Just a bunch of farmer talk*...

If one perspective is accurate, it does not necessarily mean that others are wrong. When analyzing Bretton Woods institutions from the perspectives of a realist, constructivist and liberal, almost all the points from all the perspectives were accurate, it was just another way of interpreting a situation.

Let me phrase it this way:

Why would teachers make us write papers analyzing books or defending or refuting a statement? If only one perspective is accurate, then the ENTIRE class would have to modify their thoughts and opinions to reflect the "correct perspective" instead of analyzing the material and displaying their analytical ability.

Why read other people's blogs? If there is only one right point of view, find it and stick to it. Live in a freakin' bubble, accepting that there is only one way to look and the world and life. If only one perspective was correct, then why does everyone in this class have to blog and publicize our opinions on the internet for our classmates and the rest of the world to read? What would be the point?

There is a reason why people's perspectives are valued. It opens our minds to unexplored thoughts and ideas. Things we hadn't even considered become evident by listening to other people's experiments. Putting these different perspectives in boxes labeled "realism," "constructivism," and "liberalism" is only beneficial when trying to explain the world to budding scholars.

The fact of the matter is that the egg came before the chicken and the theory of evolution explains why the egg came first. Similarly, the world's political climate and history came first, the IR theories are just a way for scholars to discuss and explain events that have already happened.

*I am not a farmer...I just like to garden :)

Theories as a means to an end

Because there is always bound to be an incompatibility between perspectives, it might be best to analyze the situation and decide what perspective best applies to what that goal is. All of the perspectives can be pulled from if you take a "best of both worlds" kind of approach. Take different aspects that may work depending on the situation or combine approaches to form the best solution. There's never going to be a magic answer for a theory that works perfectly in every situation all of the time. Different situations will merit a variety of responses.

However, this does not mean that if one theory is perceived to be right for the situation, the others are inherently wrong for that same situation. It really depends on the result that you want out of it that determines what theory you should apply. The others aren't wrong in themselves; they might just not be useful for getting what you want out of the situation. If you think that building up the power of your state would be most beneficial means to your end, utilize a realistic perspective. Same goes for a social argument or individual focus. Just as there are different ways to analyze a situation, there are many ways to apply the theories. You just need to pick the best means to your end, however that might be.

You Say TomATOES and I Say TomaTOES

In class Friday, we began to discuss the concept of "la langue francaise" or a universal language. Is there a language that is spoken universally? Students studying business are highly recommended to learn Mandarin Chinese and/or Arabic because those are the up-and-coming languages in the business world. It used to be the people have to know English to be a successful in international affairs, but now I’m hearing more and more about culture emersion and how businessmen are adapting other cultures’ customs in order to show open-mindedness and their sincere desire to work together. I feel like there is no official “universal language” because people are trying to be more culturally flexible. For instance, I grew up in Texas saying “tomaTOES” while my peers were saying “tomAtoes” because my parents who speak British English taught me that the word is pronounced with a soft “a” instead of a hard “a.” It’s a difference in dialects, but when I go to Subway in the Eagles’ Nest and order tomatoes, literally everyone in the store stops what they are doing to say, “Did someone say tomatoes?”

Even a slight dialectical difference seems like a different language. We tend to specify British English and American English because there are so many dialectical variations that it is far simpler to split “English” into two separate languages. However, then must people wanting to do international business learn British English or American English? It is a matter of saying loo or bathroom, willies or rain boots, football or soccer. To make matters more confusing, Americans are using the British terms and [some of] the Brits, though not many Brits from what I gather, are using American terms. So even though the two “languages” are separate, we are using terms interchangeably.

I think that the era of a universal language has ended and the era of cultural expansion has arrived. People are becoming more focused on acceptance of other cultures and integrating other cultures with our own.

Reflective Post: Week 5

I don't want to write a reflective blog post. In fact I don't want to write anything at all. I want to sleep. But desire is irrelevant in the face academic betterment which is in turn made irrelevant because academic betterment is what I desire so this entire statement is in turn made irrelevant.

My brian right now

This week started interestingly with a simulation to illustrate power. Specifically how PTJ has all the power and we have none, like the Russian peasants under the Tsarist reign of terror (sorry about that reference, I just finished writing a paper on the Russian Revolution). The esteemed professor started off class sitting in the back of the room, dressed uncharacteristically in a T-shirt, jeans and a baseball hat with Erin teaching the class. But in a pivotal moment, he cleared his throat and the room went silent as we remembered who had the real power and it had nothing to do with who is wearing the suit and holding a lightsaber.

You're not fooling anyone in those khaki's and Oxford, Star Wars kid

Later that same class (or maybe it was the next class, my mind is to overloaded with knowledge and snark to save any room for a linear sense of time), we did another experiment in power when we scrapped the good old foam baseball and hand raising in favor of anarchical discussion form. In my opinion, this worked better, nothing against the baseball, but it forced people to speak up and make themselves heard when they had something to say. Of course this is coming from me who has never had a problem opening my big mouth (I may even have the opposite problem).

We also went to the French Embassy and for that I will include a French military joke for your reading pleasure:

Q: How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?

A: We don't know, they never tried

Reflection Week I Don't Even Know Anymore

With much of our focus this week on identity (actually a key word for September 21), I found the trip to the French Embassy in contrast with our identity to be fascinating. When the French diplomat came and spoke to us, what I find most interesting was the idea that European identity is "catching up quickly" with French identity, although he doesn't believe the latter will be surpassed. It almost made me think of how here, we have the people identify themselves as members of a state and also an American. Although he said European identities are a compliment to the country’s identity, the fact that people in Europe are beginning to see themselves as part of the whole continent as oppose to their states shows something about the future. We don’t refer to ourselves as North Americans commonly, although we don’t have a unifying force like the EU in Europe. Still, prior to World War II 60 years ago, people in Europe were fiercely loyal to their countries and wouldn’t have even thought of referring to themselves as European up there with their native country. It’s interesting to think about how much Europe will continue to unify and if there will be more of a melding of culture, which is what gives the countries so much of their separate identities. Although day to day life hasn’t really been affected by this continued unification, how much longer will this last for? Culture is essential to this identity distinction for countries (especially language and art in France) and I think will be what keeps the various European countries holding onto their identities even with the EU, etc.

French Embassy Talk...

In other news, on the note of the French embassy and Sarkozy and generation gaps in the French identity:

Here are the lyrics, roughly, first in French and then English. 

Ma France à moi elle parle fort, elle vit à bout de rêves,

Elle vit en groupe, parle de bled et déteste les règles,

Elle sèche les cours, le plus souvent pour ne rien foutre,

Elle joue au foot sous le soleil souvent du Coca dans la gourde,

C'est le hip-hop qui la fait danser sur les pistes,

Parfois elle kiffe un peu d'rock, ouais, si la mélodie est triste,

Elle fume des clopes et un peu d'shit, mais jamais de drogues dures,

Héroïne, cocaïne et crack égal ordures,

Souvent en guerre contre les administrations,

Leur BEP mécanique ne permettront pas d'être patron,

Alors elle se démène et vend de la merde à des bourges,

Mais la merde sa ramène à la mère un peu de bouffe, ouais.

Parce que la famille c'est l'amour et que l'amour se fait rare

Elle se bat tant bien que mal pour les mettre à l'écart,

Elle a des valeurs, des principes et des codes,

Elle se couche à l'heure du coq, car elle passe toutes ses nuits au phone.

Elle parait faignante mais dans le fond, elle perd pas d' temps,

Certains la craignent car les médias s'acharnent à faire d'elle un cancre,

Et si ma France à moi se valorise c'est bien sûr pour mieux régner,

Elle s'intériorise et s'interdit se saigner. Non...

{Refrain: x2}

C'est pas ma France à moi cette France profonde

Celle qui nous fout la honte et aimerait que l'on plonge

Ma France à moi ne vit pas dans l' mensonge

Avec le coeur et la rage, à la lumière, pas dans l'ombre

Ma France à moi elle parle en SMS, travaille par MSN,

Se réconcilie en mail et se rencontre en MMS,

Elle se déplace en skate, en scoot ou en bolide,

Basile Boli est un mythe et Zinedine son synonyme.

Elle, y faut pas croire qu'on la déteste mais elle nous ment,

Car nos parents travaillent depuis 20 ans pour le même montant,

Elle nous a donné des ailes mais le ciel est V.I.P.,

Peu importe ce qu'ils disent elle sait gérer une entreprise.

Elle vit à l'heure Américaine, KFC, MTV Base

Foot Locker, Mac Do et 50 Cent.

Elle, c'est des p'tits mecs qui jouent au basket à pas d'heure,

Qui rêve d'être Tony Parker sur le parquet des Spurs,

Elle, c'est des p'tites femmes qui se débrouillent entre l'amour,

les cours et les embrouilles,

Qui écoutent du Raï, Rnb et du Zouk.

Ma France à moi se mélange, ouais, c'est un arc en ciel,

Elle te dérange, je le sais, car elle ne te veut pas pour modèle.

{au Refrain, x2}

Ma France à moi elle a des halls et des chambres où elle s'enferme,

Elle est drôle et Jamel Debbouze pourrait être son frère,

Elle repeint les mures et les trains parce qu'ils sont ternes

Elle se plait à foutre la merde car on la pousse à ne rien faire.

Elle a besoin de sport et de danse pour évacuer,

Elle va au bout de ses folies au risque de se tuer,

Mais ma France à moi elle vit, au moins elle l'ouvre, au moins elle rie,

Et refuse de se soumettre à cette France qui voudrait qu'on bouge.

Ma France à moi, c'est pas la leur, celle qui vote extrême,

Celle qui bannit les jeunes, anti-rap sur la FM,

Celle qui s' croit au Texas, celle qui à peur de nos bandes,

Celle qui vénère Sarko, intolérante et gênante.

Celle qui regarde Julie Lescaut et regrette le temps des Choristes,

Qui laisse crever les pauvres, et met ses propres parents à l'hospice,

Non, ma France à moi c'est pas la leur qui fête le Beaujolais,

Et qui prétend s'être fait baiser par l'arrivée des immigrés,

Celle qui pue le racisme mais qui fait semblant d'être ouverte,

Cette France hypocrite qui est peut être sous ma fenêtre,

Celle qui pense qui pense que la police a toujours bien fait son travail,

Celle qui se gratte les couilles à table en regardant Laurent Gerra,

Non, c'est pas ma France à moi, cette France profonde...

Alors peut être qu'on dérange mais nos valeurs vaincront...

Et si on est des citoyens, alors aux armes la jeunesse,

Ma France à moi leur tiendra tête, jusqu'à ce qu'ils nous respectent.

My France she talks loud, she saw at the end of dreams,
She lives in groups, talking about corn and hates rules,
She skipped classes, usually for nothing, fuck,
She plays soccer in the sun, often Coke in the bottle,
This hip-hop dance on the tracks,
Sometimes she gets a little rock, yeah, if the melody is sad,
She smokes and smokes a little shit, but never hard drugs,
Heroin, cocaine and crack are garbage
Often in war against the government,
Their mechanical BEP will not be boss
While she struggles and sells shit to bournemouth,
But the shit get her mother some food, yeah.
Because the family is love and that love is scarce.
She fought as best they can to put them away,
She has values, principles and codes,
She goes to bed at the cock, because she spends all her nights on the phone.
It seems lazy but in reality, it loses no time
Some fear it because the media are struggling to make her a dunce,
And if My France is taken of her worth and conquered,
It is internalized and agrees to bleed. No ...

(Refrain: x2)
Is not My France, that France profonde
The one we give a damn shame for and that would be plunged
My France does not live in the lie
With heart and rage in the light, not in the shadow

My France she speaks in SMS, works with MSN,
It reconciles mail and occurs in MMS
She traveled by skateboard, or scooter by meteor
Basile Boli is a myth and Zinedine synonym.
She will not believe we should hate her but she lies to us,
Because our parents have worked for 20 years for the same amount,
She gave us wings, but the sky is VIP
No matter what they say she can manage a business.
She lives at American, KFC, MTV Base
Foot Locker, MacDonalds and 50 Cent.
It is baby boys who play basketball in no time,
Who dreams of being Tony Parker on the floor Spurs
It is the women who are not doing tites between love,
courses and muddles,
Who listen to Rai, Rnb and Zouk.
My France is mixed, yeah, it's a rainbow,
It bothers you, I know, because she does not want you to model.

(Au Refrain, x2)

My France has halls and rooms where she retreats,
She is funny and Jamel Debbouze could be her brother,
She repainted the mature and trains because they are dull
She likes to fuck shit because it pushes her to do nothing.
She needs to sport and dance to evacuate,
She goes after her folly to risk killing herself,
My France but she saw at least it opens, at least she laughs,
And refuses to submit to this France who wants us to move.
My France is not their own, one who votes extreme
The one that banishes the young, anti-rap on FM
The one that 's believes Texas, one that is afraid of our bands,
One who worships Sarko, intolerant and annoying.
He who looks Julie Lescaut and regrets the time Choristes
Who let the poor die, and puts his own parents at the hospital,
No, My France is not theirs, which celebrates the Beaujolais
And who claims to have been screwed by the arrival of immigrants,
The racism that stinks but pretends to be open,
This France hypocrite who may be under my window,
He who thinks who thinks that the police have always done a good job,
The one who scratches his balls at the table watching Laurent Gerra
That's not my France to me, the deepest France ...
So maybe we will vanquish our values but disturbing ...
What if we are citizens, while the arms Youth
My France held their head until they respect us.

Interessant, non?




I'm sorry about the highlighting, I can't make it go away. Wah.

wree you arawe taht the hamun mnid can raed lkie tihs as lnog as the frsit and lsat leettrs are the smae?

It's due largely to the way the brain is wired to receive information. It only actually works with words that we recognize as wholes and that we see frequently enough though, imposing limitations on what (for a while) was thought to be a rule of the human mind. For instance:

TEHRE

It says there. Did you get it?

FLOOSIH

foolish, right?

ATCCUUURPNE

Anybody get acupuncture?

A vast majority of people will get the first one,  a solid majority the second, and very few get the third. If you got acupuncture, actually, I'm willing to bet you're either interested in acupuncture, dyslexic, or do those scramble things in the newspaper sometimes. Speaking of those things, if you only got acupuncture by trolling through it like those newspaper words, it doesn't count. You're supposed to just be able to understand it instantly. 

Which is sort of how international politics work. (Finally, right?!) There are things that, even when they look sort of wrong, we read correctly because we're used to adjusting for and to the things around us. Not until they look REALLY wrong do we sort of go, 'hrm, how can i fix this'. There are social norms in the global society; don't kill other people's people, don't kill civilians, try to maintain a presentable image, etc. These expectations are often disappointed, and in those instances we have a tendency to ignore it if we can, to "read it" as if it were normal, and hence they aren't really very well upheld. So while we do have social norms and expectations on the global level, they don't really actually serve to limit nations actions until the word gets too big and we are forced to acknowledge its wrong-ness.

speaking of wrong-ness...

Unfortunately, letting it escalate in this manner leads to situations that are exceedingly difficult to repair. (i.e. the well used examples of Stalin, Lenin, and Walt Disney. Perhaps if someone had called them on their extensive power beforehand, we would have avoided the great purge, the red terror, and the inability to get children's movies songs out of our heads.) It's not that we entirely choose to ignore them for our own self interest. We're just prone to ignoring the little anbroalmtieis (abnormalities, anyone?) and assuming they'll fix themselves. 

That is all, lest I tangent more.

What can the state do?

In class, we discussed what the professor shouldn't do - hitting students, for example. It's not ethical or legal to instill corporal punishments on students. In the same way, we can see what states shouldn't do. States shouldn't kill millions of their own citizens like Mao Tse-tung or Joseph Stalin, among hundreds of other historical leaders, did. Yet they still do. States shouldn't provoke war with countries that aren't affecting them in any way. However, we see states attack others because they want territory or resources another country has, even though the provoker doesn’t need it (like the US during the Spanish-American war). Others go to war because they disagree with another country’s political/religious/etc beliefs (if you read Bob Woodward’s books about the War in Iraq, it focuses a lot on the spreading of democracy aspect of going to war vs. the weapons of mass destruction). It still happens. I guess we can make what to do and what not to do lists all that we want for states, but it’s not going to change anything.

The professor realizes what he shouldn't do and actually follows it (for the most part, although there are examples in the news of some that go a little off the deep end and break the rules) because he fears the punishment - losing his job, going to court, etc. We have international law, treaty organizations, and etc. to try and prevent leaders from doing what is commonly accepted as what "shouldn't" be done. Maybe the reason that leaders continually make poor choices on the international stage is because they don’t fear the punishments that could come or believe that they can deal with the fallout of the decisions they are making, caring more about acquiring power, for example, as oppose to maintaining a good profile for the rest of the world.

These standards are a combination of the two. There are definitely social expectations about attempting to maintain peace and work out differences in a diplomatic, rather than militaristic, way. I think that power and self-interest actually have the opposite effects of setting limits – they are what motivate countries to break what we would consider politically acceptable to seize what they may perceive as some type of advantage.

In class, we discussed what the professor shouldn't do - hitting students, for example. It's not ethical or legal to instill corporal punishments on students. In the same way, we can see what states shouldn't do. States shouldn't kill millions of their own citizens like Mao Tse-tung or Joseph Stalin, among hundreds of other historical leaders, did. Yet they still do. States shouldn't provoke war with countries that aren't affecting them in any way. However, we see states attack others because they want territory or resources another country has, even though the provoker doesn’t need it (like the US during the Spanish-American war). Others go to war because they disagree with another country’s political/religious/etc beliefs (if you read Bob Woodward’s books about the War in Iraq, it focuses a lot on the spreading of democracy aspect of going to war vs. the weapons of mass destruction). It still happens. I guess we can make what to do and what not to do lists all that we want for states, but it’s not going to change anything.

The professor realizes what he shouldn't do and actually follows it (for the most part, although there are examples in the news of some that go a little off the deep end and break the rules) because he fears the punishment - losing his job, going to court, etc. We have international law, treaty organizations, and etc. to try and prevent leaders from doing what is commonly accepted as what "shouldn't" be done. Maybe the reason that leaders continually make poor choices on the international stage is because they don’t fear the punishments that could come or believe that they can deal with the fallout of the decisions they are making, caring more about acquiring power, for example, as oppose to maintaining a good profile for the rest of the world.

These standards are a combination of the two. There are definitely social expectations about attempting to maintain peace and work out differences in a diplomatic, rather than militaristic, way. I think that power and self-interest actually have the opposite effects of setting limits – they are what motivate countries to break what we would consider politically acceptable to seize what they may perceive as some type of advantage.

In the Words of Gabe, I am Literally Hours Away from Being Certifiably Insane

My head hurts. I literally cannot separate my thoughts, which is going to make it very difficult to write this coherently, which I am only doing to procrastinate writing my article, which I will only work on to procrastinate writing what should be a really fun and interesting paper, if only I were sane. My mom would blame this on dyslexia, not insanity, but I would beg to differ because even dyslexics can keep their LIVES straight, if not our B's and D's.

pretty much what my brain looks like right now.

At this point, I would love to explain to you that I'm confused and ultimately becoming insane because of reasons A, B, and C, but that would require systematic analysis the like of which I am not currently capable. Instead, allow me to pull a little stream of consciousness here; French, boyfriends, careers, lack of talent and interest and exorbitant amounts of interest in all the wrong things, and god almighty my back not dancing is giving me minor heart attacks i need something, le pain, stupid people stupid boys stupid me, I repeat my mistakes with disappointing frequency, i can't even type or text, is it possible to get more dyslexic as you get flustered? i'm really getting sort of sick of having soup for brains, gosh i feel sorry for you fools reading this, technology isn't working for me at all right now, i really need a hug, I miss my best friends, I miss drama, I miss dancing, God I miss dancing, sorry you guys swear I wouldn't be like this if I could dance instead, but I guess I'm stuck whining on blogs for the rest of my life, awesome so that's what going insane looks like, thank God for music. 

Alright now that I've sort of gotten some of that out. This week has been almost as much of a mess as the above paragraph (if you can call that a paragraph) but I do seem to recall some particularly interesting world politics related notes. Firstly, I really need to learn a bit of control in that class. As I'm sure you can tell if you didn't know already, I have a tendency to essentially shout everything I think about a topic the moment I'm asked about it and often when I'm not. It's not something I do intentionally, but I realize that it is both not conducive to a group-learning environment and that it's probably quite obnoxious. I will work really hard over the next few weeks to get a handle on exactly how to conduct my opinions in discussions. 

Freud would say the novelty of being listened to was getting to me.

Although this weeks discussions were a little frustrating due to their sort of unsolvable nature, I really enjoyed the ability to contrast all the things we've learned so far in a familiar context. The State Department and French Embassy were both really interesting, (although I'm pretty sure the French embassy being followed by my French class might be why I'm occasionally thinking en francais....) but for very different reasons. The State Department really helped sort of put things in perspective- taking the theories we've been learning in class and hearing them applied to actual occasions in foreign politics. The French Embassy was (besides probably part of the reason I'm dying right now) highly interesting on a cultural and political level. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/08/500-muslim-soldiers-tombs_n_149267.html

because clearly, the French don't believe in racism.

I'm going to go blow my brains out and move onto some other work. 

Steve Jobs, Walt Disney and Limitless Power

I spent the last 10 minutes of my valuable time scouring the internet for an appropriate quote to start this blog post off right but apparently no one of importance has ever said what I'm about to say so I guess I'll have to make my own quote: a state has no limit to how far it can stretch its power so long as it does so with great care and finesse. There it is, a completely original idea. Now I know how it feels to be Steve Jobs.

A rare window into the inner workings of Apple

Unfortunately this blog is not about Steve Jobs and Apple so I must digress. People inherently want to trust those whom they put in power, it makes them feel safe. This something instilled in us as babies when those leaders are our parents. So when the government starts making some subtle changes in law, the people want to believe it's for their best interests, even if it is not. For example, during the period of Vladimir Lenin's rule in Russia know as the "Red Terror" claimed to be protecting the people through their terrorist acts against "enemies of the revolution." In fact governments many established through revolution are prime examples of how leaders can turn from freedom fighting champions of the people to tyrannical oppressor without the people ever realizing it, the most famous and well executed example of this being Mao Zedong.

Also Walt Disney

Like Machiavelli said, if you get all of your "evil acts" out of the way in the beginning of your rule or very subtly, there is no limit to how far you can stretch your power. Not to be "that guy," but one needs to look no further than Nazi Germany to see how a horrific tyrant can commit unspeakable acts and still have the unconditional support of his people through the calculated exploitation of nationalism and cover-up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin

The Result of Blogger's Block

So, I can't think of a good opener for this blog. Perhaps it's blogger's block or perhaps I've been studying Biology and Calculus so much that I've forgotten how to write...So I'm going to be extremely unoriginal and just copy and paste PTJ's blog prompt and work off of that ok? I'm sorry. I'll try to be more original next week. I promise.

Among other things, today we discussed the issue of whether and to what extent the authority of a professor in the classroom is limited. Extending this analysis to the international system: are there things that states should not do? Are there social norms and expectations that set limits on state action, or are all such limits reducible to questions of power and self-interest?

To address the first question, I have NO IDEA what each states' role is. I know that the roles tend to vary depending on how involved the state is in global affairs and the type of government rules the state. I think that there are very few boundaries when it comes to global state dynamics. I think that if the U.S. declared war on the world or attempted to attack another major nation, like England or France, without just cause, that would be out of line. Also if a secular nation state put bans on religious customs without having the citizens vote, that would be out of line. But right now that's the best example I can think of right now...

In regards to social norms and expectation, it depends on the state because each state has difference social norms and expectations. For example, it is the social norm in India for the man to earn the money and the women to take care of the home and in the U.S., there is a list of social norms that are followed in America. Because of the differences in social conduct in the various nation-states of the world, the state action may or may not have limitations based on "society."

Looking at the United States, I think that society plays a major role in how we perceive global dynamics, though it may not necessarily affect the global interactions directly. As an arguably elitist nation (In my opinion, most Americans think they are better than other countries), I feel that we expect things from other "civilized" countries. For instance, when I saw a speech by Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, I was surprised to see the Venezuelan president in a wind-cheater and what appeared to be jeans. As an American, I think that a president should wear a suit or an outfit that maintains the air and respect that a suit embodies when addressing the public...

*TANGENT ALERT*

After all, a suit is a universal sign for professionalism, success, and business. When someone walks down the street in a suit, people know that that person is a professional. He's doing something important. There's this episode in How I Met Your Mother that explains the impact of a suit. Just watch and see how this hippie transforms into a man of power.

The Transformation of Hippie Barney to Barney Stinson

Now see how everyone reacts to the suited up Barney.

Magical. I know.

*BACK TO THE FUNCTION*

But I doubt that these video clips affect people in non-corporate societies in the same way. People have expectations based on what society has trained them. For example, there is an understood rule in our World Politics class that cell phones should be silenced during class, however, no where in the course syllabus or guidelines is there written the explicit rule that phones are to be silenced or turned off during class. (It is understood because in middle and high school, there was an explicit rule that banned cell phones in class. The rule became implicit when we moved to the college setting because the rule was drilled in us for 7 years, so most assumed that the rule applied to any classroom or lecture setting.) When 3 cell phones went off during the span of yesterday's class, the bearers of these phones were not punished or reprimanded. In fact, they phones became another example that of course helped prove PTJ's point, because PTJ seems to make everything prove his point.

But who's to say that the implicit cell phone rule is applied in European schools? Only the people who live and experience the other cultures will know or be able to understand their perspectives and expectations.

So to get back to the questions that I clearly didn't answer, I think that there are social normals and expectations that limit or affect state power; however, what specifically those limitations are depend on the culture and social expectations of the people in the state in question.

Just one more example, I promise. It is the most relevant one yet. Today when the French Parliament's banning of the burqa and niqab, an issue that to many Americans seems unjust and almost racist. However, the diplomat presented the French government's point of view and the logic behind the law: One of France's main goals is to integrate its people so that it doesn't matter who is an immigrant and who is of French dissent. France wants to unify the people and not make major distinctions like "minority." France believes that banning the burqa will improve integration because people will not create communities based on their backgrounds but will be simply French.Because the custom of wearing the burqa was established in the last century, the custom is more of a cultural identity as opposed to religious one. I think that France feels that people who wear the burqa are almost pushing themselves away from the French mentality and are unwilling to integrate with other French customs. The diplomat also noted that the burqa is a sign of women's suppression and that banning the burqa will help promote women's rights amongst the Muslim population in France. To me, their reasoning seems logical, though after hearing the French perspective, I still oppose the ban. But, this is where differences in social expectations come into play: had this been a bill trying to be passed in the United States, it would not have made it past Congress because socially, it would have been unacceptable.

So, with that said, I'm going back to Calculus homework...

Oh! Also, Ladies and Gentlemen, Guys and Dolls, I present to you the theme song of Tuesday's class, and of corporate America!

"Nothing Suits Me Like a Suit," the Theme Song of Tuesday's Class