Paranoia

No country, or person, can ever be fully secured against every possible threat. It is simply not possible to be 100% sure a country won’t be attacked; there are too many potential threats, especially considering that everything has the potential to eventually become a security threat. Even if external military forces were somehow eliminated, cultural or other interior forces could still threaten to tear a nation apart. However, nations can mostly secure themselves by focusing exclusively on issues that they are able to address that pose a definite threat.

Every day when I step outside of the dorm, I can’t guarantee that I won’t slip on some ice, fall, and break my neck. However, considering its late October, I think it’s safe to assume I don’t really have to worry about it. Later in the year, when conditions are better for the formation of the threatening ice, I’ll focus more of my attention on where I’m stepping when walking outside. This very basic example of personal security is easily expanded to a national level. Though everything is a potential threat, it does not make sense to try to protect against every possible thing, all at once. A state must protect itself only from that which is an immediate threat, or concentrate on circumstances in which security threats could easily develop. As I mentioned in class, it has to be looked at as a security triage.

Security Obscurity

Some kinds of threats can be obvious while other spring up out of nowhere to surprise you. One kind you can prepare for, while the other takes you completely off guard. It is impossible for a nation’s society to be strong in every aspect. Therefore, preparing and defending one’s self against one type of threat has the potential to take attention away from a critical weakness that will not even be realized until the damage has been done.

That being said, I’ll stick to my position in class and say that while it is impossible for a nation to be completely, 100%, without the remote possibility of insecurity, secure national security is still a concrete idea that a nation can strive towards. There are different ways of going about security, and with each method comes different concerns and potential threats.

i just happen to like apples and i am not afraid of snakes - mnadler

To be “fully” secure is almost an oxymoron, as according to Wolfer’s article, security is a negative value- it’s the absence of a threat. As we established in class, security applies to many aspects of a state’s operation, and sometimes those aspects clash. For example, if the US was to be “fully secure” from terrorist attacks, it might be a good idea to wire-tap without warrants, or to access private information of the citizenry. However, those steps would not be conducive to maintaining a population “fully secure” in their rights and civil liberties. Wolfer writes, “If nations were not concerned with the protection of values other than their survival as independent states, most of them would not have had to be seriously worried about their security.” Thus security is not just physical or territorial security; it’s economic, social, even psychological/emotional security.
So no, a nation cannot ever be “fully” secure, but would it even want to be? Naturally you don’t ever want an attack on your territory, so physical security is pretty much an absolute. However not everything is that black and white. Take capitalism for example, it’s characterized by booms and busts. Or financial markets, those are never “fully secure,” their entire operation relies on their volatility. Maybe the inability to ever attain that perfect, complete, “full” security is what makes the world interesting and not Eden.

p.s. I went to the Sackler Gallery's Garden and Cosmos: The Royal Paintings of Jodhpur exhibit today [Wed] and I highly recommend it. It's a stunningly intricate collection of paintings from 17th century India. Some are funny, some are bizzarre, and some downright terrifying (think Hieronymus Bosch). Very interesting! [Red line to Metro Center, then blue line to Smithsonian and it's at 2 o'clock when you exit the metro]
p.p.s. When getting back on the metro there was a mini protest about the (il)legality of police searches on the metro and they gave me a flier. Take the quiz, I scored 5/8.

I Swear, I'm Not a Crazy Person

I figured that Friday’s discussion warranted a bit of a clarification on my part. For those of you who were or are concerned: I am not a gun toting crazy person. The looks I received after advocating that it was the right of American citizens under the Second Amendment to arm themselves so as to protect themselves were a bit disconcerting. In no way, shape, or form was I stating that, because we’re American citizens, we should be able to go to a store (or online for that matter), hand over a wad of cash, and walk away with a fully automatic assault rifle. No one outside of the military or law enforcement needs that kind of stopping power. Even Caucasian store owners being threatened by them thar Black and Latino gangs (a ridiculous assumption, by the way) do not need to be able to pull out their suppressor-equipped MP5 to dole out some civilian justice in case of an armed robbery. I actually believe this case is rather simple. If someone walks in and puts an AK-47 in your face, regardless of how many people are with him, or whether or not you are armed and with what, that person is your new best friend. If someone was to come up to me under any circumstance and put a gun to my head, I would begin to listen very intently to what they have to say, as it is probably rather important.
Gun control, for the most part, keeps unnecessary firepower out of the hands of those who would do no good with it. That being said, it is an American’s constitutional right to possess arms. A handgun or shotgun for self- or home-defense makes perfect sense to me. Rifles for hunting are also equally acceptable. However, there is no reason that these weapons should not be limited to those who can demonstrate an adequate ability to use them. Much as the First Amendment does not allow for speech that does harm to others, the Second must be applied in a way that does not allow those who would harm others with their weapons to do so. And there is no reason, no legal reason anyway, that a person would require the ability to immediately go out and purchase a firearm. The police are reserved for a situation such as that. A background check requirement is not by any means over the top or unnecessary. I, and every other law abiding citizen, can wait a week or so to get my ridiculously awesome target shooting or hunting rifle.

Side note: I’ve been looking into going to a shooting range in the area, let me know if you’re interested. I highly recommend it, especially for those of you who have not fired a gun before, it’s a lot of fun (and not in a sadistic, creepy way).

Side note 2: I’ve officially registered www.BetaRhoOmicron.com, check back every once in a while for updates. Nothing’s up there yet, I’m still struggling with website builder. If anyone has some experience with this, let me know.

What you don't know could kill you...

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

So states the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a decree that has become the subject of intensifying controversy in a violence prone society.  The tragic misinterpretation of this document has enabled citizens to justify their purchasing of firearms at the expense of the rest of society. Citing self-defense or security as a way of legitimizing gun ownership, this widespread misconception has lead to horrific deaths and dark spectacles in American history. Columbine, Virginia Tech, and NIU all serve as examples of what gun ownership does to society. Until the Second Amendment is seriously reexamined, such unfortunate incidents will continue to plague the citizenry of the US.

 

In looking at the Second Amendment, it becomes evident that the right of the people to own firearms is conditional on their participation in a militia. The US military and its branches have replaced such an entity, which is no longer a part of America’s system of governance. The Second Amendment is therefore an invalid claim to justify the ownership of any firearm.

 

As I stated before in class, gun violence is not limited to impoverished areas; it can occur anywhere. That does not imply that people should have access to guns to protect themselves, as that would only promote escalation of arms. Firearms do not provide safety; rather they endanger the community by increasing the propensity for violence. Additionally, the presence of a firearm endangers its owner. According to the Brady Campaign, a non-profit and non-partisan center that advocates the prevention of gun violence, the likelihood of homicide and suicide increases by three times and five times respectively. With around 34.5% of all US households containing a firearm, the danger to society is a reality to a frighteningly high portion of America.

 

Websites such as East Coast Firearms fulfill a need for certain members of society who seek to obtain such weapons, but it does so at the expense of the American people. East Coast Firearms, to my dismay, was not content to sell handguns; the arsenal in their inventory could supply militant groups in the Middle East or Africa. I cannot understand any reason for which such weapons could be justified in the US.

 

Andrew stated that it would be impossible to eliminate the ownership and use of such weapons in the US, as people will always feel a need to defend themselves. Regardless of whether he is right or wrong, there are drastic reforms that must be initiated. A very simple solution would be to raise the cost of ammunition to exorbitantly high prices, as well as extending the waiting period between when firearms are requested and delivered. More extensive background checks could also mitigate the current situation.

 

I fundamentally believe that firearms present an undeniable danger to society. As cynical as this may sound, I will only have to wait for another Coumbine-style event to be proven right.

Guns and Privacy

This past week left me a lot to reflect on. I wasn’t planning to reflect on the gun control issue, but reading other reflections reminded me that there were a few comments on the issue that I wasn’t able to make in class.

I’d like to talk about what Professor Jackson said about people who have had experience with firearms being more moderate about the issue. I learned to shoot a rifle when I was in middle school and have many friends and family members who own and shoot guns. In knowing these people, I’ve noticed a lot about the attitudes towards guns that surprised me. My dad, the most pacifistic, anti-violence, even anti-shooting-at-each-other-with-toy-guns person is actually the one to take my brother to the firing range and to Scheels to admire the guns. Probably because of being raised with this attitude, whenever I leave my airsoft gun lying around my brother takes it very seriously and is always the first one to remind me that the safety isn’t on or that you should always treat a gun like it is loaded.

On the other side of things, I’ve also met people who leave real and toy guns lying around in a house full of kids (I can’t tell the difference, can the elementary school kid tell?) Having these experiences haven’t exactly made me a moderate on the issue, but it has made me more moderate. I am at the point of being an extremist proponent for gun control. If you ask me, there is no good reason for a civilian to own a gun. Hunting? Use a bow, its better sport anyway. Protection? If no one had a gun we wouldn’t need such quick access to lethal force. What confuses me is that I’ve seen both responsible and irresponsible use of guns. Some people are responsible with guns, so how is it fair to tell them that they are not allowed to own one? And how is it fair to let put children in such an unsafe environment? Because of this I wouldn’t advocate for the banning of all firearms, even though that is my own personal view. Oh, and for any of the females who weren’t so into the ‘gun porn’ in class, how about this?


I also wanted to bring up something that a bunch of us were talking about after class on Friday. Somebody mentioned that the U.K. is one of the most watched countries with something like a surveillance camera for every six people. While things aren’t quite as extreme in the United States as they are in the U.K., the rise of technology makes it easier than ever to track individuals. I think we all recognize that some amount of surveillance is necessary for security, but there is also a definite line that can be crossed. The American people need to decide where that line is and the American government needs to respect it, otherwise there is nothing stopping us from another situation similar to the red scare of the 1950’s.

"Firearms are the American yeoman's liberty teeth" - George Washington

Two short points:

1. Guns.
Coincidentally I was just talking about gun rights last night with some friends. Being able to randomly buy assault weapons online with no background check or training is unacceptable, but I fully support the right of civilians to own firearms. In contrast to what Nate proposed, I support concealed carry on all college campuses. Take for example the 2002 shooting at Appalachian School of Law, where a student opened fire, killing three and proceeded to line up a classroom of students on their knees to execute. Two students who witnessed this got their personal firearms and were able to subdue the shooter.
Some interesting points from Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.

2. Objectivism vs Libertarianism
Though it’s sometimes easier to explain Objectivism by equating it with some basic Libertarian principles, Ayn Rand hated Libertarians and "official" Objectivists are reluctant to align themselves with the Libertarian party (especially not small-l libertarians) largely because "libertarianism claims that one can have any (or no) foundation for a theory of rights", the lack of a distinct moral principle behind it (personally, though I find Objectivism interesting and important, I wouldn’t hesitate to say I’m Libertarian-leaning). So no, the Cato Institute is not an Objectivist organization, though there may be Objectivists within it. There is a key moral and philosophical backbone to Objectivism and I really wish people would look at it a bit more before making judgments or generalizations. I wouldn’t say I fully understand all angles of Objectivism (hence the point of studying it), and I venture to say that I doubt anyone making sweeping dismissals of the Cato Institute does either. ;) I kid, but really, they're a smart bunch over there.

All About the Benjamins

Is the current global financial crisis a threat to our security?

 

The failure of America’s large financial institutions has caused disturbance in foreign markets as well. A recession in the US economy will limit American ability to respond quickly and effectively to other threats, whether economic, political, or social. Looking at this issue on a global level, the practice of interdependence becomes important. The US economy is interconnected to the markets of much of Europe and the other developed nations of the world. Nonpolarity has increased the size and activity of the global economy, as non state actors have begun to consume more resources or share in their production. Such interdependence leaves states vulnerable in the event that a close trading partner collapses, making a situation such as the current crisis a problem with international repercussions.

 

Economic instability throughout much of the developed world would be a grave threat to security. In addition to decreasing the economic stability in all involved nations, economic recession would severely limit the ability of the US and its allies to look after their interests. Markets that were not as close to that of the US would be in a much stronger position, as their currency would increase in value relative to the dollar. Such a state would not be an ally of the US, as the US is generally allied with states with similar economic interests. Countries such as Iran or North Korea would be less affected by the US economy in recession, as their separation from the US market would eliminate any of the ripple effect of economic collapse. As stated Bovice:

 

Random Congolese farmer #3,407 won't be worried about his heavily divested stock portfolio. Rather, his concern will be whether or not he can eat regularly. As a result, these conflict zones are not hurting from the global crisis.

 

 

With both the US’s capabilities becoming smaller and non allies becoming stronger, the global financial crisis is certainly a threat to security of both domestic and international markets. Additionally, the loss of faith in US currency could make the rejuvenation of the economy more difficult. The US, being an economy build on service rather than manufacturing, would not be able to revive its economy by waging another war, as was the solution to the Great Depression. The US presence in Afghanistan and Iraq prove the extent to which American forces have been constrained. Two costly wars have contributed substantially to this crisis. To open a third would be economically suicidal.

 

Lastly, capitalism in America, being all about the benjamins, would not exude an inspiring image if labeled a failure. In such a scenario, it would appear that the free market would not be the best system of economics, thus giving support to economic theories such as communism or socialism, terms that typically are associated with US enemies.

 

I disagree with my colleague Bubb Rubb when he argues against the alleged security risks posed by such a scenario. He later points out that such a crisis would in fact lead to multinational instability, which could potentially compel a Darwinist free for all, possibly at the mercy of extreme fanatic organizations.

 

The threats posed by the current crisis are inclusive of ability and competition. The US has enjoyed being the superpower for two decades-it may be this crisis that ends this shortsighted honeymoon. Though not a risk to US interests in the same way that is a terrorist organization with a dirty bomb in a highly urbanized geographical area, economic instability can ruin a nation, leaving it for the most aggressive suitor to take the government’s place.

 

economy in relation to national security = positive correlation

So will the global financial crisis affect our security? I think so. In thinking about the position of the United States relative to the rest of the world, I vaguely remembered something I learned back in American History about the post-world war II economy and the United States assisting Europe’s reconstruction. The United States was in the best position financially after WWII and thus was in the best position negotiation-wise. We gave a large amount of financial support to the British and the value of the pound was largely dependent on our support. The U.S. didn’t hesitate to use this advantage when negotiating with G.B. or other parts of Western Europe, just as I think other countries will jump at the chance to take advantage of any financial weakness of the United States.
I see things as being similar in the current financial crisis. Someone will come out on top, and it may not be the United States. Whoever is on top will most likely have a huge influence on the United States, and the possibility is high that we would have to choose between various national interests and our economy. Furthermore, a weak economy can not only affect our status as a hegemony, it can also affect our physical security. Wars, weapons, and intelligence are all extremely costly yet extremely necessary to maintain our territorial integrity.

Financial Crisis

To answer simply, the current financial crisis does not pose a security threat to the United States. Realism advocates a strong military in conjunction with a strong economy, and rightfully so. A defendable and strong economy begets a defendable and strong military, and the reverse is just as true. The economy must be able to support the military, and the military must be able to defend the economy should the need. However, a faltering economy in a state as powerful as the United States does not necessarily constitute a security issue. The government in the United States is strong and able enough to keep the economy from falling into such a state of disarray that the nation would be open to foreign invasion. The current crisis does not pose a direct security threat to the United States.
That being said, it certainly does pose a threat to global stability and security. As America’s economic systems falter, they are taking foreign markets down with them. European and Asian markets have begun to decline. As we discussed earlier in the year, economics are very closely tied in with international relations. The inability for governments to provide their citizens with basic living requirements, stemming from a lack of money, leads to radical governments and unstable political situations. When radical governments take over states, they gain the ability to start causing trouble for all sorts of people. Excellent examples of this are Afghanistan and Palestine. If governments are not able to provide for the needs of its citizens, radical organizations can gain power and threaten the security and stability of the region and the globe.

S-A-F-E-T-Y Dance

The current financial crisis is obviously an issue of financial security; will our stocks/bonds/dollars retain their worth? Economic security goes hand in hand with physical security, as to maintain dominance militarily one must have awesome amounts of money at their disposal. A weak economy generally opens a nation up to enemy attack.
However, this particular situation may not be quite the same. As the American economy is so heavily tied to essentially every other major economy out there, the threat of an attack from an individual state is little to none. For example, China may not be a big fan of the States, but they own much of the US debt and attacking us now (whether it be “cashing in” on said debt or a physical attack) would be cutting off their nose despite their face. The US does not currently face a realistic physical threat from another nation.
That being said, an outside, non-state attack (terrorism), is still a possibility. If we cannot afford to mobilize in defense or counter-attack, that certainly is a security issue. Also, times of economic crisis make a nation vulnerable to the ideas of a fanatical dictator. Which could be either of the candidates this election (I kid, I kid…sorta). This sort of unrest might also force people (especially those in third world countries) to resort to extreme, sometimes violent means, to get their basic necessities.

REPRESENT! A Minority Report

Any country as diverse as the US will inevitably contain minority groups that are marginalized. Such groups may be divided along economic, ethnic, ideological or moral lines, all of which have an ability to provoke controversy and hostility. The Bill of Rights gives US citizens the right to free speech, implying a freedom of expression and practice. Though there is a limit on the extent of this freedom, the limit exists to ensure the well being of the citizenry. Free speech is therefore a freedom that can be fully enjoyed and exercised as long as it does not threaten the safety of other individuals.

In the landmark ruling of Schenck v. United States, it was determined that free speech could be abridged if it presented a “clear and present danger” to the government or private individuals. The classic example of shouting fire in a crowded theater exhibits the seriousness of abusing this right. Such an inappropriate act would endanger other occupants of the theater, as the rush to exit would cause injuries and possible fatalities.

The mission of the government is to serve the people and to provide for the common welfare. This cannot always be possible when a community of individuals participates in a belief that contradicts conventional standards of society.  To cite an example in the modern context, I will consider the YFZ ranch founded by Warren Jeffs, which caused controversy over perceived sexual abuse of young girls by older males.

The Yearning For Zion ranch was a community that operated in complete isolation from the rest of the United States. Members practiced societal customs that would seem both unacceptable and disturbing through the lens of mainstream America. Jeffs was guilty of arranging a marriage between a fourteen year old girl and her nineteen year old cousin.

 A phone call from a female minor prompted a federal raid on the YFZ compound, which resulted in the removal of the girls on the grounds that underage marriage was the cause of abuse. Critics argued that the raid infringed on the beliefs of the community, and that the government had acted unjustly. Eventually the minors were returned to the ranch.

The government acted to protect these girls from a perceived threat. That in actuality the claim was exaggerated is relevant, but my focus is on the reason why the government acted, not on whether it was morally right or wrong. Child abuse is a practice that is universally condemned. Agencies of the federal government have been created to prevent child abuse from continuing. The YFZ ranch, perceived as a community that took part in such a practice, was targeted by the government because it contradicted societal norms and threatened the well being of individuals. On the opposing perspective, the practices of the YFZ community seemed perfectly acceptable to its members. Their beliefs were legitimized by their religious views, but to mainstream society it was appalling. It is no surprise that such a community would feel marginalized.

The abridgement of any right can cause an individual or group to feel marginalized. But such a constraint is necessary to protect the rest of society. In the US, people are free to believe what they will, but only so long as it does not harm others. The government must act in the interest of as many individuals and groups as it can, but it is virtually impossible to serve the entirety of the political and moral organizations in America. The only option is to do the best they can, representing the majority views and marginalizing minorities that conflict with societal customs.

 

Weekend

This weekend was uneventful. In fact, it was so uneventful, that I will have a difficult time reflecting upon it and reaching the minimum length requirement of this blog post. On Saturday a few of us decided that the weather was too nice to squander like we did on Friday (in which we did nothing), so we went out to the zoo. Walking around in the changing trees and cold breeze reminded me a bit of the mountains back home, it was nice to get off campus and be outside for a while. Seeing the pandas is always an excellent way to get rid of stress after two weeks of midterms. After the zoo, we found an Afghan restaurant in Adams Morgan, Adam says it’s Afghan Grill on Connecticut Avenue. It was excellent food and decently priced, so if you’re looking for some good Afghan food and don’t want to spend obscene amounts of money, that’s the place to go. And also let me know if you end up going, because once I have some more money, I’ll definitely come along. Today was fairly productive, I got up before noon (always a good start to the day) and managed to get some work that I’d been putting off done, so I would say it has been an overall good weekend. Okay, I really can’t add anything more to this post about my weekend, I’ve squeezed out all that I can.

feminism anyone?

This week in class Adam made a comment about gender neutrality in reference to the feminist movement and Rachel devoted 258 words of her reflection to feminism. Both of them, as well as other people in the class, had thoughts about feminism that I disagree with. I don’t know if my definition of feminism is different than other peoples, or even just plain wrong, but I thought it would be worth putting my thoughts out there.
To me, feminism is many things. It is the movement towards lessening the inequalities between the sexes, the action taken to alleviate the struggles of women, the belief that both sexes should be allowed equal opportunity, both in the eyes of the law as well as in the eyes of society. However, there are also many things that feminism isn’t (or shouldn’t) be. In my eyes, there are two major misconceptions of what feminism seeks to do. The first is that the feminist belief in equal opportunity for both sexes should lead to the belief in the sameness of both sexes. Biological differences influence both the physical characteristics and the cognitive process of the individual. Although these differences do not make one sex superior, these differences should be recognized.
The second idea that I see as anti-feminist is that feminism should try to change the way women are viewed in the sexual sense. Many women think that they are being objectified by men, but in all honesty, how many of you girls can say that you’ve never said a guy was hot, had nice muscles, or set Juanes as your desktop (ok ok, I’ll admit that I’m the guilty culprit on the last one). The problem does not come from women being seen as sexual beings, or even sexual objects to a point, but when rather when they are seen only in a sexual context. It goes back to the idea that gender differences should be appreciated.
After all of the talk about society’s perceptions, I actually don’t think that the main objective of feminism should be to change the way females are viewed by society. Rather, feminism should focus on women supporting women, especially when they break social norms. When women as a whole take each other seriously they greatly increase the power of each individual woman and in doing so change the perceptions as a whole in society.

Some Personal Nonsense

As it is a weekend and I’ve found myself indoors (oh, calamity), I’m going to go ahead and do my reflection for the week. And that means I get to shamelessly pimp my first club event:
Totalitarian Islam and the Threat to Free Speech
That’s our official event description and hopefully you will see posters around campus soon. I hope everyone will attend, it’s fascinating stuff. And if that’s not good enough, go out of UC World Politics solidarity and I promise I’ll attend your deep sea basket weaving colloquium. :)

Even though a lot of you think I’m crazy in one way or another, I’m really excited about this event. As much as people complain about AU, things like this really reaffirmed my decision in coming to this school. Since I was about six years old it was expected that I’d go to either the UW or WSU like my dad. Maybe I’d get adventurous and end up at Evergreen State. But private, east coast is just not how my family rolls. Or anyone else I know, at that (44% of our graduating seniors went to college). Nobody really took my applying to AU or Georgetown seriously, including myself. If I got in I couldn’t even afford it anyways. But all I had to lose was an hour and $70 (damn you Georgetown). I will never forget opening my scholarship statement: running around the kitchen screaming, crying, going to work and calling everyone in my phonebook. It seems like so many people here dislike AU, or had it as a safety school. Granted, I didn’t get into Georgetown but I wouldn’t want it any other way. The competition and intensity of an “elite” school like that would make it so much harder to find a foothold. And the size and campus interest level of UW is discouraging to say the least. What I love about AU is how easy it is for a virtual nobody to get involved in genuinely meaningful activities.

Here I am, a freshman from halfway across the country, armed with determination and a copy of Atlas Shrugged (and any other book of hers- I’ll lend you one haha), I shoot the Ayn Rand Institute an e-mail, throw out a Facebook invite and suddenly I have a close-knit unit of 6 or 7 really amazing people helping to put together a panel with some of the most controversial international figures of the past couple years. I couldn’t be happier.

Insert Clever Pun Here

Since there isn’t a whole lot of room to add new and interesting ideas in a reflection for a class in which we reflected on the simulation, I figured I’d take this opportunity to lay out something I’ve been thinking about since I first got here in late June. It’s rather symbolic that it’s very difficult to see the stars in Washington, D.C.
It seems like the average working person here is very convinced of his own self-importance and the fact that the world would simply cease turning if they stopped working. People run around town with their Blutetooth headsets permanently attached to their ear, having deemed it unacceptable to miss a single call on their cell phone, ever. They must be constantly in contact with other important people elsewhere. If it isn’t a headset, you can be sure they have their iPod plugged in, and are simply tuning out the world with music. Peoples’ lives exist solely in the sixty eight square miles that is the District, and even within that they seem rather content to let the things that surround them pass them buy.
It has been a bit of a culture shock adjusting to living here. Back home it isn’t about who has the newest, shiniest, most expensive car, or who has the most power in some faceless government entity. We work to live, not live to work. Back home people will work hard to afford themselves the ability to take a long weekend, throw the mountain bike on top of the car (which one is more expensive is anyone’s guess), and head up to the mountains. I’m convinced that part of the reason these two completely different cultures are they way they are has to do with the ability to see the star. Here, a good night will give you about three dozen, there’s no depth to that. Out in the wilderness, you can see everything. It’s a humbling experience to lie down in the mountain air and stare into the vastness. It allows you to realize that perhaps the petty things you make such a big deal out of really don’t matter as much as you make them out to. It’s simultaneously the worst and the best feeling. It’s a luxury we here in DC unfortunately don’t have. I’ll wrap this post up with a Kurt Vonnegut quote, because I can think of no better way to do so.

“I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you different.”

Minor simulation reflection

To reflect on the simulation this week, I loved it. It was great to do something a little different than we do in most classes and be able to get creative. Like most other people though, I think it would have been more enjoyable to discuss a different topic, mostly because this was one that did not leave much room for persuasion. Most groups were set in what they believed, including the president who had to keep his constituents and major campaign contributors in mind.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7664866.stm
Last week, I trained my eyes to pick out certain words when skimming articles on domestic content. So, not surprisingly, when I saw this article on the BBC website, it caught my eye. Both sides had theories on what would happen if we were to repeal domestic content laws. People in favor of domestic content laws argued that American automobile manufacturers would not be able to stay in competition without domestic content laws, while those opposed argued that repealing domestic content laws would actually allow American companies to produce cars more cheaply and thus put them in a better position against foreign auto manufacturers.
The content of this article made me think that the groups opposed to domestic content laws were right. I agreed with them in the last blog post, but I wasn’t sure if their argument would stand up in the real world. Now I think it would. The fact that GM and Chrysler were thinking about merging even before the economic crisis made me realize just how badly these companies are doing. Hopefully the two companies would be able to survive independently because a merger would put a lot of people out of work. Anyway, now I’m really excited for our next simulation and the chance to go more into depth with the project!

Minor simulation reflection

To reflect on the simulation this week, I loved it. It was great to do something a little different than we do in most classes and be able to get creative. Like most other people though, I think it would have been more enjoyable to discuss a different topic, mostly because this was one that did not leave much room for persuasion. Most groups were set in what they believed, including the president who had to keep his constituents and major campaign contributors in mind.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7664866.stm
Last week, I trained my eyes to pick out certain words when skimming articles on domestic content. So, not surprisingly, when I saw this article on the BBC website, it caught my eye. Both sides had theories on what would happen if we were to repeal domestic content laws. People in favor of domestic content laws argued that American automobile manufacturers would not be able to stay in competition without domestic content laws, while those opposed argued that repealing domestic content laws would actually allow American companies to produce cars more cheaply and thus put them in a better position against foreign auto manufacturers.
The content of this article made me think that the groups opposed to domestic content laws were right. I agreed with them in the last blog post, but I wasn’t sure if their argument would stand up in the real world. Now I think it would. The fact that GM and Chrysler were thinking about merging even before the economic crisis made me realize just how badly these companies are doing. Hopefully the two companies would be able to survive independently because a merger would put a lot of people out of work. Anyway, now I’m really excited for our next simulation and the chance to go more into depth with the project!

From Columnist to Hero: TK is the man

As stated before, I thought that our simulation was a success. Debating the point was more effective than reading about it, as we had to anticipate counter-arguments and be prepared to respond. I was not that enlightened on the automotive industry before this simulation, so I found it very useful as well.

Looking over Seamus's post gave me some inspiration to highlight another bit of information not covered in class. I am on page 78 of Friedman's From Beirut to Jerusalem,  a nonfiction book depicting Friedman's experiences as a journalist in the late 1980's in Lebanon. In the first 78 pages I've learned more about the Middle East than I did in any of my high school courses. Friedman's account of what happened during those turbulent years is at times informative, hilarious, depressing, and surreal. 

The point that struck me was the way journalists operate in such dangerous and uncertain scenarios. He wrote about how it was easy to be sane in the midst of chaos-insanity would come once the country became more stable. He also highlighted instances where journalists were kidnapped or killed after guerilla groups found an article to be displeasing. 

Friedman wrote that the most important ability for a journalist was to be familiar enough with the actors to talk with them, but disinterested enough not to sympathize with them. There were certainly many willing to give their opinion, but anyone truly involved in the militias would not be one to volunteer information. If an individual was giving up information, it wasn't worth having. Wrote Friedman: "It's the people who won't talk to me whom I really want to meet."

Its unfortunate that many people in America do not read the news; some of the most inspiring stories are found in everyday life. Journalists like Thomas Friedman willingly face inconceivable risks just to deliver the news as best they can. It is beyond amazing that they do their jobs so well. It is a shame that their work still remains largely ignored. 

I now have a new appreciation for journalism and the media as a whole. An individual who I once thought of as simply a columnist is now a hero. 493 more pages to go.

vote ron paul...win a free republic

The simulation was interesting and a good experience, but to echo what just about everyone else said, it would be nice if the groups were more able to be swayed. I personally don’t agree with the law, so arguing for them as the UAW was interesting. At the end of the day I too think the American Auto Manufacturers did the best job of presenting facts and debating.

As far as the essay topic goes, I enjoyed it- no, who am I kidding. I enjoyed it as much as one can enjoy an essay of any sort. I didn’t change out of my PJs or leave my desk for four hours Saturday, so enjoy might be the wrong word. But I can see the relevance in writing on a topic like this, and if anything it makes it more interesting than a prompt involving the political history of Slovenia circa the Roman Empire. So I’m not complaining. Yet.

As many of you may or may not know, I went to see Ron Paul speak earlier this week and got to meet him and it was fantastic. Yes, Andrew was right in that a few of the kids that went were the ones that quote- hide in their mom’s basement lurking Ron Paul forums 24/7 –unquote…but not all of them. If any of you met Barack Obama you’d be pretty excited too, so give me a break guys. :) His speech was crazy interesting and addressed, among other things, the bailout, Iraq and the Federal Reserve. Here is another informative site about some of the secrets of the Fed.

Ron Paul is amazing.

UAW - United Auto Workers, or United Auto Winners?

Determining a “winner” for our in-class debates is rather difficult, partially because there were several compelling arguments for each side represented, but mostly because my group, the foreign auto manufacturers, clearly was the best but I don’t want to come across as pompous. But in all seriousness, I think the victor would have to be the UAW, in the sense that they best supported their position and offered relevant rebuttals against every single other group. Content-wise, the American auto manufacturers presented a solid case, but weren’t able to discredit the other parties to the extent of the UAW. Generally speaking, the UAW simply rebutted using essentially what boiled down to be nationalist propaganda, as there is little data to support keeping a tariff in place in our simulated situation. To argue that the tariff is ridiculous really, it artificially inflates prices and acts as a barrier to trade. But, the UAW was able to defend its niche of American jobs very well. The most harmful to my group was the case of the one hundred percent tariff on Japanese luxury cars being absorbed fully by the manufacturing company, keeping the cost per car significantly lower than the hundred thousand dollars it would otherwise cost. Stating this left us with a more or less blank look on our faces, this was not something we had prepared for. Though this specific example is rather unique, its delivery showcased the UAW’s strategy: sling some mud to prove them wrong, and if they’re all wrong, we have to be right. Winners by default.

Domestic Content? HELL NO!

The basis for my argument of which group did the best is based more on the process of elimination of groups that did not fully argue their points than on which groups argued their points the best. The first group I eliminated was the Sierra Club. In their defense, there was not much of an argument to be made that went beyond a moral standard. The consumers mostly ignored the other groups and focused on what they wanted, which did not do much to convince the other groups of their position. My group, the United Auto Workers, also had more of a moral argument which could eventually help the economy in the long run, but I don’t think we emphasized that point as well as we could have. That leaves the Foreign Auto Manufacturers and the American Auto Manufacturers.
Out of the two, I thought that the American Auto Manufacturers had the better argument. They were able to emphasize aspects that pleased many of the groups. For example, by getting rid of domestic content laws they were able to please the American citizens by creating more competition and thus driving prices down. It worked in their own best interest because they were able to produce parts more cheaply, and it pleased the Sierra club because they were able to produce more eco-friendly and fuel-efficient cars. Lastly, it pleased the Foreign Auto Manufacturers because it gave them a leg-up on the competition.
The American Auto Manufacturers were able to argue for their point of view without resorting to b.s. like a lot of the other groups did. They had solid research to back up their claims, and their argument made real sense. So, AAUW you’ve got me convinced. Away with those domestic content laws!

Team America Strikes Again!

After our in class simulation it is difficult to establish the victor of our debate. Since I feel that the groups should be judged for the work they put into the simulation, and not the final outcome, it seems that it would be more fair to select a group over a team, with a team being the cooperative of groups arguing for a common outcome. 

The American Auto Manufacturers probably performed best during the simulation. My reason for highlighting their effort, however, is not entirely due to their skillful rhetoric but more so the inability of other groups to support their respective positions as strongly. Certain groups seemed to contradict their own stances after attempting a counter-argument, while others adequately defined their position but then produced no compelling reasons for it. 

The domestic manufacturers favored the elimination of domestic content regulation, arguing that the removal of this non tariff barrier would lead to lower production costs for their companies, as they could outsource to countries where labor was less expensive. The decrease in labor costs would have a direct relationship to the cost of the vehicle for the consumer. I credit the group for acknowledging that such regulation is actually somewhat of a disadvantage to domestic auto manufacturers, as it prevents them from attaining lower production costs. 

Domestic content regulations would also prevent the manufacturer from building plants abroad, as they could not legally be used to their full potential. The group cited this as a constraint on free trade, re-enforcing the idea that such measures would be counterproductive to the American automotive industry. 

The economic savvy of this group was not exhibited in the arguments of other groups, all of whom failed to recognize such regulations as a two way impact. The United Auto Workers, in one case, even appeared to advocate protectionism, alleging that the elimination of these regulations would result in an increase in American job losses. 

The UAW response is critical to the debate, as they too were among the contenders in the simulation. But their arguments exposed several incorrect beliefs that largely invalidated their argument. The first of these was protectionism. Citing the current economic crisis, their immediate reaction was to cut off foreign imports and tighten regulations on trade, including the enactment of stronger trade barriers. Such a tactic is irrational in that the world is now in an interdependent economy, so such isolationism is no longer a feasible practice. Additionally, the manufacturing of foreign autos by foreign companies in the U.S. is responsible for approximately 700,000 jobs, a yield that disproves the notion that ending content regulation will end American jobs. 

Despite these inaccuracies, the UAW presented a decent argument. But because their position contained flaws that the American Auto Manufacturer’s position did not, victory must go to the domestic manufacturers. 

With regard to the other groups, I felt that the Sierra Club focused too much on an aspect of their policy that was of a lesser significance. Their dismissal of addressing the Kyoto Pact was an absence that could not be ignored. The consumers played the part, but though they defended their position they did not advance beyond it, giving no reason to why they would have the best argument. As for my group, the foreign auto manufacturers, it doesn’t matter how well they did; they’re foreign. Well done American Auto Manufacturers! Our rice hats/turbans/yamakas off to you!

THURSDAY NIGHT VP SHOWDOWN!!!

The fact that Sarah Palin was simply able to find the stage and stand on it for an hour and a half without collapsing unfortunately means that the Biden-Palin debate is more or less considered a tie. It was certainly informative to see the vice presidential candidates, okay, it was interesting to see Palin in action live, instead of through a series of incoherent and bumbling video clips. However, seeing her in this manner did nothing to assuage any doubts. In fact, I would say it had quite the opposite effect.
Having now seen “Palin being Palin”, I believe it is safe to say that now more than ever, I would be terrified to have this woman sitting next in line to an aging president. The temptress couldn’t fool me with her saucy winks into the camera and her dear-God-make-it-stop folksy accent. What threw me off the most is how she blatantly showed disrespect and disregard for the debate itself by admittedly refusing to answer questions the way they were asked of her. What is the purpose of the debate if not to answer the questions posed? Though I suppose I should give her some credit, she didn’t break down and stutter for an extended period of time, nor did she tell us that she’d get back to us on something. Although giving a shout-out to third graders in Podunk, Alaska is unacceptable under any circumstance. Seriously, that’s the kind of thing I would expect from an unpopular late-night radio station back home than a vice presidential candidate.

Why We Need Miss Bad Media Karma

It is unfortunate that I did not retain more of what was said last Friday. The information that we received on fair use will undoubtedly be of great assistance in the future. But my being rather exhausted prevented me from absorbing much more than Brittney Spears and her impressive and hateful status as an icon of the American celebrity identity. 

I never thought I would write a serious blog on Brittney Spears. But to say that I dismiss her as another manufactured pop princess is untrue; Brittney is a symbol of individualism, that rebel spirit, and of course, sex. 

Personally, I admire Ms. (is it Mrs now?) Spears. Regardless of whether one finds her talented, it is undeniable that she has captivated the music scene longer than any of her peers. Conceded, there are bands that have existed longer than she has been alive, but they are of a different genre, a genre that intrinsically lasts longer than do the fifteen-minute-of-fame pop stars. 

Let me say that Brittney is a goddess. She has created a dynasty for herself. Certainly, she does not always seem to think in a way that by any means exhibits rational thought, but her ability to resurrect herself, and even do so in a way that further enhances her image, is totally amazing. The lyrics of her song turn her downfall into a rise that flaunts her social agility; she has climbed the ladder and fallen all the way back down, only to fly even faster back up.

There is no political equivalent to Brittney. Obama may seem like a rockstar, but when one’s peers consist largely of elderly white males, such a feat is not so difficult to achieve. Plus, in politics, one fall from grace takes years of compensation. There is no resurrection for the politician. A Brittney-esque rise is not possible without the help of someone else, or someone else’s campaign. And though Sarah Palin may be perceived by some to be another glamorous figure, the faster they rise, the harder they fall. 

Politicians are not celebrities. They can be glamorous, and they can be sexy. I think  Senator Obama is quite sexy myself. More importantly, they are famous and powerful. But although two characteristics might be shared by the Hollywood elite, they are still two distinctly different types of people. We need look no further than their motives to perceive the difference. 

John McCain was wrong when he accused Obama of being a celebrity. Barack and Paris have nothing in common. The tactics that McCain used failed because he failed to differentiate between the public servant and the movie star, a gulf that can seem much more broad, depending on the terminology applied. Obama may be famous, good looking, and powerful, but he is clearly not driven by money, glamour, or prestige. His career as a community organizer will attest to that. 

Bottom line, politicians and celebrities are significantly dissimilar. The sense of service to humanity is not obligatory for the stars, though I am happy to see that many of them participate anyway. If celebrities and politicians were the same, then President Bush would be a wrestling champion, the likes of President Macho Camacho in the movie Idiocracy. While such a world would be mildly entertaining, it would also be doomed. I guess its a good thing that celebrities exist after all. 

wait- our economy is important?

This week’s reading on the Bretton Woods system introduced me to a lot of new ideas in financial sector that I had never encountered before, and to tell the truth, had never cared about before. Even though I wasn’t particularly interested to begin with, I decided that I must slog through it, and to my surprise, I was actually really interested. However, terms such as pegged-rate and internal liquidity made absolutely no sense to me, even after reading the Wikipedia definitions. But hey, this is coming from the person who barely understands how the stock market works and has no grasp of the concept of buying and selling debt. It almost seems like there should be a whole separated class dedicated to this… Oh, wait, econ!

What really surprised me is that I actually have an interest in taking an economics class and learning about the stock market and how abstract (to me) ideas such as the stock market actually affect us in every day life. Until next semester, though, I will be stuck reading tons of articles on Wikipedia. So if anyone ever has one of those nights when they can’t sleep and feel like giving an in-depth explanation of the stock market… well you know where my room is.

I'm Mrs. Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous

Unfortunately when I think back on this week’s class what I recall most clearly are the lyrics to “Piece of Me.” Agh.
Since we get a bit of discretion in our post this week, I want to talk about the Emma Maersk. Beautiful, isn’t she? When I first saw photos I thought it was fake. It still blows my mind to see such technology and human ingenuity come to life. I’m one of those people that always wonders, whenever I drive by a skyscraper or a plane flies by, what the Founding Fathers would think of today’s technology. Humans are truly remarkable creatures. But I digress. The largest container ship ever built, the Emma Maersk can cross the Pacific in just four days. Made in Denmark, 1302 x 207 feet, 13 crew members, andcost over $145,000,000.
It largely operates from China to Europe/the US, and made headlines last Christmas when it imported tons (literally) of goods to the UK and was in turn loaded up with waste to be taken back to China for recycling. Every time she docks in the US she returns with no US manufactured goods.
This is really unfortunate, but what can we do? Society has shaped Americans into believing it is almost a failure to pick up a trade. We're told that we all need to go to college, nobody wants a manufacturing job. As solid a career and important a foundation as they are (were?) for this country, it is unheard of nowadays to aspire to work in a plant.
Of course, as much as I think this is sad and can sit here lamenting it, there’s no way I’d give up my shot at college. So who am I to talk, besides it's all just opinion as we've discussed this week. Though highly unlikely, maybe the US will do fine without its manufacturing sector. These are just a few thoughts that flit through my mind when I hear stories like that of the Emma Maersk. And it just might connect nicely to our simulation projects...

Philosophy of the Global Political Persuasion

My response to this question will be less quantitative and more philosophical. This being a discussion on the accuracy of theoretical reasoning, my answer may seem ironic; it is, however, the only manner in which I feel I can address this question.

Dating back to the time of Socrates, the idea of there being any objective knowledge was the subject of intense debate. A group of teachers, called the Sophists, opposed any such notion, claiming that knowledge differed from person to person, as every individual was prejudiced by his or her own subjectivity. The Sophists prided themselves in their gift of rhetoric, which could possibly explain their motive for embracing subjectivity (if they could make an effective argument for either side, they could convince anyone to see their perspective, changing others’ conception of reality). 

Along came Socrates, who rejected their assertions. Socrates agreed with the Sophists to the extent that an individual did not have an objective view of the universe, but he believed that there did exist some form of knowledge to which all beings could know and understand. For example, in a purely mathematical sense, 2+2=4. This equation holds true for everyone (in a mathematical context), and it cannot be argued that 2+2 is not equal to 4. To give another example, Socrates turned to geometry. A four sided figure with equilateral sides and angles is, by definition, a square. That this shape is a square is known to everyone; no one, including the Sophists, could argue that it is not a square. 

Socrates referred to these examples  as “forms.” I am not able to completely explain that which constitutes a form, but in a modern context it could be likened to “essence,” “concept,” or “idea.” A form, therefore, is that which presents a quality or essence to an object, and by such participation by the object, the form is deficiently resembled. 

Socrates’ beliefs have formed (no pun intended) a basis by which human knowledge is possible. He did so through the use of dialectical reasoning, as was later recorded and conveyed through his most famous student, Plato (and so on through his most famous student, Aristotle). 

This lesson in philosophy has a purpose; though I have not mentioned Bretton Woods, I feel that the answer to the question has been reached. The same question presented to our class this week was a question that captivated the minds of the ancient Greek philosophers. Through their own logic, they produced the position that certain knowledge can be realized, regardless of one’s subjectivity. And if certain knowledge can be realized, there must inherently exist that which is wrong. If a belief or claim can be held to be correct, there must be claims that can be held to be incorrect. 

Now, given empirical data, my man Aristotle has something to say. Aristotle, taught by Plato who in turn was taught by Socrates, held similar belief to his predecessors. He departed their line of reasoning, however, when it came to the natural world. Plato saw the natural world (and pretty much everything physical) as invalid, as sensory observations were subject to the perception of the body, which was limited. Aristotle, conversely, saw the natural world as a source on which all human knowledge was possible.  The natural world, though not the basis of knowledge itself, was a potential source of knowledge. This included human interaction. Though humans could change, human interaction, as well as changes in human behavior, follow a pattern that can be measured. Generalizations can be made, but they hold true only to a certain extent; it is not wholly accurate. 

From Aristotle’s systematic categorical approach, it is evident that any empirical practice will always have a marginal error. The same is true in any science experiment, all of which not only acknowledge but anticipate probable errors in their evaluations. Just by looking at the technology in  the daily life of an American, it is clear that science has not been discarded; it is essential to societal progress and the progress of humanity. Products that are used and, more importantly, are depended on daily. These products (i.e. cars, planes, kitchen appliances) all have malfunctioned or failed at some point. But since that occurs so rarely, it is beneficial to use them until they break, and then to simply replace them. 

With statistically proven opinions it is the same. They may not always hold true for every individual, but that they encompass such a vast majority of the collective subject validates their being “right.” While there certainly exists a degree of subjectivity (and probably always will) to any argument, a perspective can be said to be “right” if it represents the majority view to the extent that either the opposition amounts to so little in comparison that it is insignificant, or if an aspect of the dissident has been rendered invalid by established regulations of the exercise in practice. 

Lies, damn lies and statistics

Politics: Power relations in a specific field: the interrelationships between the people, groups, or organizations in a particular area of life especially insofar as they involve power and influence or conflict. (Microsoft Encarta 2006).

Politics is opinion. There’s no right or wrong answer when it comes to interpersonal or international relationships, it’s all just how people or nations perceive things to be. Sure, you can use historical anecdotes or statistics to help advance your theory, but that’s all it will ever be- a theory. Some theories are obviously more realistic than others. Say, global warming is caused by humans vs global warming is caused by pandas. However, neither one can definitively predict whether global warming will destroy Earth or be just another bump along the planet’s natural temperature fluctuations.

Take the subprime mortgage crisis for example. Liberals say rampant deregulation allowed banks to convince unsuspecting homebuyers into taking out these loans. Conservatives say government overregulation forced banks to provide these unsafe loans to people who couldn’t repay them. There is some truth in each of these claims, but people choose one absolute over another based on opinion. Yes, these opinions are backed by facts and statistics, but the overall picture is constructed on opinion.

Thus theories and speculation are always point of view until it happens, at which point it becomes fact, which will probably be used to support another point of view. If that makes any sense.