Security and Economics: Insufficient Sciences

I agree with the statement that it is impossible for a state to be completely secure given the infinite number of potential threats to any one nation’s security at any given point in time. It’s like what I said on the first day of class: everything in the world is relevant to international relations – we just don’t know it yet. Similarly, everything in the world is relevant to national security – we just don’t know about it until the simmering threat actually boils over. The ‘black swan theory’ that Professor Jackson discussed during class is exactly what I’m talking about here. 9/11 was, to us, a black swan. Of course, in hindsight, we can see at least some of the factors that lead up to the attack – but only in hindsight.

I have heard argued, and I am at least somewhat inclined to agree, that economics is a somewhat flawed science due to the fact that it is only concretely adept at analyzing economic trends and the veracity and strength of various economic theories in hindsight. It has proven relatively worthless at prediction- at being able to, with some measure of reliability, stating what will occur in economics in the future. It is more of a historical than a practical science. The extent to which this failure at prediction holds true is evident in the amazement at which we view actually successful economic predictions, whereas if economics was a practical science, we would expect economic predictions to be true the majority of the time.

Analysis of national security seems to me to be like science: it’s the Black Swan events that have the largest impact, and there is no reliable way of predicting them. We cannot turn to analysis of past events to determine what will happen; we can only turn to analysis of past events to tell us how we might handle the aftermath of events and what we might be able to do to soften, but probably not completely prevent, the negative results.

Nope.

I do not think anyone or any country can be completely one hundred percent secure because you never can know how to secure yourself from every threat imaginable.  Or unimaginable.  Instead, you can be more secure or less secure; there are different levels of security.  However, this applies when you consider security a fact.  In class on Tuesday, there was some discussion on security as possibly being a perspective and if you perceive yourself or your nation as being secure, than you are.  I do not think this can be the meaning of security.  For example, if you asked people on the streets of New York City how secure they felt the nation was 10 minutes before the planes hit the World Trade Centers and 10 minutes afterwards, you would get very different answers.  And it is evident that the first perspective was incorrect.  Security is not a mind set, but the true level of security you are at cannot be absolutely determined until after that moment.  So, when we assess current security, it is more of a hypothesis than a fact.  The truth of the matter is that the instability of a measure of security inherently makes security unknowable until you look back on that particular instance.  Now that I think of it, even though I would say there are levels of security, it is near impossible to quantify security.  I suppose you could compare different situations to determine which one was more secure, but then you could not consider all the threats imaginable, or even compare the perceived threats of the times.  I have totally confused myself, but what I mean to say is that knowing how secure you are, or your nation is, is impossible.   

Security in Context

We often like to make philosophic arguments that is impossible to be completely secure. Well, yes. This is obvious. To be secure in an absolute sense is impossible, just as being completely rich, or completely full, is literally impossible. About the only thing you can be is completely dead (D:< BRUTAL). So really, arguing about whether or not it is possible to be completely secure is nonsensical. The "black swan" problem shows this. You may identify every white swan possible, but there always exists the one you can't. So we have to put this in an arguable context, or else the question is abusive and has no way to argue two sides of the question. The question is unanswerable. So yes, the infinite nature of possible threats makes full security impossible, considering anything can be perceived as a "threat."

Hamlet was very insecure (but that didn't stop him)

...I'm relatively sure I know how Sarah Palin felt when SNL did a parody of her interview with Katie Couric...and didn't even bother changing some of what she said. I think I'm feeling what she felt, just in a better, more positive, whoo-what-I-said-became-a-question-again-ftw way.

Anyway, off that ego trip. Here, to the best of my memory, is what I said today in class:

If we're going with the idea of infinite possibilities for security issues, then no one, on an individual, national, or international basis can ever be fully secure. I must strongly state that we are all insecure because we collectively simply cannot imagine all the possibilities that are out there. What was that quote from Hamlet? 'There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.' We cannot prepare for what we cannot imagine and thus we will always be insecure and any conveived notions of security are based solely on our limited knowledge. Now it's time for a nap.

The key phrase in that statement was "now it's time for a nap." I agree with my medicated self.

I'm done. It's sleepy time.




Alright, maybe that wasn't the point. You have to admit though, naptime is good time.

The problem with a statement like mine is discussion begins to enter into the Realms of the Unreal (good documentary) or more sci-fiingly, into the Twilight Zone (good show). Everything is conjecture.

The other problem with a statement like mine is that I made it. It's rather apparent that I believe it. ...So, in answer to my own question, yes, states can never be fully secure?

But let's get real here. Not necessary realism, but real.
No state can ever be fully, completely, unabashedly, without a doubt and in every scope and spectrum of the word, "secure". Simply, how can you prepare for something that you can't imagine?

Let's backtrack a bit to a few weeks ago with the whole aliens on the front lawn issue. In the discussion for that, I stated that we all made assumptions about these aliens, and everyone said since the question was hypothetical they could make assumptions; I, however, said the problem with these assumptions is that we exclude what we can't imagine. What if the aliens didn't, couldn't, speak our language? What if we couldn't find a way to communicate? What if the aliens only existed on dimensions we didn't know existed, or couldn't perceive even if we knew they existed? Or taking a cinematic approach, in the movie Forbidden Planet (as much as that sounds like porn, it isn't) the monster turned out not to be some alien creature, but our own id, and we didn't even imagine that our id could do such a thing. Where I am going with this is we weren't secure because we couldn't prepare, because we didn't know.

The strength of security is limited by our knowledge, and since our knowledge, undoubtedly, is limited (if it weren't, we wouldn't be making scientific "discoveries" all the time), so then, if the level of security which can be attained.

But! And this is a big but (snicker), that doesn't mean we can't feel secure. We can look at this in two ways:

1) While we cannot act on all possibilities, nations can act on all probabilities. Probabilities are merely the possibilities we can imagine. If we've acted on everything we can imagine to be plausible, then we can feel secure. We may not necessarily be secure, but we wouldn't know different, because we can't imagine what those causes of insecurity might be. Like we cannot imagine all the possibilities there are, we can't imagine all the ways we aren't secure. In this instance, our ignorance works for us. We don't know better, so we don't worry any more than necessary. If we could worry about it, then we would know it as a probability, and thus it is taken out of the realm of unimaginable possibilities.

2) We can acknowledge that, yes, our knowledge is limited. We can acknowledge that, yes, what defines security issues are an infinite number of situations. And we can accept it. We can prepare for what probabilities we know, and feel secure in knowing that we've done what we can with what we know and have.

This entire opinion rests on the "unknown", or, the fear of the unknown. We can either stagnate with this fear, retaining a constant feeling of insecurity (this can be called depression or nihilism) or face it, accept it, and be secure in our acceptance of it.

It comes down to whether you want to say, "There are so many things I don't know what could happen I can't even imagine what can I do there is nothing I can do." or "Yes, there are things I don't know about, can't even imagine, but that's fine. At least I realize there isn't a lot I can do, accept keep progressing." Turning possibilities into probabilities.

You can't get rid of insecurity...you can only expand knowledge. OH SNAP, ending on a metaphysical note.

Actually, ending on the first point I made: naptime.

GOOD NIGHT.
[sleep tight, don't let the id monsters bite]

Less Obvious Security Threats

In class on Friday, I found myself more interested in the political cartoon about Social Security more than any of the others.  To refresh everyone, it was a cartoon of President Bush standing next to a woman who is dying and telling a variety of young people that they will not be responsible for the woman and others like her if we changed the social security system.  I believe that this cartoon indicates not only what we discussed in class, about the need to secure ourselves from inside security threats, but that our belief in social responsibility is dying. 

            I usually like most of what IR liberals believe, but sometimes I get annoyed with self-interest because it is so vague.  I do not see many examples of people acting in their own self-interest by helping others, even when this usually would help them eventually.  This cartoon represents how people think of their self-interest in the short-term and not the long-term.  I still believe that in the instance of Social Security that we can take care of others in difficult times at the ends of their lives because if we keep the spirit of civic duty alive, we will get taken care of late on in our lives.  Perhaps that is too idealistic, but in my short time on this planet I have experienced many things that demonstrate how achieving security for others who are in need will come back and reward you in the end.  

This is also why I do not see the benefits of websites like the one Bo Vice sent in about guns.  Guns are intended to secure yourself, but they can end up hurting yourself or your family.  When people can buy guns off the internet with hardly any supervision, it is very likely that people who do not know how to use guns will own them.  As some have mentioned, there are many gun deaths that are accidental because of novices not knowing what they are doing.  However, the gun deaths that I think are a larger threat to security are when family members get a hold of the gun.  I do not know when I have seen much more devastation in people's faces than when watching the events of Columbine, or felt more sad than when reading about very young children accidentally shooting themselves or their friends because they found daddy's gun.  A person who owns a gun in the name of securing themselves and their family who does not know how to properly use it or store it is a great threat to everyone's security.  

During the Cold War, McCarthy’s reign of terror was often described as the “red scare”. The roots of workplace discrimination against homosexuality began on a grand scale during the same time; this was known as the “Lavender Scare”. Those who were suspected of homosexuality were also targeted by McCarthy, and were punished more frequently than those accused of communistic tendencies. The Lavender Scare began in earnest in 1950. That April, Guy Gabrielson, the Republican National Committee Chairman, went on the record as saying that “…perhaps as dangerous as the actual Communists are the sexual perverts who have infiltrated our Government in recent years”. The irony of this is that the man who lead McCarthy’s attack on homosexuals, Roy Cohn, was himself a closeted gay man. From April to December of 1950, government employees were fired at a rate of sixty people per month for suspected or actual homosexuals. Over the next several years, hundreds of civil employees were fired for homosexuality, all at a time when the nation sorely needed them to deal with the threat posed by the USSR.

From a report made to the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments by its Subcommittee in Investigations, United States Senate, 81st Congress, 2nd Session, Dec. 15 1950:
“Those charged with the responsibility of operating the agencies of Government must insist that Government employees meet acceptable standards of personal conduct. In the opinion of this subcommittee homosexuals and other sex perverts are not proper persons to be employed in Government for two reasons: first, they are generally unsuitable, and second, they constitute security risks.”

It’s ironic – in attempting to stem the tide of THE GAYS, the government was just shooting itself in the foot.
This kind of blind, hateful sentiment so characteristic of the 1950s is represented in the following video, entitled “Boys Beware”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4enfUyGWSY

Gun Control and Realism

Before posting, I want to preface this discussion with a problem a lot of people bring up. People have been arguing that the extent of their belief in gun control lies only in registration for guns and child locks on them. Outside of the NRA, you will be hard-pressed to find many people that argue against waiting period for guns. To me, pro- versus anti-gun lies in whether or not they should own them. I consider myself pro-gun, but I'm willing to wait three weeks, or even a year before I get my gun. I can do that if I know that other people go through the same process and it will save lives. I will put a child safety on my gun because I care about my children. That's not a big imposition. But saying I can't own my gun is an unrealistic solution to the problem that is gun violence. We need to find a realistic solution to the problem. I just want to use this to frame my position, as well as the context in which I discuss pro- and anti-gun laws. The Brady Laws are not anti-gun in my position, as they allow for gun ownership while preventing dangerous uses, and statistically reducing gun violence. Yet calls for all-out bans are what I plan to oppose.

I found that class's debate Friday about gun control tied in very nicely to my readings in E.H. Carr's The Twenty Years' Crisis. The book argues that in handling situations on an international scale, we must find a balance between idealism and realism. Idealism is a self-defeating idea; it provides a statement about the way things should be without telling us how to do it. Realism is essentially necessary to reaching any ideal end. This argument ties in easily to discussions of gun control.

Though in an ideal world, means of killing each other would not exist, the fact remains that they do. As Nicholas Cage stated in the beginning of Lord of War, there is 1 gun in the world for every 12 people. They play an immense role in spurring on conflict in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East in particular. Clearly, a broader initiative must be made toward restricting small arms and light weapons (SALW) use in conflict zones beyond paying typical UN lip-service to the idea.

But what I find most interesting about the problem of ownership is rates of ownership in many European countries, to whom we frequently look as the "gold standard" of gun control. Nations such as England do not even arm their police officers. Yet for each Britain (where there are five guns for every 100 people), there is a France, where there is approximately one gun for every three. Or Israel, a nation that arms its teachers, is home to companies such as Galil and Israeli Weapons Industries, yet maintains a low gun violence rate relative to many other nations (1 2). This variety of situational murder rates points to the fact that there must be some other cause other than gun ownership that spurs on violent crime. As a result, I would argue this essentially proves, or at least highly supports, the claim that merely taking away all guns does not provide a true prescription to gun violence as an issue.

We all agree that gun violence is a problem. Yet we must provide an economic solution to the problem. We need to provide an incentive for people to get rid of their guns, or to cease using them in the manners described. There must be some kind of balance to truly prevent gun violence. Taking away assault weapons won't handle it. Making people voluntarily give them up will. Providing cost-based incentives, as Adam's discussed community work does, will best serve the ends of all. This will not completely eradicate gun violence; nothing ever will. But we can at least make realistic strides in the direction of reducing gun violence while still allowing for ownership for sport. I'm not pro-gun control. But this is because I find a lot of programs promulgated by those on this side of the spectrum to be unrealistic. Programs such as Adam's, however, make me much more likely to advocate such a situation, hence my ultimate support for parts of his position. Though I disagreed vastly with many of his reasons for wanting to ban guns, or maybe even the ultimate extent to which he seeks to do restrict usage, I found the programs he chose to advocate as being very strong and serving the same end I desire of reducing gun violence. None of them outrightly banned gun use. Rather, they provided a strong incentive-based plan that effectively reduced their useage in target communities. This is something we can all believe in.

Addendum

This has nothing to do with my previous post.

But, it has to do with everything.

Check out TED talks. It's pretty amazing. You'll definitely find something to inspire you.

I won't say what TED is on here...you'll just have to check it out for yourself.

I promise, however, that this is worth 20 minutes. 30 minutes. An hour. 3 hours.
However much time you have to be amazed, inspired, and encouraged.

Brawl.

What's that phrase? The only things you shouldn't talk about in polite company are religion and politics?

Ah, the joys of a World Politics UC.

Obviously, living in Washington, DC, at American University, in a World Politics UC means politics are going to be discussed. Yet, of those two "taboos", it is politics that is more easily placed on the chopping block of conversation...which is strange. People say that religion is harder to broach because it is based on "faith", on someone's beliefs. ...What the hell are politics then? ...Political beliefs are based just as much on "faith" as religious beliefs. Maybe not faith in a deity (though, in some cases, it is true for both), but faith in a system, and ideology, something.

Whoo, I can tell this post is going to be a little tatterdemalion (that's my new word for the day), but that is because I am on 5 different types of medication and am a little unsound.

H'Ok, so. I'm trying to say that, a lot of the time, it is hard for people to be able to completely seperate their political beliefs from within a political discussion. That seems strange, but when people begin discussing beliefs, it is bound to get nasty. Bound to get personal. I mean, Rachel's post generated a kajillion (alright, 40) comments, and after awhile, it was more than just discussion.

I'm just saying that in a group based on politics, it's bound to get political.
...And I'm surprised no one has duked it out yet. [Kinda wanting it to happen]

...Ugh, medication makes me tired.

Big, Shining Bars of Gold

Only the most foolhardy and short-sighted analysts would state that matters of policy and matters of economics are not deeply intertwined. As security is a facet of policy, yes, the current global financial crisis is a security issue.

A nation’s economy is, in fact, an extremely important part of a nation’s security. From a purely rationalist perspective, if a nation does not have a strong economy, it cannot tax it’s populace to fill it’s treasury with big, shining bars of gold. The cost of a jet fighter is, say, one big, shining bar of gold. If a nation has no BSBGs (Big, Shining Bars of Gold), they cannot buy any jet fighters – nor, for that matter, can they buy any Big Artillery, Big Bombers, or Big Nuclear Devices. If a nation has no Big Artillery Divisions, Big Bomber Divisions, or Big Nuclear Devices pointed at our foes, they cannot defend their borders or their ideologies from rival nations.

From a purely liberal perspective, this crisis is a threat to security. To quote John F Kennedy, a rising tide lifts all boats. The converse of that aphorism: a falling tide lowers all boats. If the global economy is suffering, each component nation of that global economy also suffers. As individual nations are impoverished, their people become unhappy. As people become unhappy, they become angry. As people become angry, the nation eventually becomes unstable, and thus conflict emerges from this tragic loss of BSBGs. And let us not forget that conflict often reaches across borders: an instable nation will negatively impact surrounding nations, etc. Like the Domino Effect, but it actually exists?

So, let us consider Iceland. http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2008/10/iceland_goes_ba.html

As stated in the article, Iceland has recently gone bankrupt. The Icelandic currency is now completely worthless on the global markets, and so no one would be willing (or financially able) to import goods into Iceland. If international organizations / strong nations do not act to save Iceland, it will struggle to recover. The same could hold true for the U.K., which holds (as Iceland held) large external debts. With each bankrupt nation, all other nations suffer, in the long run. Short term: doesn’t it benefit the U.K. more to sue Iceland for its losses? Long term: no, it benefits the U.K. more to have a financially thriving neighbor.

Ergo, be nice to your neighbors!
Q.E.D.

This blog is really depressing me

The global financial crisis is a security threat.  If Leadership Gateway were still going on, I would say that economics runs the world, because without money, nothing works.  So when our financial system is in chaos and we are experiencing a recession, the world is in an unstable and insecure situation.  The United States is particularly insecure because of our dependence on the dollar.  When the stock market plummeted, there was a sincere fear that countries that had some of our money would lose trust in our currency and trade it for the euro or something more secure before the dollar depreciated in value even more.  I am not sure if that fear was uncalled for or if that example is still a possibility.  However, I think that security issues are more frightening on the individual level.  All of the large-scale matters will impact the everyday Joe the Plumber and even more unfortunately, the everyday Joe the Farmer. 

Agriculture is going to see some worldwide debacles.  The demand for food is going to decrease, causing the prices to decrease, which may help some poor people, but since the poorest nations of the world have agriculturally based economies, this will hurt the most impoverished peoples.  Wages and jobs will decline.  As unemployment around the world increases, this could cause serious conflicts between citizens and migrant farm workers, which has been a recent problem in South Africa.  This will likely bring about a shift to supporting more right-winged political parties.  Drastic policy changes in the opposite direction will not balance the countries, but create volatile political conditions, which will make the countries less secure. 

However, the more powerful nations will want to deal primarily with their domestic financial problems and the more fragile economies will suffer the most with a decline in foreign aid.  Sustainable development for the third-world will not be on the American’s platform when American constituents are feeling the pain from the crisis.  This will inevitably make security a larger issue in the future when (yes, I am bringing this back to the Palestinian plumbing services) destitute people resort to supporting the extremist groups who get them the services they need.  

Economics & Security

The actual security risks of the economic crisis are overblown in that the nature of the current situation affects developed nations more than less interdependent counterparts. The actual security risk lies on the margins of society: those poor nations facing large-scale conflict will likely only witness decreased foreign involvement in their crises. Because Somalia does not have a strong credit derivative or mortgage-backed security market that has collapsed as a result of the sheer amount of homes being constructed in the giant crater that is that nation, it has little to fear from the situation. Its current situation will likely remain constant in the face of its status as a thoroughly detached, largely autarkic economy. The same stands for the vast majority of the third world in which most conflicts exist.

The third world is nowhere near as interconnected in the global market as are nations that have recently faced economic disaster. This disaster has spread from nation to nation largely due to the various investment strategies used by stockholders in each nation. These stockholders are people who have money to spend beyond basic needs. Random Congolese farmer #3,407 won't be worried about his heavily divested stock portfolio. Rather, his concern will be whether or not he can eat regularly. As a result, these conflict zones are not hurting from the global crisis.

Though larger nations are suffering a relative decline compared to many second-world nations, these do not pose an inherent security risk, especially considering their dependence on first world success. Chinese industrial output is now slowing as a direct result of declining consumer demand for Chinese goods, which were already cheap as is. Additionally, the second-world nations (a la Brazil, China, India, etc.) were already achieving rates of growth far greater than those of industrialized nations. As a result, they can not be viewed as a serious security risk.

There are certain situations which may in fact benefit: look at Russia, Venezuela, and Iran, three countries that had become increasingly belligerent as a result of rising commodity prices are now in decline due to falling demand. Russia no longer has the leverage it has over European countries and Venezuela does not wield large influence over Latin American politics in the same way it once did.

The actual national economic decline cannot be viewed as a giant security risk.

"Have you no human consideration?" "Show me a human and I might have!"

Is the current global financial crisis a security issue?

...Obviously yes. Let's look at it from world, national, regional and individual levels.

World: Money, as the saying goes, makes the world go round. The current crisis doesn't mean that there isn't less money (in fact, it means there is more "money" as in little slips of paper) floating around...it means there is less money being, on a day to day basis, traded between firms and households, households and firms, governments and firms, governments and households and households and governments and housements and governholds and vice versa. Conveniently, my macroeconomics class is currently beginning our discussion on money and banks, so, thanks to Prof. Willoughby, I can provide you with this lovely quote: "Foul cankering rust the hidden treasure frets/But gold that's put to use more gold begets" (William Shakespeare, ripped from Venus and Adonis). So, when trade occurs, more money is created...and not because of mints being printer happy. Thanks to everyone in the world thinking OH NOES WHERE IS OUR MONEY, trade is decreasing, and this is a security issue on a global level because lack of trade equals lacks of stability equals increase in risk of conflict. Bam.

Nation: The United States is in a recession. Screw what the economists and politicians say, I say it is in a recession. With our stock market deciding it wanted to be a roller coaster when it grew up instead of a stock market, the financial institutions in the U.S. are on a ride that they paid for, but didn't really enjoy. Once again, a quote: "Fasten your seatbelts, we're in for a bumpy night." (Thanks, All About Eve). If our financial institutions are getting motion sickness, the rest of us, on seeing the mess, are getting sick too. Sick people don't really promote the idea of "security". We can't protect our assets when our assets are in a system that's in cleanse-mode.

Regional: Being from California, the economy is SERIOUSLY MESSING STUFF UP. People are being unemployed left and right, the housing market is in shambles, various parts of California are on fire (yeah, that's pretty normal, but don't care, goes in) and we have a Governator. If that's not screwed up, I don't know what is. Since California also happens to be home to one of the largest immigrant populations in the U.S. (hello, Mexicans and Hmongs), unemployment has a large effect on how people interact with each other. Interactions, in the job market, can go awry.

Individual level: My money situation, meaning in general my family's, is in a state of flux, as is probably everyone else's. Personally, when my money isn't stable, I don't feel secure, and when I don't feel secure, I may make rash decisions in hopes that it makes my situation better. Rash decisions are not, often, secure decisions. A whole bunch of people making rash decisions = security issue.

To summarize: The global financial crisis of the here and now is a security issue because when people, nations, whatever, aren't sure about what their financial situation will look like from the day to day, they simply don't feel secure and may do stupid things in the name of "best interest."

...And SIS Gateway is done. ...Whoo!

Mid-Semester Reflection

I was pretty inspired by Rachel's post, and I want to outline my plans on what I plan on doing with the rest of the semester.

• Comment more on other people's blogs. I haven't at all yet. I always read them, but never have much to say. I want to change that and take a more active role in class preparation. I've tried framing my blog posts in a more discussion-oriented manner, but I don't even get insolved myself. I figure holding myself to the standard I desire out of everyone else is a good place to start.
• Talk less in class. I always have something to say. But part of my development as a student ought to be in refining what I have to say more before I say it, and give more constructive comments like Ben does. One thing I've always noticed is that even though he doesn't talk a lot, everything he has to say is very, very insightful and adds a new aspect to the discussion.
  

Powell Doctrine

Colin Powell just endorsed Barack Obama. I have always been a fan of Colin Powell, as I have considered him to serve the role of Secretary of State well. He spoke his mind; when he thought that Bush was messing up, he said so. The last thing that we, as a nation, need is a bunch of yes-men surrounding the President. What we need are people who will speak critically and openly, who will vouch for opposing ideas when to do so would be to ensure that the best policies are followed through with.

In the realm of foreign policy, I think that the so-called Powell Doctrine is a good piece of work. It asks the following questions in regards to whether or not we should engage in a military conflict abroad: Is our national security at risk? Can we achieve victory? Do we know the costs? Have we gone through every possible non-military means of achieving our goals? Do we have an exit strategy? Do we have support for this action domestically and abroad?
To me, the most important and most often overlooked aspect of the Powell Doctrine is the clause relating to non-military means of achieving our policy goals. It’s not enough to know that we can achieve victory, fully aware of the costs of that victory and with a planned means of leaving the conflict, with an action fully supported domestically and abroad, if that victory comes with unnecessary loss of life. Without question, as human beings we must act towards the greatest happiness of all mankind with a maximization of rights. I suppose that I’m a Utilitarian, then?

That’s the message of Lord of War: at the end of the day, we are alone with ourselves, and we must be able to live with ourselves, and how can we do that if we have caused unnecessary death? It is not the exit-strategy clause of the Powell Doctrine that we should focus on, people. That’s not the truth learned from Iraq.

6 Degrees of Separation, New Jersey Style

I did not do anything worldly this weekend.  I went to New Jersey.  I don’t know if I have anything profound to say about my trip, but maybe I can put little insignificant things about my trip on a global scale, or national scale if I’m lucky.  Well, I took the Amtrak train from Union Station and I made the same train trip that Joe Biden makes everyday from D.C. to Delaware.  He’s not taking those trips at the moment because he is busy running for Vice President, technically the Vice President of the free world, and I’d say that makes him an important member of the global community. 

Before I got home, my dad took me to the Starbucks that has just opened in our town (the sign that my quaint little town has officially sold out).  Starbucks does have some stores outside of the United States, but their impact on the global economy because of the coffee bean market is huge.  Starbucks is one of the few coffee companies that have a fair-trade line, but since it is only a small percent of the millions of pounds of coffee that they buy, I do not think they are doing all they can to promote a more ethical coffee market. 

I had an extremely awkward political discussion with my hairdresser because I mentioned that everyone at American University is crazy political.  She said that she thinks Sarah Palin is an intelligent woman.  I strongly disagree and with people who are not holding scissors very close to my head and have control over my physical appearance, I would definitely have argued this ridiculous notion.  Instead I mumbled a nondescript “nnnnnhhhhuuh” and let the subject drop.  I had a much more enjoyable Sarah Palin discussion with my sixty-something year old anorexic alcohol and nicotine addicted dance teacher who lit her cigarette, took a drag, and told me that Palin sets women back 100 years.  This is not serious world politics, but we discussed feminism last class and I think this counts.  Whether feminists are a marginalized group is tough to say, but I think the everyday Jane the Plumbers are worried about the impression Palin gives of the American female. 

My cultural experience this weekend was going to The Haunted Mill.  The Red Mill in Clinton is one of the most photographed places in New Jersey and every year the town goes nuts for Halloween and turns the mill into a haunted house.  The mill was once on the television show Ghost Hunters on the Sci-fi channel.  So this relates to how there is a cultural disparity between the American celebration of Halloween and the Mexican celebration of the Day of the Dead.  We commercialize everything and turn a joyful celebration into a fear-filled freak fest. 

I feel like this blog post mid-semester is a throw back to our discussion about the definition of world politics.  I think the fact that I can make tiny little details of my trip home relate on a global scale means that I was right:  World politics is everything.  Even New Jersey.  

Nietzschean Dialectic and World Affairs (Updated 10/20)

So I've been reading The Twenty Years' Crisis by E.H. Carr, one of the seminal works of realist philosophy. It's fascinating in a completely nerdy way. He argues that there is a constant struggle between realism and utopianism, where the two clash and come to a consensus, only to struggle again as the consensus drifts away from its initial intent. This is a model of the Hegellian dialectic, which argues you have a thesis (a big idea) that clashes with the antithesis (an opposing idea), which don't eliminate each other but combine to form the synthesis (the culmination of the thesis and antithesis; a sort of in-between). Hegel argues this process essentially ends, and the synthesis is the final form of that idea. Carr spins this on its head, building off of Friedrich Nietzsche's critique of the Hegeillian dialectic, arguing that the synthesis merely becomes the new thesis. What I found interesting about Carr's take on the dialectic was his application to world affairs.

Carr sees world affairs as a clash between utopian idealism and realism. The two eventually reach a consensus, or the dialectic is toppled, only to restart again. Values to Carr will never reach a final humanitarian or political pinnacle. Rather, they will constantly evolve. History must be viewed as a never-ending vacuum, not something that will ultimately end, as Francis Fukuyama argues in discussing democracy as the final manifestation of global order. He argues that realism without utopian vision is sterile, and utopianism without realism is ineffective and counterproductive. I found this view interesting in that he is the first "real" realist, yet he argues a realist vision requires a sort of utopian complement in order to actually do anything. A realist without utopia consigns him or herself to a sense of powerlessness that forces stagnancy. This can be a sobering reminder for the "power politician" (about which Carr argues there is no such thing as a politician without power). Yet one way or another, the important message for those living in Carr's idealistic time period is that utopian thought has no inherent value unless it can be lived out and practically applied. He points to the European imperialism, the League of Nations or Comintern of instances where blind idealistic thought backfired, and in many cases hurt those it intended to protect. It's an equally sobering point.

More interesting and applicable in our dicussions of the world today are his discussions about why international organizations are largely ineffective. He looked to the formation of the League of Nations as an empirical example of how this happens. He argues that the reason the League was founded was to solidify the position of powerful nations. For instance, those nations pushing for its creation were the US, Great Britain, and France (the victors of World War I). In fact, several members of Great Britain's House of Lords openly advocated making it a G-8-like exclusivist organization for great powers only. The League was founded according to a "harmony of interests", which he claims did not exist. The theory of harmony of interests argues that states' interests lie with those of the people, and the people's interests are those of the state. This theory's flaws became clear upon World War II's advent, where the "harmony of interests" became synonymous with the interests of the victorious powers. Even more condemning in his mind is the relation of power between the states and international organizations.

The state's authority lies in its monopoly of power. Without this, the state has no ability to enforce its will. For an international organization to be trusted with arbitrative power or effectiveness in world affairs, states are forced to yield an element of their authority over to this body. Those who believe a nation will give up this power "evade the unpalatable fact of a fundamental divergence of interest between nations desirous of maintaining the status quo and nations desirous of changing it." It is advantageous for a smaller nation to stay out of a body like the UN, as it is seen, in Carr's view, as the body representing the interests of those larger nations (the P-5 nations) rather than a podium for the smaller to voice their opinions; without a transfer of power from the nation as a body to the international organization, they serve merely as a hollow body with no real power.

I'm also pretty fascinated with his stance on where morals themselves come from. Carr argues that they emerge to fit a situation. For instance, the idea of a League of Nations did not emerge to prevent war, but to solidify the power of those nations who would be threatened by it. It was a means of preserving the current balance of power. These values, he argues, are relative to the position of the nation expressing them.

He's also got some pretty astounding foresight. He saw the decline of the nation-state as being inevitable following World War II, and the rise of power blocs (a la Warsaw Pact vs. NATO) and superpowers.

________________________________________________________________
EDIT:

I found this article in Foreign Policy, and thought you'd find it interesting. Good quick way to get on a government watch list: The List: Rebel Websites to Watch

Coincidences are Random.

Let's play a game. (As my friends said in the Saw parody they did for an English class: "Let's play a game. If you win, you get a puppy. If you lose, you have to take care of the puppy!") We'll call it "small world".

Let's start with this week's movie, Lord of War.
I've already seen this movie, multiple times (I remember my brother shot me with an airsoft gun until I said I'd go see it with him). While the movie isn't bad, in fact, it does have it merits, most strongly its presentation of the gun trade, it does have some structural problems with the plot, making it predictable to a certain extent. As much as I think that celebrity diplomacy can be contrived, and I do believe films like Blood Diamond, Lord of War are a type of celebrity diplomacy, the undeniable fact remains that big budget films like these with a wide audience base allow for topics that aren't usually known about, much less discussed, to be open for speculation by a much broader range of people. Whether on not that compels them towards action is another matter.

Part of the movie takes place in Sierra Leone, during it's civil war of roughly a decade. By a random coincidence, I had just finished reading a book about Sierra Leone before we watched the movie Wednesday. The book, A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier by Ishmael Beah is a very honest book. From the back of the book: "At the age of twelve, Ishmael Beah fled attacking rebels in Sierra Leone and wandered a land rendered unrecognizable by violence. By thirteen, he'd been picked up by the government army, and Beah, at heart a gentle boy, found that he was capable of truly terrible acts. At sixteen, he was removed from fighting by UNICEF..." Reading it, especially in relation to Beah's time spent in the army, which wasn't too much different from the RUF, in that violence was a way of life, is...disheartening. While Beah's story turns out well in the end, there are millions of others whose lives ended thanks to a stray bullet. Thankfully, the country is slowly, very slowyly, acheiving some semblance of stabilty.

By another random coincidence, I also read the book What is the What, a similar story, taking place in Sudan as Valentino Achak Deng treks across southern Sudan into Kenya, before Darfar happened, but still during the seemingly neverending civil wars that go on there. In Kenya, Valentino lives in a refugee camp - with horrible conditions, disease and rape rampant and resources never evenly distributed. Deng works his way through the system, and eventually his story ends well too.

By random coincidence, I happen to be writing a paper on Jeffrey Sachs, economist and head of the Earth Institute at Columbia. Sachs also heads the Millennium Villages Project, which is working to attain the MDGs, Millennium Development Goals, goals created by the U.N. (in part developed by Sachs as well) for improving human lives by reducing poverty, disease, famine by 2015. Sachs essentially gives $1.75 million to villages over a 5 year period in the form of fertilizer, wells, schools, supplies, seed, equipment, etc. Two of the 13 villages are located in Kenya.

By random coincidence, an opponent of Sachs, Paul Krugman, won the Nobel Prize for Economics this year. Sachs and Krugman disagree on how to help economies that facing economic slums. And at the moment, I'm too tired to go into that with specifics.

By random coincidence, most of the countries featured in Lord of War are in a constant state of slumminess... the "poverty trap".


And that kids, is the game.
(I won a puppy!)

The Nobel Prize

Kind of the most ironic award in history. Invented by the man who invented dynamite, the Nobel prizes have always represented the highest level of academic achievement in anything, ever. Yet lately, we've seemed to have a bit of a shortage in what we give them for.

Take Paul Krugman. A genius. I love a lot of his work. His politics can be wonky, but his economic work is brilliant as far as I'm concerned. But he received the award not in recognition of some new ground-breaking way of handling the economic crisis, like the award's historical reputation would dictate, but for his papers written around 1992 about pricing. A little late, no?

And more importantly, the dispute about the Nobel Peace Prize. Al Gore? Jimmy Carter? All have done a lot in the modern world in talking about peace, but none have acted with the resolve of a Nelson Mandela.

So I ask you all: what does the Nobel Prize mean? What should it recognize? Who deserves what? How should it be decided?

It's a fairly frivolous topic, but the one in economics caught my eye given the recent situation.

I Arrr Theories

Hey, guys, it’s pirate time again!

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iPS7w3VqKuj3eoPmsN8kZDeKmzgg

The pirate-captured tank-bearing, Ukrainian-made vessel has been pinned down by warships from the United States and other nations.

Let’s break this down.

Realism: It is in our nation’s national security interest to prevent the tanks from falling into the hands of the Islamic terrorists for which the pirates intend to deliver the vessel and, more importantly, the arms carried within it. Furthermore, to deliver the ransom demanded by the pirates would only spur further activity of the same nature, as it would be seen as extremely profitable; if you succeed, you are paid by the terrorists; if you fail, you can still collect a (very) hefty ransom. Win-win.

Liberalism: What we are seeing here is the increasingly relevant role of non-state actors in international relations. First, there are the pirates themselves; second, there is the fact that the pirates were attempting to aid terrorists, and there is no Nation of Terror for a Realist to deal with. Furthermore, by taking the course of action that we are, we are furthering the goal of a stabilized Somalia. A destabilized Somalia would lead to destabilization in neighboring states; therefore, by working multilaterally with the other present navies, we are striving towards mutual absolute gain.

Constructivism: Our national identity demands that we stop ne’er-do-wells, and especially pirates. To plunder is dishonorable (unless we are doing it, I suppose), and so we will stop them. Even the literal task of stopping pirates reminds us of the heroes of old, those great British ships of the line that would wreak havoc on the open sea. Romantic. Lovely! We will bring those pirates to justice because it fits into our national identity to do so.

The moral of the story?
Become a pirate!

Africa, Hellish Economic Situation, and Fireside Chats

            Class on Friday was very enjoyable.  I left there feeling emotionally and intellectually better than I had felt all week, but the extra sleep time did not succeed in curing my physical ailments.  I have a lurking feeling that PTJ did not want to get on a new topic because he wanted to get all of our feedback on the minor simulation and a lot of us did not want to answer this week’s question.  Oh well, I’d rather discuss something else from a different class:  Poverty and the rising food prices in Africa. 

            In my macroeconomics class on Friday, as a treat for turning in our midterm papers, we got a guest lecturer from the World Bank.  His name is Quentin Wodon and I have no clue what country he is originally from because he had an interesting accent, but he was an American University graduate who now researches methods to reduce poverty in Central and West Africa.  He explained how it is important to look at the individual African countries because the effects of the price increase on basic foods, rice and wheat, are very different for the different countries.  He also showed us how regions within the countries are affected differently and how the best, most effective aid is targeted in the geographic areas that are hit the hardest by the crisis.  He then showed us through many graph and statistics how the best way to help people is through labor intensive public works projects in those geographical regions. 

            I thought that Wodon’s lecture was really fascinating even though I coughed through most of it.  I liked when he mentioned how tax cuts are easy, but generally the least effective in helping people, because I tend to feel the same way.  I also enjoyed his positive remarks on public works projects.  I find it interesting how the 1930’s keep coming back to relate to current day issues.  I watch the full episodes of The Daily Show online (still waiting on someone to replace the lounge television) and guest Sarah Vowell made a point of saying that she stopped watching the current news and just listened to recordings of FDR’s fireside chats (this is totally off topic of Africa now, but in truth the economic crisis is going to affect nearly everyone).  I found that interesting because she mentioned how FDR was positive and told people not to panic and generally brought a sense of hope with his words.  I wish there was someone who would give the students here a sense of hope about the possibility of continuing to afford attending American University.  

2008, A Space Odyssey

....Thank you Blackboard, for failing to be efficient. It meant I got an extra hour of sleep in, which probably helped my immune system in unknown ways.

Blackboard, next time I'm sick, I'm calling you up and saying, "Hey. Stop working. I need some sleep."

On to this week's reflection....

First off, I'll be honest, I wasn't a huge fan of this simulation. At first I was excited about the idea of filming something, since I love to make films. Then I realized, oh, wait, other classes with essays due. Not so much. As time wore on though, I began to dislike this topic. I just simply didn't feel any connection to it (regardless of whether or not I had a car, that's not the point). More so, I didn't feel the relevance of it...or I felt that there could of been a better topic to have been picked. Be that as it may, it isn't my business to decide what is and isn't appropriate.

On to our first essay topic.

I'm planning on submitting 2001: A Space Odyssey, and calling it good. I'm going to say that's a constructivist point of view. As well as an acid trip point of view. Or submit Alien and say the U.S. is Weaver, and alien is...alien. Kane can be India, Dallas can be Russia, Ash can be Japan, Brett can be...uh....let's go with Sweden. Parker can be...Australia, Lambert can be the UK, and Jones...can be New Zealand. That then, would be a realist perspective.

We have got to throw liberal in there somewhere.....Star Wars? Yes, we're gonna go with Star Wars for liberal.

Voila, my entire essay, in three movies. Whatchagonnado.

Actually, this essay topic is slightly...odd. I realize why it was picked as a topic, I can see the merits, so on, so forth, but once again, I'm just left thinking, "Whhaaaa?" As much as I am a space nut (hey, every kid wants to be an astronaut when they grow up, at least for 5 minutes), and am actually into astronomy from a physics level (and metaphysical level), still, writing an essay essentially dealing with space politics is not what I had in mind when I thought "World Politics".

C'est la vie.

I really want to watch Star Wars now.

Simulation Report

I believe that the group representing the American Auto Manufacturers did the best job of arguing their point during the simulation. I primarily believe this due to the simple fact that the AAM were the group to most clearly state their points. They even had a list! Doesn’t get much simpler to digest than that. And it wasn’t just that they had a list – they had a list of clear, well-argued points that appealed not to emotion, but to rationality.
First, they made a strong appeal to the consumers, my own group, by pointing out that the currently existing tariff has no impact on the prices felt by the consumers, as the corporations producing the luxury cars (Toyota, etc.) assume the cost of the tariff, rather than passing the cost of the tariff on to the consumer by means of a price increase. As I was attempting to keep in the mindset of a consumer for the duration of the simulation (not difficult as, as Maggie pointed out, we are all consumers in the end), I found it striking that the cost of the cars, if the corporations did, in fact, pass the cost on to the consumers, would be ~$100,000. The point, then, is that striking down the tariff can only help consumers, as keeping the tariff up would not result in any spike in car costs.
They didn’t just appeal to the consumers, though. If they had done just that, I wouldn’t think that they would have done a particularly good job. What they did that no other group did as well was to point to the practical constraints upon their position, rather than establishing their arguments solely in contrast to the other groups in the simulation, as all others did. Most tellingly, they pointed out the legal boundaries faced by a corporation such as those the AAM represents. They pointed out the simple fact that corporations have to do everything they can to expand their profit margins, that they must seek maximization of shareholder profits.
The AAM group had the best argument because it combined pointed remarks to specific interest groups [i]and[/i] a grounding in objective reality.

Victor in the Debate? No One

This may come off as evading the question, but I don't really feel like any of our groups got to the core issue here, mine included: the broader economic implications of the debate. It represented the various interests of American industry versus foreign competitors. We have "the American middle class" upon whom there is a perceived "war" waged by foreigners, and the unmentioned consumers themselves. The consumers had the best chance to actually address how important their role in the debate was. They are the reason free enterprise exists. They're the reason we have this debate in the first place. They're the largest, and sole, market for American cars. Everyone has to appeal to them. But I felt as though they took a stance that was more belligerent toward American manufacturers and workers rather than pro-consumer. Had they not done this, they would have had the debate in the bag. I think we were all arguing with utility in mind; the UAW wanted to maximize utility for the workforce, the Sierra Club wanted to protect the environment upon which we depend, etc. The consumers were in the only position to win. The debate became so muddled that no one really defended themselves anymore and merely slang mud at each other. It had plenty of substance; it just wasn't the focus of the argument.

What is McCain doing? Previously, he was trying to market himself as the candidate of national security. That’s the modern Republican ticket, it seems. “Vote for me, or you will die in a Nuclear Holocaust.” Reminescent of Lyndon Johnson’s “Daisy” ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKs-bTL-pRg), except that Johnson was a Democrat. Anyways, here’s McCain, saying “Vote for me; Obama wants to meet with our enemies, God Forbid, and he’ll get us all nuked from here to Mars”, and he picks Palin as his vice-president.
Palin.
PALIN. “Joe Six-Pack” Palin. “Hockey Moms” Palin. Fox News said it right, oddly enough, when they said after Thursday’s debate that Palin did an effective job marketing herself to the American people as being folksy, as a candidate that people could relate to, by using such terms as those. To me, this seems representative of exactly why we do not want Palin to be the vice-president. Just like George W. Bush, in terms of character: I wouldn’t mind knocking back a beer with Dubya or with Palin at the pub, but I certainly would mind having either of them at the helm during a security crisis. I forget precisely which channel brought up this point, but on Thursday Night someone pointed out the National Security Crisis Scenario: let’s say the President has been killed, captured, or in some other way incapacitated or made unavailable, and the Vice-President is in the ready-room, in charge of everything. Who would you rather have with their finger on the button, Biden or Palin? I don’t even trust Palin to distinguish those lovely Russian neighbors of hers from the moose that she hunts, so I certainly wouldn’t want her in charge in a crisis. Biden, on the other hand, reeked pure confidence on Thursday.
I don’t believe that I’m saying this, but I found myself agreeing with Alex Knepper’s column; at the least, it provides something to think about. In his column in The Eagle, he argues that America’s sexism is showing through in this campaign: if Palin were male, we would not be treating her with kid gloves. It is as if most of America is saying “sure, she is weak on foreign policy, and has little experience, and knows less about McCain than Biden does, but, hey, she’s a woman, and we could use that diversity in the White House!” If America weren’t sexist, if America didn’t expect less of women, they’d have laughed her off the national stage long ago. That’s what Knepper argues, anyways, and I think he raises very interesting points. For me, I like to think that I am not like those Americans who expect less of women. Not me: I am an equal-opportunity criticizer.

Water - Market-Based or Necessity?

So I stumbled upon this fascinating debate on The Economist about the market price of water. In the so-called "era of sustainability", water shortages are caused by a growing population facing what was always viewed as a renewable resource becoming scarce.

One side argues that water must be priced so that "customers served under identical cost conditions should be charged equal prices" and that water "should be supplied and priced in such a way that the price for each class of service equals the marginal cost of serving that class." This initial argument comes off as oligarchical, but immediately transfers itself into an interesting take on a way to solve global water problems. The proposition then argues that if we are ever to solve water's scarcity issues, we must realize that "market pricing is central to enabling the forces that allow the efficient allocation of the resource." It's a fairly theoretical case that doesn't have a lot of basis in anything other than empirics, simply because there isn't a historical instance of water being priced at market value outside of the unique situation of Arab desalination efforts.

The opposition, rather than moving into pragmatics that would seem like a sound response, takes a borderline-Marxist opening statement, arguing that there is "no reliable 'market price' in a volatile world driven by greed and profits." This off-putting statement transfers into an argument made that we must "respect the water cycle" and limit our own use. We merely must put in our own limits based on availability.

Though I think the proposition's point is fairly ridiculous, the actual skill with which the opposition sought to defeat it was lackluster. I personally voted yes, simply because the argument in favor of sustainability and environmental protection was actually argued better by the market-force side of the affair. The opposition offered no mechanism by which we might regulate our water uses other than personal judgment, which tends to be at best arbitrary. I was left convinced that regardless of necessity, water was something that must be treated as a commodity if we are to actually conserve it.

I personally would have made an argument akin to the market argument of permits for hunting and fishing. In a completely unfettered market, everyone has access to fish. This causes problems such as overfishing, a chronic problem facing fishing industries across the world. As a result, many nations, the US included, instituted hunting and fishing permits. This cut some out of the market, but in the long run kept fish alive long enough to allow the populations to reproduce. This sort of permit system almost fulfills the opposition's aim of regulating the water market through our own personal judgment. It maximizes marginal utility and ensures the longevity of a scarce resource.

The level of controversy surrounding this topic was the reason I chose it. I hope to get some comments and opinions about the articles.

AU Fights AIDS/It takes 1093466kb to make yell in fury on the quad

            This Saturday morning, Jasmine, Emily and I woke up at 7:30am to participate in the AIDS walk with the American University student group Women’s Initiative.  Even though I was extremely tired from reading The Wealth of Nations for my macroeconomics paper the night before, I managed to get up at such an ungodly hour.  We took the metro to the Metro Station and met up with a huge group of American University students.  While I am aware that 1 in 20 DC adults have HIV, I was still amazed by the turnout.  There were so many people (and quite a few puppies) who all donated and came out to support a worthy cause.  We walked 2 miles, down Pennsylvania Avenue, turned left and passed the Capital Building, then looped back around after picking up some water from the volunteers.  I must admit, I was grumpy at first, but being around so many different types of people (Emily and I saw drag queens for the first time) who have all united around helping those who desperately need aid was inspiring.  And doing that in the nation’s capital where it feels like a much huger statement than if I had done the same thing in my hometown. 

            However, it did get me to thinking politics, as most things do, and I started to think about AIDS relief in Africa.  I am not one of those people who say we should fix everything here before we help foreign countries, but I can understand why some people would feel that way.  It is interesting that while President George W. Bush is generally unpopular, he is undoubtedly most popular in Africa where he has tripled the amount of money in humanitarian aid since 2001.  While I am not usually a fan of evangelicals (they tend to scare me) I do give them credit for making the President more aware of the HIV epidemic.  Perhaps if he had given all that money to try to end HIV/AIDS in DC, he would have gotten more publicity for it, but I do believe that Africa has been hit harder by the virus than the United States has.  Needless to say, I am super pumped for Bush to leave the White House, but I do hope the next president will continue increasing aid to HIV/AIDS prevention programs in Africa. 

 

Now for something completely different:

 

This minor simulation video was awful.  First of all, the media center gave my group a camera with an uncharged battery.  Second of all, we shot 14 minutes of footage, which took 3 hours to cut and edit and add subtitles to.  And now I am still sitting in the media center and I have spent an hour and forty minutes so far trying to send the video because email can’t handle it.  I’ll post the total time I have spent here when I finally finish uploading the video onto a file sharing site and sending PTJ the link.  Or I’ll have a heart attack from the stress and you can check in with Matt (who has been here helping me the whole time because I am technologically deficient) to find out how long this actually ends up taking.  

Reflection for a Dream

...First off, go me, because I inspired this week's response question. ...Which not a lot of people responded to, oddly enough. Go me for encouraging being unenthusiastic. Anyway, I oddly don't remember what went on this week.

Oh, yes, fair use. I don't particularly want to discuss that, since it reminds me that tomorrow is PROJECT TIME up in this grill. Along with PAPER time and OTHER PAPER time. ...Probably also WHY SO MUCH WORK time, but we won't think about that one. So, where does this leave me?

Back to the past, then, just like Back to the Future Part III, minus the train. And 1800s.

As I said, I apparently brought about this week's response question, thanks to my reflection of the previous weekend. Crazy chain reaction, I know. I'll be honest, a response question wasn't the response I was expecting.

...Wait a second. My reflection, which was essentially a question of how do we know if we're doing well, was answered by a question. You can't answer a question with a question!

Anyway, I don't know what response I was expecting from PTJ. Actually, no, in the back of my head I thought he'd give me the lightsaber for the class that following Tuesday, saying "If opinions are a problem, how else should we run the class?" At which point, I'd reply that I never said opinions were a problem, just not very quantitative, then I'd say field trip to TDR. ...Actually, I'd probably do that even if I was just randomly handed the lightsaber. I'm hungry by the time World Politics rolls around.

Still, I don't know if my question was answered. I don't know if I even had a question be answered. I think my reflection was just a manifestation of frustration of the foundation of this creation of education by means of subjective vocalization. Word.

Now where does that leave me? As I said in this week's response, nowhere in particular. Opinions do allow for progress, yet until this semester's up, I'm not sure what the cost is. That's the way the world works.

What was the point of this reflection? Not much...just the thought of someone who was distraught but now, while still a bit fraught, is alright with her lot. That one may not have made sense. ...That's ok, for this, I'm sitting on the fence.

I'll stop now.
(And that's a solemn vow.)

...[Ok, seriously, I'll cut it out.]

Truthiness may be a lot more applicable than you think.

“Are theoretically informed analyses of empirical events and situations -- like Bretton Woods, for instance -- anything but opinions? In other words, can they be right or wrong, or is the answer always just ‘it depends on your point of view’?”

Let’s look at some definitions. (All of these are courtesy of Merriam-Webster)

Knowledge: 2) a (1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association, b (1):the fact or condition of being aware of something (2): the range of one's information or understanding

Opinion: 1) a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter, or, as I prefer to put it: 2) belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge.

Theory: 1) the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

Analysis: 4) an examination of a complex, its elements, and their relations

Fact: 3) the quality of being actual or, once again, as I prefer it, 5) a piece of information presented as having objective reality.

Alright, so, a theory (and hypothesis, as well), is basically made to explain a fact, or facts. Following that, a theory is then an opinion that is, not backed by facts, but formulated by the collection of facts, and the observations made when looking at these facts together. This is all categorized under “knowledge”, except for facts. Facts can be under that umbrella of knowledge, and outside of it as well (does this mean they’re in the rain?). There are certainly facts that we, as humans, haven’t discovered yet, but are in existence (and I am not going to get into an argument about whether things exist outside of us, you and Descartes can go chat that up somewhere). Looking at it scientifically, just because, back in the day, people didn’t know that the body was made up of cells, didn’t mean it wasn’t, it meant that the theories they devised were limited by their own technology.

Getting back on track to the question… basically, can empirical situations only be analyzed through opinions? One more definition: empirical: 1) originating in or based on observation or experience.

Crazily enough, observation is the first step within the “scientific method”. …Sorry, one more definition: scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Essentially, then, we observe something, form a hypothesis on it (read: opinion), then create an experiment in order to see if our hypothesis was correct. Sounds simple enough. However, if the experiment cannot be created again, whatever predictions we make based off our one experiment fall flat, because unless it is reproducible by anyone, then it cannot be ascertained as fact.

So, can something like the analysis of the Bretton Woods system be determined as fact? No. Since we cannot recreate the Bretton Woods experiment, we cannot accept the analysis as fact. Nor can we accept it as theory, since, once again, the scientific method is used to develop theories, which can always be questioned (Einstein’s theory of relativity may be blown out of the water by nature). While theories can be created about empirical situations, the ones that are able to recreated, or viewed again and again, are ones that become strong theories. Ones where the experiment only occurred once are closer towards opinions than theories. Even if facts about empirical situations are included in these theories and opinions, the relationships that were derived from the facts to create those theories can’t be realized again.

So where does that leave us? Nowhere in particular. Analysis of empirical situations taken in an international politics perspective have to be considered opinions, or theories, whichever you prefer.

That isn’t necessarily bad; I never said opinions and discussion were bad. Most of the actions we take in our life are based off of theories, and most actions world leaders take are based off of theories.

The fact that theories can’t be objectively proven just lends to more progress. If we act on a theory we’ve created, and it turns out to lead to more costs than benefits, then we rework the theory, and try again, in an attempt to keep moving forward. The only constant is change, as they say.

Having a discussion isn’t something to scorn, it is just something that isn’t very quantifiable (or, by necessity, objective).

YOU DON'T KNOW ME!!!! I DON'T EVEN KNOW ME!!!!!!!!

            Facts are _____ that have occurred and these _____s had to have been witnessed and proven to have occurred.  Okay, so defining what facts are is really difficult.  Instead, here is what facts are not. 

            Motivations, thoughts and reasons are not facts.  Why?  Well, I’m going to have to take a psychological approach to explain this.  For example, I cannot be 100% positive about what PTJ’s motivations or reasons for giving us this question to blog about, or what he thought when he assigned this question.  I can make assumptions based upon what I perceive of his character.  For instance, he could be asking this question so that we say that everything is subjective in order to prove to athkor that what we discuss is relevant.  However, that is not a fact.  Even if we ask him, technically we cannot take whatever he said as fact (I just checked and he actually did state that it was athkor who prompted this, but again, no one can prove that this is a fact).  There are mysteries of the human brain that prevent even ourselves from knowing exactly what we think.  Some examples are:

 

Projection is attributing your own feelings on others

 

Displacement is expressing the emotion you have towards one thing or person at a different thing or person

 

Reaction Formation is presenting the opposite feeling towards someone or something of the actual feeling

 

Regression is acting like you are in an earlier stage of development than the stage you have reached

 

Repression is an unwanted thought or memory is pushed into the unconscious

 

Rationalization is convincing oneself that one has rational reasons for acting a certain way and ignoring the true motivations

 

These are all examples of defense mechanisms, and we are, for the most part, unaware if and when we use them.  Therefore, if we ourselves do not know why we do things, the reasons why anyone does anything cannot be facts. 

In the realm of whether we could know if something is liberal, realist, or constructivist, it is impossible to know what goals motivated by.  As PTJ said on Tuesday, actions are not in these categories, it is the goals to be obtained by these actions that can be categorized.  I disagree with that last part.  Nation-states can state what their motivations are, and we can make our own assumptions, but we cannot know.  What we cannot know is not a fact.  Stating whether someone has realist, liberal, or constructivist goals is an opinion, even if that someone is you.