"None of us is an Island": Mixed reactions to the economic crisis of our time

So I’m at the gym, pumping some iron, in hopes that I will ultimately “get big.” I’m trying to show off to the pretty girl behind me, and then I pull a muscle. Workout ends prematurely; I go home.

I walk into the room and pull up my home page (The New York Times), and what is the first thing I see? 

BAILOUT FAILS; STOCKS PLUNGE

Dow Loses 777 Points After Vote

House Rejects Package, 228-205

So I’m all like, wtf? I may be naive, but I though for sure that the bailout would pass. Why? I don’t know, but it may have had something to do with how screwed we would be if it didn’t. 

Now we find ourselves in a bit of a conundrum. Many people seemed to think that the bailout was essential to the survival of our economy, myself included. But in the spirit of stoicism and all things American, lets get down to business and show the economy who’s boss, mmkay? Mmkay.

Firstly, I’d like to thank the 95 democratic representatives who opposed the bill. Way to follow party lines, people. On the plus side, people who have lost everything don’t need to worry about budgeting anymore. 

Probably one of the most disappointing parts to this scenario is that I thought it would be one vote above the partisanship and bureaucracy that normally take place. Sadly I was wrong. Until the political mentality or public opinion of our government is fundamentally altered, this vote will not bring us any closer to restoration than we are right now.

All is not lost. Democratic majority leader Steny Hoyer and Republican minority leader John Boehner saw eye to eye on this issue, an event that rarely, if ever, occurs. Commenting on the American economy, Hoyer stated that “none of us is an island.”

Lastly, lets not forget that there are strong willed, talented people running our government. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson may or may not be the white knight that saves the American economy, but people do not have to complicate his job by attacking him before he even gets started. This guy was the head of Goldman Sachs before becoming Treasury Secretary. He is an impressive and highly capable individual, one who is ideal for the job. 

It is no secret that I am one crazed, passionate, blazing idealist. I have profound faith in my government. Based on the shocking outcome of this vote, I assume that many people will lose what little faith in the government that they have. I, however, still believe in the ability of the U.S. government, but at this point I may not have a reason to do so. 

Eric Idle Knows What's Up

Thanks Eric Idle and YouTube user “galaxysong123” for providing an excellent look at the insanity of everything that we cling to.

Watch the video first. Seriously, do it. Or at least listen to it.


I think there are many ways to explain the fact that we have not contacted or been contacted by alien civilizations without falling upon the “zoo theory”. I just personally find it rather hard to swallow that a bunch of super-intelligent and peaceful civilizations had a galactic conference to decide to set up a boundary around us until we become peaceful. Our galaxy is so obscenely big, it is a definite possibility that intelligent civilizations are simply too rare and spread out to possibly ever contact each other. With the current model of the universe, faster than light travel has been ruled impossible, and even speeds close to the speed of light seem very improbable. At the fastest speed ever attained by a manned spacecraft, it would take 110,000 years to reach Proxima Centauri, the nearest star outside of our solar system. If a highly intelligent species exists on the other side of the galaxy and is even able to effectively colonize worlds in other star systems, we are still unable to reach out of the solar system and have only been able to receive radio transmissions for seventy years. For mankind to receive communications from civilizations from hundreds of thousands of light-years away, it would make sense that we give more than seventy years to the search before giving up and crowning ourselves with the title of the only intelligence in the galaxy. If we ever do receive a signal, it is very possible that by the time it gets to us, communication would be impossible due to the distance involved requiring thousands of years to transmit, and the possibility that the civilization extinguished itself after colonies developed their own cultures and infighting tore them apart. Regardless of the improbability of being contacted by alien life, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fix things up down here just in case they decide to stop on by and see how things are going. And as Eric Idle beautifully put it, “pray that there’s intelligent life somewhere up in space, because there’s bugger all down here on earth.”

Aliens and World Politics?

I really liked the discussion topic for last Friday. There are a lot of times in class where a topic, such as the state of plumbing in the Middle East, is brought up and I don’t feel like I know enough about it to contribute much to the discussion. Since the topic of aliens is almost completely hypothetical I felt like we were all on even ground. That being said, I didn’t feel like our discussion was particularly productive. We spent a lot of time fleshing out our own hypotheticals without relating them to world politics.

It seemed like the biggest disagreement was on whether or not the aliens would arrive with peaceful intentions. At first I was kind of frustrated that we were spending so much time on the topic, but then I thought that maybe this was the point that Professor Jackson was trying to make. Many times the intentions of a state or a leader are unclear and the smallest mistakes can become huge issues as a result. Ok, well I think that’s it for now. Oh, and kudos to Luke for being an amazing discussion leader!

Luke's self-assessment: meh

It is not terribly difficult to lead a discussion. Given a topic and an inquisitive set of minds, it could be done without any trouble. But when one does not have prior notification that he is conducting the session, it becomes a bit more pressing. So when I received the venerated lightsabre o’ power, I was caught completely off guard. What should I say? The problem with any course of this level is that I sometimes feel that I have nothing particularly profound to contribute.  Alas, what an unhappy conundrum.

Thankfully, the subject at hand was purely theoretical. There being no right and wrong, anyone’s well reasoned opinion would be as valid as the rest. When I started the discussion, I planned to follow my own blog, as I had only read three or four others. I used what I had written as the order for our discussion; our first point to address would be the nature of the aliens, either friendly or hostile, the second would be whether they would unify humanity or polarize us. 

But our class session, like much of human life, did not proceed exactly to plan. As PTJ pointed out, the first half of class was spent on each of our respective blogs. That, of course, indicates a failure on my part to establish a concrete point. It also highlights an element of class that is missing (at least with me), that it is advantageous to read as many blogs as possible. Doing so will not only streamline discussions into actual discussions but also give each of us an insight into our peers’ perspectives. I currently do not read very many posts, but after Friday’s session I see that it is in my interest to read as many as I can. 

Also, our visit to the state department was fascinating. This is an area that many students find appealing, myself among them. The United States government has been at the receiving end of much criticism, especially since it is an election year, but I personally find it reassuring to know that many governmental officials quietly go about their work, immune to the partisanship and cynicism that is so pervasive in other parts of the citizenry. They may not have a section for aliens yet, but by speaking with a few of them, I experienced a human side of government, something that I would never get to do back home in the political machine of Chicago. To be perfectly honest, having people like that in government is very comforting indeed. 

"Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view." - Obi-Wan Kenobi

Microsoft Encarta 2006 defines “alien” as: 1. a being from another planet or another part of the universe 2. noncitizen resident of country 3. outsider: somebody who does not belong to or does not feel accepted by a group or society.
The fact that this one word is used to describe both humans and extraterrestrial beings is why our conversation today was absolutely relevant and constructive. I’ve found, no matter how abstract a turn our conversations take (be it plumbing or aliens), that they are equally enlightening, if not more, than a conventional discussion. It allows us to view things from other perspectives.

In regards to the peaceful or violent arrival of extraterrestrials, Perry’s point was important. Whether the aliens are arriving on earth via independent means, as a private organization, or whether they arrive on behalf of an alien government, is important when evaluating the peacefulness of their intentions. I stand corrected that, yes, there is a slight possibility that an alien government would contact earth peacefully, especially if they chose their first landing to be on the White House lawn. Now this sophisticated alien civilization would not need our trade or diplomatic ties, we would be little or nothing to them, technologically. They would turn to us only if, unbeknownst to us, we became wrapped up in some intergalactic war and they needed our alliance or support for a survival issue. Yes, this is a very realist view, but it makes sense through a liberal lens as well, because we have no resources or technology that would benefit their society. In fact, if they were behaving diplomatically, they wouldn’t contact us for the reasons I mentioned in my last post. In a continuation on Perry’s point, we should be wary of the aliens allying with one specific state, and pitting states against each other.

Regarding unification and the qualitative difference between humans and aliens, there are two scenarios:
1. The aliens arrive with guns blazing, and humankind unites as a species. We defeat them (lets be optimistic), and go back to the current state of relations.
2. The aliens arrive peacefully, and humans are thrown into chaos.
As Rachel mentioned, humans will be split: those who ally with the aliens, and those who do not. But it’s not that black and white. Say the US decides to ally with the aliens. There will be factions within the US who are for and against them. Also, from religion to interbreeding to the “fairness” that our world demands in trade and labor/employment and human rights, the social implications that I mentioned in class would also be extremely difficult to overcome. Unification wouldn’t happen.

So putting this in a more “terrestrial” perspective, our state identity dictates how we behave, and as we interact with other states, social meanings change. Those we viewed as “aliens” can gradually become our brethren, if they adopt our views and identity. Like the speaker at the State Department mentioned, exporting and helping people understand our culture is important in establishing long-term cooperation between “us” and “others.” Luckily, this is much simpler (if you could even say that) than dealing with extraterrestrials. There may yet be hope.

The 'Green House'

Well, first of all, I don’t think that it would be possible for an alien to land on the White House lawn. The White House has extensive security measures, and surely a spaceship would set off anti-aircraft missiles and provoke sniper fire. The only way it would be possible for an alien species to land anything on the White House lawn would be if
a) The alien had anticipated and had in-depth knowledge of White House security measures and had taken preventative measures, such as disabling the defenses or becoming invisible, or
b) The aliens’ spacecraft and the aliens themselves were heavily armored and able to withstand the attack.
However, assuming that the aliens were indeed able to land on the White House lawn, they would probably be met with considerable apprehension. The first thing that they would have to do would be to assure us that they come with peaceful intent. Since the aliens had the technology to withstand our defenses, it is likely that, if they had desired to hurt us, it would have been possible, and easier for them to do so from space.
When the United States government had established that the aliens were friendly and had found a means of communications, the first move would likely be an exchange of technology. We would definitely want the aliens’ technology and knowledge of the universe, while we may have customs, knowledge, or technology that the aliens wouldn’t be familiar with. This would work because even though the United States would be getting more from the transaction, we still wouldn’t be able to bring our technology up to the level that would threaten the alien’s sense of security. This kind of positive-sum gain would be beneficial to both parties.
As time went on, it would be inevitable that the rest of the world would find out about our contact with extraterrestrials. Interaction with the aliens was governed by liberalism, with mutual gains benefiting both parties. However, in dealing with other countries, we would have more of a constructivist viewpoint. Since we clearly would have the upper hand in dealing with other countries, or identity rather than our sense of security would govern our actions. The historical role of the United States as a protector of everything good and just in this world (ok, maybe I shouldn’t take it that far…) would dictate our relations with other countries. Although we would send aid, it is doubtful that we would share our newfound technology.
Many other countries, especially our enemies, would feel threatened by our superior technology, but we would enjoy having the upper hand in the world and our return to the status of the world’s only hyper-power. This feeling of insecurity would force other countries to beef up their own security and take defensive measures. Most likely we would be able to contain any security threats, but in the event that we had half the world against us, we probably wouldn’t hesitate to take out a select few countries. This could result in a world war, ending the world as we know it.

Mars Attacks!

If aliens landed on the White House lawn, the first thing we would have to do is pray they are friendly. If the alien race was intelligent enough to master interstellar travel and land on Earth, chances are they have some awesomely devastating face-melting death ray. But as Andrew said, it’s not conducive to assume they want to enslave us or sap our planet for resources, so for the purpose of argument, let us assume they’re generally peaceful, or at least didn’t come to exterminate the lot of us. Besides, I would assume that the development of interstellar travel would be so costly and consuming, it would require the cooperation of the whole planet, meaning they would have probably figured out peaceful solutions to the large majority of their problems (thanks Adam).
A definite possibility is that we go hostile first, assuming they are the aliens from the movies, here to enslave/consume humanity. In which case, the aliens turn on the death laser, there goes humanity. Or if we do something to provoke them, such as contain them to study or disassemble the ship without their permission, again, the death laser. The US would have to be very accommodating, and offer to show them our culture and whatnot. A peaceful exchange of knowledge would clearly be beneficial, considering they mastered interstellar travel and all. But I think we would probably shun the aliens simply because they’re aliens, and try to glean as much information and technology from them as possible, using probably most means available.
I think the proof that humanity is not a lone speck of intelligence floating around in a dead universe would unite humanity. As the world has shrunk due to increased mobility and technological advances, and people have united under larger groups. People have identified themselves as members of the city they were from, and then a larger region, then from their country, and now in some cases their continent. The knowledge that there is a massive empire of intelligent beings elsewhere in the galaxy would cause people to unite and think of themselves as citizens of earth and humanity.

"We will not go quietly into the night!"

Extraterrestrial beings would only present themselves on earth if they were looking to act in a hostile way. Think about it. If these aliens have the capability of coming to earth in the first place, then their technology is much, much more advanced. They would have a vast understanding of the universe, other planets and their system of governance, an unfathomable world beyond our wildest dreams. Their intelligence would far surpass ours. Now if humans found out about extraterrestrial life it would literally turn our world on its head. Everything as we know it would come crashing down around us. Any rational and humanitarian alien (no pun intended) would realize that our fragile little existence on planet Earth is already plagued with problems, and that a revelation of such a magnitude would only bring down our species.
Take, for example, the “lost” Amazonian tribe recently discovered in Brazil. This tribe of aborigines has never had contact with the modern world, they are primitive beings. Trying to assimilate them into contemporary society would be disastrous to them- not only would their culture be lost, but the shock of it would no doubt be more than they could handle. And would they be any happier? Thus Brazil is doing all that it can to shelter them and let them continue to live in isolation.

Which brings me back to my main point: if aliens landed on Earth, they’d be looking for a fight. Or at least to violate some territorial sovereignty. Let me quote from Independence Day (Not gonna lie, love that movie. They’re actually releasing an Independence Day II next year. Everyone has some sci-fi nerd in them- I mean when I was 10 I wanted to work for SETI). One part particularly sticks out in my mind (transcript here):

Medical Lab: The President has moved closer to the glass and is talking with the alien.

President: Why did you people come here?
Alien: Air...water...your “sun.”
President: Where do your people come from?
(no answer)
Where is your home?
Alien: Here…now.
President: And before here?
Alien: Many worlds…
President: Can we negotiate a truce? Is there room for co-existence?
(no answer)
Can there be peace between us?
Alien: Peace? No peace.
President: What do you want us to do?
Alien: Die.
[Anecdote: this is actually the analogy my dad used to explain radical Islamic terrorists to me post-9/11. Keep in mind I was in 6th grade]

I have to take a realist-constructivist position on what our steps would be in this situation, because we don’t know how the aliens operate. According to constructivism, our society is the way it is because we choose to reproduce the actions that make it so. PTJ’s constructivism podcast states that “sovereign states recognize each other and the responsibilities and rights that go with.” It goes on to mention war, and that even in a time when all bets are off, the Red Cross and Geneva Convention are still respected and followed. That’s because we do, as human beings, hold certain collective ideals. This alien civilization does not.

World governments would likely sit tight for a while. Try to cooperate and be civil to the aliens while trying to figure out what in the world is going on (again with the lame puns), while beefing up their military out of fear. Evangelicals would hail Judgment Day and the scene in Independence Day where the hippies are on top of the Empire State Building would likely come to pass (Emily and Tori would be up there with “Citizen of the Universe” posters :)). The US government would probably react in a bit more volatile manner; evacuating all large government buildings, etc, while assuring the public to “stay calm.” It would be a general sense of chaos until the aliens attacked- in which case we would quite frankly be screwed.

While we’re on the topic of constructivism, watch the trailer for Independence Day. Maybe I’m just easily brainwashed blockbuster prey, but that gets my heart pumping. In the event of having to fight the aliens, the world would unite. As constructivists argue, the social meaning of our society would change and our relationships as individual nations would change. We would identify ourselves as a human collective (fast forward to 1:55, when Israel and Iraq gear up to fight together against their common foe), and distinguish the aliens as others. Even in the title, Independence Day, and when the president declares, "we will not vanish, we will live on, this is our independence day," it not-too-subtly reflects our values of freedom and individuality. Hmm, maybe it will take an interplanetary attack to achieve true world peace.

"Do you speak English?"

The reaction of the United States government, in such an unprecedented and unexpected event, would likely vary based on the nature of the visit. If our extraterrestrials were hostile, my guess is that we would not like that so much, and we would probably have to kick their asses (or whatever they have that can be kicked). However, assuming that the alien technology is better than ours, which would be likely since they have arrived on Earth and not vice versa, it would likely be a scenario more like Independence Day, in which mankind, initially, gets totally rocked.

In viewing this hypothetical situation through a constructivist lens, we must assume that our reaction will be partially formulated by what we believe we would do in such a circumstance. Fortunately, anticipation of such an event has already presented itself through the realm of science fiction. Our response will accordingly either be one of mutual acceptance and even friendship (E.T.), or one of annihilation (Ender’s Game). 

Assuming that our alien visitors are friendly, the government may choose to take them into custody, as they would not want to disrupt the daily proceedings until a logical course of action was produced. The plan for this would hopefully be one of incorporating mankind with extraterrestrials in order to achieve peaceful coexistence. It is highly unlikely that the government would allow aliens to chill in DC, as the government would desire to keep the United States and the world relatively stable. Any business relating to the aliens would be confidential; think Area 51 style.

The fewer the number of people who initially know about it, the better. Though people have a right to know the actions of their government, the arrival of extraterrestrial beings could have catastrophic effects on how people interact. Reactions could range from evangelicals claiming the apocalypse to weirdo Star Wars fans busting out double bladed lightsabres and brandishing them in a world politics cla-...uh, I mean COOL Star Wars fans doing something AWESOME! Because they are the epitome of mankind! GEORGE LUCAS IS GOD.

Bottom line, the arrival of aliens would either be good or bad. Mankind would either get a chance to interact with other intelligent beings or have the opportunity to see what a concussion particle laser death beam looks like before it kills them. But what my man Seamus McGregor wrote is also valid: even if they were inherently peaceful, they may not even be welcome here. Xenophobia has by no means ceased to exist. And maybe America, the melting pot of the world, would be exactly the melting pot of the world. Hey, if they don’t speak English, they should just get out.

FRIDAY NIGHT REFLECTION MADNESS

Apparently everyone is writing about self-interest and the Nationals game, so I guess I’ll just hop on the bandwagon. I think that people almost always act in their self-interest, and it is human nature to do so. That does not, by any means, mean that people are intentionally out to screw each other over. In fact, I think it generally works to the advantage of others. People in general take pleasure out of helping others. Donating time or money to charitable works makes people feel good, because they are helping others. I think this translates well into the world of international relations. It is often in the best interest of state to look after other states. Unstable states breed bad trading conditions and radical governments, which no one, or at least very few, stand to gain from. This ties back to our discussion a few weeks ago concerning what actually isn’t world politics. Depending on the circumstances, a seemingly small event such as the inability of a state to provide plumbing services can quickly spiral into an event with worldwide implications. In this case, it is certainly in the best interest of Israel to make sure that Palestinians receive basic social services.
As far as the baseball game goes, I think the most interesting aspect was the patriotism of the night. Even the setting was patriotic; we were in the Nationals’ stadium, in Washington, D.C. watching America’s pastime. Granted, we were watching two teams so bad they could barely beat each other, but it is still America’s pastime. Being there on veterans appreciation night was interesting, I had never heard a Musician First Class sing the national anthem (nor did I know there was such a rank). I think there was a good response from the crowd considering how small it was when the veterans were paraded onto the field. Everyone loves the troops. For or against the war, everyone loves the troops.

Reflection #3

I think that a big issue that needs to be confronted when debating realism and liberalism is the issue of what is realistic and what is merely an ideal that will never be achieved. In Emily’s post, she says that it is more productive to be idealistic, rather than accepting that things cannot change. While I agree with her in some situations, when it comes to world politics, I do not.
In other situations, it can be argued that it is better to think the best of people and be disappointed than to have a perpetually bad view of the human race. However, this way of thinking allows for mistakes. If a person disappoints you, what is the worst that could happen? If you are being idealistic in the way you want our schools to function, things can only change for the better, right? But when you are talking about the territorial integrity of a country, there is very little room for mistakes. To be idealistic when setting the priorities for your nation can be disastrous. It all goes back to the argument that it doesn’t matter what your ideals are if you don’t have anywhere to exercise your beliefs in them.
It is idealistic to think that people can know what is best for them and always deserve a say. It is impossible for every citizen in a country to have an understanding of every issue; that is why we elect people to do it for us. The common person does not have the knowledge or desire to run the government. As Emily (again) said in her post, as long as the people’s basic needs are being met, the government is doing its job. That is, in essence, what Machiavelli said. He says that as long as people are not oppressed and as long as you throw them a bone every once in awhile, the people will be happy with the government.
Ok Emmy, done debating ☺

Yeah, well...well YEAH!

The most frustrating part of dissecting world politics are the multiple definitions that a term can entail. I am referring, of course, to the two meanings of “liberal,” meanings that are entirely unrelated to each other. 

Acting in one’s self interest is a far cry from acting in an altruistic manner-yet I somehow find myself confusing the two. Why? Because of the complexity of the English language. Because of my own subjective reasoning. Because of my firm ideological orientation. Being politically liberal, in the American sense, has absolutely nothing to do with acting in self-interest; it actually implies the opposite. Yet through the lens of world politics, the term takes on a very different meaning that would align more (politically) with a libertarian perspective than a liberal one. 

So when I stated that I believed that the United Nations was a liberal organization, was I looking at it through the wrong lens? The answer, sadly, is yes. By associating the term to what it represents in American politics, I was essentially misinterpreting the entire argument (thankfully I don’t think I said anything stupid in class). 

I feel a little bit like Governor Palin, after being asked if she agreed or disagreed with the Bush Doctrine: “In what respect?” Fail. Though I initially thought that her response was pathetic and hilarious, having experienced a similar feeling I am now not so amused. It is clear that in the future I will have to completely separate my personal bias from the argument. Doing so will guarantee that I do not misunderstand the argument, instead of attempting to defend a position that has no relevance to the topic at hand. On the bright side, I shall consider it a lesson learned.

Let Teddy win!

I dig Liberalism. I found the Doyle article’s section concerning Kant’s views on Liberal Internationalism to be especially interesting. He points out that humans are not “moral angels,” but devils “capable of appreciating the moral equality of all individuals and of treating other individuals as ends rather than means.” As someone mentioned in class earlier this week, you don’t have to think of Liberalism and Realism as mutually exclusive. I do think security is ultimately essential, but it’s not the hokey pokey. Liberalism is a much broader way of looking at things, and takes into account many of the modern factors concerning international relations that realism conveniently leaves out.

One thing that kind of surprised/bothered me was the notion that people don’t know what’s good for them. This is sometimes true, but when government starts talking like that it’s time to move to Canada. There are some things the government does on their own where we as citizens don’t have all the facts and don’t necessarily need them. I don’t really care how or in what manner the potholes on my street are fixed as long as it gets done. It doesn’t need to go to a vote. But when it comes to massive transit related issues (like the Alaskan Way Viaduct, which is a huge transportation nightmare in Seattle), I want my say. People are aware of the magnitude and impact of certain decisions and want to have their ideas considered, if not implemented.
There are times, especially when international relations/national security are involved, where people don’t have all the facts. This is why we (ideally) elect people we trust to represent us and honor our beliefs. They are supposed to make these judgment calls not because they are superior to us, but because we gave them the privilege of doing what we don’t have the time to. Concerning wars and things of that nature, when public opinion is important and influential but it would be unwise to release all the details, it’s time to market. The government has every right to market something to us (as long as it’s truthful). It’s up to humans as rational beings to either take it at face value or look into it a bit more. Never should it be suggested that we are incapable of understanding a situation and thus need someone else to decide what’s best for us.

And finally, poor Nationals. I didn’t make it all 14 innings, but it was a lot of fun! It’s been a while since I was at a baseball game, but they certainly do things a little differently. At Safeco Field you only get fireworks when you win the ALC (not seen since 2001). The White House montage, color guard and all that nationalistic goodness was quite the spectacle (presidents racing anyone?). I’m going to venture that it’s catered a bit more towards the tourists. But they really just needed to have some garlic fries. I thought it was a stadium staple!

Why the UN is a liberal institution

The first goal of the United Nations Security Council, as listed under the “Functions and Powers” tab, is “to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations.” Given such a bold assertion, it would seem evident that the U.N. acts as a realist institution, seeking to preserve its own security on behalf of the 129 member nations of which it is comprised. What is not taken into account, however, are the additional purposes of the UN, how effective the UN is in achieving these purposes, and whether or not the priorities and practices of this bureaucracy have evolved to accommodate an ever-changing world.

The UN is much more than a security force; it is a power center of humanitarian aid; consequently I believe that it is a liberal institution. Though the UN has been criticized of favoritism and corruption, it nevertheless plays a vital role in the care and treatment of refugees, funding research against diseases, and the protection of human rights. In the postmodern context, the UN is less interested in deploying its peacekeeping forces to preserve territorial integrity and more concerned with reacting effectively to humanitarian crisis through coordinated efforts by itself and numerous NGOs. Still, the UN has not escaped criticism from officials such as Tony Blair, who in 2006 urged for reform by extending representation on the Security Council to countries such as Germany, Japan, or India, as well as countries in Latin America.   

It is clear that the UN’s capabilities are much more extensive than military means. And it is also apparent that the UN has used these alternative methods with varying degrees of success. As countries begin to mature, however, military tension will be mitigated by economic interdependence, as seen by the European powers after World War II. The UN may very well prove to be a key player in the development of third world countries. In this process, they will be bringing the world closer together, acting in rational self-interest to maintain order, stability, and prosperity. Though this is just one scenario, under the right conditions this trend could become a reality in the not so distant future. In order to make it happen, the UN will have to continue its current role as a world player, utilizing the tools of economic development and commitment to human rights. In doing so, its intrinsic liberalism will become apparent; the UN is acting to improve the global community, acting in the self interest of everyone.

"I don't do carrots." - John Bolton

When it comes to the UN, they are just so easy to make fun of. Seriously though, they mean well, but I generally disapprove of the UN’s behavior (Srebrenica and Rwanda are heartbreaking enough without even getting into Oil for Food and other scandals). Now I agree with a lot about realism, and even more about liberalism (strictly as an IR theory, of course :]), so I hesitate to say the UN is an embodiment of either.

I contend that it is neither absolutely realist nor absolutely liberal, but has a few aspects of each. According to the UN’s official website, “… representatives of 26 nations pledged their governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers.” The conception of the UN was a group of nations cooperating out of strategic defense interests. [/end realism]

Today the UN has become an organization that tries to see the world as malleable [liberal point 1: we can impact the way the world is organized], sometimes absurdly so. The point of the UN is now one of cooperation to advance mutual interests and, as the Charter of the UN reads, “…to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security…” [liberal point 2: safety, though important, is not necessarily the most important issue] The UN also believes in the importance of trade, diplomacy, treaties, etc [liberal point 3: significance of social institutions (see PTJ’s podcast on liberalism)].

Ok so that sounds pretty liberal, right? There are, however, two essential issues that come between the UN and liberalism.
1. Reason (my favorite thing about liberalism). The UN doesn’t make a lot of sense. The fundamental problem with the UN is that there is no one mutual interest that all member states share (don’t even think about citing ‘peace’ as a mutual interest, North Korea is a member in good standing). It simply goes against any rationality to view all nations as equal actors in the "movement for peace". Why was Rwanda on the Human Rights Council during the genocide in 1994? Why is Sudan on it now? Why do Syria, Iran, Libya and Cuba, all openly anti-American nations, get an equal voice in a global organization the US pays three times more than any other nation (save Japan) to support. For goodness sake they were seriously considering putting restrictions on freedom of speech to regard for religion (when the Organization of the Islamic Conference proposed a “‘legally binding’ resolution ‘to prevent defamation of religions and prophets’ and ‘to render all acts whatsoever defaming Islam as ‘offensive acts’ and subject to punishment.”) Such illogical, politically correct actions do not seem very liberal to me.
2. The idea that nation states want to agree with each other and cooperate for a better world (PTJ’s podcast on liberalism). Yeah, no. Not all of them.

I know nothing I've said about the UN hasn't been said before, multiple times. I don't hate the UN and I do think it (or something like it) has a place in our world, but it needs some serious reform. How they should go about that is beyond me. But be careful not the upset the UN unless you have a fallback plan...

Grr.

the whole enchilada (take two)

See right-hand panel for links to all of our individual posts!!
This might very well be the first remotely technological task that I have completed (so far) successfully.
Let me bask in that for a minute...


...ok. Let me know if you need help setting this up.

HOT STEAMY VOLUPTUOUS PASSIONATE SEXY blog posts from Lucky Lucas

Welcome to HOT STEAMY VOLUPTUOUS PASSIONATE SEXY blog posts from Lucky Lucas. 

Enjoy...

http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&ctz=240&c2coff=1&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=a&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=2000&as_maxd=15&as_maxm=9&as_maxy=2008&lr=&safe=active&q=inblogtitle:%22good+girls+and+gangstas%22+inpostauthor:lucas&ie=UTF-8&bl_url=http://girlsandgangstas.blogspot.com/

Friday Morning Group Hug

Friday’s class seemed to have quite the change of heart compared to Tuesday’s. On Tuesday, I think the class was divided fairly evenly between the pro- and anti-Machiavelli camps, but perhaps the realism lecture changed that. By the end of class on Friday, it seemed like we had gone from debating the merits and relevance of Machiavelli and realism today to a collective back rubbing and agreement. I got the impression that we, for the most part, reached the conclusion that very little, if anything fundamental had changed about the nation-state or world politics since Machiavelli’s time. All that has changed is what are considered acceptable means to the same end, the preservation of the state. However, one thing I touched on briefly on Tuesday is that I believe there has been one fundamental change since The Prince was written. The ability for information to be spread very quickly around the world has inherently changed the way world politics play out. All this does, however, is limit the means a state or leader is able to take in pursuit of the same ends. The prince is no longer always able to openly abuse his subjects and the army cannot always be used to quash any and all forms of rebellion without other states or large non-state actors noticing or getting involved. However, this does not by any means nullify or outdate the principles outlined by Machiavelli. In order to provide safety for its citizens, the state must be concerned first and foremost with its own self-preservation. And although territorial integrity is very important, it is also very situational, and often must be coupled with cultural identity, as we discussed in class Friday. Something I feel I should add here though, is that this does not give the state unlimited power to do everything in its grasp to save itself. Human rights must be preserved, and the citizens should not have to give up things guaranteed by the state, lest the state breaches its social contract, in which case a new government or state should be established.

Machiavelli Madness

The main issue from class that I would like to bring up is whether or not Machiavelli’s theories are still applicable today. The whole book is based on the assumption that the only way for a state to survive is to rely only on itself and its ruler to ensure the physical integrity of the state. Machiavelli sees outside help and international relations as something that will only weaken the state. While he may have had a sound theory back in the day, and while there are still parts that are applicable today, Machiavelli is missing some points that are key in today’s global society.

One common happening today that was virtually nonexistent in Machiavelli’s time is globalization. Since so many countries rely on one another for resources, we now see states thinking about more than just physical security. A state must also consider the other states it trades with when making policy decisions because if anything should happen to disrupt the productivity of an ally, the state itself will probably be adversely affected as well. This makes countries less likely to go to war as well as less likely to see the progress of a state as a threat. The European Union is a prime example. Although each state is soveirgn, it is in the best interests of each state to trade with and assist the others.

Another thing that has changed, as mentioned in class by Dustin, is the prominence of democracies. Machiavelli viewed the common citizen as stupid and uninterested in the politics of the state as long as they were not too oppressed; therefore it was not important to put the needs of citizens first. This has changed in the age of democracies. For a ruler to stay in power in a democracy, he or she must keep the people happy.

Although I wouldn’t argue that Machiavelli’s writings are completely obsolete, I do think that there are many things that now have to be taken into account. Our class recognized the importance of the integrity of the state but took into account the importance of other factors, and I think that the majority of us recognize that this is true.

Fo' Realizm

To echo what was said in class, I too found it interesting that much of Tuesday was spent trying to refute Machiavelli’s relevance today, and yet in Friday’s class everyone agreed that- as Adam says in his post, “Culture, alliances, subservience, military strength, geography, and economic power were all ideas proposed for how various states secure their borders and continue to exist and flourish.”
Machievelli – 1
PTJ’s Class – 0
That being said, there has been one fundamental change in the world since 1513. As Dustin mentioned, the rise of democracy. No longer are nations governed by squabbling royalty. The people have a much larger say in the way the world is run. However, I don’t think Machiavelli completely overlooked this. He writes:
“A new prince has never been known to disarm his subjects, on the contrary, when he has found them disarmed he has always armed them, for by arming them these arms become your own, those that you suspected become faithful and those that were faithful remain so, and from being merely subjects become your partisans.”
Fast-forward 500 years. We are still partisan and loyal to our nation-states. We still value our identity both culturally and nationally. Both when Newt Gingrich was speaking last week and in our SIS Gateway class we’ve been asked how many of us view ourselves as “citizens of the world” over American citizens. Personally, I certainly see myself as an American before a global citizen. Though it may be trendy to be anti-establishment, a sense of unity and pride in our culture is important in keeping a nation-state together. This might be what ultimately keeps organizations like the EU from overtaking "traditional" nation-states. An example being Ireland's citizens voting against the Lisbon Treaty (if the Irish had been voting as "citizens of the EU" it would have been in their interests to pass it).
The Layne article claims that the US should pursue offshore balancing, that it would mean we no longer had an obligation to provide humanitarian aid, that we could “pass the buck” to other nations to deal with larger issues, and that the US would benefit from rivalries- economic or otherwise- between Europe and China. Yet it is our very cultural ideology that makes this unacceptable. We support our allies not just for their economic benefit to us but for the ideologies we share, lend a helping hand to developing nations, and try to be the “compassionate” superpower. The current administration notwithstanding, we generally accomplish this, which has – just as the Realists predict- made and kept the US the greatest superpower the world has known.
Realism is not the foolproof, perfect ideology everyone’s looking for, but we can definitely draw from it that the nation-state’s cultural legitimacy and territorial security is paramount.

Class Reflection: Contemporary Practical Implications of Machiavelli's Theories

The first issue I’d like to revisit is whether or not interactions between states have changed fundamentally since Machiavelli’s time. After our class discussion, I still stand by my initial assertion that the way states interact has changed significantly, and that this change is largely due to different factors that have since become more important. 

Regarding Machiavelli’s position on the interaction between states, I pointed out that much of Machiavelli’s focus was on land. During his life, land was more important, as in an agrarian society land itself would provide the basis of wealth. Land was also a symbol of power; expanding the territory of a state would increase its stature among the other players. In the postmodern context, land can still have intrinsic value (i.e. oil in Iraq), but what has changed is the way in which states go about securing their own interests. Today, states do not attempt to conquer each other. If there is a commodity existing in one state, others will attempt to seize it through economic means. Just as territory was a primary concern during Machiavelli’s day, so the economy is in ours. 

My second point concerns Machiavelli’s views on alliances. Embodying the idea of the realist, Machiavelli states that alliances should not be depended on, as a state should trust only its own abilities. He argues that a state dependent on its allies will also be subordinate to them. In this point Machiavelli’s case has been supported by certain historical examples, but the overall conception of an alliance is, I believe, no longer valid. Relating back to the idea that economics is the determining factor in a state’s interest, alliances are formed on the basis that the allied parties have one or multiple common interests. In our postmodern era, these interests are directly linked to economic policy. But in a broader perspective, allies also share values, which strengthens the partnership beyond the fiscal aspect, thereby weakening Machiavelli’s claim that a nation would become subject to its more powerful ally. 

My argument is not that Machiavelli’s philosophy is obsolete; there are numerous practical applications of the theories that he addresses. But I do believe that there are now other factors in the equation. Though many of the same aspects of society existed then than do now, those factors have changed their relative significance to the happenings of international politics. I felt that in our class discussion we collectively expressed a general recognition that this was and is the case.  

The Importance of Security

The territorial integrity of a nation would be the most important concern for any leader-if not for the economy, the nation’s diplomatic standing, the capabilities of its military, or the interests of its citizenry. Security, especially in a geographical context, has less and less importance in the contemporary global theater. Virtually all of the world’s major players have moved past their imperialistic era, replacing territorial acquisition with economic dominance. 

Territory is no longer a valid means of exhibiting national power, due largely to the complete exploration of the world and the claiming of all available land. Though some territory is still the subject of international dispute, most notably Israel/Palestine, many of the more powerful nations, being allied with themselves, have no motive to acquire more land. This is also because land is not essential to survival or economic development, as is the case in agrarian societies. The means to international recognition and power is now economic strength, not square mileage. 

The security of a nation is still a legitimate concern; it should always be among the top priorities of any effective leader. But to designate it as the primary focus of the leader would be to induce a reactionary trend towards 19th century imperialism, a move that would discredit the progression of society since neocolonialism. Nations do not wage war or conduct international diplomacy with the intention of seizing new land; they do so in order to protect their economic interests. The current war in Iraq, as well as negotiation attempts with Russia, will prove this postulate. 

Borders

The first priority of the state must be the safety of the citizens. In its most basic form, a government is created to provide its citizens with basic human needs that each individual may not be able to guarantee for themselves. The government is created with the consent of the governed for the purpose of protecting its citizens. Even in our globalized world where borders and threats of invasion aren’t quite our top concern, the security of the state is of the utmost concern. However, defining security as solely the territorial integrity of a nation significantly reduces its importance. I, along with I think most Americans, am not concerned with the idea of Mexico or Canada invading sovereign United States territory. I consider myself rather safe and secure from infringements on the United States’ territorial integrity. America’s military and economic power and influence serves as a strong deterrent to other states who may wish to invade. This question is very subjective though, if I lived in Georgia, I would certainly feel that territorial integrity should be the most important aspect of security. A nation must always be able to provide its citizens with security, and in the case of countries such as Georgia or other states in similar situations surrounded by hostile neighbors, sovereignty within their borders must be the top concern. Without sovereignty, the country has no ability to provide the services it was set up to provide.

$700 billion can't be wrong!

In this day and age when you hear “national security” there’s a reflexive connection to nuclear proliferation, a massive military and excessive spending. But putting aside all our preconceived prejudices, national security is, and should always be, a leader’s primary goal for their state.
I want to touch on my very first blog post and the “physiological” needs of a state. According to Maslow’s hierarchy a person cannot progress to greater social relationships or creativity if they do not have basic needs taken care of; needs such as food, shelter and safety. Nations require similar such needs: population growth, productivity and absolutely security.
Security generally relates to stability, both internal and external. It’s difficult to develop industry or maintain human rights when you live in constant fear of outside attack. Machiavelli said that, “when princes think more of luxury than of arms, they lose their state.” He advocates maintaining arsenals and being prepared for war at all times, especially in times of peace. Tori once mentioned the importance of geography in world politics. Borders dictate anything from the interactions between ethnic groups to natural resource allocation, and the invasion and re-drawing of such borders is detrimental to national stability. Thus a state’s security and “territorial integrity” must be protected at all costs.
Of course there are a few exceptions, such as states not being vested in the interests of their own people (i.e. North Korea, which, unfortunately for its citizens, is quite “secure”). As a general rule of thumb, however, I would say that domestic security is of utmost importance to a state’s leader.

Friday's Response

Friday’s class reinforced the idea that people generally make decisions and do things based off of their own self-interest. However, simply because someone is valuing their own needs before those of others does not mean that other parties are left out in the cold, as it is often in the best interest of the party with the resources to have a mutually beneficial relationship with those who need them. The group with the chairs, to the best of their abilities, spread around their resources while maintaining a decent level of comfort for themselves. This was undoubtedly in their best interest, as keeping all the resources for themselves, which they could very well have done, would have made them not very well liked. And if they had given a nice chair to each group, it would have created infighting, and that is not a good thing to promote discourse between parties.

Interaction Simulator

The in-class simulation today produced one way in which multiple groups may interact given a limited number of resources, variation in comfortable amenities, and dissimilar means of force.  Though on a classroom level, the interaction between these groups reflected that of international centers of power, demonstrating how self interest and inequality can dictate foreign policy. 

Group one’s selection came as no surprise. But the question of whether the additional chairs were given away was an act of generosity or political savvy is nevertheless valid. I agree that the appearance of exuding generosity can have useful political benefits. In certain cases it can decrease resentment and serve to promote diplomacy. 

The fusion of two groups into one also was a noteworthy development. Suddenly their status as a power center increased. Having twice as many people as the other groups, as well as a monopoly on military force, they were undoubtedly the most powerful group. In a global context, such a radical shift would be improbable, as a complete geographical shift, spontaneous agreement, and instant induction have never occurred simultaneously. 

The greatest aspect of our simulation was that it proved that nations, at their very basis, are no different than individual human beings. A large part of how we interact is reflected on the global scale. This comparison of national governments to human relations proved that governments, at their fundamental core, are defined by their human components. Our successes, failures, and developments are all an indirect product of our collective morality, confirming the notion that the world is shaped by those who inhabit it. 

Reflection #2

Friday’s class has been my favorite so far. I thought it was really neat that we applied the different theories on world politics to class without purposefully doing so, and I also found it pretty interesting that almost everyone except for group 1 went for the realist point of view while group 1 advocated more of an idealist theory. Perceptions seem to change quite a bit depending on the circumstances of the people involved. Even though we all knew that we were only going to be there for an hour the debates got pretty heated.

bien joue!

Well played, Group One. Our little experiment likely would have had the same (or at least very similar) outcome no matter who had been chosen as the lucky benefactor. Though we (as groups Two through Five) were essentially obligated to rail against Group One, they made reasonable decisions which I completely respect.
What I found to be interesting was the defensiveness. When did self-interest and greed become synonymous? There's nothing wrong with looking out for yourself. Group One was clearly making the most logical actions.
1. Secure the best resources.
2. Allocate extra resources to other groups, as equally as possible.
It was interesting how Group One expected that because they were rationally behaving in their own self-interest that the rest of the groups would be content. Of course we would complain. The rest of the world is never content with the actions of the superpower, no matter how sensible.
In any case, I thought it was fun and really have learned something new each class- many of you are (not surprisingly) much better versed in world politics than I am, and I have a lot of respect for everyone.

POWERTHIRST!

Should powerful countries look after the interests of less-powerful countries? In other words, is there any particular obligation to others associated with being a powerful country?

Unequivocally, yes. In an era of globalization, it is impossible for any major power center to remain isolationist. To do so would not only inhibit its growth but also weaken its standing relative to the other dominant players. Conceded, this power center could possibly ignore the interests of a weaker state, but in an age of interconnected international politics it is more likely that the two players would have some propensity for mutual benefit. 

In American politics, the pervasive mentality is that the economy is headed into a recession. A concerned and deeply divided citizenry has made repeated partisan accusations of its conflicting ideology to no avail. But nevertheless there must be a universal scapegoat. Not surprisingly, in this condition people are susceptible to prejudices and even xenophobia. Consequently, a foreign power is often the perceived enemy of the state, a contender that must be outdone. With many Americans, that threat is China. 

China’s recent output has increased astronomically. The Beijing Olympics, an astounding commercial and diplomatic success, heightened the stature of an already powerful world player.  Many U.S. goods have been produced in China for the last three decades. It is important to note the attitude toward China, as reflected by the media. China is seen as a competitor for American jobs, foreign oil, and a new market for the finite amount of scarce resources. 

The problem with this one sided view is of course that it neglects to acknowledge that the U.S. also benefits from its relationship with China. In the postmodern era, the economies of one country can be connected to another in multiple ways. Prosperity in China does not mean depression in America. Rather, if one economy does well it is likely that the other will also enjoy a healthy economy. 

China hardly seems like a weaker country. But in considering even its recent history, it is evident that China was not always the power house. It harnessed its manufacturing capabilities and built a corporate sector that rivals (and in some ways surpasses) that of the U.S. China, three decades ago was not a leading world power then any more than individual members of the European Union are now. Because China became a more powerful state through U.S. economic policies, the U.S. also benefitted from the relationship. 

More powerful entities should look out for the interests of lesser organizations. In many cases, they are one and the same. 

Question #2

Should powerful countries look after the interests of less-powerful countries? In other words, is there any particular obligation to others associated with being a powerful country?
No, powerful countries should not look after the interests of less-powerful countries by backing them militarily or politically, because who is to say what is in a country’s best interest? Should the superpowers take South Ossetia’s side and fight for their independence or should they back Georgia? What about Vietnam? How would Americans react if a communist country saw homeless people in America and decided to move us closer to socialism? Based on a very enlightening conversation I had today with Michael Flynn, many Americans would be fairly upset. Although this isn’t an entirely accurate portrayal because America isn’t a ‘weaker country’, I think goes towards my main point, which is that each country should take care of itself. In addition to cultural clashes, I don’t think it is always in the best interests of a country to give aid to another. The only way a country can work is to focus primarily on its own best interests, and if after that a country feels it can give aid, then it should. However, I don’t think that any country is morally obligated to give any type of support to another country.
While I don’t think that more powerful countries are obligated to help less powerful countries, I do think wealthier countries should support the people in poorer countries. By that, I mean humanitarian aid, not military or political. As citizens of the world, it makes sense to work together and foster good feelings by sending food, medicine, etc. to those in need whenever possible.

There's a reason Brave New World is a dystopian novel...

Everyone seems to be pretty happy with a future “world government,” but one leader or council ruling the entire world sounds awful to me. The closest thing we have to that is the UN, which is rife with corruption and is run mostly on US money. Who wants a uniform, politically-correct, two-dimensional world anyways? And no more wars? Yeah right. Ideologies will always clash, and that, I believe, is a good thing in some ways. Besides, wars keep down human population (jokes, jokes, don’t worry). Seriously though, I just can’t seem to embrace the idea of a unified global governing body.

On to the question: “Should powerful countries look after the interests of less-powerful countries? In other words, is there any particular obligation to others associated with being a powerful country?”

This is pretty similar to what I blogged about in my previous post, and I’m taking the (apparently unpopular) side that no, powerful countries do not have any particular obligation towards other, less-powerful ones.
Before everyone gets their knickers in a twist let me clarify: I do not feel that it is a government’s responsibility (government, specifically- as I mentioned before, there are many private humanitarian organizations) to be providing unrequited assistance to other nations.
This doesn’t necessarily mean powerful nations should turn a blind eye to the needy ones. Nations and their governments should work to advance their own interests, and sometimes that involves helping out a weaker one. The more developed and modernized nations become, the more active they can be in the global market and that is beneficial to all parties involved (usually). So if a powerful nation (Nation A) sees a fledgling nation (Nation B) in need of aid, it would often be in Nation A’s best interests to provide Nation B with economic or material assistance. Perhaps Nation B would become an ally that could be of use to Nation A in the future. Also, in the event of a large-scale national disaster, of course a government could provide aid to another in a gesture of goodwill. But these are choices, not obligations.
What I find unnecessary is providing regular, unwarranted aid to Nation B that, to be blunt, serve Nation A no purpose. I think people sometimes get confused between person-to-person aid and government-to-government aid. Yes, people should by all means help their fellow man. But a government exists to aid its own, and has no obligation to anyone but its citizens. Nation A wasn’t selected randomly to be powerful and rich; it worked its way up there. And oftentimes Nation B has a corrupt government which would squander the money or use it for violence- sometimes against its own people.
The most basic example I keep using is American foreign aid. The US could be using the money it regularly pumps into Africa for problems here at home, of which there are many. When we can make the US a sustainable utopia then we can go about having our government provide regular aid to other nations. But this will likely never happen for any wealthy nation. I simply think that we should take care of ourselves and our own before we worry about the rest of the world.

Now there are some tricky situations to which I don’t have a good answer, like Sudan or the Kyoto Treaty. The US may be doing all it can short of military intervention to end the genocide in Darfur, but France, China and Russia continue trading arms with the Sudanese government. Should the US get involved militarily in this region? Regarding the Kyoto Treaty- should the US put economic constraints on itself and let developing nations such as India and (once again) China move right along polluting their way to the top? Should we be more humanitarian or pragmatic in regards to our involvement in such issues?

How Cults Explain the World

The reading we did this week was especially interesting to me because it put globalization in terms that I could relate to. Prior to this week, my idea of globalization consisted of Nike factories exploiting children in China and Nestle using forced labor to harvest cocoa beans, but How Soccer Explained the World made me realize how much globalization has influenced my own town in Iowa.
I come from Fairfield, Iowa, home to the Maharishi University of Management and about 5 minutes away from Maharishi Vedic City, the Capital of the Global Country of World Peace (not formally recognized by the United States Government). The majority of people who live there are a part of the Transcendental Meditation movement founded by His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Most of the people involved, know as gurus or ‘ru’s to outsiders, believe that they can fly when they meditate, bring world peace through their ‘blissful vibes’ and are enlightened.
The primary motivation behind globalization is money, so I’ll start with the Raam. Similar to the dollar, raam comes in 10, 50, and 100 raam denominations (1 raam is equivalent to 1 dollar). Maharishi Global Financing, the treasury of the Global Country of World Peace, prints the raam. Although this money is not considered legal tender by many banks or the city government, it serves its purpose by encouraging people to keep money within the movement. The movement has also made an effort to attract outside businesses and wealthy followers. To do so, million dollar Sthapatya Veda houses were built on the outskirts of town. Despite the attempt to keep money in the movement virtually everything sthapatya veda comes from oversease, and the sudden influx of people and money from all over has affected the whole area. For example, the local parks have been vastly improved due to donations by newcomers.
Another aspect of globalization is the collision of cultures. The ‘preferred language of Maharishi Vedic City is Sanskrit. Many of his teachings have their roots in Hinduism. Maharishi created quite the culture clash when he decided to build his university in rural Iowa. As a farming state, local farmers were put on the offensive when the ‘ru’s tried to use eminent domain to shut down century farms because they found the smell offensive. Again, townies were put on the offensive when the ‘ru’s tried to pass of pandit housing as low income housing (pandits are shipped in from India to increase the concentration of meditators in Fairfield and are not U.S. citizens). For a while, the whole meditating community was, in essence, quarantined because of the fear that one of the many cases of T.B. brought in by the Indians had spread. Everything from train whistles to the civic center sparked a heated controversy punctuated by ‘us vs. them’ editorials in the local paper. However, despite the culture clash, the two cultures have also had positive influences on each other. For example, the ‘ru’s brought in the Art Walk, a monthly festival that the whole town enjoys. The farmers have started growing organic crops that are sold to the university. For better or for worse, the two sides must coexist.
Some of you guys wanted more info on the T.M. movement, so here are some links; this is also where I got some of my info from:

Maharishi University of Management
Maharishi Vedic City
Peace Palaces