Kay so I know we turned in our blog reports...

But just in case PTJ is perusing these in his grading or in the event Erin gets nostalgic, allow me to share with you what I got out of our gift swap. Well, first I should probably announce that like 15 of us got together and decided to do like a white elephant style gift swap and that it was an awesome evening that culminated in drawing on the windows to the lounge with dry erase markers (Roland's gift) to create targets for the Nerf gun (Kate's gift), but that even though Colin got a bunch of Play Dough, I still think what I got was the funniest, based entirely on it's address.

And here's why. 

Adieu, blog and bloggers. Although it is entirely possible- probable, perhaps- that I will return to post something or other, I feel this is a suitable departure post. It's been fun. 

Jim Rome and Professor Jackson?

While at work today, I was watching Jim Rome (sports talk show host, has a show on ESPN, etc) and realized that he looks identical to Professor Jackson.

The Final Reflection

This is it. The close. The conclusion. The end. If you don't mind I'll save my tears, but I will miss world politics. I'll miss the discussions that varied in levels of intensity depending on how awake I was in that particular class, I'll miss our little field trips (it was like hanging on to that one last piece of my preliminary education), I'll miss PTJ's Yankees tie (although maybe that's more just me missing baseball season, no offense PTJ, it's a very nice tie), and I''l even miss these blog posts because although I complained a lot about them, I had fun with them too. As you can probably tell (see zombies reflection for reference).

To make my blog funny? Probably more than I used...

Do I understand every little intricacy of world politics now? No. Do I even understand many more than I did going into this semester? Probably not. But what I did learn is how to shape and make arguments in the field of world politics and that is more valuable than anything else I learned this semester.

Pictured above: How I felt after most world politics classes

I would like to finish this the way every rapper since 2 Pac has finished all their albums, with some thanks you's. Thank you to PTJ for letting me come talk to you after class most weeks about completely unrelated subjects, mostly Star Wars, BSG and baseball. Thanks to Erin for never telling at me for return your emails late without fail. Thanks to anyone who actually read this blog and especially to anyone who laughed at it. And thanks to my classmates who put up with my abrasive style of debating and still haven't made any attempts on my life for it....that I know of.

OK, I'm out

A Final Reflection

I am so ill. Much like PTJ teaching class while under the influence of sudafed, I am writing this under significant influence of germs, drugs, sniffles and nyquil. Unsurprisingly, I am not alone. The whole of Letts 6 South seems to have caught this contagen (which was this time not propagated by my roommates boyfriend) and it is both rather unhelpful concerning finals and also rather putting a damper on the holiday mood here.

even our carols aren't quite right...

For instance, the gift swap we organized is supposed to happen on Wednesday, but most people have been too sick to go get anything as a gift. Even I, one of the three original organizers, had to lecture myself for a while on the importance of timeliness before I could pry myself out of bed to go get a present. Although we were originally expecting a wide array of gifts to show up- from the comical to the useless to the cute to the useful- I have to wonder if this mild epidemic won't skew people's priorities.

Of course, it will be fun regardless. Now we all just have to get there.

Spam Part Two- Having the Power to Protect the People

Obviously, by the end of Horizons, you must agree that at least in this way of thinking about things, sovereignty successfully protects difference. (Although I was a bit bothered by the ending, it tasted slightly of zoo-ish spectacle watching.) Whether this applies to the rest of the world, I suppose, is another matter.

As an aside, my opinions on Horizons; Goodness gracious sentence fragments! The plot was interesting, the twists were pretty well developed, but good God, the writing was atrocious. It reminded me vaguely of Twilight- person who is not a writer has an idea, and not a terrible one, but writes it totally horribly. No offence, Professor. (Or Mary Rosenblum.)

So the Spamming Begins

What a deliciously juicy question. Why DOES Todorov dedicate The Conquest of America to "the memory of a Mayan woman devoured by dogs"? Why bother dedicating such a book to anyone?

I think, based on the attitude Todorov takes to nearly every character mention in his book, we can assume that he was a man of people and ideas more than a man of things and thoughts. The way he thoughtfully explains (while still sort of condescending towards) Columbus' obsession with nature and ignorance of human interaction clearly illuminates both his own occupation with the human element and his need to tell the story as truthfully to his characters, well, character as he can. I feel as though Todorov would think that the lesser of the two most frequent evils of historical accounts, one being inaccurate facts of people's actions and the other being inaccurate portrayal of people's character, would easily be the first.

So that he wants his readers to keep in mind the human element as they begin his readings is completely unsurprising. Reminding us that the numbers lost from the Native American population were not in fact merely numbers, but were people, individuals, men, children and obviously women, provides potency to his work that may have been lost in the sauce otherwise.

Simulations: WWF and Labor Unions

Through both simulations this year, I think I was put in a… unique position, defending the interests of both the labor unions and the Word Wildlife Fund, two group that tend to focus on issues that aren’t exactly primarily on my radar. Although there was quite a bit of whining on my part (with Scott mostly, who was “stuck” with GM and McDonald’s), I am again glad that I was given the challenge that I was. I have reflected in a similar way before, when I talked about how interesting (and crucial) it is to look at things from another perspective and how I was pleased to be given that opportunity. At the very least, it allows you to see the holes in your own argument and better strengthen it.

For the WWF, my family again got a good laugh – over Thanksgiving Break, I read my original statement to present to the World Bank. Just a few key lines from it here…

“While reviewing the guidelines proposed, it is clear that something crucial, something that affects all of humanity equally, was left out: the environment. We cannot focus on just short term development problems, but must keep in mind the long term effects that ignoring the environment will have on us and on our children. The environment provided the nutrients that fed our forefathers, the resources that we use to manufacture our products, and will continue to house and provide for our future generations. To ensure its survival, we are must create sustainable energy sources and protecting the natural resources and habitats of developing nations and all nations around the world.”

What really got them was me talking passionately about the “shining example” that the Obama administration has been setting with their fiscal dedication to the environment, as well as how we should really increased regulations and ignore the deficit in pursuit of environmental preservation.

I’m not going to lie, as a business major, it was a great chance to see the unions from the perspective of the laborer, which could be very helpful in the future, if I wind up working from the businesses’ perspective in a unionized industry (be equivalent of Christie to the teacher’s union). With the WWF, I admittedly exaggerate my apparent dislike of the environment. I know it’s important, but it’s not on the top of my priority list because honestly, it doesn’t really affect my life the same way that say, higher taxes will, mostly because the environment is such a long term effect kind of perspective (“I’ll be dead before we have to worry about the most awful effects of global warming!”).

The biggest difference between the two simulation groups is really just that – labor unions are looking more at the current economic and business environment and can really rely on pity emotions (Kitty video anyone?), whereas the WWF has the challenge of forcing others to recognize the long term impact of their actions. Yeah, it might help McDonald’s now to wreck some rainforests to put in new buildings, but there’s something greater there that we need to focus on. I think it was important for me to have to see things long term through this project because I tend to focus so much on the short term (which reminds me of the bio-terrorism and global warming class discussion).

It’s easy to get the so what question, which Gabe pointed out – why is the environment important in an economic conference? Looking at developed nations, where industrialization and service industries take precedent and are already established, when protecting natural resources really isn’t as crucial to maintaining a strong economy, it doesn’t seem as important. With developing nations, many of their economies are tied closely to their environments because they rely heavily on natural resources, some on tourism, etc. There’s a greater need for them to protect these (which, is a major positive in the end for the environment. If developing nations are keeping it in mind and developed nations have the money to focus on the environment, then the environment might avoid getting overlooked the way it did in the past during major periods of industrialization, promoting a habit of protecting the environment).

I would still argue, even after taking the WWF’s side, it is one thing if they want to be involved in the World Bank conference, but the amendment we proposed should be last (and we should have put it last to get it to pass. Alas, I’m not quite Eric Cantor or Steny Hoyer at playing the role of whip to get the votes). It should be kept in mind, but can’t be the focus of the conference (although I loved the other Washington Consensus amendments).

Last thing – this simulation was much more fun than the first one simply because it required more under the table deal making. I spent the entire time on my computer and talking to each group, trying to strike deals. Unfortunately, my biggest mistake was not focusing on policy because I was too big on getting the votes needed. Still, it was a great experience to figure out what deals to cut to get the votes needed and knowing what compromises you need to make. Originally, we were planning on introducing a very tough environmental bill and then offering our compromise later (the long term solution plan that instituted gradually increasing standards over a 20 year period, with higher standards put in for developed countries). Still was definitely a great bill from every group represented except maybe McDonald’s (although their presentation was all about how much they sweat [Alex Hochman] the environment).

I’d like to apologize for any grafs that don’t make very much sense, as I’m watching the highly overrated and lucky, Rex Ryan-screwing-over-Baltimore led Jets vs. the apparently worst statistical defense in the league in the Pats MNF game at the same time. Definitely a potential playoff matchup in the likely divisional round of Ravens-Pats-Jets-Steelers epicness.

Primarily Cats and Dogs

Separation as a concept has a tainted history in America. It immediately brings to mind memories of segregation all too fresh in our national memory. But despite this gag-reflex of revulsion from the word separation, sometimes it's not a bad thing. In fact, it is very often a very good thing. Lets be totally honest, it's better if some things and some people are just kept apart, some things should just never be together because when they are the results are horrific.

You brought this upon yourself, America. Now you must live with what you have done

If you need any more proof as to the necessity of separation (which you really shouldn't, I mean come on guys, Cats and Dogs. If you're still not convinced you obviously haven't seen it, and its sequel), look at the conflict between the State of Israel and a conglomeration of terrorist organization that claim loyalty to an ancient tract of land called "Palestine." The root of the bloody conflict that rages to this day there is that neither side will just leave. Anyone who has ever run away from a fight can tell you that, the easiest way to have peace is just to leave.

So to make a short ramble even shorter, when Rosenblum says

"The only way to keep them safe is to be separate. A nation with the power to protect its own."

I can only agree. Sometimes it's for the best of everyone for one party to just stop causing problems and leave.

I've got a sneaking suspicion... --love-- world politics actually is all around

So Friday night, Row, Kate, Bree, Scott and I watched Love Actually. There's a scene in the movie where the U.S. President meets with the Prime Minister of England and ends up making moves on the Prime Minister's love interest right before the press conference. Hugh Grant, the Prime Minister, saw what he was doing and didn't approve. This is how the press conference proceeded:

Press Conference Reporter: Mr. President, has it been a good visit?

The President: Very satisfactory indeed. We got what we came for, and our special relationship is still very special.

Press Conference Reporter: Prime Minister?

Prime Minister: I love that word "relationship." Covers all manner of sins, doesn't it? I fear that this has become a bad relationship; a relationship based on the President taking exactly what he wants and casually ignoring all those things that really matter to, erm... Britain. We may be a small country, but we're a great one, too. The country of Shakespeare, Churchill, the Beatles, Sean Connery, Harry Potter. David Beckham's right foot. David Beckham's left foot, come to that. And a friend who bullies us is no longer a friend. And since bullies only respond to strength, from now onward I will be prepared to be much stronger. And the President should be prepared for that.

After seeing this scene, Rowland and I were contemplating the effect this speech would have in world politics if it were real life. How would the U.S. public and English public react to this? Most likely the U.S. would take this poorly and the American media would portray the British as the new enemy and half of the British population would consider the Prime Minister as a dumb...butt and the other half would probably praise the prime minister for finally standing up to the U.S. The last lines, "I will be prepared to be much stronger. And the President should be prepared for that" makes me think that there may be an impending war against England and the U.S., whether it be a real war or a cold war, either way, knowing the United States' media, the Prime Minister's words wouldn't be taken well.

When I first saw this movie, I cheered for the British, like everyone else in the movie, however, this time when I watched the movie, I couldn't help but be frustrated with the Prime Minister for practically severing US/UK relations in such a public manner. Although it wouldn't have the same effect on the plot of the movie, Hugh Grant should have worked out his differences with Billy Bob Thornton, the U.S. president, in private without the media so that the issue wouldn't be that of world politics, but rather that Billy Bob Thornton understand that Hugh Grant called dibs on the chick and that its not ok to me a womanizing politician.

So, the real point of this post is that Love Actually is one of my favorite movies of all time and, thanks to World Politics, now I have a compulsive need to question the political implications of the goings on in chick flicks.