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.
Showing posts with label atlb. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atlb. Show all posts
Friday, December 5, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
"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.):
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.)
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.)
Friday, November 14, 2008
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.
...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.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
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.
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.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
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 toL. 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.
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
...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.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Dia De Los Muertos
Happy Dia De Los Muertos everyone! Well, Dia de los Inocentes, but November 1st and 2nd are both really Dia de los Muertos, because dead kids are still dead.
Anyway. Let's talk about the media.
Yesterday in class we discussed briefly the media's role in what people deem as "threats". I said that the media can never be balanced.
And it can't. Media's job isn't to be unbiased, it's to pay the bills. Sensationalism means higher ratings and larger profits. So, how best to create sensationalism? Play off people's fears.
What's more terrifying? Being attacked by a shark or being diagnosed with cancer? While cancer is pretty frightening, being ripped apart by a shark a la Jaws (which is what you automatically think of when you think shark attack, isn't it?) is more terrifying on a visceral level. If a shark attacks you, you can't do a whole lot. Getting cancer, at least you can do something.
The point is, even though you are much more likely to die from cancer, if there is a sudden "upswing" in shark attacks, guess which story gets covered more. Same goes with terrorist attacks, SARS, avian flu, mad cow disease...things that are not a common happening. The unusual sells. The same ol', same ol' (aka: cancer, AIDs, car crashes, heart disease, poverty, starvation) is boring, because it happens all the time. Thousands of people die from cancer, car crashes, poverty, starvation, AIDs, whatever, everyday! That's not news! That's just life! (and death)
Life, sad to say, is generally boring. And what better way to increase ratings than to sensatilonize marginal threats (meaning, in all likelihood, you are not going to be on a plane that gets hijacked by terrorists; meaning, in all likelihood, you will not eat meat contaminated by mad cow disease)...to place what unusual and dangerous as a "very plausible, even quite probable" part of your life? The media are experts at creating irrational fear, and making it appear rational.
Isn't that a happy thought?
Anyway. Let's talk about the media.
Yesterday in class we discussed briefly the media's role in what people deem as "threats". I said that the media can never be balanced.
And it can't. Media's job isn't to be unbiased, it's to pay the bills. Sensationalism means higher ratings and larger profits. So, how best to create sensationalism? Play off people's fears.
What's more terrifying? Being attacked by a shark or being diagnosed with cancer? While cancer is pretty frightening, being ripped apart by a shark a la Jaws (which is what you automatically think of when you think shark attack, isn't it?) is more terrifying on a visceral level. If a shark attacks you, you can't do a whole lot. Getting cancer, at least you can do something.
The point is, even though you are much more likely to die from cancer, if there is a sudden "upswing" in shark attacks, guess which story gets covered more. Same goes with terrorist attacks, SARS, avian flu, mad cow disease...things that are not a common happening. The unusual sells. The same ol', same ol' (aka: cancer, AIDs, car crashes, heart disease, poverty, starvation) is boring, because it happens all the time. Thousands of people die from cancer, car crashes, poverty, starvation, AIDs, whatever, everyday! That's not news! That's just life! (and death)
Life, sad to say, is generally boring. And what better way to increase ratings than to sensatilonize marginal threats (meaning, in all likelihood, you are not going to be on a plane that gets hijacked by terrorists; meaning, in all likelihood, you will not eat meat contaminated by mad cow disease)...to place what unusual and dangerous as a "very plausible, even quite probable" part of your life? The media are experts at creating irrational fear, and making it appear rational.
Isn't that a happy thought?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
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:
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]
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]
Friday, October 24, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
"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!
...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!
Thursday, October 16, 2008
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!)
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!)
Saturday, October 11, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, October 3, 2008
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.]
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.]
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
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).
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).
Saturday, September 27, 2008
I have vision...
and the rest of the world wears bifocals. Rest in peace, Paul Newman. Thanks for being a hero in my eyes.
Anyway, reflection time.
Friday...aliens. As much as science fiction writers would disagree with me, I feel like aliens have been discussed to exhaustion, or at least to the point of reluctance to care.
So I'll reflect on something else, that is entirely relevant, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been thinking about this, but may be one of the only ones to actually say something about it.
I have no idea how I'm doing in this class. None, whatsoever. Which, to be honest, is a little (very) frightening. The problem, I feel, is because how the class is structured is so subjective. Essentially, every single aspect of the class, from in class discussions, to both blog posts we can do a week, everything is just our opinions. While there is nothing wrong with opinions, the normal day-to-day goings on in this class rest on our ability to express our opinions. I personally think that I am good at expressing my opinions, but who knows? Maybe in this class, I'm not. It isn't then, that I don't have good ideas, it is that I can't adequately express them, be it in written or verbal form, and as such, my grade rests on the idea of me being able to convince some higher power (PTJ) that my ideas aren't as primitive as my words may make them seem.
Another problem, and this is a problem that isn't really resolvable, but simply exists, is in-class discussions. Let's say I'm raising my hand, waiting of the ball in order to be granted the permission to speak. Then, for whatever reason, the ball doesn't come to me, whether it is because there were many hands up, or someone else hadn't spoken in a longer time than I, or little plays of society taking place, and the conversation continues to evolve. During that time, my point, which a few minutes ago, becomes completely irrelevant, and then the ball is suddenly in my hand and, by the mere fact that the conversation has moved on from my thoughts, my thoughts suddenly seem out of place, rudimentary, and completely unimportant in this new level of discussion. And it isn't that I haven't been listening to what's been going on since my thought popped into my head, but it is that I believed my thought deserved to be voiced, and I may suffer as a result of me voicing it at too late a time. Yes, you could always just tuck that thought away into some pocket in your mind, post it later in your reflection, but sometimes, that simply isn't what you want to do, because maybe you don't want to reflect on that idea.
It isn't even that this could be a simple solution of going in and talking to PTJ. Once again, if I couldn't express my opinions sufficiently to begin with, how could one really be told how to do so? It isn't a solution of "talk more". Is it a solution of "talk better"? How do I "talk better" then?
I'm sure some people will say this is all just a microcosm of world politics, a intricate play on how politics and society works.
I'll say though, that this is my grade, and as such, it is one of the determining factors in whether I stay here, or whether I'll be going somewhere else (read: San Francisco State) next year. (I hate this economy.)
Simply, this is a class dependent on how I express myself, and I'm terrified my thoughts aren't good enough.
Was that clear?
[Apologies for any snarkiness in advance. Snarkiness isn't a word...but it describes what I mean very well. And snarkiness isn't intentional, just an unfortunate by product of me being frustrated at my cluelessness.]
Anyway, reflection time.
Friday...aliens. As much as science fiction writers would disagree with me, I feel like aliens have been discussed to exhaustion, or at least to the point of reluctance to care.
So I'll reflect on something else, that is entirely relevant, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been thinking about this, but may be one of the only ones to actually say something about it.
I have no idea how I'm doing in this class. None, whatsoever. Which, to be honest, is a little (very) frightening. The problem, I feel, is because how the class is structured is so subjective. Essentially, every single aspect of the class, from in class discussions, to both blog posts we can do a week, everything is just our opinions. While there is nothing wrong with opinions, the normal day-to-day goings on in this class rest on our ability to express our opinions. I personally think that I am good at expressing my opinions, but who knows? Maybe in this class, I'm not. It isn't then, that I don't have good ideas, it is that I can't adequately express them, be it in written or verbal form, and as such, my grade rests on the idea of me being able to convince some higher power (PTJ) that my ideas aren't as primitive as my words may make them seem.
Another problem, and this is a problem that isn't really resolvable, but simply exists, is in-class discussions. Let's say I'm raising my hand, waiting of the ball in order to be granted the permission to speak. Then, for whatever reason, the ball doesn't come to me, whether it is because there were many hands up, or someone else hadn't spoken in a longer time than I, or little plays of society taking place, and the conversation continues to evolve. During that time, my point, which a few minutes ago, becomes completely irrelevant, and then the ball is suddenly in my hand and, by the mere fact that the conversation has moved on from my thoughts, my thoughts suddenly seem out of place, rudimentary, and completely unimportant in this new level of discussion. And it isn't that I haven't been listening to what's been going on since my thought popped into my head, but it is that I believed my thought deserved to be voiced, and I may suffer as a result of me voicing it at too late a time. Yes, you could always just tuck that thought away into some pocket in your mind, post it later in your reflection, but sometimes, that simply isn't what you want to do, because maybe you don't want to reflect on that idea.
It isn't even that this could be a simple solution of going in and talking to PTJ. Once again, if I couldn't express my opinions sufficiently to begin with, how could one really be told how to do so? It isn't a solution of "talk more". Is it a solution of "talk better"? How do I "talk better" then?
I'm sure some people will say this is all just a microcosm of world politics, a intricate play on how politics and society works.
I'll say though, that this is my grade, and as such, it is one of the determining factors in whether I stay here, or whether I'll be going somewhere else (read: San Francisco State) next year. (I hate this economy.)
Simply, this is a class dependent on how I express myself, and I'm terrified my thoughts aren't good enough.
Was that clear?
[Apologies for any snarkiness in advance. Snarkiness isn't a word...but it describes what I mean very well. And snarkiness isn't intentional, just an unfortunate by product of me being frustrated at my cluelessness.]
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Danger, World Politics, danger! (Flail arms accordingly)
"What do you think the US government (and world governments) would do if aliens came and landed on the White House lawn?"
Being a child of the 90s, my knowledge of aliens (and I'm going to define aliens as extraterrestrials, not my relatives across the border) is comprised of videos popped into the VCR, then Netflix, then TiVo. That said, we're taking a cinematic approach to "when aliens attack/land."
Going through decades of film, here are pretty much the collective options garnered from Hollywood:
1) We can attempt to kill them immediately. (…No film would actually kill the aliens immediately, because that means a 10 minute movie. Still, it is an option.)
2) We can (attempt to) kill them after they harm us (even if possibly we caused them to attack), and some options of how to kill them INCLUDE: playing Slim Whitman songs (Mars Attacks!), or Ronny Desmond songs (Attack of the Killer Tomatoes), freezing them (The Blob), electrocuting them (The Thing from Another Planet), pouring water on them (Signs), shooting them (Men in Black), using a computer virus to infiltrate their mainframe, then blowing them up (Independence Day), letting Mother Nature take its course (The War of the Worlds), using high pitched frequencies (Earth vs. The Flying Saucers) and blowing them up (Invaders from Mars, Predator [although Predator blows himself up…], Killer Klowns from Outer Space).
3) We can attempt to kill them even though they did nothing wrong, and in fact were trying to help us (The Day the Earth Stood Still).
4) We can form some sort of relationship with them, including setting up an ambassador program with them (Close Encounters of the Third Kind) or creating an agency that allows them to live on Earth (Men in Black), or just let them chill after we persecute them and then they save the world (Transformers).
5) We basically just let them hang around a bit (maybe try to capture them, fail/they escape), then they leave (Cocoon, It Came from Outer Space, E.T., The Abyss, The Rocky Horror Picture Show [although…they kill their leader then rocket-house back home]).
6) We can do nothing. They’re already here. You’re next. (a la Invasion of the Body Snatchers)
Alright, maybe blockbusters and B-movie films aren’t the best way to go about figuring out what to do in the event that aliens just happen to land on the White House lawn. However, movies are great at providing what if scenarios, and what if is exactly the question we’ve been poised with.
So what would we do? WWUSD? Immediately, get the President, First Lady, VP, cabinet members all to their safe locations, while simultaneously securing the area, and begin evacuating civilians from the area (although probably not telling them why…unless they see the spaceship and are like, “Yo, it’s a UFO.”). This could be considered a realist measure, placing security first, however, it is doubtful staunch liberals would be “hey, they’s cool, no worries, we’s all chill, party on the lawn!”
After that…not sure. It depends on whether or not the aliens immediately decide to kill us (which is War of the Worlds style, in which case, we revert to Independence Day status), if they do nothing (probably roll it out like The Day the Earth Stood Still) and just wait till they do something. I doubt the US would attempt to make the first encounter, since it could be safely assumed that the aliens have more advanced technology, and while perhaps not necessarily true, more advanced weaponry. However, if after an extended period of time (1-2 days sounds about right), we would probably attempt to make the least antagonist contact possible. No idea what that is, but we’d do it. If they do attempt to contact us, then we’d…probably have some convoy prepared to meet them. I’m relatively sure the government does have a list of people who’d be in a convoy to meet extraterrestrials, probably including a polyglot, a top “extraterrestrial” scientist, a top space technician, an expert mathematician, a doctor, a psychologist, and some of the top trained soldiers, yet not blatantly dressed as such (once again, non-antagonistic).
As for the world governments' responses...that is a bit harder to say. Places like Russia, China, and other countries that practice more realism than liberalism would go on the defensive, and could easily move into the offensive if they feel their security is endangered, which they always do. Other, more liberal countries, like Sweden or Iceland, would undoubtedly stay quiet, since pacifism is usually their route. Other countries that are more "mixed" in theories....I don't know, probably something along the lines of the US, I suppose. On the defensive, but willing to be open to what happens. Unless the aliens are BAMFs, in which case, that is an excellent excuse to blow various nations/factions up. Because, as in Invasion of the Body Snatchers how do we know that they're even human anymore?
Listen, we're thinking in what if scenarios here, and this is something unprecedented. Much like the economic crisis right now...coincidence? Nope. This is a conspiracy theorist post, and I don't believe in coincidences. (I want to believe.)
In both situations, we don't know what to do, and even similar experiences in the past can only help us so much. Luckily, aliens landing remains in the hypothetical realm; terrifyingly, the economic crisis doesn't, but we're facing the same hesitancy. As Klaatu says, "I am fearful when I see people substituting fear for reason. "
...If we're all fearful though, how do we know what is reason, and what is fear parading around as such? Who knows our best interests then, when no one is sure of our interests now? ....Frightening.
And yes, I have seen every single film I mentioned.
Being a child of the 90s, my knowledge of aliens (and I'm going to define aliens as extraterrestrials, not my relatives across the border) is comprised of videos popped into the VCR, then Netflix, then TiVo. That said, we're taking a cinematic approach to "when aliens attack/land."
Going through decades of film, here are pretty much the collective options garnered from Hollywood:
1) We can attempt to kill them immediately. (…No film would actually kill the aliens immediately, because that means a 10 minute movie. Still, it is an option.)
2) We can (attempt to) kill them after they harm us (even if possibly we caused them to attack), and some options of how to kill them INCLUDE: playing Slim Whitman songs (Mars Attacks!), or Ronny Desmond songs (Attack of the Killer Tomatoes), freezing them (The Blob), electrocuting them (The Thing from Another Planet), pouring water on them (Signs), shooting them (Men in Black), using a computer virus to infiltrate their mainframe, then blowing them up (Independence Day), letting Mother Nature take its course (The War of the Worlds), using high pitched frequencies (Earth vs. The Flying Saucers) and blowing them up (Invaders from Mars, Predator [although Predator blows himself up…], Killer Klowns from Outer Space).
3) We can attempt to kill them even though they did nothing wrong, and in fact were trying to help us (The Day the Earth Stood Still).
4) We can form some sort of relationship with them, including setting up an ambassador program with them (Close Encounters of the Third Kind) or creating an agency that allows them to live on Earth (Men in Black), or just let them chill after we persecute them and then they save the world (Transformers).
5) We basically just let them hang around a bit (maybe try to capture them, fail/they escape), then they leave (Cocoon, It Came from Outer Space, E.T., The Abyss, The Rocky Horror Picture Show [although…they kill their leader then rocket-house back home]).
6) We can do nothing. They’re already here. You’re next. (a la Invasion of the Body Snatchers)
Alright, maybe blockbusters and B-movie films aren’t the best way to go about figuring out what to do in the event that aliens just happen to land on the White House lawn. However, movies are great at providing what if scenarios, and what if is exactly the question we’ve been poised with.
So what would we do? WWUSD? Immediately, get the President, First Lady, VP, cabinet members all to their safe locations, while simultaneously securing the area, and begin evacuating civilians from the area (although probably not telling them why…unless they see the spaceship and are like, “Yo, it’s a UFO.”). This could be considered a realist measure, placing security first, however, it is doubtful staunch liberals would be “hey, they’s cool, no worries, we’s all chill, party on the lawn!”
After that…not sure. It depends on whether or not the aliens immediately decide to kill us (which is War of the Worlds style, in which case, we revert to Independence Day status), if they do nothing (probably roll it out like The Day the Earth Stood Still) and just wait till they do something. I doubt the US would attempt to make the first encounter, since it could be safely assumed that the aliens have more advanced technology, and while perhaps not necessarily true, more advanced weaponry. However, if after an extended period of time (1-2 days sounds about right), we would probably attempt to make the least antagonist contact possible. No idea what that is, but we’d do it. If they do attempt to contact us, then we’d…probably have some convoy prepared to meet them. I’m relatively sure the government does have a list of people who’d be in a convoy to meet extraterrestrials, probably including a polyglot, a top “extraterrestrial” scientist, a top space technician, an expert mathematician, a doctor, a psychologist, and some of the top trained soldiers, yet not blatantly dressed as such (once again, non-antagonistic).
As for the world governments' responses...that is a bit harder to say. Places like Russia, China, and other countries that practice more realism than liberalism would go on the defensive, and could easily move into the offensive if they feel their security is endangered, which they always do. Other, more liberal countries, like Sweden or Iceland, would undoubtedly stay quiet, since pacifism is usually their route. Other countries that are more "mixed" in theories....I don't know, probably something along the lines of the US, I suppose. On the defensive, but willing to be open to what happens. Unless the aliens are BAMFs, in which case, that is an excellent excuse to blow various nations/factions up. Because, as in Invasion of the Body Snatchers how do we know that they're even human anymore?
Listen, we're thinking in what if scenarios here, and this is something unprecedented. Much like the economic crisis right now...coincidence? Nope. This is a conspiracy theorist post, and I don't believe in coincidences. (I want to believe.)
In both situations, we don't know what to do, and even similar experiences in the past can only help us so much. Luckily, aliens landing remains in the hypothetical realm; terrifyingly, the economic crisis doesn't, but we're facing the same hesitancy. As Klaatu says, "I am fearful when I see people substituting fear for reason. "
...If we're all fearful though, how do we know what is reason, and what is fear parading around as such? Who knows our best interests then, when no one is sure of our interests now? ....Frightening.
And yes, I have seen every single film I mentioned.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
In the immortal words of Wyclef Jean
"Cos' I'ma tell you like Wu told me
Cash rules everything around me
Singin' dollar dollar bill y'all (dollar, dollar bill y'all)
Singin' dollar dollar bill y'all (dollar, dollar bill y'all)"
Straight up, homeslice.
According to PTJ, the discussion Friday didn't go as expected. We ended up talking about the economy, but not even that...some various things that involved the economy and revolved around the economy.
Somewhere within that confabulation, PTJ said that eventually, all elections, regardless of what is going on the in world, and how we're involved in it, get back down to domestic issues. Obviously.
If our lives aren't stable, then what do we care about other people's? That's not being vicious, that's being realistic. I can honestly say that, as much as I care about what goes on the world, how much I want to work internationally, it doesn't matter if I can't afford an education because the economy has gone down the crapper. And that is a worry I face everyday. What makes it worse is that getting a loan is not the best idea right now. I don't want to go home...but what if the economy forces it?
Let's put this in 2008 election perspective: PTJ also said that when it comes to economy, Democrats tend to do better in the polls. ....But let's be honest. This is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. If the government hadn't stepped in, hadn't done something, we could be in such a worse position. Imagine if AIG had been allowed to collapse...worldwide repercussions would have occurred. It is unfathomable. Voting now isn't just a matter of who we like because we don't like someone else...who we elect will directly relate to the next few years, and if this crisis is halfway over, or just begun. Even more than that, as my friends in various parts of the globe tell me, who we vote for affects their lives on a very direct level as well. The US economy still has a bohemoth impact on the rest of the world, and my friends in England, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and Japan are all waiting to see how the American public decides their lives.
That's another way to look at voting. Now, it just simply isn't for us (even though us (US) comes first), but it is for everyone who is affected by the actions of the US...which is everyone. Our economy is being shaken to its core, the world along with it.
This is all rather unfathomable. For me, personally, it is terrifying. For others, who started out with less than me at the beginning of this whole mess? ...It makes me really grateful, and frightfully desolate.
Ignoring the connotation that Obama has placed on the word hope....we all need to hope right now, for something better to be coming, and soon.
And that the stock market doesn't dive bomb again when the markets open tomorrow.
Because that would just suck mucho.
Wanna know what else sucks mucho? Damn baseball stadium didn't have churros. Failure.
Good job Padres. They won because the Nationals didn't have any CHURROS. I'd be indignant too.
Cash rules everything around me
Singin' dollar dollar bill y'all (dollar, dollar bill y'all)
Singin' dollar dollar bill y'all (dollar, dollar bill y'all)"
Straight up, homeslice.
According to PTJ, the discussion Friday didn't go as expected. We ended up talking about the economy, but not even that...some various things that involved the economy and revolved around the economy.
Somewhere within that confabulation, PTJ said that eventually, all elections, regardless of what is going on the in world, and how we're involved in it, get back down to domestic issues. Obviously.
If our lives aren't stable, then what do we care about other people's? That's not being vicious, that's being realistic. I can honestly say that, as much as I care about what goes on the world, how much I want to work internationally, it doesn't matter if I can't afford an education because the economy has gone down the crapper. And that is a worry I face everyday. What makes it worse is that getting a loan is not the best idea right now. I don't want to go home...but what if the economy forces it?
Let's put this in 2008 election perspective: PTJ also said that when it comes to economy, Democrats tend to do better in the polls. ....But let's be honest. This is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. If the government hadn't stepped in, hadn't done something, we could be in such a worse position. Imagine if AIG had been allowed to collapse...worldwide repercussions would have occurred. It is unfathomable. Voting now isn't just a matter of who we like because we don't like someone else...who we elect will directly relate to the next few years, and if this crisis is halfway over, or just begun. Even more than that, as my friends in various parts of the globe tell me, who we vote for affects their lives on a very direct level as well. The US economy still has a bohemoth impact on the rest of the world, and my friends in England, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and Japan are all waiting to see how the American public decides their lives.
That's another way to look at voting. Now, it just simply isn't for us (even though us (US) comes first), but it is for everyone who is affected by the actions of the US...which is everyone. Our economy is being shaken to its core, the world along with it.
This is all rather unfathomable. For me, personally, it is terrifying. For others, who started out with less than me at the beginning of this whole mess? ...It makes me really grateful, and frightfully desolate.
Ignoring the connotation that Obama has placed on the word hope....we all need to hope right now, for something better to be coming, and soon.
And that the stock market doesn't dive bomb again when the markets open tomorrow.
Because that would just suck mucho.
Wanna know what else sucks mucho? Damn baseball stadium didn't have churros. Failure.
Good job Padres. They won because the Nationals didn't have any CHURROS. I'd be indignant too.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Just the [19]2 of us, UN I
Just the [19]2 of us,
We can make it if we try,
Just the [19]2 of us,
UN I.
Question: Is the UN a realist or liberal organization?
-------------------------------------------------------
Well, Tori stole my idea to use the charter as an explanation (man, I even had a BOOK with all of that stuff in there, called Basic Documents on International Human Rights...I stole it from a library.), I'll have to do something different.
Or not.
The UN is a liberal organization. Originally, I was going to say no, it is both, and to a certain extent it is, because, as discussed in class Tuesday, liberalism incorporates both ideas unique to liberalism and borrows ideas from realism. So, alright, yes, it is both, but we're calling both liberalism at the moment.
My support of this lies in the preamble of the charter:
Which is a little bit like using realist methods to achieve liberal goals.
Which is what I said in class Tuesday.
Beyond that, it really is a question of how you want to look at the UN: if you want to look at the ideals it was founded on, then yes, it is completely liberal. If you want to look at how it actually acts, then yes, it is still pretty much liberal. Looking at relative and absolute gains....everyone in the UN achieves absolutely. Relatively, however, is based on the interactions within the UN and can change on the turn of a dime (or a dollar, which seems very applicable now in days). It could generally be said that the Group of 77 relatively receives more than others, and from a realist point of view this would be looked at negatively.
Yet from the liberal point of view, the gains are a part of mutual benefits: if developing nations are better developed, then the status of the world's economy is more stable, and everyone benefits from a stable economy (please see current stock market crash for more proof), and stable economies are more peaceful.
Alternatively, achieving economic stability is a really sneaky way of creating peace. Actually, liberalism is a really sneaky way of creating peace. By creating so many ties to each other that if one is damaged, others are too, incentive is created to not be a jerkface and get all aggressive up in this globe. Which in theory should work, but doesn't always pan out.
Which brings up a good point...has the UN ever really stopped a war? In my opinion, no. Then again, you can't have everything.
Go UN, you can make it if you try [harder].
We can make it if we try,
Just the [19]2 of us,
UN I.
Question: Is the UN a realist or liberal organization?
-------------------------------------------------------
Well, Tori stole my idea to use the charter as an explanation (man, I even had a BOOK with all of that stuff in there, called Basic Documents on International Human Rights...I stole it from a library.), I'll have to do something different.
Or not.
The UN is a liberal organization. Originally, I was going to say no, it is both, and to a certain extent it is, because, as discussed in class Tuesday, liberalism incorporates both ideas unique to liberalism and borrows ideas from realism. So, alright, yes, it is both, but we're calling both liberalism at the moment.
My support of this lies in the preamble of the charter:
"to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and...Alright, so, the UN will use armed force it is deems it necessary to the common good of peace.
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest"
Which is a little bit like using realist methods to achieve liberal goals.
Which is what I said in class Tuesday.
Beyond that, it really is a question of how you want to look at the UN: if you want to look at the ideals it was founded on, then yes, it is completely liberal. If you want to look at how it actually acts, then yes, it is still pretty much liberal. Looking at relative and absolute gains....everyone in the UN achieves absolutely. Relatively, however, is based on the interactions within the UN and can change on the turn of a dime (or a dollar, which seems very applicable now in days). It could generally be said that the Group of 77 relatively receives more than others, and from a realist point of view this would be looked at negatively.
Yet from the liberal point of view, the gains are a part of mutual benefits: if developing nations are better developed, then the status of the world's economy is more stable, and everyone benefits from a stable economy (please see current stock market crash for more proof), and stable economies are more peaceful.
Alternatively, achieving economic stability is a really sneaky way of creating peace. Actually, liberalism is a really sneaky way of creating peace. By creating so many ties to each other that if one is damaged, others are too, incentive is created to not be a jerkface and get all aggressive up in this globe. Which in theory should work, but doesn't always pan out.
Which brings up a good point...has the UN ever really stopped a war? In my opinion, no. Then again, you can't have everything.
Go UN, you can make it if you try [harder].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)