World Views

From an early age, American students at the primary level of education are taught to recite the pledge of allegiance. Granted, this generally only applies to public schools, and as the students mature they exercise greater freedom in their decision to recite or abstain from reciting the pledge, but regardless of their later actions they are trained to think of America as a country worthy of their service. The phrase “One nation, under God,” is one that I personally find somewhat appalling, but that is a digression from my intended point.

 

A man concerned only with the affairs of his own country is a man limited and ignorant of other cultures and societies. In a sense, that man is the same as the student who faithfully pledges his allegiance to the stars and strips, never pausing to consider what it is he is actually promising. He holds only a shallow understanding of the world around him, because his world is in reality but one nation.

 

The second man, one who is familiar with all nations, is a model that all who are concerned with world politics should strive to emulate. It is through this understanding that one gains appreciation and ultimately respect for the diverse ways of other human beings. My belief is that this is the type of man that best understands the world, and therefore is the man who is consciously in the best position to engage in diplomacy and interactions on an international level.

 

Of course, it is not that simple. Todorov gives us the curveball when he considers the “man to whom the whole world is as a foreign country.” I don’t get it. A man who lacks understanding of the entire world is an indication of ignorance, not of knowledge. If Todorov’s point was that one demonstrates wisdom by exhibiting humility, I regard that perspective as out of context with one’s worldview. Todorov was on to something in his first two assertions, but his third point failed to exhibit any rationale. 

Why do we hold elections in November? Because it's the best time to pick out a Turkey.

Ahhhhh Turkey day! Best holiday after 4th of July and Christmas. And Cinco de Mayo. And New Years. Anyways, let me crank this out so I can hit the road- 6 hour flights baby, Rachel and Catherine know what’s up.
Well I managed to successfully get caught in my own argument today. I concede: it only makes sense to judge history in order to learn anything from it and move forward. I guess where I found the issue is how to go about doing that. Like many of us said, judgment is subjective (but not arbitrary). Yet if we don’t judge people with our own sense of morality, everything becomes moral. This reminds me of people who love to champion all cultures, even those cultural behaviors that are abusive and backward- people aren’t willing to say “yes, my morality is superior to yours,” which is necessary- not exactly what I was arguing in class, but what I’ve concluded from our talk.
Onwards.

“The man who finds his country sweet is only a raw beginner; the man for whom each country is as his own is already strong; but only the man for whom the whole world is foreign country is perfect.”

Let me get this straight:
The man who’s satisfied with his own country is lame.
The man who thinks he can do whatever he wants with all nations like they are his own is pretty alright.
The man who sees all other territories as foreign and conquerable rocks.
Hmm.

Maybe from a strictly Machiavellian/realist perspective that’s “correct,” it certainly maximizes one’s ability to conquer without remorse. However it wouldn’t rest very easily on most people’s consciences.
PTJ asked if we (as a collective modern humanity? What does that even mean when half the world isn’t socially “modern” by our standards?) are better suited not to engage in genocidal behavior nowadays. This goes back to the “is our knowledge better?” question. Yes, our morality is better than Cortez's, but it’s not the best. We still have genocides going on and military conflicts such as Rachel was making a connection to (I’m assuming Iraq). While I personally do think we have a superior moral code, I don’t believe it is our place to intervene in affairs not directly relevant to us (insert Family Guy Ground Zero clip haha). The majority of Spaniards in Cortez's time were probably unconcerned with his actions abroad. The fact that a vast percentage of the population today is not a fan of such interventionist activities shows the continual evolution of morality.

And now I’m off to pack! Have a great Thanksgiving everyone!

Cortes the Killer

The trial to determine the guilt of Cortes, though not the most organized of trials, really got me thinking. Not about whether or not it was morally correct to utilize the means he did to reach his end, but whether or not he thought he made the right decisions, or even if he believed he was doing good deeds. I think it’s rather obvious that massacring thousands of natives and providing false information to get them going about killing themselves off as well is, by any, or at least most modern standards, immoral. But since his goal was conquest and ownership of the continent, Cortes must have thought that what he was doing was at least in his best interest, and in that of Spain’s. What I would be interested to know is if he thought he was improving anything by being there. As far as I know, there isn’t much left to determine one way or the other.

This weekend I also went to the Air and Space museum for the first time in a few years. The museum of my childhood was gone. As soon as I entered, I started to analyze the layout of the exhibits and tried to “read” the museum. Gone was my child-like simple wonder. When you walk in, the put all the cool replicas right there so you can immediately think “wow, look at all that cool shiny stuff we can put way up there”. A new addition was a model of the SpaceShipOne, the first privately owned and operated vehicle to enter space. The museum showcased the technological superiority of the United States and how it helped us in air battles since World War I. On the whole, I think the museum exists to elicit a sense of patriotism, “NASA is really cool”, and “we beat them commies good”.

cortez on trial

This week it was my group’s turn to teach the class, and I think it went fairly well. People were frustrated because they weren’t sure whether they should use present day laws or the laws of the time to argue their cases. Even though it was frustrating, I think it was a good representation of justice on the world stage. Sometimes in less clear-cut cases it is not clear to anyone whose laws will be followed and which party is in the wrong. The theme of justice coupled with our visit to the American Indian Museum made me think about the how American Indians could have been given justice and the constraints that culture barriers generate. I think that a lot of times, ‘justice’ isn’t really justice. It is the best we can do under the circumstances, but in the end one or more of the groups involved gets the raw end of the deal. It seems like there must be some way to make things fair, but even if there was, fairness is not always justice.

I surprised myself when I began to think that Cortez was not at fault during the trial. The defense made some good points that I had not thought of before, and if I had been the jury I might have acquitted him. But the problem is, whether or not Cortez could justify what he did or blame it on someone else, thousands of American Indians were slaughtered as a result of his actions. Is justice an eye for an eye, the attempt to make things as right as possible after the fact, holding someone responsible for something that they were not at fault for or something else? After the Europeans had already conquered the Americas, there wasn’t much that one could do to fix things. It wasn’t fair that any land was taken from its rightful owners, but it wouldn’t be fair to take the land away from people who had started a new life there and had no part in the killing either.

Objection, Your Honor

I hate to sound like a sore loser.

 

Nevertheless, I will say that although I did enjoy the simulated trial of Cortes, I maintain my assertion of the invalidity of the trial, as I feel the jury was biased and therefore inherently subjective against my perspective: that of supporting Cortes. I of course do not believe that Cortes was a good man, and being forced to debate on his behalf was an enlightening exercise that gave me another viewpoint on a man who I considered and still consider to have been a ruthless conquistador. What may have changed, however, is the morality (or lack thereof) of his actions, and whether or not Cortes was simply the extension of his superiors.

 

Expeditions to the New World were unprecedented, and so there was nothing on which to base interactions between the Spanish and the indigenous peoples. Consequently, Columbus’s treatment of the natives eventually became harsh and unequal; he ceased to view them as human beings and instead viewed them as a utility. Cortes was no different, though his actions were drastically more violent.

 

Because Cortes operated without precedence and without the modern rules of engagement, there were no moral standards for him to consider. His dealings with the Aztecs were that of military strategy and diplomatic savvy. Though today it is considered genocide and a crime against humanity, such notions would have been foreign to Cortes, who was simply acting to secure specific interests under dire circumstances.

 

I must admit, I feel that my group argued more capably and more consistently with the point of debate. Ben did, however, own in his closing statement, which was far more eloquent, logical, and coherent than mine. As we determined in class, it was an effective exercise, though not without flaws. In the future, may I suggest a clear set of rules, a set point of debate, and an emphasis on the text. As it was, I felt the trial was rather broad.  

Wingapo

Catherine inspired me to put a soundtrack to my reflection this week as well. The band’s called Justice, beyond that it has nothing to do with class but is a fun song.


I really enjoyed the Native American museum, especially all the southwestern tribal cultures (I pretty much automatically associate Native Americans with cedar bark houses, totem poles and salmon). I especially loved the section of paintings by Fritz Scholder. This one is my favorite:


I love Native American culture. I don’t know about elsewhere, but back home there is a fairly big emphasis on it in education. The first 8 years of my schooling involved learning about local native tribes, hatching/releasing salmon eggs, having powwows every month, etc. From the Macaw tribe’s whaling pursuits to Native festivals and awareness, not to mention that most of our cities (Seattle, Chehalis, Puyallup, Yakima, etc) are named after Native tribes/people, Native culture is somewhat alive in Washington. That being said, they’re still most famous for bringing 80s one hit wonders to their casinos (Loverboy, anyone?) and being the best place to get 4th of July fireworks for cheap (the Muckleshoot reservation is my favorite).

As far as Columbus/Cortez goes, they screwed up. But they were products of their times, which doesn’t justify their actions, but at least allows you to understand their mindset a bit. Conquering was the norm, there wasn’t really an idea of a collective humanity. As we witness concepts of knowledge and justice molded over time, perhaps (and probably) hundreds of years from now people will be snickering at our models of the universe and how primitive we are.

I wish my signature was as cool as Columbus's

Ok, so for the most part, Columbus’s way of knowing was through what he was told, what he read in the bible, and assumptions that he made about things that he saw for himself. For the most part what we know comes from what we are told, the bible, and assumptions that we make about things we see ourselves. Most people, both in the presence and the past, don’t base their knowledge on scientific knowledge that they have gathered on their own, but rather on things that people have told them. Therefore, I don’t think that our way of knowing is any better. The difference is our technology available. We have new technology available so we base our knowledge on the things that science tells us. In the past, they also based things on what science told them, but they didn’t have the same scientific knowledge that we have today. To answer the question, I ultimately think that our way is not better than Columbus’s way of knowing because we use the same methodology. We base what we believe in on science and things that can be reasoned through logically, and so did Columbus. His chain of thought that lead him to believe that Central America had gold correlated with the common beliefs of the time. Now, due to technology, we don’t believe that to be true. However, some beliefs that we have now are just as likely to be disproven in the future. Also, in class we talked a lot about how Columbus saw things as he thought they should be rather than how they actually were. While this may not be the ‘right’ way of thinking, we still do that today. Stereotypes are one example of this. We assume things about people to make sense of things that we are not personally familiar with. It makes the foreign thing seem more manageable. This is the same thing Columbus did with the mermaid. He used the only knowledge that he had of something to make sense of what was completely foreign. Although he was not actually seeing a mermaid, it was the only thing he could conceive. While technology can change, our basic thought process and way of knowing stays the same, and therefore our way of knowing cannot be any better or worse than it was during the time of Columbus.

500 Years Less Superstitious

The most difficult part of this question, for me at least, has got to be how we go about defining “knowing” or our means of knowing things. I would argue that our “way of knowing” is derived from the world around us. Generally held societal norms, values, and viewpoints are impressed upon all of us. Our perceptions are deeply tied with what is held to be common knowledge, such as the fact that no, mermaids are not chilling around in the western Atlantic. To address the question regarding whether or not our way of knowing is better than that of Columbus, I would posit that we are 500 years less superstitious.

In the past 500 years, we’ve made it a fairly long way in terms of advancement, both technological and intellectual. We have discovered that areas on maps previously marked with “here be monsters” do not actually contain monsters. We have knowledge of, or at least knowledge of the existence of an “other”. The general amount of knowledge has increased, and individuals are more able to pool more from this to make better or more accurate assumptions with their worldview. Our “way of knowing”, which I will interpret to mean “how things are determined to be true”, has improved as well. Instead of relying on religious texts and institutions, and the information (or, perhaps more commonly, misinformation) inductively reasoned from them, we now look to conglomerates of credible and experienced scientists to discern hard facts about the universe. We don’t, however, look to them for the complete answers for everything, and I think we have become more likely to acknowledge the fact that we may not necessarily understand the cause of a particular event, and less likely to point to superstition or religion to explain it.

This is not the fault of Columbus, or anyone really, there is no blame to be cast, it is simply a circumstance of the times. People in his time simply did not have the access to, or the sheer amount of knowledge. And with relatively limited knowledge, they assessed things as best they could. Certainly in 500 years, people will look back at us and marvel at our simplicity and naïve worldview.

Columbus's Folly

Christopher Columbus was a product of the society in which he lived. In 1492, at the height of Spanish imperialism, his world views would have been influenced by a deeply pious character, a belief in European superiority in culture and religious views, and the desire for fame and fortune. In these respects, his knowledge was obscured by the selfish motives of himself and his society in that he was incapable of objectively viewing his world-changing discoveries.

 

The religious orientation of European culture also placed greater emphasis on doctrinal and spiritual considerations of the world. Consequently, science and rationality did not carry the same weight, and were not as significant a factor in forming knowledge. As knowledge was obscured partially by preconceived notions founded on traditional religious beliefs and practices, knowledge during Columbus’s time did not have the same validity as it does in the modern context.

 

Our system of knowledge today depends on standardized methods designed to fulfill a scientific approach to human understanding. Assertions are analyzed, tested, and reformulated according to a uniform system of gathering empirical evidence. A claim must be proven, often with statistical data demonstrating the credibility and accuracy of the claim. Although Columbus may have believed that he knew much about the world, his knowledge was nothing more than doctrine-based, preconceived notions that he sought to affirm. 

The seaweed is always greener in somebody else's lake...

Is our way of knowing better than Columbus’? Clearly. But is it the best? That’s questionable. Humans are constantly improving our knowledge as civilization advances, but by no means have we reached the eighth dynamic. :)
Comparing our two ways of “knowing” is apples and oranges. The way our society and world views “fact” now is completely different than the way they saw it in the 16th century. Ben beat me to it in class, but as the world population becomes denser and denser, it is important for humanity to have some sort of uniform way of perceiving reality, truth and knowledge so that we can operate more smoothly as a global community. We can’t have half of us believing in divine predetermination and the sirens of Odysseus and the other half in atoms and evolution. It’s a sort of globalization of knowledge, we learn more and record more and share it with more people.
Reason, what we currently gauge knowledge with, is better than faith. The whole point of science is to be skeptical. Like Catherine mentions, “physicists mostly come up with theories, which can be proved wrong.” If someone published a revolutionary new theory tomorrow, the first thing a scientist would do is try to prove it wrong. Only if that can’t be done might it begin to be considered further and perhaps gain credibility.
Our knowledge may not be absolute or correct, but if it is better than Columbus’s- that is, more thoroughly studied and held to a higher standard based on reason and logic, more acceptable in explaining the current state of the world, and general an improvement to his, then absolutely- our knowledge is much better.
Speaking of globalization, this is an interesting series in which “BBC News is following a container around the world for a year to tell stories of globalisation and the world economy.”

The Theocracy of Eloby

I’ll start this blog post out with saying that I was thoroughly underwhelmed with the UC common event with Krista Tippet. Though undoubtedly well spoken and well meaning, I got the impression that she did not really answer our questions beyond what was required to somewhat transition back to a different point that she wanted to address. Despite her sort of swinging questions to her liking or convenience, I still felt like she was very repetitive and could have made all her points in the space of twenty minutes instead of the hour and a half allotted. Though in her defense, a decent amount of our questions were rather difficult to answer or had a very contrived and obvious answer that she may not necessarily agree with (“is it arrogant to claim truth or can truth simply be claimed in an arrogant fashion?”).

Friday’s class was an interesting one. Representing an island nation with six million people per square kilometer and a per capita GDP of $16 made me realize the importance of prioritization of resources in a poor country. I think our particular situation was a bit unique, as I wouldn’t imagine that many world leaders adjust spending in hopes of a vast majority of the population disappearing, either through emigration or… other things… We could not really afford to look out for corruption within the government when all of our money needed to be allocated to sanitization and disease control to keep the population from being decimated. Even though we figured that would probably be a good thing, the world community probably would not share our sentiments and would be less likely to help us out financially.

Floods, Diseases, Coke Bottles, etc

As much as I would rather write about the Prop 8 protest, the genius of Dick Cavett, or how beautiful life would be if Amanda’s comic strip came true, I’d like to bring things back to Friday’s exercise. What we set up was designed as an experiment in prioritization. We intended to give each group a limited supply of resources, forcing them to decide which services or areas were more important to uphold. By doing so, they would essentially be placing a comparative value on each of the given areas.

 

Prioritization is not popular, and I suppose it’s also not politically correct. But nevertheless, prioritization is an integral aspect of governmental policy, whether we choose to admit it or not. With the advent of the Obama presidency only two months away, I’m guessing we will be seeing major shifts in our priorities. How this will play out remains to be seen.

 

Back to the exercise. The second component of our exercise involved us assigning some sort of game changer to each group, causing them to re-evaluate their priorities. In some cases it only had a minor effect (we sent a famine to Rwenzururu, which had already prioritized malnutrition as their concern numero uno.

 

In other cases, however, these events (floods, diseases, and yes, coke bottles) disrupted the policy of the group, and they had to re-order their priorities to accommodate the change.

 

Many third world nations reflect this lack of resources. Combined with political or humanitarian crisis, it is no surprise that governments of such nations as Somalia have lost any power to maintain stability.  Being in an already constrained position to deal with existing problems such as corruption, mismanagement, crime, or war, the additional issue of poverty is enough to overwhelm the struggling governments. 

speaking of ir theory...

I found this comic courtesy of stumbleupon, the greatest tool of procrastination ever created. If anyone wants to write a virus for my blog comments...

On another note, this week I was pretty excited because I started researching my college writing essay. You may ask, “Excited for homework? Excited for a 12 page essay in college writing?”

Ok, so maybe excited isn’t exactly the right word. But it did interest me because the research I’m doing apparently ties right in with IR theory. For our final research paper, I decided to write about the effects of globalization on religion and the way that religion can influence globalization. As soon as I googled it, a ton of stuff relating to IR and religion popped up on the screen. It was really neat to me because I could apply things that I learned in our class to my college writing paper, which is an experience I never had in high school.

It also tied right in with our conversation with Krista Tippet, which I thought was a great experience. I grew up with a jewish mother and a christian father, and because of that my own personal faith is still something that I am exploring. However, it is something that can be hard to talk about, even though I don't have a clear stance or strong feelings one way or the other. I love learning about religions, but I'm usually afraid that I will offend someone by asking them about their own beliefs. Thats why I thought that it would be a neat idea to create a forum for discussion within our UC. I'm excited for Alex's pasta and I hope everyone comes!

"How Many Poor People Could $75million of H8 Have Helped?"

From blog warfare to protests to poverty, there’s been a lot of tension in the air lately. I'm going to steal a page from Maggy's book: everybody take a deep breath, read these, and don’t take yourselves too seriously.

The Prop 8 protest was great (Adam gets into the details more in his post). It was really encouraging how many people turned out, but at the same time melancholy and disturbing that this measure literally took rights away from thousands of people.

Krista Tippet was… meh. I don’t know. She seems like a sweet woman who wants to do good and all that, but I didn’t really see a point in much of her talk. She was consistently walking on eggshells. Michele brought up her point on not judging a religion by its negative traits and how that relates to racism. Yes, religion will always be a part of public discourse and we should all be civil and get along as best we can. But is that really anything profound? I appreciate religion and often find it beautiful; I would go so far as to say I would be religious if it wasn’t for the fact that I find 99.9% of its validity highly questionable. Faith is something that I don’t buy, but at the same time religion is so personal, it’s not my place to pester others about reason and facts. That, and I’m really excited for Alex’s spaghetti tomorrow! :)

Liberty Prime

To solely concentrate on either providing basic living necessities or improving basic infrastructure is dangerously narrow-minded. To supply only the basics is to concentrate on the short term, and overlook developmental requirements for the country over time. And to strengthen or develop infrastructure alone would fail to help those who are in immediate need of living necessities. A combination of the two is simply the only realistic approach to alleviating global poverty.

Obviously, the first concern of every person is whether or not they and their family will be able to eat and have water to drink. These basic needs must be fulfilled before people are able to concern themselves about getting a productive job, or worry about their government (i.e. Maslow’s hierarchy). But for those who do not have to worry every day about whether or not they will be able to eat the next, country-wide infrastructures must be established or improved to increase the country’s potential output. An increase in production and a stronger economy will provide jobs and opportunities for those who have been lifted out of extreme poverty. One solution will not succeed without the other, they depend upon each other.

This is not, however, to say that it is the duty of wealthy countries to provide aid to others. A country’s first priority is always its citizens, and they must be provided for first. If there is a surplus or ability and a willingness to do humanitarian work, then a country should do what it is able to. But it is not by any means an imperative.

infrastructure vs. basic needs

The solution to poverty is not an obvious one. Church groups, community service organizations, and NGO’s have been working relentlessly in an attempt to end poverty, but it is not enough. Ultimately, the government of a country is the only entity that has the power to end poverty in that nation permanently. Aid can help a family survive for a day; infrastructural changes such as availability of higher education that allows people to get jobs will help a family survive for life. However, it is the situation of the chicken and the egg. Without wealth, a government cannot organize infrastructure to help its citizens, and without an effective social and economic structure the government cannot gain the wealth necessary to make these changes. I think that in situations such as these, it is the responsibility of the international community to act. The international community can offer monetary or infrastructural support to nations that are struggling to grow, especially in nations that have stable governments and only need a push in the right direction.

However, the reason for poverty in many countries is not usually due to a lack of resources or the need of resources such as the technology for genetic engineered crops. In many cases, the reason for poverty is the unstable infrastructure of the government. When there is no clear leader or the structure of the government is so unstable, it can be difficult to direct the aid in the direction that it is needed. Obviously resilient crops or good schools cannot be utilized in places where people are forced out of their homes and into refugee camps due to internal strife. On the same note, it would be a waste of resources to feed the children of a village every day when there are steps that can be taken to make them self-sufficient.

The conclusion that I have come to is that the method of attacking poverty has to be tailored to each separate nation. Different nations have different needs and thus we must approach them differently. In some cases it may make more sense to temporarily abandon humanitarian aid in order to make a lasting change, but in other cases day-to-day aid is the only effective means to combat poverty.

To end with a quote from jusxtapose, “Trees treed rule!!!1!”

Giving the mouse a cookie-maker

A wise Chinese proverb states: “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.” In presenting the poorest members of society with the product, their need for the necessity is fulfilled. In presenting the poorest members of society with the means to achieving that product, those individuals will have a way to bring themselves out of poverty and into a better existence as a contributing member of society.

 

Non-profit NGOs such as Bread For the City are both useful and necessary, but they alone will not lift those less fortunate out of poverty. What is needed, then, is a system in which the opportunities presented to the youth of the wealthy are the same as the opportunities presented to the youth of the impoverished. It is not enough to simply donate basic necessities; we must focus on improving our economic system so that those from the lowest levels of society are given a means of escaping their environment.

 

It is much more important for the federal government to focus on both structural and political aspects of this matter. Aside from the fact that the government is the only institution with the capacity to induce a reformatting of the bureaucracy, the government already has the means of greatly reducing poverty on a global level. Catherine mentioned Professor Jeffrey D. Sachs in class yesterday. Sachs, in addition to founding the Earth Institute at Columbia University, is the director of the UN Millennium Project, which has publicized its goal to decrease global poverty by 50% by 2015.

 

I remember Adam had an excellent point in class. His assertion that infrastructure is essential to wealth production is a point that Sachs makes in dealing with poverty. Sachs wrote about boosting agriculture, and improving basic health, but he also championed investment in education and the provision of electricity, clean water, and sanitation to severely impoverished areas.

 

Such initiatives must be compelled by shifts in US foreign and domestic policy. By relying on non-profit NGOs during the transition phase, new policies can be instituted to make poverty reduction initiatives more accessible. From there, non-profits will see the number of clients drop, as there will be federally sponsored programs that will enable individuals to find the means of success. By addressing the broader structural issues, the emphasis on eliminating poverty on a micro level would be transferred to the federal government. As stated the Treasurer of Bread For the City: “I would love to work myself out of a job.”

If you teach a man to fish...yada yada yada

Basic needs and structural issues are like the chicken and the egg debate when it comes to assisting third world and developing nations. Without structural elements a fledgling nation can’t feed and shelter their population, but without food and water, people won’t be able to put those structural elements into place.
I agree with Perry that stability is an important factor for a rising nation. If political, economic and social systems are extremely volatile, it is nearly impossible to make any progress in development. Simply providing food aid is not going to help anyone in the long run. No third world country has been pulled into the modern sphere through foreign aid. It always happens through business and investment, which would not happen without a stable environment in which they can thrive.
Dealing with poverty is a hard task- as was brought up by Andrew, you can’t expect Western European countries to go in and build up a poor nation without having them exercising power over the nation in question. It’s important for nations to pass through certain stages of development on their own, because not only are they creating a concrete foundation for their nation, the people are passing through important social steps towards increased liberty and human rights. You can’t go from an isolated agricultural community to a technologically advanced nation overnight or you stray closer to a Great Leap Forward.
On a somewhat related note, for my Macro class we read an article called “The Future for Trade,” discussing the “unsuitability of free-trade economics at the early stage of economic development.” Though I'm not sure I fully agree, it's a clear, interesting read that deals with some of what we are discussing about poverty and rising nations.

p.s. Paul Gottfried is a ridiculous man and in no way do I or anyone I know associate ourselves with his not-so-vaguely fascist views.

Election Night

Election night here was incredible, and represented the reason that tipped the scales concerning my decision over coming here. I could have gone to the University of Denver, it has a renowned International Relations program. I could have been a stone’s throw from home, in a city I am more or less familiar with, in a state where I have spent nearly all of my life. It still would have been a nice change from my suburban upbringing, to get into the city. But here, the city is alive. It is an entity entirely of itself, living and breathing with political fervor. As the electoral results came in, I watched in anticipation, probably as I would have in Denver. But when it was announced on CNN around 11 that Barack Obama had won the presidency, the whole campus erupted. Going down to the White House and seeing our beautiful city lit up like Christmas and celebrating in the streets was possibly the most awesome thing I have seen since coming here (despite randomly getting punched in the face). It is, really, the reason why I’m here.

Though I have been occasionally disappointed with my country, I have always been proud to live in the greatest country in the world. The past four years I’ve been rather disheartened with the image our current president and his policies has cast for us abroad, but I have never denied that he is, in fact, my president. More than half of the country agreed with the case he made for his election, just as more than half of the country recently decided to elect Barack Obama into the White House. Now if only I had a blue Lambo…


On a completely unrelated note, I still need some content for our website, www.BetaRhoOmicron.com. So if you all have any ideas or suggestions, don’t hesitate to let me know.

Philanthropy and Bureaucracy

Our class trip to Bread For the City was a very worthwhile endeavor. What most impressed me was the professionalism of the staff. Although a non profit program such as BFC is not the most glamorous choice of occupation, I got the impression that these people were there because they wanted to be. It is certainly refreshing to see such a successful program in operation with such a direct effect. 

Programs like BFC are ones that the government should be funding more heavily. Although this program alone cannot end poverty, it nevertheless is a step in the right direction. It is through the idealism of hardworking activists and the compassion of volunteers that impoverished members of society may find the chance for a better life. 

The governmental procedure of requesting grants, as stated by one of the staff members, is overly bureaucratic. Our challenge, therefore, is to find a way to make this process more efficient. By doing so, such organizations will be able to secure funds faster, enabling them to more fully attend to the needs of their clients. Until greater emphasis is placed on assisting these philanthropic entities, inefficiencies within the federal system will continue to delay appropriations to fund these organizations. 

povery, education, and equal opportunity

Our visit to Bread for the City was one of my favorite labs so far. Poverty is something that I see very little of in my day-to-day life, so when I encounter it first hand it impacts me more than it probably affects a person who encounters it every day. To me it is incomprehensible that we, in one of the richest countries in the world, could allow our own citizens to live without adequate food or shelter. The worst part of it is that many or our homeless are veterans, people who have served our country and who our country has let down. To quote tupac, “You know it's funny when it rains it pours/They got money for wars, but can't feed the poor/Say there ain't no hope for the youth and the truth is/it ain't no hope for the future”

Which leads me into what I actually wanted to talk about: education. During our visit to the Anacostia Museum we had the opportunity to hear about the inequalities of the education system from a first person source. There is no argument that poor education contributes to poverty, so why aren’t we doing more to improve the education system in poorer communities like Anacostia? I know that there are a variety of programs dedicated to improving education in poorer communities, but it shouldn’t be the responsibility of non-profits and volunteers. Mayor Fenty took direct control over the public school system in an attempt to improve D.C.’s public schools, but I am not sure to what extent the changes being made will even the playing field. America is supposed to be a place where everyone has the opportunity to rise above circumstances and make a life for him or herself. However, our government, which should ensure that everyone has an opportunity, actually hinders opportunity by creating a system that is impossible to beat.

I've been thinking about this, and I would specifically like to ask Jasmine for her input because she talks a lot about personal freedoms and the effect large government can have on these freedoms. Can’t the expansion of government, when done correctly, allow for more freedoms? I guess what it boils down to is that there is more than one type of freedom. Is it more important for an individual to be able to decide how to spend his or her money, or should the government decide for us in order to give people more freedom within society?

Follow the yellow brick road...

I would have liked to say that I took part in the historic election of our first black president, but I simply disagree with him. I’m not sure I agree with PTJ’s statement a few classes ago that Obama is a moderate Democrat either. Economically he is incredibly liberal. Not that Bush/McCain were/are much better, so lose-lose situation. But our nation is resilient. I just worry about the continual expansion of government power, under both parties.

Gold standard: I’ll keep it real, and brief. A GS would mean our currency is guaranteed not to depreciate. The ability to arbitrarily print more money (an easier way for the government to get money than taxing) causes rampant inflation. The strength of the US dollar has declined 90-some percent since we went off the GS in 1933. People say that government control of money allows them to regulate and prevent inflation and recessions, but we’ve seen how well that worked out. The GS would make money its own free entity, not what the government says it is. Any government that controls the monetary system thus controls the economy as a whole, who gets how much money and when, etc. With a GS, you can’t create new money. Altering monetary policy like this would help stabilize interest rates, promote increased savings, economic growth and provide a check on national debt via government spending.
The most common misunderstanding of the GS is the idea that there’s not enough gold in the world. Naturally, the exchange rate of gold and paper money will change. Whether we have a billion pounds or one pound of gold, it is still a marker.
How do we go about returning to the GS? Hell if I know. It would involve deflating the dollar to match the gold stock, the elimination of the Fed (p.s. End the Fed day is Nov 22 haha), and other major measures. If it were easy we’d be at it by now. Before I brace myself for the onslaught of tisk-tisking, I’ll piss everyone (Andrew) off by quoting a founding father and automatically win any further discussion. Ha.

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” – Thomas Jefferson

This page is quite informative (he advocates a 100% gold dollar, not the pre-1933 gold standard), and I also recommend Ron Paul's book The Case For Gold, which I am in the middle of reading.

Wealth of Nations

Full employment does not necessarily make a state wealthy. Though a low unemployment rate certainly indicates a strong economy, it does not cause, or point to wealth. As was made quite obvious today during our Bread for Food tour, a job does not guarantee wealth, even on a personal level. Many people work as much as they can, and are still barely able to support themselves and their family. Some aren’t able to even do that, and require assistance. I realize that I’m rambling a bit, but I suppose this is as good a place as any to throw in my definition of wealth, especially considering pretty much the entirety of my post is about that. I would define personal wealth as happiness and contentment, and the monetary means to continued happiness and contentment. Those who have to worry about where they can get the money to feed their family cannot afford to be too concerned with happiness.
On a national scale, full employment does not necessarily breed wealth. Creating jobs simply for the sake of creating jobs would be harmful. There are certain industries which are simply more efficient with more mechanization and fewer people. Someone I was talking to earlier (forgot who, sorry) brought up the example of Soviet Russia employing a hundred people with shovels instead of utilizing a bulldozer. Inefficient industry and a larger workforce will not create additional wealth, just useless and redundant jobs. On the way back from stat class, Andrew said something about high employment leading to inflation. Having no background in economics whatsoever, I really did not understand a whole lot of what he said, but I would highly recommend checking his blog, as I think he will definitely be mentioning this.

I want to live like common people...

Just as I began to write this post my Zune (iPods are yesterday's news, Phil knows what's up) put on a fantastic song by the fantastic band Pulp, called Common People. It is coincidentally about poverty, and has a fun little video too. Anyway, full employment. A crucial part of a nation’s wealth, but I wouldn’t say it’s an absolute way of measuring it. It’s the law of diminishing marginal returns (thank you, macroecon): as employees increase, eventually additional employees will produce less than previous ones. Too many workers will mean less productivity and profit. Adam mentioned something like this in his post, “Why employ thousands of people with shovels to build a road when a few people with modern machinery can do the same job?”
Catherine beat me to the Maslow’s Hierarchy case, but I think we might reference it in different ways. Yes, a job can provide for physiological needs, but not every job can help one achieve the levels of esteem and self-actualization. A job in the service industry isn’t going to be an outlet for man’s reason and creative skills, which all add up to certain definitions of wealth (emotionally, as well as materially, content).
Thus, on a national scale full employment does not equal wealth, and on an individual scale having a job does not equal wealth either. But it doesn't hurt. Most of the time.

Wealth, as defined by Amanda

I disagree with the Ruggie’s definition of wealth being full employment. Wealth of the individual and wealth of a nation can both partially depend on employment, but there are so many other aspects of wealth that can potentially be more important than full employment that the definition of wealth cannot be restricted to this one factor.

Employment is crucial to an individual becoming wealthy, however employment does not automatically translate into wealth. An individual must be well educated, willing to do a ‘dirty job’, or possess a valued skill in order to be successful in the work force. As we learned at Bread for the City, people can be employed, even in multiple jobs, but due to other factors such as the cost of living, unavoidable debts, multiple dependents, etc they are still not wealthy. On the other hand, someone with a well-paying job or a wealth family could be able to live on wages made from relatively few hours of work per week.

On the nation-wide level circumstances are much the same. A high employment rate may not translate into the wealth on the global scale due to factors such as the lack of natural resources or an inferior workforce. This point can be exemplified by the Soviet Union. As a communist state, the Soviet Union had very high employment rates but was not wealthy compared to other first world countries (Perry tells me that the proper term is a second world). This was due both to a lack of resources and to improper use of what resources were available. The Soviet Union used its resources for weaponry and defense purposes rather than devoting them to projects that would increase the standard of living within the country.

So, while employment is important to both individual and national wealth, there are many other factors, both controllable and circumstantial, that affect wealth and the ability to accumulate wealth.

Liberal women, Barack Obama, and Starbucks Coffee (Adventures in CANVASSING)

My first day of canvassing was spent in Lorton, Virginia. Lorton is a small, isolated suburb in the northwest part of the state, and liberal-minded voters were quite common. I canvassed with Planned Parenthood, a non-profit organization dedicated towards electing a pro-choice president. Consequently I found myself in the company of politically involved liberal women, all in their early to mid twenties. Had I a glass of cranberry juice with a lime, I could not have been happier.

 

Our assignment was not intended towards converting independents or conservatives. Rather, our job was to focus on the democratic base, presenting them with the means of voting on the following day. We knocked on doors, distributed campaign literature, and informed the residents on the location of their polling place. We also checked to see if any residents needed transportation to their polling locations.

 

By the middle of the day I had it down to a rhythm: Excuse me, do you know the hours when we can vote? Residents of Lorton can vote between 6 am to 7 pm, one hour before the polls close in DC. Where is my polling place? South County Secondary School, at 8501 Silverbrook Road. How do I get there? Well, coming from the south you head north on 5^th Pl. 5^th Pl turns into Windsmere Hill Drive. From there, you turn right and head east on Lorton Road until you get to Silverbrook Road. Turn left on Silverbrook, and you will come to it after about a mile.

 

It seemed to me that people were either completely clueless or prepared when we visited them. One couple was mistaken on the location of their polls. Another was planning on voting after dinner, well after the polls would close. But others had already coordinated elaborate plans to rendezvous with relatives and reach their location by 5 am, an hour before the polls were even open.  

 

Most of the people we visited were polite and receptive. I was even invited into a woman’s apartment, leaving only after she showed off her Obama T-shirt and her husband’s Obama hat. Throughout the course of the day, few people were less than polite; none were hostile. The only minor incident that I experienced was an error in the information given to me by Planned Parenthood: one of the houses I visited belonged to supporters of McCain.

 

After four hours of canvassing we returned to the home base, a home of one of the Planned Parenthood organizers. Hungry and exhausted, my main concern was what we would do for dinner. We ended up going out, courtesy of Planned Parenthood. Then it was time for the rally.

 

Senator Obama was scheduled for a final rally at the Prince William Fairgrounds in Manassas. The doors opened at 5, but the rally was not scheduled to start until 9. As a show of gratitude, Planned Parenthood had hooked us up with VIP status, giving us access to the press box. Unfortunately, due to an error at the will call check in, we were unable to access the box. We did, however, circumvent the wait in line, which would have taken a substantial amount of time.

 

Inside the rally grounds we continued to distribute our literature. We were not the only campaign: groups representing environmental conservation interests and GOTV were also there. I was given a clipboard and told to get as many people to sign on with Planned Parenthood’s campaign as possible. I ended with 21 people signing on, eight less than my seasoned counterpart, Travis.

 

When Senator Obama walked onstage, everyone went insane. Initially expecting forty thousand people, the Obama campaign was surprised by seeing the number of attendees rise to double their initial projection. C-Span later stated that there were one hundred thousand people in attendance that night. The majority of those people waited over five hours to hear Obama speak.

 

This was the first time in my life that I have seen a prominent political figure in person. On TV, Obama is a composed, confident, and professional individual. In person, he is all of those, but also charismatic. His tone yesterday was commanding, powerful, inspiring. Seeing him in person reminded me of why America needs a president of his caliber. Obama spoke of his campaign, of what he had seen along the ride, and how his experience has humbled him.

 

Jordan, one of the organizers, volunteered to take Travis and me back to AU. We got to her car at 11:40 pm. I was very tired at that point, so I took a one hour nap. When I woke up we had not moved. The parking lot was gridlocked, as there were only two exits to the main roads to accommodate 100,000 people. It would be another forty minutes before we finally reached the exit. Prince William Fairgrounds, though capable of supporting a large capacity, was severely limited in accessibility, having only two roads leading out.

 

I arrived back on campus at 2:12 am. Travis intended to volunteer at the polls on Election Day, and I had already told him that I wanted to go back out. Before I went back into Leonard, he jokingly said that he wanted to get an early start to volunteering.

 

Four hours later, I realized that he hadn’t been joking. After receiving a text at 6 am, I performed an ultra fast mobilization that would have shamed one of Washington’s minutemen. We headed out to Ballston on the orange line. Right off the metro we were greeted by enthusiastic Obama supporters. They pointed us in the direction of the campaign office, only two blocks away. The office directed us to a home base a mile away, where we were to obtain literature and addresses for distribution.

 

On our arrival, Travis and I received another teammate named Pat. Pat was a local boy, so he was an expert in finding our locations. It was my second time canvassing in less than twenty-four hours, but it was already much easier. The only problem that I encountered occurred when my location was in an apartment. The desk receptionist was not permitted to allow me to enter unless one of the residents was expecting us. I gave him the literature, just in case. Before I left he told me: “Don’t worry, we’re all Obama supporters.”

 

The day continued to rock. Travis, Pat, and I wandered into a Starbucks for the free coffee, but then discovered that none of us particularly liked coffee. Thankfully, with some cinnamon, milk, and an outrageously high quantity of sugar it was bearable.

 

In the early afternoon I left my cohorts and returned to campus. Reflecting on the last twenty-four hours, my only regret was that I had not acted sooner. 

Halloween and Vigilante Justice

I’ll start off this week’s reflection by saying that Halloween was a definite success. Getting candy and the like from countries that are generally considered “not walking distance” from the United States would be a highlight of any weekend. And in attempting to explain how I was in Colombia and then five minutes later in India, I thoroughly confused some friends back home. Though Dustin dressed as Kim Jong Il walking into the South Korean embassy and Tori invading the territorial sovereignty of Guatemala were decidedly awesome, the best embassy had to be the Bulgarian. The guy outside leaning on the railing smoking a cigarette and looking especially eastern European (no matching track suit, unfortunately) sold it. The fact that he was just hanging there and talking smack about everyone’s costumes was just icing on the cake.

That night we had a bit of a case study of security and the necessity of really big guns. After putting up with a fluctuation of furniture moving in and out of our lounge, a few of us decided it was time to take things into our own hands. It was time to look at things from a realistic perspective, and crush any insurgence before it occurred. So a few people who will remain unnamed, possibly including myself, gathered up all our ridiculously huge nerf guns and headed down to the fifth floor for some vigilante justice. This whole escapade solidified our position as the post-World War Two United States of Leonard Hall. The seventh floor had obscene amounts of ammunition and the Vulcan, but no shots were fired. Nerf guns have become a diplomatic negotiating tool. As long as the fifth floor does nothing to destabilize this delicate balance, peace shall reign. If not, we take another couch.

Real vs. Perceived Security

There were many interesting points raised during our session last Friday, but what was most interesting to me was our examination of airport security and the broader ramifications of such a mentality.

 

Does it matter more how effective airport security is, or is our concern more with feeling secure than actually being secure? I personally believe that the current airport security process is an effective means of ensuring the safety of all passengers; however, part of that feeling is due to air marshals aboard all flights. If it were not for the screening process, I would likely feel less safe, but I doubt that the lack of this process would prevent me from traveling. If anything, it would make things much easier by reducing the anxiety of missing a flight or having to repack items from a carry on to a checked suitcase.

 

It seems that perceived security matters more than actually security. The axiom: “Ignorance is bliss” is very appropriate, as many Americans would be distressed if they knew how ineffective our security is. The U.S./Canada border, our shipping ports, and potentially dangerous information posted on the internet are all valid security threats that cannot be effectively managed. Fortunately for many US citizens, this fact is not often brought up, and anxiety over terrorist attacks has conveniently been channeled into the War in Iraq.

 

My personal belief agrees with Mueller’s article. The reality of a terrorist attack is grossly exaggerated. The reality is that a terrorist attack on the US would be easier than the unsuspecting American would naturally assume, and, additionally, that terrorists are less likely to attack the US than is generally thought. This may not be reassuring, but the tendency of the American media to exaggerate a threat is less due to its seriousness and more due to the media’s need to generate interest and profit.

 

 

 

Real vs. Percieved Security

Is there a difference between being secure and feeling secure? Yes, I think there is a huge difference. Actual security does not ever have to correlate with the public’s perception of security. Most people felt secure before September 11, but obviously the United States was more vulnerable towards terrorism than the general public realized. After September 11 many people began to fear terrorism while our leaders made claims that the United States is actually safer due to the war on terror. Assuming that what our leaders say is true, the public perception of security was misguided in both cases.

Whether or not it is effective, our governments security programs’ goals are to maintain and increase our security, not just to appease the public. Yes, maybe people should worry more about heart disease. It is one of the biggest killers in America and there are concrete steps that can be taken to prevent it. But just like heart disease, people should worry about terrorism. It has the potential to change the way our country is run and the way we live our lives, and there are concrete steps that can be taken to prevent terrorism. If the general public stopped hearing about heart disease and the things that help prevent it, the lack of education would most likely lead to an increase in heart disease. Likewise, if the government stopped trying to prevent terrorism, the lack of preventative measures would almost definitely lead to a sharp increase in terrorism. That being said, I do think that public perception is an important subset of actual security. It is something that makes the United States an enjoyable place to live and is a key part of our society. I think that the focus on terrorism still cannot make us 100% secure and our government’s efforts are often misguided, but to write security off as a perception rather than a goal to be achieved is a much more serious mistake.

tricking, treating and terrorism

Yay for Halloween! Trick or treating at the embassies was a fun one-time kinda thing. South Korea was definitely the most spirited one. And our UC had the best costumes: Flavor Flav and the Red Line?! Come on!

I hope everyone enjoyed our group’s presentation on Insecurity. Actual threats are oftentimes so common that we become desensitized to their danger (heart disease, for example) and prefer to focus on glamorous threats, like nuclear attacks. At the end of the day, it’s the public’s perception of insecurity that is important. Though I’m adamantly opposed to any regulation of the media (as ridiculous as it gets), I think we can all agree that education is a powerful tool in putting minds at ease and preparing the public in the event of a serious altercation.
The government’s fluctuating threat-o-meter of primary colors certainly doesn’t help. I found this lovely website that lets you put a terror alert on your page, or receive e-mails or texts when the threat level changes. Kinda like those RAVE updates, right? :) Unfortunately sites such as these only feed on and encourage public fears and misconceptions.
Our current threat level is: Be afraid!