So last night I watched perhaps one of the greatest war movies ever made Black Hawk Down. Every time I watch it I always feel this anger well up in me at the end where it lists the soldiers that died, the events that followed and the withdrawal of troops as ordered by President Clinton two weeks later. National Security is very closely related to image. As NSC 2010 constantly stated, our image is central to our safety and stability. This constructivist view is very important. As Mark Bowden points out in his book that covers the "Black Hawk Down" story, the militants in Somalia were terrified of an American counter-strike and were offering to hand over all sorts of top level people including Aidid the de facto president/warlord of Mogadishu that the US had been hunting for six weeks. But what happened instead? Clinton called for a hasty pullout. This sent a very bad message. Osama Bin Laden who was involved in this incident supplying arms and soldiers said, "It cleared from Muslim minds the myth of the superpower... The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American Soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat" (Lowry 2003).
This put the idea into Bin Laden's mind that we were weak and could be easily defeated with brutal terrorist tactics. If they made it bloody enough for us we would give up and go home. Bin Laden increased his attacks, hitting the khobar towers, the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and the USS Cole. After all of these instead of being aggressive and attacking head on Clinton made half-way efforts with failed cruise missile strikes and in some cases not reacting with force at all. Bin Laden had all he needed to believe he could succeed with a mass casualty attack. 9/11. He drew us into Afghanistan and now nine years later we are at the most important stage. We must go hard all the way or risk inviting greater attacks upon us again by showing weakness and pulling out.
It is all about image. Will we, having taken a few hard hits to our troops and morale, give up and go home, or freaking get angry for once and show the world that America is not to be trifled with? We can not keep up this pattern of half-assing it and expect to be secure. We can already see the world starting not to take us as seriously because we put up so much dissent at home when we are at war. Terrorist tactics work perfectly for this. We don't realize it, but we are destroying ourselves by not wanting to confront what are essentially bullies. We will be in a very dangerous position if there comes a time when a rogue state such as Iran gains a nuclear weapon and does not take us seriously or think we will invest everything into stopping them from using it. This is why I worry when people think things like the Northrop Grumman poster are a joke. Having that capability is diplomacy. When you move aircraft carriers, submarines, or troops to a specific area, it is a statement. It says this is important to us and we will use force if necessary. Pulling out of places has the opposite effect. Pulling out of Somalia said, this is not important to us anymore. In fact we really haven't involved ourselves in Africa until recently. We completely dropped the ball on aiding Rwanda because of fears that were fresh in our mind from Mogadishu in 1993.
We must get rid of this fear, get angry, and show the world we're done feeling sorry for ourselves. Image determines how people react to you and we must build ours back up strong. Not the apologetic America that Obama seems to advocate, but a Liam Neeson "Taken" kind of America.
Sources: http://old.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200311041024.asp
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
The Boundaries of National Security
When we think of justifying actions of our government these days, what do we say? We say "This war is for protecting democracy!" and, "That act is for preserving freedom!", and so on and so forth. We almost always flaunt our fundamental Constitutional principles and rights--and their preservation--as justification for a controversial action. But what happens if we start justifying the VIOLATION of Constitutional rights for the preservation of Constitutional rights? It doesn't make much sense to me either! How can we sit here and actually buy that? How does it make sense for the government to abuse and ignore the Bill of Rights in an effort to UPHOLD them against the radical, violent terrorists across the globe that are actively trying to destroy them?
I don't know about you guys, but I don't see that much "wiggle room" around Due Process, a right every citizen is -clearly- given in the Bill of Rights. But hey, all the government has to do is bring up 9/11, preserving freedom, and suddenly Rendition seems like an AWESOME idea!! And privacy? Why do you need privacy unless you're doing something wrong!? HUH!??! I guess I should just "take one for the team" and acquiesce to the government tapping all of my mommy's conversations with Granny over in "hotspot" Syria. Sarcasm aside, yeah I do think there are boundaries when it comes to preserving national security. I am not asking for much really, just my own government to respect the Constitution it was founded upon. Is that really too much to ask for?
So yeah, maybe the terrorists out there are trying to destroy our democratic principles of freedom and liberty, but how can they when our own government is beating them to the punch?
I don't know about you guys, but I don't see that much "wiggle room" around Due Process, a right every citizen is -clearly- given in the Bill of Rights. But hey, all the government has to do is bring up 9/11, preserving freedom, and suddenly Rendition seems like an AWESOME idea!! And privacy? Why do you need privacy unless you're doing something wrong!? HUH!??! I guess I should just "take one for the team" and acquiesce to the government tapping all of my mommy's conversations with Granny over in "hotspot" Syria. Sarcasm aside, yeah I do think there are boundaries when it comes to preserving national security. I am not asking for much really, just my own government to respect the Constitution it was founded upon. Is that really too much to ask for?
So yeah, maybe the terrorists out there are trying to destroy our democratic principles of freedom and liberty, but how can they when our own government is beating them to the punch?
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Security: Learning how to address it
During periods of crisis, countries resort to wars as a manner to assure peace, security of human life and the preservation of mortality. Duane Cady claims that ‘warism’ is critical and morally justifiable and required, giving rise to a ‘just war’. Although many cannot see the necessity or even correlation between war and security, Kant states that "possessing good intent constitutes the only condition of moral activity, regardless of the consequences envisioned or caused, and regardless, or even in spite, of any self interest in the action the agent may have." Does this provide a pathway to a violent and militaristic country? I believe Kant and Cady provide countries that are evaluating whether or not it is just to pursue a war for security purposes should not consider an alternative due to fear of being unethical.
Countries venture and explore the possibilities of improving technology (not necessarily military build-up) in order to develop more efficient technologies that can focus on building up security. What is security though? Is it simply attacks from an outside group? Oxford Dictionary states that security is “the state of being free from danger or threat,” meaning that security issues could arise within and outside the borders.
Using this, and going slightly on a tangent, I started thinking of how security problems arise in a domestic situation. For instance, many have traced the source of a rising crime rate these previous years: the recession. Individuals become desperate to make means and end up pursuing illegal activities. As a result of the economic recession, major urban areas increase in crimes and it leads to a security problem for others in the community. Does it mean that when the United States addresses security problems, it should focus on social welfare? It’s an example where different areas in society contribute to the decrease in security, but funds to address security will not be used to address these problems.
Are environmental problems considered a security threat? For one, in the long term, human lives can be negatively affected if the environment is not dealt with. Nevertheless, is a “security council” (not a direct reference to the UN) in charge of dealing with this? Or would this be handed over to an environmental committee?
The vast problems within security force societies to develop different groups/committees that focus on addressing the issues. This gives rise to specialization and being able to effectively manage the problems.
The main idea that I’m trying to get across is that society aims at:
1. Protecting Human Life
2. Establishing Peace
Nevertheless, one must understand that different countries will interpret “peace” as either with different countries or peace within the country alone. Countries will begin to address different problems and divide it amongst different government officials. It is important to remember that war is not the only response to security problems, but if one does need to pursue it in order to accomplish its overall strategic plan, it must remember that if is genuinely using the goals as its foundation for pursuing the war, it will be morally justifiable.
When does the government take national security too far?
It is generally agreed that the main goal of the government is to protect its citizens. However, does government sometimes use this responsibility irresponsibly?
There have been a few situations in United States history when the United States has taken the matter of securing the public too far. One was during World War II, when FDR banished thousands of Japanese Americans to concentration camps. The United States forced these Japanese American citizens into camps for "protection" of the people, preemptively striking out espionage. But these people were citizens. No background checks went into choosing who would go into these camps. While racial profiling hasn't existed to such extremes in the United States since, it does still exist. Take, for example, the selecting of Muslim/Arab looking people in airports for "random" security checks.
Also, during the Bush administration, Homeland Security was established and soon enacted some "security" measures like wire tapping and sifting through the average citizen's library records. This is taking the sake of national security past the boundaries of what is acceptable--violating the Bill of Rights and personal property.
In addition, when looking at the 2010 national security document, there were a lot of not-quite-related-to-DEFENSE-OF-THE-COUNTRY points. Obama had points about combating poverty and climate change, among other things. While they are problems, they are not external forces that we can militarily protect ourselves against. The national security plan should only contain MILITARY operations. Things that you would expect the Department of Defense, National Security Agency, and Central Intelligence Agency to get involved with (among others like the FBI and maybe State Department). Can you imagine the DoD meddling with poverty? No. Climate change? maybe, but the focus would be on spotting nukes using satellite technology and designing drones.
Obama's security document is too comprehensive. In his attempt to protect the Untied States, he's stretching his resources too thin. Obama should instead focus his "security" on one or two plans of action. Maybe this is why Obama is having trouble in his first term: he's trying to please everyone.
There have been a few situations in United States history when the United States has taken the matter of securing the public too far. One was during World War II, when FDR banished thousands of Japanese Americans to concentration camps. The United States forced these Japanese American citizens into camps for "protection" of the people, preemptively striking out espionage. But these people were citizens. No background checks went into choosing who would go into these camps. While racial profiling hasn't existed to such extremes in the United States since, it does still exist. Take, for example, the selecting of Muslim/Arab looking people in airports for "random" security checks.
Also, during the Bush administration, Homeland Security was established and soon enacted some "security" measures like wire tapping and sifting through the average citizen's library records. This is taking the sake of national security past the boundaries of what is acceptable--violating the Bill of Rights and personal property.
In addition, when looking at the 2010 national security document, there were a lot of not-quite-related-to-DEFENSE-OF-THE-COUNTRY points. Obama had points about combating poverty and climate change, among other things. While they are problems, they are not external forces that we can militarily protect ourselves against. The national security plan should only contain MILITARY operations. Things that you would expect the Department of Defense, National Security Agency, and Central Intelligence Agency to get involved with (among others like the FBI and maybe State Department). Can you imagine the DoD meddling with poverty? No. Climate change? maybe, but the focus would be on spotting nukes using satellite technology and designing drones.
Obama's security document is too comprehensive. In his attempt to protect the Untied States, he's stretching his resources too thin. Obama should instead focus his "security" on one or two plans of action. Maybe this is why Obama is having trouble in his first term: he's trying to please everyone.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
National Security and its Boundaries
So here we are at the quintessential question of our age? How far is too far when it comes to national security. As a people it seems that Americans are very reluctant to have any sort of government oversight over their lives. Understandable right? Well actually I think we need to check ourselves before we wreck ourselves. Many people oppose the patriot act because of some feeling of an invasion of their privacy. Do you really think the NSA is interested in your conversation with your girlfriend? They use a complex algorithm program that picks up certain key words and phrases connected to phone calls going to locations on a watch list (The Puzzle Palace). If you aren't doing anything wrong then you shouldn't have anything to worry about. We need to get our emotions in check.
Terrorists are using our self-righteous attitude towards our privacy to their advantage. They know we do not want to be filmed as we walk down the street or be scanned as we enter a shopping mall for explosives and weapons. I think we can all sacrifice a little to allow better surveillance in public areas and allow access to our phone and email records, therefore giving us more tools to prevent attacks.
That being said, there are certain boundaries. I think the personal sphere that exists in one's home is their own and should not be impeded unless actions are taken that indicate that person is up to no good. Also the government cannot hound people unnecessarily. The fact is there are already institutions in place that prevent undue government interference in this sector.
It's important to maintain our values and I think short of mandating that every citizen provide the government with extensive details of their activities for that month or something, the government won't be going to far to be more aggressive and intrusive. If you have nothing to hide you will be passed over. We need to avoid exaggerations of saying we are headed towards a police state and realize the challenges our government faces in protecting us. Bottom line: Let's stop being selfish and realize that the boundaries of national security will be reached if every individual becomes a suspect. Realistically this will not happen as it would be a waste of time for the federal agents that work these cases.
Terrorists are using our self-righteous attitude towards our privacy to their advantage. They know we do not want to be filmed as we walk down the street or be scanned as we enter a shopping mall for explosives and weapons. I think we can all sacrifice a little to allow better surveillance in public areas and allow access to our phone and email records, therefore giving us more tools to prevent attacks.
That being said, there are certain boundaries. I think the personal sphere that exists in one's home is their own and should not be impeded unless actions are taken that indicate that person is up to no good. Also the government cannot hound people unnecessarily. The fact is there are already institutions in place that prevent undue government interference in this sector.
It's important to maintain our values and I think short of mandating that every citizen provide the government with extensive details of their activities for that month or something, the government won't be going to far to be more aggressive and intrusive. If you have nothing to hide you will be passed over. We need to avoid exaggerations of saying we are headed towards a police state and realize the challenges our government faces in protecting us. Bottom line: Let's stop being selfish and realize that the boundaries of national security will be reached if every individual becomes a suspect. Realistically this will not happen as it would be a waste of time for the federal agents that work these cases.
Non-Assigned Blog
*Note, this blog is written as a response to Christian's blog:
http://internationalintellectualforum.blogspot.com/2010/10/our-future-freedom-or-handout.html
Christian defined national security as our ability to maintain our current economic, political, and military security. Excuse me for sounding ungrateful, but as our economy rests on the precipice of oblivion and the American political game has become a pathetic, corrupt excuse for a government, my last instinct would be to maintain the status quo. Our war in Afghanistan, or “Operation Enduring Freedom” as the good old boys like to call it, has certainly lived up to its name, and after over 3,000 days and countless dollars have been futilely spent to stroke our imperialistic and war-obsessed ego, we find ourselves entangled in our nation’s longest war with no clear exit strategy. But hey, who needs an exit strategy when there is profit to be made? That’s right, Christian reminded us that we need to advance corporate capitalism, and what better way to help the greedy defense corporations than to start and maintain war? OH, and Christian also recommended a “domestic political policy that pursues national unity”…how perfect! These defense contractors fund political campaigns, and then our elected officials promote international unrest to ensure the generosity of their contributors. And in order to keep their approval rating as high as their moral indecency, politicians toss around the term “national security” while waving an American flag at a rally or a town hall – and hey, some anti-Islamic zingers never hurt anyone. When in doubt, just follow the example of Rudy Giuliani: “Blah blah noun verb noun 9/11 noun verb 9/11 blah blah 9/11,” or you can go rogue and try Palin’s “Restoring America” or “I want my country back” approach. Wow, this plan is foolproof…hell, let’s invade Iran!
I do agree, however, that we are headed in the wrong direction. Our allegedly liberal president was unable to adequately reform healthcare, regulate Wall Street, or advance his “socialist agenda.” I’m still waiting for the progressive man I elected to finally act accordingly. So calm down, Margaret Thatcher, this ain’t socialist Europe. Granny isn’t going to be terminated by a death panel, your taxes aren’t going to skyrocket, and the rich will continue to get richer while the poor wait for the day that American greed subsides. A REAL stimulus must be implemented, forcing aggregate demand to increase. A reverse income tax you propose? HAH! Turn off Glenn Beck, and open your economics book. I’ll excuse your incorrect statement that our defense spending is less than 1% of US GDP and simply inform you that the percentage you were searching for is in fact closer to 5. But wait! Cutting the defense budget is a clear political no-no – for then you would be branded an unpatriotic progressive who wants to see our soldiers massacred as they enter the battlefield, rusty musket in hand!
We ARE in fact on the precipice of a slippery slope, and if you happen to stumble upon this Marxist blood you have alluded to, please let me know.
http://internationalintellectualforum.blogspot.com/2010/10/our-future-freedom-or-handout.html
Christian defined national security as our ability to maintain our current economic, political, and military security. Excuse me for sounding ungrateful, but as our economy rests on the precipice of oblivion and the American political game has become a pathetic, corrupt excuse for a government, my last instinct would be to maintain the status quo. Our war in Afghanistan, or “Operation Enduring Freedom” as the good old boys like to call it, has certainly lived up to its name, and after over 3,000 days and countless dollars have been futilely spent to stroke our imperialistic and war-obsessed ego, we find ourselves entangled in our nation’s longest war with no clear exit strategy. But hey, who needs an exit strategy when there is profit to be made? That’s right, Christian reminded us that we need to advance corporate capitalism, and what better way to help the greedy defense corporations than to start and maintain war? OH, and Christian also recommended a “domestic political policy that pursues national unity”…how perfect! These defense contractors fund political campaigns, and then our elected officials promote international unrest to ensure the generosity of their contributors. And in order to keep their approval rating as high as their moral indecency, politicians toss around the term “national security” while waving an American flag at a rally or a town hall – and hey, some anti-Islamic zingers never hurt anyone. When in doubt, just follow the example of Rudy Giuliani: “Blah blah noun verb noun 9/11 noun verb 9/11 blah blah 9/11,” or you can go rogue and try Palin’s “Restoring America” or “I want my country back” approach. Wow, this plan is foolproof…hell, let’s invade Iran!
I do agree, however, that we are headed in the wrong direction. Our allegedly liberal president was unable to adequately reform healthcare, regulate Wall Street, or advance his “socialist agenda.” I’m still waiting for the progressive man I elected to finally act accordingly. So calm down, Margaret Thatcher, this ain’t socialist Europe. Granny isn’t going to be terminated by a death panel, your taxes aren’t going to skyrocket, and the rich will continue to get richer while the poor wait for the day that American greed subsides. A REAL stimulus must be implemented, forcing aggregate demand to increase. A reverse income tax you propose? HAH! Turn off Glenn Beck, and open your economics book. I’ll excuse your incorrect statement that our defense spending is less than 1% of US GDP and simply inform you that the percentage you were searching for is in fact closer to 5. But wait! Cutting the defense budget is a clear political no-no – for then you would be branded an unpatriotic progressive who wants to see our soldiers massacred as they enter the battlefield, rusty musket in hand!
We ARE in fact on the precipice of a slippery slope, and if you happen to stumble upon this Marxist blood you have alluded to, please let me know.
A Reflection upon a Reflection of a Reflection of a Reflection
*Note, this is a relfection to Toby's reflection of Sarah's reflection upon Christian's reflection. This is Toby's reflection:
http://bro-eignpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/10/reflection-9-reflection-on-sarahs.html
Toby,
It appears you have dissed, or attempted to at least, my gurl. Though your viewpoints seem to whip back and forth as much as Willow Smith's hair (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymKLymvwD2U&ob=av2n), I feel it is my duty to defend Sarah's honor and pinpoint some issues I found within your reflection.
I disagree with most on your points about international organizations. You say "I think it's within the U.S.' strategic interests to limit the level of commitment to international organizations", which puzzles me, Toby. If we consider this situation with the understanding that the United States is the global hegemon, and that they do in fact care about their global standing, image, and status, how is commitment to international organizations even a question? Many countries, though often reluctantly, look to the United States as a global leader and role model. Therefore, it is in the United States' best interests to be extremely active and committed in any genuine international entity. Not only to continue to set a precedent as a benevolent global superpower, but to secure it. If the United States wavers in international activity, who is to say another global superpower might take the lead in an international arena? Sure these are just "what ifs", but these are risks that can easily be avoided by active United States leadership and commitment within international organizations.
Also, you seem to have a lot of issues with international law, even stating "If international law replaced U.S. domestic law, it would undermine the Constitutional principles our nation was founded upon". Toby, I couldn't even imagine a world without international law. In this age of interdependence international law is of the utmost importance. Do you not recognize the need for regulations on an international scale especially in dealing with wars? International law is the only way to hold a state accountable for atrocities such as massacring civillians, bombing schools, and destroying hospitals. Basically, the world would be a hot mess without international laws and regulations.
You specifically cite the Law of the Sea Treaty, stating: "Policies such as the Law of the Sea Treaty, which in short, regulates who controls the seas, would allow non-state organizations to file lawsuits on countries' or multinational corporations regarding violations in the treaty. This would circumvent domestic law as international law would take precedent". How is this possibly a bad thing!? Just recently Israel was condemned on an international scale for its raid on aid flotillas approaching Gaza on international waters. In their raid on these unarmed boats with nothing but humanitarian workers and basic aid, IDF soldiers killed 9 activists. Could you imagine what would have happened if this treaty didn't exist? The entire controversy surrounding this issue is whether or not the soldiers had the right to board the ships and attack the peace activists. If international regulations hadn't stated what a state's power was in international waters, what would have followed after the raid? Laws like the Sea Treaty set standards for how a state should act in different oceanic bodies and specifically addresses the illegality for a state to attack on international waters. Thanks to international laws like the Sea Treaty, non-state organizations can hold a state accountable for breaking global standards, especially within the realm of human rights violations.
Also, you say "If international law replaced U.S. domestic law, it would undermine the Constitutional principles our nation was founded upon", and quite frankly I don't see how that is possible. When someone says "Constitutional principles", what do you think of? Personally, I think of freedom, liberty, democracy, justice, all that good stuff. I really don't see how international organizations framing what should be considered a war crime or an illegal human rights violation threatens these principles. If an international regulation is set forth to impede human sex trafficking on a global scale, I hardly see how this threatens to undermine our Constitutional principles. But now of course you will say "of course THAT wouldn't undermine our Constitutional principles, but something else could! You never know!", which I can respect, since my example was merely that, an example. Which is why I go back to my initial point that our dedication and presence in international entities is of the utmost importance. If you feel that international laws may threaten United States Constitutional principles, shouldn't that be a reason for the United States to secure an active role within international bodies to ensure our Constitutional principles are not tarnished?
Sorry Toby, but I feel like the "family business" might need a bailout.
http://bro-eignpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/10/reflection-9-reflection-on-sarahs.html
Toby,
It appears you have dissed, or attempted to at least, my gurl. Though your viewpoints seem to whip back and forth as much as Willow Smith's hair (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymKLymvwD2U&ob=av2n), I feel it is my duty to defend Sarah's honor and pinpoint some issues I found within your reflection.
I disagree with most on your points about international organizations. You say "I think it's within the U.S.' strategic interests to limit the level of commitment to international organizations", which puzzles me, Toby. If we consider this situation with the understanding that the United States is the global hegemon, and that they do in fact care about their global standing, image, and status, how is commitment to international organizations even a question? Many countries, though often reluctantly, look to the United States as a global leader and role model. Therefore, it is in the United States' best interests to be extremely active and committed in any genuine international entity. Not only to continue to set a precedent as a benevolent global superpower, but to secure it. If the United States wavers in international activity, who is to say another global superpower might take the lead in an international arena? Sure these are just "what ifs", but these are risks that can easily be avoided by active United States leadership and commitment within international organizations.
Also, you seem to have a lot of issues with international law, even stating "If international law replaced U.S. domestic law, it would undermine the Constitutional principles our nation was founded upon". Toby, I couldn't even imagine a world without international law. In this age of interdependence international law is of the utmost importance. Do you not recognize the need for regulations on an international scale especially in dealing with wars? International law is the only way to hold a state accountable for atrocities such as massacring civillians, bombing schools, and destroying hospitals. Basically, the world would be a hot mess without international laws and regulations.
You specifically cite the Law of the Sea Treaty, stating: "Policies such as the Law of the Sea Treaty, which in short, regulates who controls the seas, would allow non-state organizations to file lawsuits on countries' or multinational corporations regarding violations in the treaty. This would circumvent domestic law as international law would take precedent". How is this possibly a bad thing!? Just recently Israel was condemned on an international scale for its raid on aid flotillas approaching Gaza on international waters. In their raid on these unarmed boats with nothing but humanitarian workers and basic aid, IDF soldiers killed 9 activists. Could you imagine what would have happened if this treaty didn't exist? The entire controversy surrounding this issue is whether or not the soldiers had the right to board the ships and attack the peace activists. If international regulations hadn't stated what a state's power was in international waters, what would have followed after the raid? Laws like the Sea Treaty set standards for how a state should act in different oceanic bodies and specifically addresses the illegality for a state to attack on international waters. Thanks to international laws like the Sea Treaty, non-state organizations can hold a state accountable for breaking global standards, especially within the realm of human rights violations.
Also, you say "If international law replaced U.S. domestic law, it would undermine the Constitutional principles our nation was founded upon", and quite frankly I don't see how that is possible. When someone says "Constitutional principles", what do you think of? Personally, I think of freedom, liberty, democracy, justice, all that good stuff. I really don't see how international organizations framing what should be considered a war crime or an illegal human rights violation threatens these principles. If an international regulation is set forth to impede human sex trafficking on a global scale, I hardly see how this threatens to undermine our Constitutional principles. But now of course you will say "of course THAT wouldn't undermine our Constitutional principles, but something else could! You never know!", which I can respect, since my example was merely that, an example. Which is why I go back to my initial point that our dedication and presence in international entities is of the utmost importance. If you feel that international laws may threaten United States Constitutional principles, shouldn't that be a reason for the United States to secure an active role within international bodies to ensure our Constitutional principles are not tarnished?
Sorry Toby, but I feel like the "family business" might need a bailout.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Cheer is like Realism. What? A joint Reflection by Kate and Elle
This Sunday, while rolling out the mats for cheerleading practice and complaining about the annoying imbalance of power on the cheer squad (because this week they get to hang their seniority over our heads) we realized that hazing and "spirit" activities are an assertion of realist-like policies.
American's cheerleading squad has inadvertently utilized IR theories in creating their Rookie Week (or the less insane, cheerleading form of rush). In addition to a few other "-isms" we remember from AP European History, realism and constructivism are used to lead to (Kate's) eventual goal of liberalism (Elle doesn't think cheerleaders will ever cooperate), as well as extreme nationalism. Although cheerleading is by no means the same as the global political stage, we can use the "vets" and the "rookies" in this case as our two "states."
The eventual goal of the AU cheerleading squad is an orderly team which works together seamlessly. It would seem that a liberal approach would lead to more friendly cooperation and "happy" success. However, the vets are using realism and constructivism to reach this end.
The vets have a hegemony over the world of cheerleading. In layman's terms: seniority rules. It's a unipolar world - the rookies are nowhere near close to equal in power with the vets in such an extreme power imbalance. The vets want to maintain their power - losing it would cause them to be unable to control this week. Even though the goal is liberalism, they need to keep their power this week so it stays in their control and they can in effect bring about the team unity aspect on their own time schedule. Instead of using cooperation and encouraging mutual respect, they're using force. This force includes declaring events mandatory to attend and using constant text messages to keep in contact. They also use the team running concept (the team has to run if you fail to comply to their rules, and you have to sit out and watch them suffer) as an apparent consequence. If you don't know a cheer when confronted by a vet (a battle, per say), the rest of the team runs while you watch. The final example of force is that of almost bribery - if the rookies do well, the vets will give them candy, little gifts, etc. In return, if you don't follow the rules of rookie week (wearing pig tails with ribbons every day... anyone?), you get punished (mostly just the vets disappointment and dislike for you if you don't follow their orders). They're able to effectively use this self-interested strategy by tearing down the rookies to further increase and maintain their power.
Then how did they even get all of this power? Through the history (at least during their time) of the American cheerleading squad, the identity of the vets has developed and strengthened through tradition. The most common phrase heard this week from the vets is "we had to do this and it was so much worse!" The vets have changed from their usual (mostly) friendly attitudes to rather demanding and unpleasant because that’s what vets did in the past. They saw this change themselves as freshman and feel the need to carry on the history. The rookies were told that this is what past rookies have done, especially because the vets have lived through it. They have to deal with whatever standards are set because it's the identity assigned to them. This is an endless cycle unless one group is able to change their identity.
Instead of bullying the rookies into submission to build a coherent team, reaching out with a cooperative, liberal approach would lead to greater success. The underlying goal of the traditional rookie week is to prepare the rookies for the following week's basketball expositions. The rookies need to know the basics of cheers and where to be during games, as well as have the proper attitude (towards the team and the "job" of the team). The realist approach that is the traditional method for the cheer squad and greek life ("hazing"-lite), only works if those being "hazed" want the close bonds of the team/organization more than they dislike the sporadic time commitments (3 hours of scavenger hunts on the national mall, early morning breakfast with the team) and unusual dress codes (pigtails? uniforms? make-up? "if you don't look like a child prostitute you're not wearing enough make-up"). Constructivism also fails here because the "rite-of-passage" rookie week relies on the fact that the rookies accept the identity of the rookie. Which we don't. Instead, liberalism should be utilized so that everyone has an enjoyable week. Team bonding, for instance, at a mutually agreed upon time throughout the week. Fun activities--not 'we're going to leave this week intentionally ambiguous' so that you're stressed about not only school and the massive amounts of time you have to donate to cheer anyway, but also the "hazing" that you will be warned of only hours before. Eventual goal (all groups working together, forming alliances, etc.) The "rookies" and the "vets" are interdependent on each other for success on the mat. The team cannot be successful unless each group has at least a working relationship with them
The ends are admirable and necessary to the growth and strength of a team. However, the means to achieving this lead something to be desired. Much of this lies in the hands of the dynamic rookie group. Will they change their own identity this year and stage a revolution by doing as they wish? Or next year will they no longer demand insignificant things of the rookies? Will the tradition continue? Only time will tell.
American's cheerleading squad has inadvertently utilized IR theories in creating their Rookie Week (or the less insane, cheerleading form of rush). In addition to a few other "-isms" we remember from AP European History, realism and constructivism are used to lead to (Kate's) eventual goal of liberalism (Elle doesn't think cheerleaders will ever cooperate), as well as extreme nationalism. Although cheerleading is by no means the same as the global political stage, we can use the "vets" and the "rookies" in this case as our two "states."
The eventual goal of the AU cheerleading squad is an orderly team which works together seamlessly. It would seem that a liberal approach would lead to more friendly cooperation and "happy" success. However, the vets are using realism and constructivism to reach this end.
The vets have a hegemony over the world of cheerleading. In layman's terms: seniority rules. It's a unipolar world - the rookies are nowhere near close to equal in power with the vets in such an extreme power imbalance. The vets want to maintain their power - losing it would cause them to be unable to control this week. Even though the goal is liberalism, they need to keep their power this week so it stays in their control and they can in effect bring about the team unity aspect on their own time schedule. Instead of using cooperation and encouraging mutual respect, they're using force. This force includes declaring events mandatory to attend and using constant text messages to keep in contact. They also use the team running concept (the team has to run if you fail to comply to their rules, and you have to sit out and watch them suffer) as an apparent consequence. If you don't know a cheer when confronted by a vet (a battle, per say), the rest of the team runs while you watch. The final example of force is that of almost bribery - if the rookies do well, the vets will give them candy, little gifts, etc. In return, if you don't follow the rules of rookie week (wearing pig tails with ribbons every day... anyone?), you get punished (mostly just the vets disappointment and dislike for you if you don't follow their orders). They're able to effectively use this self-interested strategy by tearing down the rookies to further increase and maintain their power.
Then how did they even get all of this power? Through the history (at least during their time) of the American cheerleading squad, the identity of the vets has developed and strengthened through tradition. The most common phrase heard this week from the vets is "we had to do this and it was so much worse!" The vets have changed from their usual (mostly) friendly attitudes to rather demanding and unpleasant because that’s what vets did in the past. They saw this change themselves as freshman and feel the need to carry on the history. The rookies were told that this is what past rookies have done, especially because the vets have lived through it. They have to deal with whatever standards are set because it's the identity assigned to them. This is an endless cycle unless one group is able to change their identity.
Instead of bullying the rookies into submission to build a coherent team, reaching out with a cooperative, liberal approach would lead to greater success. The underlying goal of the traditional rookie week is to prepare the rookies for the following week's basketball expositions. The rookies need to know the basics of cheers and where to be during games, as well as have the proper attitude (towards the team and the "job" of the team). The realist approach that is the traditional method for the cheer squad and greek life ("hazing"-lite), only works if those being "hazed" want the close bonds of the team/organization more than they dislike the sporadic time commitments (3 hours of scavenger hunts on the national mall, early morning breakfast with the team) and unusual dress codes (pigtails? uniforms? make-up? "if you don't look like a child prostitute you're not wearing enough make-up"). Constructivism also fails here because the "rite-of-passage" rookie week relies on the fact that the rookies accept the identity of the rookie. Which we don't. Instead, liberalism should be utilized so that everyone has an enjoyable week. Team bonding, for instance, at a mutually agreed upon time throughout the week. Fun activities--not 'we're going to leave this week intentionally ambiguous' so that you're stressed about not only school and the massive amounts of time you have to donate to cheer anyway, but also the "hazing" that you will be warned of only hours before. Eventual goal (all groups working together, forming alliances, etc.) The "rookies" and the "vets" are interdependent on each other for success on the mat. The team cannot be successful unless each group has at least a working relationship with them
The ends are admirable and necessary to the growth and strength of a team. However, the means to achieving this lead something to be desired. Much of this lies in the hands of the dynamic rookie group. Will they change their own identity this year and stage a revolution by doing as they wish? Or next year will they no longer demand insignificant things of the rookies? Will the tradition continue? Only time will tell.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Reflection: Realism and Giuliani
I don't know about anyone else, but I definitely got alot out of hearing Giuliani come and speak to us on Saturday Night. As he was speaking I found myself relating things he was saying to realism and things we learned in class. Imagine that! He demonstrated this throughout his speech in saying things like that the Obama administration needs to realize the reality of our security situation and be more aggressive in our stance against terrorism. He also talked about our economic situation being a national security issue. This being the case the advancement of China's economy and the decline of ours was described as against our self-interest. This was really the extent of the "self-interest" part of realism that he described but his speech was riddled with the aggressive dog eat dog world type of talk. This included things like "standing up to bullies," and threatening Iran with military power.
Also his speech didn't really include much talk of cooperation in fixing our economic and national security. Much of his speech focused on what we can do ourselves as a nation which is a very realist attitude. Now I feel I must throw my own opinion in the mix. I was very happy with what I heard because although I am pretty idealistic, this does not mean I want to give any quarter to terrorists. We need to treat the threat with a realistic approach which means considering all possibilities because we all know what happens if we don't. Also I was very interested in how he compared appeasement of Hitler to the situation with Iran. While some may see this as an exaggeration, I think Giuliani's point about the problem getting more serious the more time we allow to slip by is very valid. There will come a point where we will have to either accept a nuclear Iran or use military force. I would advise putting the military pressure on them before they acquire WMDs.
Either way you stand on the aisle, Giuliani's speech gave insight to realism and showed a different perspective of thinking. Also Just as a side comment:Who the heck was that kid who asked a question and then answered it? Really lame, just saying.
Also his speech didn't really include much talk of cooperation in fixing our economic and national security. Much of his speech focused on what we can do ourselves as a nation which is a very realist attitude. Now I feel I must throw my own opinion in the mix. I was very happy with what I heard because although I am pretty idealistic, this does not mean I want to give any quarter to terrorists. We need to treat the threat with a realistic approach which means considering all possibilities because we all know what happens if we don't. Also I was very interested in how he compared appeasement of Hitler to the situation with Iran. While some may see this as an exaggeration, I think Giuliani's point about the problem getting more serious the more time we allow to slip by is very valid. There will come a point where we will have to either accept a nuclear Iran or use military force. I would advise putting the military pressure on them before they acquire WMDs.
Either way you stand on the aisle, Giuliani's speech gave insight to realism and showed a different perspective of thinking. Also Just as a side comment:Who the heck was that kid who asked a question and then answered it? Really lame, just saying.
Reflection on Risk
Soooo Risk.. I never thought it could possibly get this intense. For one, my team members, head of state and diplomat, didn’t tell us what was exactly on the paper and they led us to assume for the first rounds that we were only after Ukraine, and not the surrounding territories. It kind of worries me that they assume that they could create the best method of reaching that objective without the feedback from the rest of the team. I’m guessing that’s why a large part of our group meetings never made sense.
Then there was the “government crisis” and both of the representatives died. It honestly would have been incredibly beneficial if PTJ would have announced this way earlier. Once the new government took over, the previous allies did a 180 and declared war on the red team. Oh, and our old government had only left us with 3 territories, no resources or cities, and their secret weapon had already been used. In all, once I actually got into the game, I was heading toward disaster and the game wasn’t as fun as I hoped it would have been.
Then again, you begin to wonder whether or not World Politics is actually like this. You have a select group that you assign - oh hello Congress! - who decides what to do. I mean, you put them there. They should have your interests. Same thing happened with our group. We thought Gabe and Jesse would guide our team to victory.. but that didn't work out accordingly. It makes you think whether or not countries are really in it for their lust of power and glory rather than the well being of those they represent. Then when those select are impeached or them term ends or they somehow mysteriously die, you have those who have to pick up after them and try to guide the group/country back on track. How many times hasn't this happened in history?
Overall, Diplomatic Risk got a five star rating on my behalf, despite "my" ultimate failure in the last day of the class session.
Overall, Diplomatic Risk got a five star rating on my behalf, despite "my" ultimate failure in the last day of the class session.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Risky Business!
As the diplomat for the black team, I don’t really deal with the dynamics of the actual board game aspect of Risk. I’ve never played the game before, and to be honest I still don’t really understand how to play the dang thing. As for Risk relating to world politics, I definitely can see some overlap and some blaring differences from my position as diplomat. I think the biggest difference between the two is the fact that in UCWP Risk we separate diplomacy and actual action. In world politics, obviously, nations juggle with both diplomacy and domestic affairs simultaneously. In class, this separation is much more efficient than having to do both at once; I couldn’t imagine the chaos that would ensue if we had to do both at the same time. Conversely, the chaos that would ensue if world politics was formatted similarly would be exponentially more destructive.
Also, a big difference from my diplomatic perspective is that in diplomatic Risk there is a clear winner, and all teams are trying very hard to fulfill their objective and win. In world politics, there is no single winner. Nations can interact with each other and have overlapping objectives and both win together. The game we play in class is a lot more cutthroat. Also, since in the realm of world politics more than one state can “win”, objectives aren’t so secret, and therefore aren’t to the detriment of the state if another state finds out about them. In class, many people had stolen/borrowed other teams’ papers that had the objective and secret power which is an incredible advantage. Once the objectives were no longer secret, diplomats now used their knowledge of what it took for the other nation to win to sabotage plans and crank up any kind of agreement, since they knew the key to victory. In world politics, most nations make their objectives pretty clear in most cases, if not just to keep citizens informed of actions of their nations.
UCWP Risk, while an interesting and entertaining board game that perhaps is most relative to world politics compared to other games, is still just a game. While some concepts may be shared, the fundamentals of the game differ greatly from the realm of world politics.
Also, a big difference from my diplomatic perspective is that in diplomatic Risk there is a clear winner, and all teams are trying very hard to fulfill their objective and win. In world politics, there is no single winner. Nations can interact with each other and have overlapping objectives and both win together. The game we play in class is a lot more cutthroat. Also, since in the realm of world politics more than one state can “win”, objectives aren’t so secret, and therefore aren’t to the detriment of the state if another state finds out about them. In class, many people had stolen/borrowed other teams’ papers that had the objective and secret power which is an incredible advantage. Once the objectives were no longer secret, diplomats now used their knowledge of what it took for the other nation to win to sabotage plans and crank up any kind of agreement, since they knew the key to victory. In world politics, most nations make their objectives pretty clear in most cases, if not just to keep citizens informed of actions of their nations.
UCWP Risk, while an interesting and entertaining board game that perhaps is most relative to world politics compared to other games, is still just a game. While some concepts may be shared, the fundamentals of the game differ greatly from the realm of world politics.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Risk Risk Risk
I’ve previously played risk and always gotten into my “world domination” mode and never really took into consideration what it would actually be like in the real world. For one, its not that simple to bring armies into any surrounding territories and take charge. Its definitely expensive and not always beneficial. During the game, different players in the team come up with different methods in accomplishing the team’s objective. The way we evaluate whether or not to pursue their idea is by questioning whether or not we can risk any potential or current allies or even jeopardize our main source of armies (cities and resource centers). In world politics, countries have to determine whether or not it is to their self-interest to ally themselves with particular countries. Countries don’t exactly go into war automatically. Through the game Risk, I’ve started to value even further diplomacy. It makes a bit more sense why the United Nations takes so long to make decisions during an international crisis. During these moments, there are various key figures and each has a different objective and interests. In Risk, there’s only 5 teams and we’re spending so much time trying to make diplomatic agreements (which don’t always go as planned), I couldn’t possibly imagine how 1. stressful it might be and 2. complicated it could be to develop a plan that would address the majority’s wishes. Nevertheless, I’m sure diplomats would wish that the number of countries that are seen in the game and the ones in the actual world would be the same. Smaller numbers are easier to address. Then again, both situations d have hegemons that play influential roles in determining what course to take. In our version of Risk, there are members who want to acquire power in a certain area (sounds like USSR seeking a water port), others who want more alliances, and so forth. All of these players have existed at one point in history and the international community has had to deal with them. I can definitely agree that Diplomatic Risk is a good micro version of world politics, despite some of its differences to the real world.
RIsk, literally
So yesterday I found out exactly why Risk is actually called "Risk." We as the blue team gambled everything and took a huge risk and gave up our only population center for a chance to win it and we were betrayed. So it is in world politics as well, although perhaps not so drastic. Diplomatic Risk definitely resembles real world politics because it really limits many of the actions you can take because of your relationship with other nations. In the real world, you could potentially declare war on someone, but many times a nation simply doesn't have the capability to do this so they can't, just as in the game. We had to take into consideration all the consequences and fallout of our decisions upon the world order and if it would impact our goals.
However there were some things that I felt would be magnified on the world stage. I was surprised that our numerous alliances didn't get us into trouble because inevitably we would be allied with someone and their enemy as well. There have been many instances in history where the two nations allied with someone like us decided they were being played, teamed up and destroyed the nation with all the alliances. While this didn't (or did not yet I should say) happen to us in the game, it did arouse suspicion. It appears that in the game world and the real world that peace is suspicious. Everyone thinks there are ulterior motives.
I also think there would be increased cooperation in the real world as opposed to this purely realist game because even nations with benign goals are still trying to win. In the real world what defines winning is always changing and is sometimes very undefined as opposed to having pretty firm objectives as in the game. I think I caught on to something when i jokingly said to PTJ that while we are all preoccupied with war that the plague is going to wipe all of us out and I think this is totally possible in real life. Whether its AIDS or climate change as PTJ suggested or resource depletion and various environmental affects that we know will eventually happen but not when, we are headed into a dangerous time where we ignore some of the greater events happening around us. Not to be doom and gloom because I believe we can cooperate and fix this, but if we don't it will mean extinction, and as scientists will tell you we are due for another mass extinction.
However there were some things that I felt would be magnified on the world stage. I was surprised that our numerous alliances didn't get us into trouble because inevitably we would be allied with someone and their enemy as well. There have been many instances in history where the two nations allied with someone like us decided they were being played, teamed up and destroyed the nation with all the alliances. While this didn't (or did not yet I should say) happen to us in the game, it did arouse suspicion. It appears that in the game world and the real world that peace is suspicious. Everyone thinks there are ulterior motives.
I also think there would be increased cooperation in the real world as opposed to this purely realist game because even nations with benign goals are still trying to win. In the real world what defines winning is always changing and is sometimes very undefined as opposed to having pretty firm objectives as in the game. I think I caught on to something when i jokingly said to PTJ that while we are all preoccupied with war that the plague is going to wipe all of us out and I think this is totally possible in real life. Whether its AIDS or climate change as PTJ suggested or resource depletion and various environmental affects that we know will eventually happen but not when, we are headed into a dangerous time where we ignore some of the greater events happening around us. Not to be doom and gloom because I believe we can cooperate and fix this, but if we don't it will mean extinction, and as scientists will tell you we are due for another mass extinction.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
SAAALOMEEEEE
Salome was… interesting. I had never been to an opera before and, to be honest, I didn’t really know what to expect. Even though we had endured the opera workshop, I didn’t think it had really prepared me for what I saw. After the workshop, I was expecting a provocative, outlandish, wild performance; the antithesis of a typical “grandfather’s opera”. However, I didn’t find the opera any stranger or more outlandish than a typical Shakespeare performance. Though the plot was quite peculiar, I didn’t see anything that was really “R” rated. I thought the opera was artistically pleasing, however the repeating trends of the dialogue were kind of annoying. It was frustrating knowing exactly what was going to happen/KEEP happening and just seeing the characters string out conversations for-ev-er.
My favorite part was one of the few scenes that didn’t include this repetitive dialogue, the dancing scene. Though it was extremely creepy in context, the colors and choreography were outstanding. I absolutely loved the shift in background colors that highlighted different emotions that were conveyed through the dance. On that note, the background colors and their shifts to represent the emotional climate was probably the most interesting part of the entire opera. Overall, I enjoyed the experience and I am thankful I went. Plus, I got a great new facebook profile picture!
My favorite part was one of the few scenes that didn’t include this repetitive dialogue, the dancing scene. Though it was extremely creepy in context, the colors and choreography were outstanding. I absolutely loved the shift in background colors that highlighted different emotions that were conveyed through the dance. On that note, the background colors and their shifts to represent the emotional climate was probably the most interesting part of the entire opera. Overall, I enjoyed the experience and I am thankful I went. Plus, I got a great new facebook profile picture!
Risk
I’ve honestly glad to finally see something familiar in the classroom: Risk! Well, its not exactly “class material”, but we are able to learn some basic concepts of diplomacy through it. At first, I was a bit skeptical when I was trying to figure out how this new version of Risk worked out. After day one, I don’t like it. It has to do somewhat with the structure of the game, but I feel that overall it has to do with the members in the group. I have nothing against them personally, but I feel that they click into character, whether it is Head of State or Diplomat, but all of the negotiations and decisions are made through them. They are allowed to conceal information from the other members of the group. I’ve wondered if what they’ve told us is every true – if doing “such-and such” is actually our real goal or if that’s a lie they told us just so we won’t reveal any important information to other members unintentionally. I mean, I haven’t exactly seen the paper they were given.
I’m quite sure that everyone else who wasn’t assigned a role may feel as if they aren’t exactly contributing. You could always “suggest” a move or strategy, but if the two main guys don’t agree, they don’t have to pursue your idea. I wonder if this is how politics actually works. Even if we petition and fight for what we believe foreign policy should be like, the people who are elected/assigned into a certain position, will listen to the public, but will ultimately base their decisions on what they believe. Is it exactly diplomatic then? Or does this ultimately make the “ideal” leader who goes with their gut instinct despite popular opinion?
Hopefully in Tuesday’s class things change around.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Reflection: Risk
Risk: The game of world domination. And yet I find myself the head of state of a peace loving nation. For security and confidentiality purposes that is all I will reveal about my state and its goals as we are still in play. At first I was very disappointed, but I am learning that peace can often be more interesting than war. Our alliances that we are trying to make are done with great care and deliberation. We must be careful not to offend anyone or to complicate the process any further. Because so many of the nations are at war, we must be careful who we ally ourselves with as well. I have come to find the process of negotiation important, because if one did not participate in the process they would often have to guess of the intentions of others and have little to no influence on other states. By participating in the process, we get to find out the goals or at least how those goals are going to be carried out. We can use this to develop a more accurate picture of the world. This can work as a cooperative process or as I believe we are seeing in risk, in a realist self-interested process.
The game of risk by itself is a very realist game and I think even with PTJ's new rules, that it continues to be realist. All the nations are given strict objectives and accomplishing these objectives are the only way to win the game. Who doesn't want to win, right? To accomplish these objectives, the nations are doing whatever is necessary. I don't know what the goals are but I can assure you that whatever they are, the nations are basing their actions so that they can accomplish those goals and win the game.
Despite all this and my own view that the world is pretty realist, I reject the belief that nations never do things because they believe it is the right thing to do. It never benefited the United States in any way to intervene in the humanitarian crisis in Somalia in 1992, but we did it anyway. As a nation we have become way too cynical, to the point where it seems we do not believe humans are capable of compassion. This view will only destroy us. Call me an idealist but I really think idealism is something we are lacking and could really improve our lives in a lot of ways if we give it a chance to grow instead of rejecting all possibility of human civility.
The game of risk by itself is a very realist game and I think even with PTJ's new rules, that it continues to be realist. All the nations are given strict objectives and accomplishing these objectives are the only way to win the game. Who doesn't want to win, right? To accomplish these objectives, the nations are doing whatever is necessary. I don't know what the goals are but I can assure you that whatever they are, the nations are basing their actions so that they can accomplish those goals and win the game.
Despite all this and my own view that the world is pretty realist, I reject the belief that nations never do things because they believe it is the right thing to do. It never benefited the United States in any way to intervene in the humanitarian crisis in Somalia in 1992, but we did it anyway. As a nation we have become way too cynical, to the point where it seems we do not believe humans are capable of compassion. This view will only destroy us. Call me an idealist but I really think idealism is something we are lacking and could really improve our lives in a lot of ways if we give it a chance to grow instead of rejecting all possibility of human civility.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Make up Reflection: 10/2/2010
Marginalized populations are a different population to target. Nevertheless, I think a major part of this is to actually reveal to these populations that their absence actually makes a difference. Many are so focused on surviving and their daily work schedules. That’s their lives. I’m not sure if they have ever considered seeking additional aid from the government in order to solve their issues. For one, the majority of government spending is focused on major cities. In a sense, this returns back to the issue of educating the masses of the role of the government.
I wonder if the masses play any important role that would actually affect foreign policy. For instance, in some countries (definitely not the United States), some areas are so far away from major cities that government regulations aren’t necessarily enforced. I think that giving the marginalized populations a say in policies is more aimed at reaching liberalism, but not necessarily what’s the “best for the population.”
Could we achieve a strong foreign policy in a country without listen to marginalized populations? I think so. The importance is to have more influential groups have a say, since they have greater control over the economic sector – which a country depends on tremendously.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Simulation Reflection
I wasn’t exactly thrilled with the simulation. I’ve participated in forensics all throughout high school and I felt it was more structured. I definitely saw the need of having cross examination. The problem with some teams was that they were addressing comments of other teams with a different interpretation. I believe that cross-ex would have also given “the President” an idea of whether or not the team could defend their position quickly and efficiently. Nevertheless, I did enjoy seeing different groups defend their point.
Throughout forensics, individuals would have to defend sides with a generalized position, but they would never take into consideration different groups, as the simulation did. It was definitely an eye opener when the President stated at the end that none of the groups addressed working with the current status quo and that everyone sought some degree of change. Perhaps in my mind it was always the “ideal” thing to have a drastic change, but I never saw the practicality in it. The President brought up an interesting reason for this and he stated that change would be costly. I now see that in the process of dealing with policies, one has to take into great consideration reforming policies rather than completely eliminating it. With this in mind, I definitely have a stronger understanding of what to expect for the next simulation.
Minor Simulation Reflection
If there is one major concept that I learned from the simulation this week it's that in world politics there is never one clear answer. It is never black and white, and making decisions is pretty darn tough. The domestic content rules simulation made this especially clear for me because, at first, I vehemently opposed the position I was forced to research, defend, and present. Throughout my academic career, simulations and debates similar to the one we engaged in were set up a little differently; almost always, the students could choose themselves which side/group they wanted to follow. At first, I was less than ecstatic, to say the least, about my "GM" appointment. I knew that as GM we would obviously not be supporting the tariff, something that I, personally, supported. Throughout the research however, I was actually swayed by a couple anti-tariff points. Especially after seeing the entire class's presentations, I was thoroughly conflicted about my new opinions about the domestic content rules. I am actually really thankful I was assigned the position I didn't want to take, because in the process my mind, though quite forcibly, was opened to so many differing viewpoints on the matter.
This simulation helped me realize that issues, especially in world politics, that I thought I had such a firm understanding of are so much more complex. For example, during the simulation there was one concept that I thought I had a set position on: "outsourcing." For as long as I can remember, I always thought "outsourcing = bad". What some groups called "outsourcing" was to others a "global exchange of ideas". I used to think, as many Americans did, that outsourcing was purely awful for the country and lead to job loss and economic problems. In reality, economic interdependence and trade are in fact mutually beneficial exchanges (thanks Prof Broder!). Also, the groups that were anti-tariff made valid points about the efficiency that a global exchange of resources allowed. While it is often so easy to brand a world politics concern as immediately good or bad, it is almost always so much more complex than what can be seen from the surface level, as proved by the minor simulation.
This simulation helped me realize that issues, especially in world politics, that I thought I had such a firm understanding of are so much more complex. For example, during the simulation there was one concept that I thought I had a set position on: "outsourcing." For as long as I can remember, I always thought "outsourcing = bad". What some groups called "outsourcing" was to others a "global exchange of ideas". I used to think, as many Americans did, that outsourcing was purely awful for the country and lead to job loss and economic problems. In reality, economic interdependence and trade are in fact mutually beneficial exchanges (thanks Prof Broder!). Also, the groups that were anti-tariff made valid points about the efficiency that a global exchange of resources allowed. While it is often so easy to brand a world politics concern as immediately good or bad, it is almost always so much more complex than what can be seen from the surface level, as proved by the minor simulation.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Reflection
Well, this week was a whirlwind.
Preparing a video in 48 hours was...interesting. As the group of four, you would think it would be easier to get everyone together for meetings--but it wasn't. I did learn that iMovie is really easy to work with. And that Jesse strangely and awesomely fits the Sierra Club 70s mold (or say the word "tariffs"). In the end though, even if it was a lot of work and stress for a couple of days, the simulation was a much better learning experience/midterm than a traditional test. Defending points of views that aren't your own is a great life skill, especially for many of the UC World Politics kids who want to be diplomats and work for the US government.
While I wasn't thrilled that I was part of the group representing the Sierra Club, it was a learning opportunity. I'm not exactly a tree hugger.
Still, I'm not sure how I'm going to like a MAJOR simulation. The minor one was pretty time consuming and stressful as it were.
On a side note, 4 am fire alarms. aren't. cool.
Preparing a video in 48 hours was...interesting. As the group of four, you would think it would be easier to get everyone together for meetings--but it wasn't. I did learn that iMovie is really easy to work with. And that Jesse strangely and awesomely fits the Sierra Club 70s mold (or say the word "tariffs"). In the end though, even if it was a lot of work and stress for a couple of days, the simulation was a much better learning experience/midterm than a traditional test. Defending points of views that aren't your own is a great life skill, especially for many of the UC World Politics kids who want to be diplomats and work for the US government.
While I wasn't thrilled that I was part of the group representing the Sierra Club, it was a learning opportunity. I'm not exactly a tree hugger.
Still, I'm not sure how I'm going to like a MAJOR simulation. The minor one was pretty time consuming and stressful as it were.
On a side note, 4 am fire alarms. aren't. cool.
Reflection: Simulation
When I first got the syllabus for what the simulation would consist of I must admit I was less than excited about it. This feeling continued until I really started to work on it with my group and I found myself really getting into it. I personally started out being for the domestic content rules but by the end I had changed my mind. All the research my group did and the collaboration we had with the other section as well as groups like GM, worked to shift my thinking. I think this was the most valuable part of the simulation. It forced me to think about things in a different way.
Also I think it helped all of us to work with others in our section that we didn't necessarily always work with, which was a good thing. During the making of the video, I thought it was a pain in the butt, but when we actually presented I enjoyed the videos very much. It added some variety and entertainment value to what could have otherwise been a very boring presentation based around facts and figures. And for me personally, it helped me learn some of the technical applications of imovie, which I will have to use for a final project of mine for another class.
It was hard work for all of us getting it all together, but once the final product was finished it was really cool to see it work. I was kind of disappointed in the result of our simulation. As the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, my group is dissatisfied with keeping the domestic content rules the way they are. I wondered what we could have done to further convince the president to see our side like the other section was able to. Maybe it had something to do with the AIAM in that section securing an interview with their CEO. Either way I think I can speak for everyone in saying we are glad it's all over and we can move on to new things, but we also learned a lot as well.
Also I think it helped all of us to work with others in our section that we didn't necessarily always work with, which was a good thing. During the making of the video, I thought it was a pain in the butt, but when we actually presented I enjoyed the videos very much. It added some variety and entertainment value to what could have otherwise been a very boring presentation based around facts and figures. And for me personally, it helped me learn some of the technical applications of imovie, which I will have to use for a final project of mine for another class.
It was hard work for all of us getting it all together, but once the final product was finished it was really cool to see it work. I was kind of disappointed in the result of our simulation. As the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, my group is dissatisfied with keeping the domestic content rules the way they are. I wondered what we could have done to further convince the president to see our side like the other section was able to. Maybe it had something to do with the AIAM in that section securing an interview with their CEO. Either way I think I can speak for everyone in saying we are glad it's all over and we can move on to new things, but we also learned a lot as well.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Reflection....
This week we talked about the marginalized, or the section of a country that doesn't always get it's opinions represented or heard. Over the course of our discussion, I came to the conclusion that it's best if policy makers are aware of the marginalized and their "underground" movements which inevitably do have an impact on the country. Policy makers shouldn't go out of their way to exclusively track the opinions and livelihoods of the marginalized because then they'll be forgetting about the opinions of the majority.
Especially considering examples like the "Moral Underground" illustrated, where sometimes the marginalized choose not to speak out (and become de-marginalized). Sometimes people choose to stay under the legal and political radar because becoming transparent would hurt what they're doing. Specifically getting into legal trouble. For example, the shop owners that help out their employees who are struggling supporting a family on minimum wage by giving them extra wages or merchandise "off the books".
Conversely, it was pointed out that sometimes the marginalized really want their voice to be heard and occasionally resort to violence. The Civil Rights movement is a good example, as well as the revolutionary and civil war.
Whether or not the marginalized are vocal or not, policy makers should note their existence as growing ideologies. Sometimes they can become powerful, and it's better not to let them take you by surprise.
Especially considering examples like the "Moral Underground" illustrated, where sometimes the marginalized choose not to speak out (and become de-marginalized). Sometimes people choose to stay under the legal and political radar because becoming transparent would hurt what they're doing. Specifically getting into legal trouble. For example, the shop owners that help out their employees who are struggling supporting a family on minimum wage by giving them extra wages or merchandise "off the books".
Conversely, it was pointed out that sometimes the marginalized really want their voice to be heard and occasionally resort to violence. The Civil Rights movement is a good example, as well as the revolutionary and civil war.
Whether or not the marginalized are vocal or not, policy makers should note their existence as growing ideologies. Sometimes they can become powerful, and it's better not to let them take you by surprise.
When Does it Become Okay?
During our last class, an interesting question was brought up: When does it become okay, or acceptable, for a suppressed people to turn to violence? My answer was it is the state in power who dictates the image of those who rebel against oppression. Looking back through history, it seems that it does not become globally acceptable for the oppressed to fight back until they win. During the time in which they turn to violence, they are regarded as violent, rebellious terrorists. For example, take a look at the birth of our own country. During the beginning of the Revolutionary War, the colonists who rejected the British Kingdom's legitimacy and fought back were obviously considered violent traitors by the state of Britain. It was not until America seized its independence that the image of the revolutionaries drastically changed. After claiming their independence, and thus establishing their legitimacy, the revolutionaries were regarded as heroes. Had they not claimed their victory, would those colonists not just be viewed as pesky rebels who turned to violence and treason?
The same is true today, but to a more extreme extent. Now, through the influence of the media, the dominant or oppressive state can take advantage of their global influence to make any form of rebellion to their suppression appear any way they want. Those in control use their legitimacy as an excuse for immediately defaming any kind of violent protest to suppression as terrorism. The world in contemporary conditions, so sensitive to the thought of "terrorism", easily sympathizes with the legitimate state, further delegitimizing the body of rebels. However, if the repressed body does achieve sovereignty, or whatever their goal is, their win is an immediate symbol of legitimacy which leads to majority approval for their violent revolt. It is seen as something that was necessary in a time injustice and oppression.
It is almost too confusing to absorb: you have to win to win approval. Now the question is, how long are we going to let these standards cloud our judgement of an oppressed people?
The same is true today, but to a more extreme extent. Now, through the influence of the media, the dominant or oppressive state can take advantage of their global influence to make any form of rebellion to their suppression appear any way they want. Those in control use their legitimacy as an excuse for immediately defaming any kind of violent protest to suppression as terrorism. The world in contemporary conditions, so sensitive to the thought of "terrorism", easily sympathizes with the legitimate state, further delegitimizing the body of rebels. However, if the repressed body does achieve sovereignty, or whatever their goal is, their win is an immediate symbol of legitimacy which leads to majority approval for their violent revolt. It is seen as something that was necessary in a time injustice and oppression.
It is almost too confusing to absorb: you have to win to win approval. Now the question is, how long are we going to let these standards cloud our judgement of an oppressed people?
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Reflection: A World Conflicted
As I tried to sit down to write the blog about how to deal with all the competing views on the global order, I was stumped. I realized that really there is no solution to this power struggle, and my admittance to that was an admittance that I follow the realist way of thinking. I sat stumped again, my mind in a pretzel. I decided I would skip this weeks blog post.
Despite skipping the post for this week, the topic stayed on my mind. I kept trying to work on it and decided its all about subjectivity. Every person bases the way the view the world on experiences they've had, education, and environment as many of our articles have described. For example, some people will see a state joining an international institution as a willingness to concede some power to be a part of a multi-lateral group that can get things done. (Liberals). Others would see it as an attempt to gain greater power and comparative advantage over other states (Realists). And yet, still others would see it as the state acknowledging its identity as an actor on the international front (constructivists). The action of becoming part of the state is not the single factor in how it affects the way people view the state and its decisions. They will fit the action into the pre-existing paradigm they have on the world. This is not to say people's minds never change, but because of the subjective nature of the human mind, there will never be complete consensus.
This does not mean that nations can not get along, but with so many conflicting views and differing opinions, the only real way to deal with this is education in its purest sense. Before making decisions nations and their people must be knowledgeable about the impact and reasoning for doing what they are deciding to do. In this way negative impacts can be countered. Sometimes, time may not permit this kind of approach, but consideration of the effects of any cause is key to effectively running a country and participating in the international community.
Despite skipping the post for this week, the topic stayed on my mind. I kept trying to work on it and decided its all about subjectivity. Every person bases the way the view the world on experiences they've had, education, and environment as many of our articles have described. For example, some people will see a state joining an international institution as a willingness to concede some power to be a part of a multi-lateral group that can get things done. (Liberals). Others would see it as an attempt to gain greater power and comparative advantage over other states (Realists). And yet, still others would see it as the state acknowledging its identity as an actor on the international front (constructivists). The action of becoming part of the state is not the single factor in how it affects the way people view the state and its decisions. They will fit the action into the pre-existing paradigm they have on the world. This is not to say people's minds never change, but because of the subjective nature of the human mind, there will never be complete consensus.
This does not mean that nations can not get along, but with so many conflicting views and differing opinions, the only real way to deal with this is education in its purest sense. Before making decisions nations and their people must be knowledgeable about the impact and reasoning for doing what they are deciding to do. In this way negative impacts can be countered. Sometimes, time may not permit this kind of approach, but consideration of the effects of any cause is key to effectively running a country and participating in the international community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)