skills and characteristics of workers and the requirements of jobs". It also lists the other type of unemployment, which is cyclical unemployment (cyclical is such a weird looking word). Cyclical (still weird) unemployment involves unemployment due to recession. Like now.

Alright! Combining all the information we've garnered thus far, let's look at what we've (meaning I, and thus you by association) have deduced: According to Ruggie, a wealthy country is a country with full employment. According to L. Ron R. Glenn Hubbard, author of my Macroecon book, full employment means no unemployment due to recession. ...So, a wealthy country is a country that is in expansion.

...Taking into account the current economic crisis (have fun with that one, Obama)...no country is wealthy all the time then.

Which brings us to the question of: do countries fluctuate in and out of being wealthy?
If America is in a recession (it is), then are we not wealthy anymore because people are unemployed due to the recession?

Conveniently, and I mean, really conveniently, I just started reading the book "The End of Poverty" by Jeffrey Sachs, who is becoming a hero of mine relatively quickly. And no, totally didn't go out and buy this book for World Politics. Went out and bought this book for College Writing. Since I wrote a research paper on Sachs.

And I was going to talk about it, but I realized I can do it next week when it is poverty week. Whoo!

In any case, I've come up with my definition of wealthy, on both an individual level (I'm all about the individuals) and country level (this class is all about the countries):

Individual level: Look up Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The closer you get to self-actualization, the wealthier you are. In order to achieve the most base of needs, someone, either you or someone you are dependent on, needs to have a job. So I don't agree with the "wealthy if you have a job". You could be considered wealthy if you have a job, but you do not need a job to be wealthy. Make sense?

Country level: As Jasmine just told me (she's going to be slightly pissed I stole this. ...Love ya?) "If you're giving out aid to other countries, you can be considered wealthy." Though...never mind, no, Jas, take that back. I don't like it. New definition: The population of a country is able to access the basic needs of survival on a day-to-day basis, and can accumulate durable goods (that means things like cars and houses), lending to better health, mental and physically, of life.

Because, hey, I don't care if you say "my family/friends are more important to me than money or material things"...having money, having the ability to buy food, shelter, whatever, for your friends/family, VASTLY increases your wealth on an emotional scale.

Personally, when my financial situation is secure (secure usually means I am making money, and have money saved away), I am less stressed. Overanxiety and stress can lead to actual physical ailments. When I'm less stressed, more endorphins are released in my brain, causing me to be happier. When I'm happier, I'm more social, when I'm more social, I'm more likely to create relationships that actually mean something.

Go money.