Last Relection

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

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

Here's To You, Mr. Stephenson

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

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

Air and Space Museum

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

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

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

A Series of Tubes

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

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

Reflection on Poverty and Statistics

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

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

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

Panda Eating Cake

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wealth for Individuals and States

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

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

Halloween and Terrorist Attacks

I discovered much insecurity in the world this weekend.  First, it was a possibility to invade the sovereign territory of Guatemala on Halloween.  Not saying I did, but I was aware that it was possible.  The idea of Halloween trick-or-treating is insecure because random strangers can invade your home and take things from you.  So when the embassies allow college students to enter their domains, there are going to be some dangerous and insecure situations.  When a door is unlocked and there are jack-o-lanterns on the stoop and a bowl of unguarded candy inside, it is inevitable that their borders will be breached with such an absence of security.  Not that I did, but I could have if I did not hold such a high respect for Guatemalan sovereignty. 

            There is also a lack of security for the furniture on the 5^th floor, but I know nothing about that.  However, when an advancing group has arms, and the defending side has none, the attackers do not need to waste ammo on the infidels to get whatever they desire.  Halloween got me in a realist mood. 

            On Friday, we had a curious discussion about actual and perceived security.  I posted a bit about this on Wednesday, but I will mention a few things in response to Amanda’s post.  I am glad that Amanda caught the essence of the argument on Friday when we mentioned 9/11.  Again, our perceived amount of security was a false because we did not see the black swan approaching.  Perhaps we could have, knowing about the memos sent to government officials about a probable terrorist attack in the United States, but as these were not made open to the general public, we could not have seen it coming.  Similarly to Amanda, I liked the point that terrorist attacks are things to worry about because they can drastically change the political situation of the country.  I had not thought of this as an argument against the article, but it is definitely a valid point.  The aftermath of September 11^th has resulted in a war, a new economic situation, and a completely different political environment.  I do not even think I need to mention how that changed everyone individually because I am sure that all of you have flashbulb memories of that day and can all say exactly how it has affected you.  But that would be interesting to hear about, so feel free to leave comments! 

            

Nope.

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

Less Obvious Security Threats

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

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

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

This blog is really depressing me

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

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

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

6 Degrees of Separation, New Jersey Style

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

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

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

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

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

Africa, Hellish Economic Situation, and Fireside Chats

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Now for something completely different:

 

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

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

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

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

 

Projection is attributing your own feelings on others

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

Who Are We?

PTJ’s mention of the solution to questions of the zoo theory really struck me.  To refresh everyone, the zoo theory is that the aliens are waiting to come into contact with us.  It is likely that they will make contact when we reach a certain point of development.  However, if we are under the impression that the aliens are peaceful and all around nice creatures, it is very, very unlikely that we will reach any peace benchmark in our lifetime.  When the aliens check out our news resources such as the World News section on NYtimes.com, they will see “kill,” “arson,” “kill,” “chaos,” “kill,” “war,” “kills,” “arson,” “tragedy,” and “killed”.  I do not think aliens would want to enter into our knowledge when we cannot even deal with members of our own race (the entire human race) peaceably. 

            Now, I do not actually believe in aliens nor that there is intelligent life beyond Earth, but I think it is enlightening to look at our international situation as if from an outsider’s perspective.  I look at the news and I generally get pessimistic and depressed.  I think I can see why the aliens do not want to get involved.  On the other hand, when I see atrocities in the news, it also inspires me to someday get a job where I can work to end the evils humans do to each other.  This makes me feel that perhaps the aliens are more constructivists than liberals.  I am assuming they get that our perception of ourselves is the one the media portrays.  The aliens have been confused by our own confusion of the identity of the entire human race.  We do not even know whether our innate nature and instincts are good or evil.  We have not figured ourselves out, and perhaps the alien’s benchmark for interaction is for us to put aside religious, geographical, and racial boundaries and to discover who we are as intelligent life on this wondrous orb called Earth.  

We All Die. (Well, dying in a nuclear explosion would be nicer than spider babies crawling out of you and eating you alive)

I noticed that most everyone’s posts are based on US reactions to alien invasions as seen in movies.  I think that because the majority of Hollywood productions portray aliens as forces of evil (Ewoks excluded) that the American people will be initially pushing for the government to destroy the aliens.  I usually do not think that the government always does what the people want, but I think government leaders would probably be paranoid about aliens too. 

The US government would probably kill/incapacitate the aliens as a first priority. If we did somehow manage to accomplish that, we would probably try to study them to understand what they are.  We would try to understand their anatomy and how their brains and bodies work.  Then we would try to steal some of their technology.  In the end, I think the US would destroy the alien race entirely before giving them a chance. 

I do not know if that would be possible, because the aliens will most likely be more intelligent and technologically advanced (let’s hope they are vulnerable to water/the common cold!).  In this case, we would probably try to nuke them, and then everyone else with nukes would launch them and we would blow ourselves up.  Then the aliens would repopulate our dead planet.  THE END!!??**#@!!!!!!

I'm a Liberal, in Both Senses of the Word

I disagree with the view voiced on Friday that people do not vote in their self-interest.  I believe that self-interest is personal, so if you believe that you are acting in your own self-interest, then you are.  Now, I first used to believe that the American public sometimes voted against their self-interest.  In the 2004 election, I thought that the citizens in the Midwest who were losing their jobs voted against their self-interest by voting for Bush.  In actuality, they voted for the candidate that they felt would be better at protecting homeland security.  These people chose to vote on an issue that they felt was more important even though I saw it as less pressing than unemployment.  It required some clichés (walking in their shoes, looking through their eyeglasses) to understand. 

            I agree with international liberalism (there is not but… coming) and I think that I can also be a liberal in the domestic sense.  Some Democrats might have qualms about the self-interest aspect of internationalism.  For instance, I feel that helping others is in my self-interest, which means that working in my own self-interest is not a bad thing.  I think it is possible to be a liberal in both senses of the word because altruism is still a good thing even if it helps you out as well.  I believe that it is in my self-interest to support and help to preserve the rights of all humans everywhere because that means that I am also supporting and protecting my own rights.  While I am not one hundred percent positive that I consciously try to help people to help myself, it does seem rational for that to be the case for this discussion.  

The UN: Translating War into Peace

The United Nations was created to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and 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 to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom” (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html )

These objectives are all about social issues and preventing the need for concern about territorial invasion.  It was created when the world wanted to prevent any more terrible wars and genocides from ever happening again.  The general role of the UN is to solve social issues and to use diplomacy to end conflicts before they start.  They do more for nations in the way of institutions and not helping militarily. 

The UN only deploys its troops for PEACEKEEPING missions.  Even though they sometimes fail to prevent violence, they will usually not use force.  They hope to prevent conflict by being there.  I am not necessarily sure that this is always the best course, but it is not a realist move.  To not use force to secure territory is an international liberal policy. 

The UN is a non-state actor that influences on world politics.  This inherently means that it cannot be realist because realism does not subscribe to the idea that organizations can have an impact in the international community. 

I would say that the number one reason that the UN is a liberal organization in my mind is the Millennium Development Goals.  MDG’s are a set of 8 goals intended on helping impoverished nations improve more rapidly.  None of these goals includes anything about security.  They are all regarding the issues that are more important for a country to accomplish in order to be successful and prosperous.  The UN believes that improving health, education, environment, equality, and trade come before national security:  The UN is a liberal organization. 

 

If anyone is interested in seeing some amazing information about progress of the MDGs, here is a link to an interactive presentation with really fun graphs!

http://www.gapminder.org/downloads/presentations/human-development-trends-2005.html