Sovereignty

In our last discussion, the issue of sovereignty that was brought up by Venezuela was certainly one of the most interesting points. It had struck me as a bit odd that McDonalds had been invited to a development conference, but I figured it makes sense, because we have SO MUCH MONEY. Even without sovereignty, we [I am from now on referring to McDonalds as “we”] have the means and global reach (money, 31,000 franchises, and 390,000 employees worldwide) to affect real change and make a difference in the economic development of countries. Without any sort of recognized or official sovereignty, the corporation is still able to conduct things to its liking all over the world. This made me realize that the world of “Snow Crash” might not be as unlikely as I had previously posited in my blog.

Though I stand by what I said earlier that the government will not quickly or willingly be demoted to the dead-end FedLand, the franchising of everything really isn’t that hard to imagine. Corporations are already granted a pseudo –sovereignty, sitting at the table of conferences with the World Bank, EU, India, Venezuela, and Japan. Governments turn to private defense contractors and mercenaries. It is easy to foresee a world in which corporations establish a type of sovereignty with nations and gain more and more power. After all, money makes the world go round, and we at McDonalds sure have a lot of it.


This is probably a good place to mention what an excellent class and semester it has been. In the lens of world politics, either a lot has been going on lately, or I've just been largely unaware of things since coming here. I suspect it's a fair bit of both. Here's hoping that our impassioned hallway/bathroom debates continue, and that the next semester turns out just as well.

Snow Crash

I would say that Stephenson’s vision of the future, although decidedly far-fetched, is not impossible. Since the book was written in 1992, it is of course not entirely accurate with the depiction of the internet or metaverse and other technologies, it is amazing that he was able to predict technologic developments so accurately. Even the world that Hiro Protagonist lives in is not really too far away to imagine (perhaps with the exception of Y. T.’s rather eccentric personality and actions). The extreme capitalism exhibited in Snow Crash seems to be a logical extension of the growth of the system. Everything being looked out for by the interest of private corporations is really the ultimate goal of capitalism.

That being said, I do not see the United States ever undergoing such an extreme transition, at least not in the immediate future shown in Snow Crash. Such a drastic switch to extreme capitalism and the dissolution of the nation’s government would take decades, it it were ever going to happen. I cannot see the United States, even in the midst of an economic recession, ever willingly dissolving and dividing up its power among franchiselets.

The best franchiselet, I think, would have to be Mr. Lee’s Greater Hong Kong. Not only do you get ridiculous Rat Things protecting you all the time, but you have unbridled technological development and opportunities not available in other nation-states. Also, the not racist part is fairly appealing.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

Eric Idle Knows What's Up

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

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


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

Mars Attacks!

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

FRIDAY NIGHT REFLECTION MADNESS

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

Friday Morning Group Hug

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