Simulation Stressors

GAAAAAAAAAAH.

Okay, sorry. Professor Jackson, I respectfully understand your need to create work over your holidays in order to avoid your extended family. It is a rational thought process for an adult with few other ways to garner such an out. However, I feel the need to assert that firstly, you are perpetuating America's growing tendency to fall into the vices of over-working, over-stressing, and over-ambitiousness, and secondly, that a vast majority of us students had many other ways to get out of too-intense time with our families, such as needing to cook, or wanting to visit with friends, neighbors or teachers. I would also like to bemoan the fact that nobody I know at home owns a mac, and yet everybody in the world seems to here. It made it extraneously difficult to turn in my portion of our video in a fashion that was compatible to all software differences. I was rather nervous about getting it to play all-together. And what foreshadowing! We had to present it on my laptop because it wouldn't play on Erin's... Oh the stress that accompanies our lovely new technologies!

On a more positive note, I think I've found a proposition that suits China's interests as well as being generally welcomed by at least a majority of groups in our class. It was an idea I was toying with before class, but that listening to everyone's presentations reinforced. I'll talk it over with my group soon, and hopefully you will all hear (and support!) it on Friday, when we continue these shenanigans!

Wikilinkss and Free Speech

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/28/AR2010112802395.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzhead

With further release of classified State Department information (although nothing particularly astonishing, according to the article), the question again arises of the role of the free press in a society. Should the government be able to regulate the news industry? Should they have the ability to stop stories from being published? Where is the First Amendment line drawn?

For years (and even still now), I wanted to be a journalist, covering national politics for the Washington Post, especially after taking journalism courses in high school. Unrealistic dreams aside, these ambitions and working on my high school newspaper gave me a unique perspective of the role of the journalist and how crucial it is. I find myself an ardent supporter of a free press, to recognize the responsibility that journalists have as crucial to maintaining a free society, by getting people informed and better able to make decisions.

As much as I promote privatization and good business techniques to make a profit, I think the news industry is one that needs to realize what they're doing is actually a cause bigger than just making smart business decisions. They are informing a state, a nation, a world and their actions can cause extreme security problem. Therefore, the journalists and news organizations themselves must recognize that they have to make a distinction between what is news and what is a threat to security. I always think of Bob Woodward's books when I think of this, how he always makes a point to mention that he and his editor confronted higher ups and asked them why the story should not be published. If they offered a compelling reason as to why not to publish the story because it threatened national security, the Post wouldn't. Plain and simple. Still, it is all about the decision and in the Bill of Rights, we put this in the hands of the people to make this choice. It’s a civil liberty that is ingrained in our society and is crucial to our society. Both the government and any news organization reporting information need to confront one another – provide a check and balance in determining what information is safe to report and what shouldn’t be.

Simulations

So, this past week... what really happened in terms of me experiencing world politics? Ah, that simulation. So I guess the major difference between the two simulations we've done was that in the minor simulation, it was really obvious what each group was doing and their stance on the issue. Also, the issue that we were arguing was clear. In this simulation, it took us about 4 meetings to actually understand what we were doing. Also, in this project, I finally got to do sound and video editing, which was a flashback to senior year for me. Elle and I did a lot of the script and retrieving pictures while the other group members worked on contributing facts and finalizing The Gambia's stance on the issues we were supposed to focus on. During Thanksgiving break, my friend did the voice over and I edited the sound clip such that time was reduced, his pitch was lowered (so that he wouldn't sound like a chipmunk after the clip was sped up), and the words he tripped over were taken out. Although making the video and sound clips took a total of a day and half to make and edit, I found it to be more fun being an active leader in the group than just doing my assigned role like in the last simulation. I had less going on in other classes during this simulation, while during the minor simulation, I had a lab practical and midterms. After making this video, I think that I want to incorporate a video in my project next semester.

Thanksgiving Reflection

Here is a list of fun things that happened over my Thanksgiving break; I slept 14 hours a day, I nearly ate myself into a diabetic coma, I bought a bunch of things I don't really need at reduced yet still astronomical prices, and I developed a nice case of bronchitis. Some of these things were more enjoyable than others, you can guess which ones are which.

What I feel like

Getting back to school I was smacked square in the face with a bludgeoning of work, including my world politics major simulation. It hurt. By in the way of my gladiatorial ancestors (my ancestors weren't actually gladiators but wouldn't it be cool if they were?), I rolled with the hit and came up fighting like a champion.

See the family resemblance?

From the moment the doors of Letts hall closed behind me, I was thinking like a Chinese banker, quite a change in mindset I assure you. My world was dominated by interest rates and loan caps, all in Yuan of course. I still haven't quite put that behind me yet so don't be surprised if I answer any questions directed my way with Chinese interest rate liberalization graphs.

This is what I think like

Pre-Turkey Day Ponderings

A lot of people have been home to see their families before this. They've come back dangling hopes for a change of family dynamic, regaling with tales of parents who have moved on; parents with new concerns; new families that don't really need them; who regard them as adults. After so much Todorov, I can't help but think of the young collection of colonies who declared their independence by first moving away and then signing the declaration of independence, and I assumed that moving away and turning 18 would be enough to assert my independence from my family. It was not. And as I hear all these tales of separation from my peers' personal Britain's, I can't help but wonder, if I'm not the colonies in this story, what part am I playing? It seems unfair that I could be as minor a character as a "discoverer" of America in my own story, sent out by my father(land) to explore new territories... and then to return, and report, but to still be the same poor civilian I was when I departed. I suppose I could be an altogether unmentioned territory, such as colonized India, and I'll just have to wait a few hundred years to claim similar prizes as my peers. I suppose I'll just have to finish reading to discover exactly where, or if, I fit in the grand scheme of Todorov-ian history.

Global Warming and Bio-terrorism

While attempting to figure out what to reflect on this week (because honestly, this weekend has been so full of homework and projects, I can barely think straight, especially with the fact that break is in two days), I wound up looking back to class on Tuesday and looking at very vague references I wrote down to things that I apparently wanted to say. To do so, it involved shifting through a bunch of notes Row and VFS had decided to write in my OneNote about the plausibility of building a moon colony instead of protecting the environment now (or, what amounts to how awesome they think space travel is and how NASA should get lots more money to make pointless trips to space. But I digress).

There are actually a few random points I wanted to make. While looking back at the pro-con list we had gone through about how we should face global warming… or global climate change, I think the contrast between long term and short term perspectives are fascinating. I tend to look short term – what is best for my interests right now, which explains why I support focusing on current economic problems in contrast with long term issues that may or may not affect me in the future. It’s not that I don’t see the value in trying to at least mitigate environmental changes (I do think we have a right and responsibility to change what we perceive as the threats of nature if possible. We can’t just sit back and let it happen), but I don’t think it should be the key focus. If we devote a little bit of time, energy, and funds to long term projects, “it will get done,” as Scott says frequently. However, we need to focus most of our energy on solving short term issues so they don’t become problems in the long term. Fix the economy, get money back in people’s pockets, allow them to invest and spend (especially in private R&D for something like alternative energy sources or space travel), and the long term issues will have a much better chance of being solved.

The other note that I had made was about why I would support stopping bioterrorism over a focus on global warming. Again, it was the idea of short term security over long term. I also believe it is much easier to predict what humans will do then what nature will – we have a better chance (especially with the intelligence community that the United States has) of predicting a terrorist attack to happen and prevent it than we do knowing when some natural disaster will occur. Or, it’s more plausible that we can find out one rather than the other. It’s also about priorities – we can’t solve everything. I think that’s clear. We need to eliminate the most pressing and immediate threat first and foremost with our most strength. However, that isn’t saying that we can’t also simultaneously work to solve other problems. It’s about realizing that we can’t bite off more than we can chew, and I think it’s pretty clear that the United States has a tendency to overreach (trying to help half the world solve their problems, attempting to spread democracy into Iraq, etc.). We need to prioritize to more effectively solve problems.

Reflective Post: Week 13

I didn't like the American Indian museum. Not for high minded moral reasons like the objectification of a people, I just thought it was boring. Sorry, I'm shallow like that. Ever since I was a little kid I had an almost overwhelming distain for most thing Native American related. I have no problem with the people, I just think that looking at mud huts and sinew-bound spears interspersed with an occasional cave painting isn't my idea of a good time. There are so very many captivating histories of so many fascinating cultures, I have no inclination whatsoever to study the Native Americans.

Which one would you rather study? Honestly...

Unfortunately, we sent the majority of the week in early colonial so, I have to admit, I spent most of the week in silence. I knew classes like this would come, where I could not and would not want to participate, but I can't say I enjoyed it.

In Addition...

Holy guacamole Erin, congratulations on this picture. I can't think of a way it could be more ironic.

Okay so as much as football uses stereotypes in their symbols (I believe, Vikings-Fan-Sam, that I recently fondant-painted a face sort of like this but of a stereotype of a viking instead of a Native American onto a cake for you...) the placement of these flags is both sad and hysterical. After all of that discussion about "survivance" in the museum, I can't help but think this is not what they were imagining when they wrote about re-making and pushing for continuation of their culture. Of course the more acceptable version of Native Americans is portrayed within the museum, as a representation of a society and a culture. But I might venture to say that the more accepted version of Native Americans by present day American society is full of stereotypes such as the one above, and we need only a Halloween store to see that exemplified. You would have a lot of difficulty finding a, say, Puritan costume, but there are "Indian" costumes galore with various stereotypical portrayals included. 

Some Enchanted Evening

In our discussion Friday, Alyssa brought up the idea that Columbus was the prince from Enchanted. So I did a little research and re-watched Enchanted to recall all those nuances that make Prince Edward and Christopher Columbus resemble each other.

I think the first similarity that struck me was that just as Columbus was unwilling to accept that the New World had different customs than Europe, Prince Edward refused to understand that New York City was different from the Kingdom of Andalasia. Everywhere he went, he acted as arrogantly as he did in Andalasia, the difference being that in Andalasia custom allowed him to act like that while in New York City, no one cared who he thought he was. Demanding the attention of others and dressing in renaissance clothes whilst doing so, only irritated the New Yorkers.

This isn't normal/acceptable behavior...

Similarly, Columbus refused to admit that he had landed on an island instead of the mainland (Todorov 21-22). He also did not realize that he had not landed in or near India. Columbus failed to accept the cultural norms of the natives. He had the "incapacity to perceive the other's human identity--i.e., to recognize him both as equal and as different. The first, spontaneous reaction with regard to the stranger is to imagine him as inferior, since he is different from us: this is not even a man, or if he is one, an inferior barbarian; if he does not speak our language, it is because he speaks none at all, cannot speak, as Columbus still believed" (Todorov 76). Essentially, that because the natives he came across did not have consistant traditions, Columbus found it easier to dismiss them as inferior than to try to understand them. Which brings me to my second point.

How did Prince Edward miss ALL of Pip's clues that would lead Prince Edward to Gizelle? That was so thick-headed of him. I mean why would Pip be complementing Prince Edward when they're on the search for the prince's "one true love?"

Seriously!?

Prince Edward's inability to recognize and adapt to Pip's inability to speak in the alternate world almost cost him his true love. Similarly, Columbus' inability to adapt to the New World's natives cost him good relations with the natives and set a horrible trend that following explorers and settlers continued to practice.

"Columbus's failure to recognize the diversity of languages permits him, when he confronts a foreign tongue, only two possible, and complementary, forms of behavior: to acknowledge it as a language but to refuse to believe it is different; or to acknowledge its difference but to refuse to admit it is a language" (Todorov 30).

Had Columbus treated the natives better and made a greater attempt to understand their culture, maybe the Spaniards who went to the New World after Columbus would have treated the natives better, allowing for better relations, like the type France had with the natives.

Finally, Columbus was controlled by the Queen of Spain just as Prince Edward was controlled by Queen Narissa. Queen Narissa didn't want lose her crown. Currently, Prince Edward is the only one who stands in her way from ruling Andalasia. Queen Isabella used Columbus to discover new trading routes and methods for expansion of the Spanish empire, while Columbus was intending to ask the Kind and Queen "that they might determine to spend the revenues possibly accruing to them from the Indies for the conquest of Jerusalem; and it is indeed this thing which [Columbus has] asked of them" (Todorov 11). Neither of them realized how they were being manipulated by their respective Queens until it was too late. Actually...Prince Edward ended up marrying his real true love and living happily ever after...but Columbus explorations resulted in the genocide of a diverse, prosperous culture.

Although there are myriad of differences between Prince Edward and Columbus, such as Prince Edward believed that his true love would be made to finish their duet and I'm pretty sure that Columbus did not believe that, or rather, Todorov does not imply that he did, these few similarities are significant enough to get one to think, are we Columbus? I mean, deep down, do we still maintain the same mentality of the Europeans who conquered the Americas?

...and just because every fairy tale needs a perfect ending...

The Spoils of Genocide

Call me a terrible (really, go for. You won't be the first and you certainly won't be the last) but I firmly believe that what happened to the Native Americans was inevitable. Societies are always killing each other off and the ones that can not keep up technologically or socially will always die out. So was what Columbus did wrong? Sure, of course it was. But would I have happened with or without a man named Christopher Columbus, three awesome ships named the Nina, Pina and the Santa Maria, and juice historical rumors of a forbidden love affair between him and the queen? Definitely. And think of it this way, at least he had a totally sweet name. Imagine if America had been discovered by some guy named Edwin Finklestein.

Edwin Finklestein: Unacceptable

Moral of the story is that morals are relative within the larger spectrum of societies. Societies behave much more like animals than people and in the animal world the strong survive and the weak are food. So happy early Thanksgiving and lets go feast on our spoils.

Columbus: Innocent Bimbo or Cunning Killer?

Columbus is not innocent. He was desperate, prideful, and strapped for cash, and is directly responsible for the maltreatment of a number of Native Americans. However, we cannot blame him for all that followed him. It was presumptuous and prideful to declare himself "discoverer" of the Americas, especially since he was obviously after Leif Erikson and potentially countless other explorers, but it was not this "discovery" that led to the massacres and unfair treatment of the Native Americans. It was a combination of factors including a lack of geographical knowledge of the time, the societal and colonial views of Europe, and the religious and priorital views of the elite societies of Europe. The ignorance and apparent racism of the time were obvious factors as well.

The only way I could've seen the interaction resulting in less suffering and diaspora is if he hadn't "discovered" the Americas for a number of centuries. It would have set back our intellectual standings and impaired the geography and map-making of the time, but if the Europeans had arrived at a time not so focused on "fixing" everyone and colonizing and converting the world, then perhaps things could have gone differently, but I, for one, cannot blame Columbus for doing his job, badly. (On a related but contrary note, however, I do not think we should celebrate Columbus Day. Just because we refuse to blame him doesn't mean we should celebrate him.)

Columbus and the Treatment of the Native Population

2. Is it fair to blame Columbus for what happened after he "discovered" the Americas? Did something about how he acted, and inter-acted with the native population, set things off on a course that could have been avoided if he had acted differently?

Blaming Columbus is short sighted; he can’t be considered responsible for the treatment of the natives in the Americas. He set a bad precedent, clearly, by treating the natives as inferior, although any other explorer or settler could have reversed the pattern. Bringing back that idea to Europe of how the natives were not equal to the Europeans continued that viewpoint, but it is not Columbus’ fault that other people insisted on following his example.

I think Row made an excellent point in his blog about European identity being the reason that the natives were treated in a negative way. The Europeans, at the time, were an advanced culture, especially in their eyes, causing them to look down on anything they didn’t understand or didn’t seem equal (specifically encouraged through their religious beliefs and more advanced exploration technology and weaponry). With the Americans seemingly less developed, Europeans felt an obligation to force their beliefs to Christianize and modernize the natives. I would think it would have happened anyway; Columbus was simply an outpost of this identity superiority that the Europeans were ready to instill into others.

However, more specifically, looking at Spanish rule during that time gives a better idea of why Columbus, and by extent later explorers, acted the way that they did. The Spanish had a tendency (especially in comparison to the French, who established strong relationships with northern natives with the fur trade) to eliminate entire native cultures. Even if you look at the Spanish at home, with the Inquisition going on at the same time as the exploration of the Americas, those not considered equal in to the Spanish (see natives in America, Moors actually in Spain), were systematically eliminated. That mindset was carried over to the Americas, not just as a fancy or idealistic view of Columbus, but as a societal pattern at the time in Europe and in Spain itself.

1. Which representation of "Indians" here is more acceptable?

Clearly, the museum is more acceptable in a representation of Indians. It tells the real stories of the Native Americans, their history and culture, and everything they’ve suffered through, as well as what they’ve done, especially in modern times, to preserve their identities as individual, sovereign tribes in the United States. Besides, Redskins is a derogatory term in reference to Native Americans, making the team name probably one of the least acceptable ways to phrase it.

Additionally, after viewing the rich history of Native Americans, it’s clear that the Redskins don’t properly represent them. Yes, they’re 4-3 and beat Green Bay (slightly overrated this year, although honestly they’re in the NFC. Bit of a joke compared to the AFC), Philly (when Kolb started most of the game), Cowboys (Definition of a joke even after decimating the Giants, probably the best team in the NFC [at least they will be come playoff time, although Atlanta might be right now. I don’t have faith in Matty Ice even after his ridiculous game against the Ravens] Sorry Tom), and Chicago (who is not as good as their record appears and will get crushed in the playoffs if they manage to sneak in), but still. I think it makes sense that the more acceptable way to look at Native Americans is through the museum, not through the semi stereotypes represented by the name of the Redskins.

The Jury Is In, He's Found NOT Guilty

Columbus should not be blamed for the results of discovering the "new world." His goals were 1. to find a faster way to trade with China and 2. earn some money and change his luck. He didn't carry small pox to the Americas or settle in the Americas and start the conflict with the natives. He shouldn't be held responsible for other people's greed. He discovered the new world while trying to do his job. Other explorers, on the other hand, explicitly ventured to the new world with the intension of exploiting and settling.

As Todorov said in Conquest of America, "Columbus's courage is admirable (and has been admired time over); Vasco da Gama and Magellan may have undertaken more difficult voyages, but they knew where they were going. For all his assurance, Columbus could not be certain that the Abyss--and therefore his fall into it--did not lie on the other side of the ocean; or again, that this westward voyage was not the descent of a long downward slope (since we are at the earth's summit), which it would afterwards be impossible to reascend; in short, that his return was at all likely" (Todorov 5-8).

Columbus' journeys were acts of courage not acts of destruction. If it weren't for Columbus, we probably wouldn't have settled in the Americas as soon as we did, however I do think that the general events were inevitable. To summarize, Columbus is not to blame and the events were most likely inevitable.

REFLECTING ON NEW BLOG INFO

Hey guys! More new blogging news. I added the tag function (it's in the upper right hand corner, see?). You'll notice that Kate and Dhea have bundles of posts in their parentheses, and Gabe and I only have one each. This is because Kate and Dhea have been dutifully tagging themselves for a while now, and they were automatically added to the Labels list, whereas I had to insert tags for Gabe and myself in order to get us on the roster. Anyway, all you really need to know is this- continue to Label yourself in your posts, (by writing your name, preferably the same way every time, in the Labels: __________ box above and to the right of the Publish Post button), and at some point you may want to go through and check that you've labeled yourself going all the way back to August.

Label away!
Fiona

Living Life

In class Friday, we discussed the concept of necessities. What do we need verses what we want. Do we need food in order to get an education or an education to get food? What is our primary objective in life?

I think that our primary objective in life is to live, enjoy one's experiences and make the most of the opportunities presented and seek out more opportunities. In order to achieve this goal, one must be alive and therefore find a means to obtain food. Most food is acquired by trading money and the conventional method to earn money is to get an education and then get a job that pays well. When you have the education that provides the credentials for a job that provides money so that you can get food, you have the necessities so you can enjoy life's opportunities. That's the main goal, anyway, right? ...at least for me it is...

Reflection: Presidents and the Question of Fairness

The question we asked over and over again in class Friday ("Is this fair?"), is quite possibly the most frustrating to debate. It brings me back to senior year philosophy, where we spoke in circles about random abstracts that were impossible to determine for sure, and, even if we were able to determine it, had little practical value. The question of fairness always reminds me of talk with no action - you don't come up with a plan, you just think that something is unfair and should be changed. But what's even to determine what is fair? What someone has a right to? Is it fair for everyone to have something, even if they don't work for it? (Personally, I would say no to that question, you need to put forth effort to actually deserve anything in life. But I digress).

Not to be super pessimistic, but it's impossible to give every person in this world equal opportunities. Is it fair? I'd say it depends on the person and their situation, if they’re working towards bettering their lives, but are struggling or if they're sitting around living on other people without trying at all.

Maybe with these kind of questions I've always thought that we should just accept, in this situation, that life isn’t fair. We should stop debating what is and what wouldn't be. Just accept it, move on, and try to spend more time coming up with a plan for giving people what you think that they need, regardless of if it is fair or not.

On a completely different vein, a few days ago, after Erin gave Scott and I the idea, Scott, Tom, and I sorted all of the presidents into Hogwarts Houses. Maybe it was because we didn’t want to finish stat, or maybe it was in honor of the movie coming out this Thursday, but…

1. Washington - G

2. Adams R

3. Jefferson R

4. Madison H

5. Monroe G

6. Q Adams R

7. Jackson S

8. Van Buren H

9. Henry Harrison H

10. Tyler H

11. Polk Dumbledore

12. Taylor G (because of war badassness)

13. Fillmore H

14. Pierce S

15. Buchannan S

16. Lincoln G

17. Johnson S

18. Grant S

19. Hayes S

20. Garfield H

21. Arthur H

22. Cleveland H

23. Harrison H

24. McKinley G-H

25. Roosevelt G

26. Taft R

27. Wilson R

28. Harding H

29. Coolidge H

30. Hoover R

31. FDR G

32. Truman G

33. Eisenhower G

34. JFK R

35. LBJ G

36. Nixon S

37. Ford H

38. Carter R

39. Reagan G

40. HW Bush G

41. Clinton R

42. Bush G - H (but time will tell more so. Although it should be noted that Row came in around this point and was pretty adamant about Gryffindor)

43. Obama

So basically, while going through, there was honestly little debate. What's slightly shocking, however, is how many presidents are in Hufflepuff. You can argue, for many of these men, they could fit into multiple houses, or are slightly in between. However, with so many of them, there was no debate - we just said Hufflepuff and moved on. Going off of what we did, that Hufflepuff was basically the incompetent House, that's very scary that so many presidents in our history can just be overlooked. For others, we used their accomplishments before and after the presidency to place them accordingly. It's a great history lesson, going back to remember the major reforms of each presidency, but 33 percent of your presidents being in that category? Not a good sign. Of course, much of this is up to interpretation, but with three relatively different ends of the political spectrums agreeing on this list, it can be thought of as pretty unbiased. Additionally, it’s interesting to note how few Hufflepuffs we determined that there were in the 20th century. Take these for what they're worth (probably very little), but I think it raises a lot of interesting debates (I can see Reagan and Bush being hotly contested ones, as well as some of the Slytherins right before and after Lincoln)

P.S. Polk is Dumbledore because he set three goals for office and accomplished them all. Completely underrated president.

And finally, I need to thank Sam for introducing me to possibly the greatest commercial of all time, which apparently came out a long time ago...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezk0e1VL80o

The Alternative Perspective One

This question reminds me of an exercise we have done a few times in my College Writing class. In said exercise each member of the class is given an academic field and we have to look at whatever article/book we are discussing from the perspective of that discipline. The objective of this is to make us see what we're learning in a different light and it works surprisingly well. Moral of the story? Looking at anything from alternative perspectives is always beneficial no matter what you're examining.

World politics is no exception. In fact in many cases alternative perspectives are even more important in world politics than other fields. Why, you ask? So much with the questions...

But in all seriousness, no matter how hard we all try, everyone has an inherent bias when it comes to world politics (some more pronounced than others) whether that's simply a bias towards the country of our origin or residence or something more. Due to this it is crucial to step back from our own partialities and reanalyze the issues that get us all so worked up from a different perspective.

Alternative Perspectives

Is there an inherent value to analyses of world politics from alternative perspectives? Ann Tickner argued that we need alternative foundational stories about global politics; what is the value of such stories, if there is value to such stories?

Although it is always a good idea to try to see from different perspectives to get a better idea of the whole picture, like Tickner suggests doing, it is impossible to analyze world politics from every alternative perspective. There's simply too many of them. To focus on every so called marginalized group in the world, to look at it from the different perspectives and points of view of all of those as well, would be more trouble than what you would get out of it. Therefore, you need to choose what alternative perspectives you wish to focus on while observing world politics. But how can you choose that? It makes more sense to observe it from the most relevant perspectives to the problem.

Still, I don’t see as drastic a need for alternative foundational stories as Tickner thinks are necessary. Yeah, sure, it’s important to hear about how women were brushed over throughout the course of world (although she focused on European) history, how it was entrenched in the societal structures of the day. However, maybe I’m slightly old fashioned, but I’ve always believe in the idea “to the victor belongs the spoils.” Those with power in history have written the foundational stories that we base world politics on today, mostly because that’s what has worked. This could be considered short sighted, but sometimes alternative stories just aren’t as important as the facts that we have all learned. For example, to reference Tickner’s talk, maybe the reason that witch burning isn’t a key focus of foundation stories was because it wasn’t and isn’t as important to world politics as other issues going on around the same time, such as the development of colonies in North America (although it was a major societal issue). Maybe sometimes it is less of alternative perspectives being ignored and more that they just aren't always as important to the view of global politics.

The Best Part of History

Stories are vital in understanding history. I mean there's only so much one can gain from reading the facts--or alleged facts--in textbooks. As I reflect upon my many years of history classes, I think that I learned the most through the stories of others. One of my favorite books is comprised of stories of women from different eras in American history. It provided the perspective of the people who witnessed important events in America. Although the actual events are important to learn because history repeats itself, I feel that social dynamics are equally important and help us understand the changes in the social norm and the development of today's society. Wars, politics and other major events in a sense determine the how people see each other, whether they be from the same or different countries and, in turn, these social dynamics affect world politics. Hearing and reading stories from history help us understand why things are the way they are today.

Yet another reflection

This past week, we've been discussing security, whether it be financial security or military security. My last post I basically summed up all my thoughts on defense security. In class Friday, we mentioned financial security and if/how that affects one's happiness. Are people dependent on financial security for happiness? I argue that wealth and happiness do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. Having graduated from a private high school located in one of the richest parts of Houston, I have studied amongst some of the most well-off kids in the area, many of them were more than financially secure but they were still seeking happiness, in other words, having money didn't fuel their happiness, though it may have sponsored their quest for happiness. Some of my peers were financially secure and were rather content with their lives, just as some of my peers who weren't as financially secure were happy because they had a good family life and great friends. Yes, being financially secure has myriad of benefits, but it does not guarantee happiness. Some argue that the pursuit of happiness trumps the pursuit of financial security. I mean if you only live one life, wouldn't you want to enjoy every second of it, rather than have the years fly by working in an office instead of making memories with the ones you love? Wow, I almost sound like a hippie. To me, the purpose of earning money is to afford the bare necessities and make enough money to survive in the rat race. If one gets caught up in the race and forgets to take a water break, one will find that he's lost sight of his primary goal...Financial security is important, but how much should one be willing to sacrifice in order to achieve it?

Reflective Post: Week 11

I have never felt more proud to be American than I did this Wednesday at The Pentagon. Walking through the halls of that fortress built to protect our way of life my veins were pumping red white and blue. Luckily there was no Army recruitment center by the exit because I'm pretty sure I would have enlisted on the spot and shipped off to Afghanistan to die for our country.

After the tour was over, instead of dashing back to campus like everyone else, me and Mr. Christian T. R. Cavender had a leisurely stroll around the majestic building, were asked to "step back and take your hands out of your pockets" by a assault rifle wielding Pentagon security officer (I was honored), and ended up at the our-door 9/11 memorial. The memorial was breathtaking and wandering between the benches of the fallen, I realized just how amazing this country is and how unequivocally lucky we are to live here. So many have given their lives to make our lives the way they are today and we can never let them be forgotten.

So the moral of this blog post is a solemn homage to those who died, willingly or unknowingly, for the freedoms we enjoy.

זיכרונו לברכה

Zikhrono livrakha

May their memories be a blessing.

Reflection: Economic Securityy

In class, we spent a lot of time discussing economic security, which, I think for many people, is more to the forefront of their attention than national security issues. Not to say which is more important (because I think they deserve relatively similar amounts of attention), but economic security is something that we deal with every day – from big decisions, like paying for college, which can change the financial structure of a family, to just daily budget allowances. I think it something we can all relate to the most because it is what frequently dominates the media (especially where I live, where the economy the sole focus in every political debate and campaign ad) and dinner table conversations.

I guess, personally, my focus politically tends to be on the economy and I found the question of how are we economically secure to be very interesting. Clearly, security really depends on the individual person in all cases, not just how secure you feel, but in real dollars and cents how economically stable your situation is. However, we spent most of the time talking about the government promoting economic security through their employee workforce, for example. Maybe this is the market lover in me, but I thought that skipping over the security in the private sector was sort of an oversight. The question about economic security should reside similarly in economic recovery and job providing companies in the private sector. Maybe the question shouldn’t have been so much debating the effects Christie has had on government work forces, but what the government has done to stimulate the private sector and its effects on economic security for the individuals. Maybe my view on it stems from the fact that both of my parents are employed in the private sector (although my mom does work for Bank of America and is very defensive of the bank paying back their bailout, but that’s beside the point). Do we feel more stable, as a whole, as individuals, etc. as a result of decisions that our state and local governments have made for the private sector? Clearly, much of my approach to the question of economic security stems from my faith in the private sector to boost the economy when given freer reign to make decisions, which naturally makes me more inclined to focus first on the private sector when determining my own, and the country's, economic stability. I guess if I see the private sector is economically on the rise (small business confidence is up, jobs are hiring, consumer spending, etc.), I tend to see my own situation and the situation of others to be more secure.

Additionally, although this is pretty random, it’s impossible to generalize the economic security of the entire country because people have such varied situations, especially in comparison to national security, where, although some people live in more dangerous hot spots for attacks, natural disasters, etc., it is slightly easier to generalize the security.

P.S.

And thanks to Scott, who reminded me about the glory that was November 2, 2010, I had to add something else in...

Especially for Vikings Fan Sam, Row, and Alex.

Obviously symbolic of the Republican bloodbath in the House and domination for the governors' races as well. Except in Maryland, where the red didn't manage to spread.

We'll see what happens in 2012, but I'm enjoying this for now.

To Make This Very Clear

Just because we are attending this university does not mean we are rich. The assumptions made during class this week concerning the students financial security were presumptuous, and from some that I heard talking about them, hurtful. There are ways going to college can create financial insecurity even if one can manage to make up the difference between financial aid and tuition. For instance, this year is the last that my parents can help me pay to go to American. If I need any  help after this, it will mean either transferring to a cheaper college, taking out loans under my own name (I've been building up credit just in case), or asking my parents for help, thus sentencing one of my siblings down the road to state or community college. Others I know went through hell and high water to get here, and will be battling the odds to stay every year.

I'm not saying the generalization that we are all reasonably financially secure is not a logical one. Just that assuming that is the case for everyone is an over-generalization.

Death with Frosted Tips: A Zoological Look at Afghanistan

No, having troops in Afghanistan does not make me feel any safer. In fact it makes me feel less safe. Let me put it into terms everyone can relate to: this is a honey badger...

Look up "Awwwwww" in a Webster dictionary. There are no words, just this picture

It is the epitome of cuteness and amiability. Seriously, look at that thing. I want to wrap it up in a blanket, name it General Fuzzers and raise it as my own child, dress it up in people clothes, instill it with a solid moral foundation, send it to respectable private school, the works. But if you anger the honey badger it goes from a happy ball of fuzz and sneezes to this...

Death with frosted tips

What was once a sugar coated morsel of downy adorability is now a bona fide killing machine, the Terminators of nature. Honey badgers are universally accepted as one of the most badass animals somewhere between a wolverine and a tyrannosaurus rex. By all appearances they have no fear instinct and go around killing incredibly venomous snakes for their mid-afternoon snack. If you have three minutes and a high tolerance for animal violence watch this clip. I never thought I'd pity a snake before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c81bcjyfn6U&feature=player_embedded

But back to the topic at hand: Afghanistan. Afghanistan is like a honey badger, its harmless unless provoked. Granted Afghanistan is neither as cute nor as deadly as a single honey badger, but the analogy still stands. If you know something will erupt into a deadly rage when prodded, keep your hands to yourself.

Found stamped to a "Welcome to Afghanistan" sign

Afghanistan Security

I have mixed feelings towards the security that the troops deployed in Afghanistan currently provide. The idea of them being there provides a visible sign to the rest of the world that if you mess with the United States, we won’t just stand back. It’s a constant reminder that the country is willing to get involved when threatened and I think that presence provides almost a deterrence to other states that may wish to foster non-state actors posing a threat to the United States. However, the fact that the troops are there and aren’t easily deployable makes me worry about my own personal security and that of the country’s. If there was to be another terrorist attack, some type of natural disaster, etc. where troops would be needed at home, we could be, depending on the magnitude of the program, be overextended. So with troops over in Afghanistan, I almost think we are not as safe here at home.

When I think about feeling “secure” myself, I think about personally feeling safe at night, not keeping in minds the objectives and threats to the United States as a whole. Going by that definition, I think that I would feel more secure with us out of Afghanistan, or staying at home preparing to defend as oppose to almost continuing a type of preventive strategy that may or may not be effective.

It’s important to note how different the question specifically asking about Afghanistan is if it has been replaced with Iraq. I think because I believe we had to go to Afghanistan after 9/11, but, by contrast, don’t believe going to Iraq was the best decision (see the fact that Tenet was referencing early 90s information when calling WMD a “slam dunk” case), I feel much more secure with troops in Afghanistan than Iraq because I better understand the purpose and the threat that is posed.

Distance Security

Security. Being secure. Feeling secure. They are all different. I think security are the actual forces or contraptions that are protecting us and alerting us to potential danger or threats. Being secure is the act. Password locking all your information, turning on the house alarm when you leave the house, and locking your car after you park it are all acts of being secure. It's in your hands. Feeling secure is the sense you get knowing that no one is going to hack into your computer, break into your house and kill you in your sleep, or steal your stuff from your car. Feeling secure, however, is not a guarantee that you are indeed secure. I feel secure sitting in my dorm room typing this blog post even though my door is unlocked and anyone can come in without my permission. It's not necessarily a secure area, but I trust my floor mates to respect the open-door policy on the floor and not violate it.

At the same time, one can feel apathy to an external act of security, like the troops in Afghanistan. Theoretically, they are there to protect America and make sure nothing happens to the U.S., providing security to the people. However, the fact that there are currently troops in Afghanistan ready to put their life on the line in the name of the United States doesn't really affect my sense of security because it doesn't really have a direct affect on me. Don't get me wrong, I am extremely grateful to the troops for their service to our country, but the physical state of having troops there doesn't really affect me as much as having troops in Iraq post 9/11 affected me and then too it was a patriotic feeling and a desire to stop further terrorist activities. But say that Obama decides to move all troops out of the middle east tomorrow, I think I'd feel happiness for the troops and their families, but not a lessened sense of security.

Reflective Post: Week 10

This week we talked a lot about national security so I suppose I should talk about that in this post as well. The nation faces threats from all sides and even from inside our golden gates of opportunity. Trust no one. Shoot first, ask questions later. Ok I talked about it.

Apparently everyone else in the class just talked about The Rally in their reflective posts so I suppose, in the resigned-sheep nature of this post, that I'll talk about that too. First of all, I did not go to The Rally nor did I have any desire to go. From what I've gleaned about The Rally it was an oversized comedy show that flaunted pseudo-political jabber as real activism. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about standing up for what you believe in and making a statement, but a bunch of kids laughing at a couple comedians and musicians make fools of themselves and their country on the national mall is not social activism. John Stewart and Steven Colbert are funny men, but that' about it. In case your forgot their shows are on Comedy Central, not CNN or FOX or any other organization even claiming to be legitimate news or political commentary.

But congratulations are in order to the two gentlemen mentioned above for pulling off the biggest farce to be called political action since Woodstock.

Dude, I just solved all America's problems...wait...nope...I lost it. Let's just do some acid and maybe I'll remember it again

This weekend was legend-... wait for it... and I hope you're not lactose intolerant because the second half of that word is DAIRY!

Where shall I start? What an amazing weekend!

First: trick-or-treating at the embassies--a little disappointing, but still memorable. Only one embassy actually gave us international candy--Korea. But we had a great bonding experience and some members of the group even landed on the front page of the Washington Post! I was busy taking a picture of the embassy so I'm not actually in the picture :(

Second: the Idina Menzel concert. A great medley of pop culture spanning from Barbara Streisand to Lady Gaga, the NSO Pops conducted by Marvin Hamlisch and Idina Menzel made my night unforgettable. It was the perfect blend of sass, pop culture trivia, comedy, passion, and beautiful music from Marvin, Idina, and the NSO Pops. Touched on many songs that played a major role in shaping today's pop culture. Starting with the Overture from Gypsy, Mr. Hamlisch conducted 4 pieces that had two things in common: 1. the Musical they are from exemplify women's strength and 2. they expressed the culture of various time periods. (The other songs were Annie Get Your Gun Overture, Memories from Cats, and My Fair LadyOverture. He talked about how he got his start in music. It was phenomenal listening to a man who has created history himself. If you don't know who Marvin Hamlisch is, look him up--immediately. Idina also talked about some historical events that she took part in or witnessed, including the dress rehearsal for Rent when the writer of the musical died suddenly, playing Elphie in Wicked, and singing for Barbara Streisand at the Lincoln Center. And, just as a bonus, I got her autograph twice that night. :)

Third: Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear. I didn't camp out. I didn't wake up extra early. I did cram into a metro car to travel to Metro Center, the entire trip with my head pushed against a stranger's arm. Walking from Metro Center to the rally, we got to see people selling buttons and memorabilia reminding people how historical that day was. After spending my previous night listening to my idols recant their encounters with historical events, I got to participate in a rally that would change how the media affects politics. Who knows, it may have been the beginning of the end of the brainwashing era! AND I (and every other AU/Gtown student and like a few thousand other people) WAS THERE TO WITNESS IT LIVE!

Fourth: Trick-or-Treating for real. Timeless past time. nuff said :)

But now it's November... bunny bunny foot foot!