Boundaries

I think that there should be boundaries on nation's security policies. For example, I don't believe that there should be X-ray body scanners at the security lines in airports. That is an invasion of personal privacy. I understand where lawmakers are coming from and how this could be a beneficial idea, however, it is at the expense of thousands of people's dignities. I agree with the NSC 2010 that security needs to be a community effort. Each person needs to play their part. If they do, then these X-ray body scanners will be almost completely unnecessary.

Boundaries to Security

Are there boundaries to security policy? Are there things that should not be part of "security"?

I would say that because every aspect of world politics could theoretically be a threat to the security of a country, the necessity to not stretch a nation's resources too thin forces a country to need to focus on only the most pressing threats. Therefore, there must be boundaries to security policy just for the sake of logical decision making. We can't focus on everything, and thus have to institute boundaries so we focus on what is more immediately essential to maintaining a country's security.

Therefore, although more preemptive initiatives like those President Obama mentioned including the environment and poverty around the world could cause security problems in the future if it isn't addressed. However, at the moment, it is better to focus our somewhat limited resources on military, as oppose to social threats. I would say that the bigger threat posed to the security of our country is countering terrorists and states that may cause a problem. As a result, I would say we must rank the security issues and determine what are most important to the country at the time, and that forms the boundaries of security policy. Therefore, this is ever changing – for example, during the Cold War, the boundaries to security policies were much different than now – we weren’t focused on stopping terrorism; that wasn’t in our policy. Now, a boundary to security policy would be not focusing on Russia.

The Boundaries One

In a world with planes that break the sound barrier and missiles that can pilot themselves halfway around the globe in mere hours, there are no physical boundaries a country can put on its national security. In a simpler time, a ruler could keep a strong perimeter and never have to worry about his national security until someone broke it. But now not only do we have to worry about being nuked from across the Pacific, we have to worry about being bombed from inside our own country, and apparently they're telling us the debt is a threat to national security now too.

Pictured above: The National Debt

Who can keep track of all that threat? Not I. So I'm going to break it down nice and simple: anything and anyone that threatens the safety and security of the nation as a whole, is national security. This does not include things that are only threatening to a small, select group of Americans, only things that threaten us all or our national identity. In that respect national security has no limits, no matter what, no matter where, if it was a threat to us all, national security would take care of it. But in another sense, it would have boundaries of who/how many it could protect. Another boundary of national security must be personal freedoms. For example, if smoking related deaths were considered a matter of national security, we would risk losing that identity that we work so hard to protect.

World Politics: Cheerleading Edition

This Sunday, while rolling out the mats for cheerleading practice and complaining about the annoying imbalance of power on the cheer squad (because this week they get to hang their seniority over our heads) we realized that hazing and "spirit" activities are an assertion of realist-like policies.

American's cheerleading squad has inadvertently utilized IR theories in creating their Rookie Week (or the less insane, cheerleading form of rush). In addition to a few other "-isms" we remember from AP European History, realism and constructivism are used to lead to (Kate's) eventual goal of liberalism (Elle doesn't think cheerleaders will ever cooperate), as well as extreme nationalism. Although cheerleading is by no means the same as the global political stage, we can use the "vets" and the "rookies" in this case as our two "states."

The eventual goal of the AU cheerleading squad is an orderly team which works together seamlessly. It would seem that a liberal approach would lead to more friendly cooperation and "happy" success. However, the vets are using realism and constructivism to reach this end.

The vets have a hegemony over the world of cheerleading. In layman's terms: seniority rules. It's a unipolar world - the rookies are nowhere near close to equal in power with the vets in such an extreme power imbalance. The vets want to maintain their power - losing it would cause them to be unable to control this week. Even though the goal is liberalism, they need to keep their power this week so it stays in their control and they can in effect bring about the team unity aspect on their own time schedule. Instead of using cooperation and encouraging mutual respect, they're using force. This force includes declaring events mandatory to attend and using constant text messages to keep in contact. They also use the team running concept (the team has to run if you fail to comply to their rules, and you have to sit out and watch them suffer) as an apparent consequence. If you don't know a cheer when confronted by a vet (a battle, per say), the rest of the team runs while you watch. The final example of force is that of almost bribery - if the rookies do well, the vets will give them candy, little gifts, etc. In return, if you don't follow the rules of rookie week (wearing pig tails with ribbons every day... anyone?), you get punished (mostly just the vets disappointment and dislike for you if you don't follow their orders). They're able to effectively use this self-interested strategy by tearing down the rookies to further increase and maintain their power.

Then how did they even get all of this power? Through the history (at least during their time) of the American cheerleading squad, the identity of the vets has developed and strengthened through tradition. The most common phrase heard this week from the vets is "we had to do this and it was so much worse!" The vets have changed from their usual (mostly) friendly attitudes to rather demanding and unpleasant because that’s what vets did in the past. They saw this change themselves as freshman and feel the need to carry on the history. The rookies were told that this is what past rookies have done, especially because the vets have lived through it. They have to deal with whatever standards are set because it's the identity assigned to them. This is an endless cycle unless one group is able to change their identity.

Instead of bullying the rookies into submission to build a coherent team, reaching out with a cooperative, liberal approach would lead to greater success. The underlying goal of the traditional rookie week is to prepare the rookies for the following week's basketball expositions. The rookies need to know the basics of cheers and where to be during games, as well as have the proper attitude (towards the team and the "job" of the team). The realist approach that is the traditional method for the cheer squad and greek life ("hazing"-lite), only works if those being "hazed" want the close bonds of the team/organization more than they dislike the sporadic time commitments (3 hours of scavenger hunts on the national mall, early morning breakfast with the team) and unusual dress codes (pigtails? uniforms? make-up? "if you don't look like a child prostitute you're not wearing enough make-up"). Constructivism also fails here because the "rite-of-passage" rookie week relies on the fact that the rookies accept the identity of the rookie. Which we don't. Instead, liberalism should be utilized so that everyone has an enjoyable week. Team bonding, for instance, at a mutually agreed upon time throughout the week. Fun activities--not 'we're going to leave this week intentionally ambiguous' so that you're stressed about not only school and the massive amounts of time you have to donate to cheer anyway, but also the "hazing" that you will be warned of only hours before. Eventual goal (all groups working together, forming alliances, etc.) The "rookies" and the "vets" are interdependent on each other for success on the mat. The team cannot be successful unless each group has at least a working relationship with them

The ends are admirable and necessary to the growth and strength of a team. However, the means to achieving this lead something to be desired. Much of this lies in the hands of the dynamic rookie group. Will they change their own identity this year and stage a revolution by doing as they wish? Or next year will they no longer demand insignificant things of the rookies? Will the tradition continue? Only time will tell.

By: Elle and Kate

Reflective Post: Week 9 (ZOMBIES!!)

Hmmm...on what to reflect on a week such as this? I could write another post about Diplomatic Risk, what we did in class all week, but a) I already did that, and b) I was killed in a plane crash about halfway through the game and the undead have very little interest in the breakdown of power between nations. They tend to be more occupied with destroying society, or at least reducing it to a ragtag band of unlikely and diverse survivors who will probably have to overcome some preconceived notions about each other (and maybe even themselves) to survive the onslaught of flesh-eating corpses.

All the peoples of the world singing in perfect harmony...with a shotgun

But the impending zombie apocalypse has nothing to do with IR. Or does it? If you ask Daniel W. Drezner, international politics professor at Tufts University, zombies have quite a lot to do with IR theory. So much in fact that he's writing a book about it. Unfortunately, his website containing most of the information on the forthcoming book, Theories of International Politics and Zombies, is currently incapacitated but I was able to find an article summarizing three major strains of IR theories likely approaches to the zombie plague.

Realists would carry on like everything was normal, treating zombies like any other infectious plague. They would mostly leave it to the people to deal with the zombies themselves and expect the problem to fizzle out like all the other great plagues we've weathered as a society.

It's ok, they're just a societal phase. They will go away if we wait it out on this ledge

Liberals would take the problem somewhat more seriously but expect nations to deal with the problem on their own, never really expecting the zombies to be completely wiped out but accepting it as a fun opportunity to make some new governmental agencies and maybe a new UN sub-comittee solely for zombie killin'.

"You could say I'm in international diplomacy"

My personal favorite though, has to be the neoconservative approach. As Robert Kagan aptly said, "Humans are from earth, zombies are from hell." Rehabilitation would not be considered. Zombies threatened human hegemony. They would be completely, utterly and mercilessly annihilated. It would basically be like the end of Shaun of the Dead times a million.

HEADSHOT!

So there you have it. Enjoy your IR theory debates, but when the zombie apocalypse comes around, I'm a neoconservative.

Source: http://www.graspingforthewind.com/2010/07/27/international-relations-theory-and-zombies/

Back-Stabbery and Betrayal and Other Fun Stuff!

No offense red, but you were doomed from the start. Gabe was an unpredictable leader (none of us were precisely sure whether he was acting in the best interests of your group or whether he was just screwing with us) and that made nearly everyone feel threatened by him. It was very easy, from there, to turn the other groups against you and plot your demise. Ironically, fate got to you before our intervention, killing your leaders in a plane crash and thus making you even more vulnerable to attack. Not that your new power structure was worse than it's previous state, and not that you wouldn't have gone on to do well if we'd let you be, but new meat vs. the conviction of threatened heads of state was bound to go badly for you.

Green, on the other hand, I actually mildly regret having to do away with you. As green made quite apparent, we had plotted with them for quite a while to find a way to pull a double-win, since they had numerous territories with the resources we needed, but we found logistical issues that were unresolvable. The geography of the board did not look favorably on a green-yellow win, and thus we led them to believe that we still planned for that course of action while secretly talking to black and blue. The logistics were more optimistic in this deal, and now that Jamie had been convinced that we weren't out just to screw him, everything went according to plan.

Yellow- Black - Blue FTW! Literally!

Three's Company, Four's a Crowd. Sorry Green.

Fiona: "Hey Sam, can you do something that will make me really happy? Wanna erase Green from the board?"

Literally minutes ago the game of diplomatic risk ended. The group was small, consisting primarily of the core members (heads of state and diplomats) and some very enthusiastic members of the populous. The game was epic.

It picked up soon after Red's demise (YAY!!!) and with a fresh strategy from the allied teams (Blue, Black and Yellow). The goal: get rid of Green. After two or three rounds of the game, the mission was successful--much to Rachel and Alyssa's chagrin.

With that taken care of, Black declared war on Blue so that Blue wouldn't win before Yellow and Black. Black and Yellow traded territories so that Yellow and Black's goals were met, then Black ended the war with Blue, so that once the diplomatic changes were made, all three teams won at the same time.

So the allies won. :)

Victory!

Also, kudos to Scott and Sam for the awesome sound effects. :)

Risk Vs. Li/Statham

Diplomatic Risk and real life international relations differ most significantly in the fact that Risk is played on a cardboard map of the world with armies consisting of tiny plastic soldiers and cannons whereas in the real world war looks more like this....

Note the marked absence of Jet Li and Jason Statham in Risk, a staple of any real-world war

But all joking aside, Risk and real life are similar in many ways. Both involve a powerful/powerhungry ruler or ruling class striving to gain more power in the mercantilist sense, by taking it from others. Diplomatic Risk brings the element of diplomacy (surprise surprise) tot he Risk board which basically entails making treaties and alliances with other nations/armies and only allowing a nation to attack a notion that it is at war with.

Diplomatic Risk does a pretty good job in demonstrating realist IR theory, but when it comes to the other theories, it misses the subtleties of relationships between states both in wartime and in peacetime. The other ways in which Diplomatic Risk can never give a truly accurate representation of real-world war is morality and self preservation. There is no morality in Risk. If you send 10 units into a massacre it has no lasting moral side effects of your conscience that those little plastic markers were removed from the board, however if you send 10,000 men to their death...well suffice it to say I wouldn't want to meet the man who is unaffected by that. As far as self preservation goes, when you're gambling with real armies and real lives, there is always an element of danger, no matter how far you are from the action. Defeat in Risk means a rematch. Defeat on the field of battle could mean the end of your way of life or just your life in general.

FIRE EVERYTHING!

Of course to accurately simulate all these things would take a "game" of astronomical complexity, something that probably could not be called a "game" at all, but would be more appropriately labeled as a society.

The Diplomatic Risk of World Politics

Diplomatic risk and world politics are similar in many ways. The heads of state have a primary objective and they *usually* have advisers and diplomats who make alliances and help guide the heads of state. There is also a populous that supports or detests the head of state and has the ability to overthrow the head of state. However, unlike in diplomatic risk, in the real world, there's no real "winner." Yes, countries win wars, but there isn't a real game to win because world politics never stops. Diplomatic risk, on the other hand, ends the moment PTJ tells us that we have to stop playing and discuss the readings he's assigned us. As much as we want to keep playing, because the process of winning is more fun than the victory itself, we will stop and world politics will continue. I guess that is one of the main differences, or at least the most important to me.

The Risk of Too Closely Comparing Fiction to Reality

Besides being a lot of fun, Diplomatic Risk is also a simulation of certain aspects of world politics. In what ways are the dynamics of the game similar to actual world politics? In what ways are they different?


Although Diplomatic Risk was a lot of fun, (a LOT of fun. Like, A LOT of fun. Did I mention the hours I spent plotting with various groups as to how to pull a group win? Because there were hours.) it was not particularly realistic. Yes, countries world-wide do have goals, but they are not often as clean cut as the ones provided to us, and to further complicate things there are not just five groups to collaborate and converse with, but approximately 192. 

Although, even in the game there was more to winning than lucky rolling.

Just about the only other realistic facet of the operation was the way we won- through eliminating the competition, pooling our resources, and evaluating carefully who we could benefit from and how. Although no one wins in the real world of diplomacy for good, the occasions which can be measured in win or loss often win as ours did, where multiple parties benefit from certain actions, and other are completely crushed. >:D

Rules of Risk

After two full class periods of scheming, alliances, and even a little backstabbing, I think we actually can say we know more about how the international political world works. It was a great test of how we can make deals and react under pressure, as well as our strategic abilities.

I think what seemed to be the most realistic about the exercise was the interaction between members of the various teams. Sometimes the heads of states completely ignored their teams and just made snap decisions (I heard about that happening in the other class more frequently than I saw it during our game). Others worked well with their teams (I think our team, or blue, did that pretty well the entire time. It was almost like various government types - for example, in a republic, the decision has to go through and be approved by more people, sort of like the team working well together. When a member of the group or the head of state was sort of dominating the group dynamics, it was more of a centralized political authority. The relationships internal to teams were almost as interesting as the alliances that were built.

The combination of the different IR theories was interesting as well - some groups have a realist view where they need to conquer as much land as possible. However, everyone realized the need for alliances in a more liberal way and weren't trying to go at it alone. Every team, at the en of the fourth round, was at least aligned with the Blue team. With the constructivism, we had to stay close to the country history we were given, those identities. A lot of the deal making was accurate, like giving up something you have to gain another advantage and to make a deal. There was also the aspect of being really unable to trust or know what others are thinking - you have to take a shot and understand that you need to have a back up plan (although our team sort of failed with the second part of that).

The only major differences I saw were inherent with the structure of the game. It's complex enough now that you really can't add many more details to it without causing problems/taking way too long to complete a round, let alone win the game. I guess the biggest was the additional aspects that go into making decisions on the political stage - for example, the will of the people of your country, social issues, economic things, etc. Of course, the bureaucracy must be cut out, so decisions were made a lot quicker and without going through as many people as they would on the real political stage. Still, it was an excellent simulation of the world political experience. We learned that it takes more than luck to succeed in the game of Risk (or in world politics). It's all about developing relationships and determining a logical strategy.

Reflection Week Eight

So I prefer Professor Jackson's version of Risk, to say the least. Really, he needs to put this out on the market. I know many Risk fans that would pick up the game for a new challenge (not to ignore all of the IR professors that would want to play it at family game night). Regardless, I used to play with my cousin, who tends to be quite a realist in the game and in life. It was a new way to think about how to play the game, because we know that a solely realist approach isn't particularly logical or realistic in the world today. You have to plan and think in a whole new way because it's no longer just anticipating the military actions of other teams, but their diplomatic policy as well. Definitely a totally different ball game. It'll be more interesting to comment on this next week once we have a clear winner or at least another hour and a half to play.

Still, our class (maybe because we've only had one game thus far) didn't get into the game as much as the other class did. People were seriously running down the halls, meeting in each others' rooms trying to strike up deals. It was interesting to hear the different goals the other class had though - although some were similar, there were some notable differences that made the game interesting.

Reflective Post: Week 8

Risk takes a long time to play. It's lengthiness has become almost mythical with tales of games lasting days if not weeks. But in all the stories, nay legends, I've heard, never has it taken an hour and a half to play a mere two turns. Never in the history of ever.

In ever you say? But that's a statistical impossibility! CHECK THE NUMBERS AGAIN!!

But of course this wasn't your Dad's Risk, this was PTJ'd out Risk which basically means it's a lot more political and has crazy twists every few minutes to throw everyone off when they just started to get the rules down in the first place. Despite (and probably in some part, due to) this, IR Risk was awesome and although I can't speak for the rest of the class, I know I walked out of class wishing we could play it all year long.

Get it?

In other breaking news from week 8, there was a paper. We were lulled into a complacent sense of false security by 7 weeks of paperlessness but then, lo and behold, there it was and it couldn't have been a more fitting subject. If any of you read my other blog (The Incubator, Technological), which you al should, or talked to me for any extended period of time, you know I'm a huge sci-fi nerd so writing a paper on blasting space rocks out of the sky with giant lasers and other things straight out of Star Wars, was a dream come true.

NEO threat? Neutralized, Lord Vader

Reflection

So this week there were two highlights:

1. Fall Break

2. Diplomatic Risk

reasons:

1. I finally got to sleep and hang out with friends without caring about homework being due :)

2. It is the ideal game for nerds. Not only are we living world politics, we get to strategize, manipulate and scheme. It really helped that most everyone was enthusiastic about the game, because apathetic people make boring, lifeless games. Because we were took the activity seriously and were competitive and active, the game morphed into an activity that surpassed the four walls of the Letts Formal Lounge and seeped into 6S Letts. I've heard people making deals and alliances in the hallways in preparation for the next class. I'm looking forward to Tuesday's class and playing the game!

Simulation Stress and Risky Anticipation

I have to say, PTJ, that I notice some extreme differences in requiring the other class to represent Ford, a down-home-American manufacturer, and requiring us to try to demand respect as General Motors, a name that has suffered enormous amounts of (rather deserved) slander thanks to the recent bailouts and government intervention. Although my instinct was to try to use advertising techniques to propagate our points, there's not much I could do with a company whose commercials currently reek of paying penance. Instead of being able to immediately get to our points as a company with a recognizable voice, we had to establish our ethos separate from this scandal, and attempt to lead the masses from there.

That said, I think my group (special shout out to Scott and Alyssa here for research) did a great job pushing aside all the commercial garbage to find some useful data. I think we did really well, and I'm relieved to be done.  On a slightly different note, I can't wait for Risk!

Simulation Stress

*insert scream of rage*

I've been working on homework and stuff due for midterm for the past week. It's been exhausting. The simulation just added to my mountain of stress. At the same time, the simulation wasn't as bad as I thought it would be... I was actually relieved after our first group meeting. I wish that homework didn't take so long to complete because I really wanted to help edit the video. I was so excited about the video because I took a digital applications class and discovered a love for video editing. Anyways, that would have been my favorite part of the simulation. I guess now my favorite part was the filming because we failed at memorizing our script and so we filmed practically line-by-line. But as a whole, our team worked well together and we definitely bonded over the filming process.

I am so excited for Risk tomorrow

The fact that PTJ is changing it up kind of frightens me, but otherwise I'm really excited.

Speaking of excited, guess what I was really unexcited for? That fire alarm at 4 a.m.! Not that it woke me, since I was working on my mildly god-forsaken world politics paper at the time in order to get it in to Erin by 8a.m. (which I felt was necessary mostly so I knew I wasn't doing the whole thing wrong), but still! It was really cold out, and we were outside for like half an hour- despite Christian's rallying for a charge at the R.H.A.s- and I really needed to finish my paper and sleep for a while.
It was kind of amusing at first, I guess. About 3.5 seconds after the alarm started screaming, anyone who was up heard a really loud chorus of "F*CK!" and "what the f*ck!?" and "nooooooooooooooooo!" from all over our floor. I probably should've thought to quickly change before leaving but it had been so warm that day that I figured the dress I'd been wearing all day would be fine...(for future notice, this assumption was false. Always grab a hoodie. Or pull a Jamie, and just bring your whole comforter.)

Otherwise someone might steal ur comfurtz!

Reflective Post: Week 7

This week we didn't really have "class" so to speak so I'm not exactly sure what to write this on therefore it will most likely be short and possibly sweet, but don't get you're hopes up.

He's disappointed in me too

My group for the simulation met and discussed how to best argue our point. We made a video and I researched hybrid cars. That's basically it. All I have to say on the matter is that I wish we could have chose our own side to argue instead of being assigned, I think it would've made for a more stimulating simulation.

That's about it for this horribly unsatisfactory post. At least you got an adorable baby picture out of the deal and according to what I learned in my Understanding Media class, a baby is still the best image for inciting emotional reaction so just let the tears flow....

Reflection Week Seven

The idea of looking at a situation from a different perspective tends to be one of the most difficult things to do. Which is why, when assigned labor unions, I was slightly concerned about my ability to adequately defend and see from the view of a labor union.
 
For one thing, my dad told a few of his friends about my role in the simulation. They actually laughed at me, and then lectured me about how difficult it has been for them to work with labor union workers over the years. Probably not the best sign for the project.
 
Still, it proved to be a valuable lesson. It's always beneficial to walk in someone else's shoes, and it helped me to see labor from the human, rather than business perspective. I'm not going to be the biggest labor union fan, but I have more respect and knowledge of their positions. Especially talking with someone that worked in Baltimore’s labor union office made me understand more of their position. I don’t have connections with anyone in a labor union, and tend to always hear the perspective of the business owner or manager’s view of labor unions. He gave me a more personalized account of the labor union and its importance in his life, as well as the efforts of the unions to not hinder development, but to work with other unions and businesses around the world, comprehending the importance of globalization.

So although it would have been easier to have something like GM, which may be along the lines of my interests, it was interesting to analyze a situation from another perspective.

Political Party Marginalization

So we spent class Friday discussing marginalized groups and how they should be factored into the discussion of international relations. However, it made me think about how many groups in our society are at least somewhat "marginalized." Sure, there are lots of examples of people that actually suffer as a result of their marginalization, actually feel pain and are unable to live productive lives because they're in the almost ignored part of society. You can go to almost any country and pick out ethnic groups. You can look in America's history at various minority groups that entered the country. But that's not the first thing I thought of.

Maybe because I was still quite angry that the College Republicans had to cancel two extremely exciting events last week (the Carnivore Initiative on the quad that was supposed to have a 40-80 pound pig sitting there and the Young Guns meet and greet/book signing event), I thought of the marginalization (albeit on a smaller scale), of the various political parties in the United States.

Coming to American, I was told to “Have fun with my three Republican friends” and to be careful carrying a Wall Street Journal across campus. Upon arriving, I learned quickly that it wasn’t the case. At least on campus, there’s no marginalization of any one political party. People are pretty open to beliefs, although they’re willing to defend their own (which makes me think of a Voltaire quote, but regardless). Besides, most people here seem to be at least in part Libertarians (not anarchist libertarians, but socially liberal and fiscally conservative).

That avenue of political marginalization failing (considering I thought of it while watching the Ravens game, it’s understandable that it didn’t work out), I thought of Democrats in my county.

There are basically 18 registered Democrats in the county that actually vote along party lines. In 2006, during what amounted to a Democratic take over, we still pulled 75 percent for the Republican candidate for governor. Democrats don’t even bother running for most positions in the Northern part of the county because it is simply a waste of funds (unless you’re running for sheriff). The local newspaper even wrote about how they were in effect marginalized, resigned to the outer limits of political life without a say in the doings of the county. Although, to be fair, the party doesn’t have the strength to even speak out and try to make their voices heard.

I thought more about political parties in general, and the host of third parties, some radical and some not so much that basically get pushed aside. Besides a few enduring or noteworthy candidates (Roosevelt with the Bull Moose Party in the 1910s, Ross Perot in the 1990s, Ron Paul), third parties of marginalized to the complete ends of our political system. They have little to no say (a vote for one in anything but a very local election is basically a waste) and although some try to make a difference, they’re largely ignored.

I guess the question should be if it is worth paying attention to any marginalized political party. Should we apply the principals expressed in the article to our own country? Should we take into account other smaller political parties or parties that have no foothold in an area where we live? Or, rather, is it the job of the people to acknowledge and listen to so called marginalized parties or their job to make their voices and opinions heard, although it may seem like a lost cause?

Stickies

So, you know how Macs and Window's Vista and 7 have a "stickies" app? Well, during Friday's class I took sticky notes :) , listing all these potential topics for my reflection blog post:

potential blog subjects:

what is overlooked in the IR theories we've studied?

"speaking for others"

if this article is about the micro, why should we care? aren't we studying WP? shouldn't we focus on the powerful creating the WP?

Marx's Theory of Alienation?

the silent majority pose a threat because they will play a part in future world politics.

majority of the world is poor. pay attention on the smallest minority.

why do people not speak out?

how do you break that barrier between the "minority" and the people who "made you a minority"? *Marginalizing* (Charmed: Bare Witch Project)

why are people oppressed?

When does a group become so marginalized that a violent uprising becomes justifiable?

Who needs addressing and why/how?

Or do we need to address the powerful oppressing the minority and keep them in check? <-- hasn't the US tried to do this?

Impersonal forces vs. personal responsibility

Not all suppression is directly related to what's happening in world politics.

What do you do when the problem is no longer a person/personified? (ie Global Economic System)

Is twitter IR?

Is the International Economic System like a Hurricane, both unchangeable?

-responsible for the reaction

As a fan of the supernatural TV shows, I'm gonna try to address the question addressing marginalizing. How do you break that barrier between the "minority" and the people who "made you a minority"? Well, if you're Lady Godiva, then you break the barrier by riding on horseback completely naked in front of the entire town...

...but this actually happened in Arizona. It definitely got the media's attention, but it may be too much...but that's just my opinion...

So, I have two possible, untested solutions to free the oppressed:

1. At the risk of sounding like a cheerleader... Stand up! Be Proud! (Shout your name out loud! We are the Mavericks!) ... *awkward silence as you judge* I was captain of the Drum Corps and not the cheer squad for a reason. But as corny as that cheer is, it bears some truth. The best way for a marginalized group to become un-marginalized is to stand up for themselves and make a name for themselves. I am an advocator of non-violence, so try not to start a major war when doing so, but I sort of feel like a war may be inevitable for marginalized groups that have been seeking equality for a while...

2. Build a time machine or cast a spell that spends you to the event that caused your marginalization and STOP THAT EVENT FROM HAPPENING! And yes, oppressing your feelings from people who deserve/need/should know about how your feeling and will cause you to be marginalized.

See?

Here's A Shocker-

This blog, much like every other one I've ever posted as a reflection, is essentially going to be a rant about why my eyes are sliding shut and how good I've gotten at typing while nodding off. Actually, wait, I changed my mind. I'd really rather not dwell on my crappy weekend, but I will say that it was the weekend from Hell. I skipped all possibilities of sleeping last night (a bad move after spending a restless Saturday night on a couch) in order to write an 8 page history of my family, and will probably find myself in similar circumstances this evening as I attempt to reconcile the differences between what I have done and what needs doing. Amidst all this stressful and anxiety causing sleeplessness my caffeine addiction is at an all time low. I cannot even recall how many cups of coffee I've had in the past 12 hours, and if I learned anything from Alcohol Edu, it was probably (read: not really at all anything, but...) that when you lose count of your drinks, you're in trouble. The shaking at 5 am probably also should've been a good hint. Throw into this mix that between the couch-sleeping and the bus-riding my usually agitated back is trying to tear itself gruesomely away from the rest of my body and you get one happy, go-lucky and obviously optimistic Fiona. After all, don't all the best weeks in the history of ever start out like this?! Perhaps there's a glimmer of hope here somewhere. :D

Yeah, in fact I think I see one now!

In other news, I'm trying to not sleep now so that I can normalize my sleep schedule (don't even bother suggesting a nap- I don't nap, I coma.) and will probably bring some work on a trip with me soon to search for a Halloween costume. Out of curiosity, has anybody picked one yet? I usually make my costumes and am really disappointed I can't, especially this year. I feel as though the average "slutty", "stank-ass" costumes wouldn't go over so well trick or treating at the Embassies... So what are you being?

Aislinn's practicing to be a Wicked Step-Baby

Reflective Post: Week 6

Has it been a month and a half already? Part of me feels like I've been here a week and yet another part feels like I've been here for a lifetime.

This reflective post is not going to be my best work, I wasn't in class on Friday and I didn't do the blog this week (I think this was my first skip but I should probably double check that). The most interesting thing I did all week was caption a picture of Yoda plunging his comically short lightsaber through the chest of a clone trooper failing to "execute order 66" which I will include below.

But that is totally unrelated to world politics which is a theme I find repeating itself in this blog. But something I did do this week (actually tonight) that is very related to world politics is read a fascinating paper on social vs. natural sciences, ideal-types vs. value-commitments, critical humanism, Max Weber and how it all relates to Battlestar Galactica. It explored the way social sciences are unfairly forced into boxes by the standards of the natural sciences and the definition of humanity and how that was stretched in Battlestar Galactica among many other things. In short, an engrossing paper which I hope will grace the general public with a speedy and far reaching publication.

Gentlemen, I give you IR theory