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.

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.

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 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.

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...

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?

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.

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!

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.

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. :)

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.

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

*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.

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?

Just a bunch of farmer talk*...

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

Let me phrase it this way:

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

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

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

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

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

You Say TomATOES and I Say TomaTOES

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

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

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

The Result of Blogger's Block

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

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

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

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

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

*TANGENT ALERT*

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

The Transformation of Hippie Barney to Barney Stinson

Now see how everyone reacts to the suited up Barney.

Magical. I know.

*BACK TO THE FUNCTION*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Popularity, Wicked Style

This week, many people from UC World Politics blogged about uninformed voting and if it was better to vote uninformed or not vote at all. I took the stance that it is better to not vote than vote uninformed, however, after our Friday discussion, I think that my interpretation of the term uninformed has changed. In my former blog post, I assumed that an uninformed voter was a person who didn’t know ANYTHING about the election, willy-nilly voting. However, there are various forms of uninformed voting that, at one point in the discussion, I wondered if all levels of voting were uninformed voting because politicians tend to do one of two things: 1) make a bunch of promises that, due to practicality and/or the situation they are in once they are elected, they cannot keep, or 2) say stuff that they don’t believe in order to get the votes they need to win.

I think that popularity plays a major role in the election process. The media, whether it is CNN, FOX or SNL, supported the candidate’s popularity. Because people watch these channels and shows that mock one candidate and, for the most part, praise the other, the media almost determines the election results themselves. In theory, they could control the outcome of the election because they can decide who is popular and who isn’t.

Because I basically had a Kristin Chenoweth YouTube marathon before writing this blog entry, we’re going to pretend that the media is Galinda and that the “chosen” candidate is Elphaba. Galinda initially didn’t like Elphaba, because she was different. But then, once she found how good Elphaba was, Galinda decided to help Elphaba become popular so that others could over look her greenness and get to know the wonderful person that Elphaba was.

After Elphaba became popular, Galinda turned her back on her because Galinda was presented with the opportunity to get everything that she wanted and Elphaba casted a spell against the Wizard of Oz because he was the one responsible for all the animal teachers being forced to retire from teaching and being imprisoned. Elphaba stood up for what she believed in and the heads in Emerald City did not want people to catch on to what they were doing, so they make Elphaba the scapegoat and deemed her the “Wicked Witch of the West.” Galinda became the face of the Emerald City government and told the public everything that the government wanted the public to believe, even though it meant ostracizing her only close friend. After that, anyone who has seen The Wizard of Oz knows what happened.

Similarly, after the media made their chosen candidate popular amongst the people and after that candidate became an elected official and after the elected official has done something that challenges the public’s mentality but is still inherently good, the media will, for the most part, turn on that elected official. With that first strike, the elected official will easily be blamed for other bad things that occur under his or her “reign,” whether it is actually his/her fault or not. That elected official’s popularity will decrease throughout his/her term, just like Elphaba’s popularity decreased until she was “melted.” (I’m using The Wizard of Oz ending because I don’t want to completely give away the ending.)

Well, that’s what has been going on in my head after Friday’s discussion and my Kristin Chenoweth marathon. Keep in mind that this is just a theory and is probably applicable in a handful of situations; I’m just talking about what I know and have observed.

Resources:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hXU6Sv2swA&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XwmA0jyWMk&feature=player_embedded

Don't Vote...Unless You Care

During the electrons, advertisements would promote people, especially the "youth," to vote. Honestly, if you know what's going on the in the world and care, its your right and prerogative to vote. However, if you have no idea what each of the running candidates believe in, then you should not vote. A uneducated vote is like pin the tail on the donkey: it's not likely that you'll get the result you're looking for.

The point of the United States democracy is for the American citizens to choose the people that they want to represent them in the House of Representative, in the Senate and as President(when looking at a national level). Do you really want to randomly choose someone who could very well have completely opposite views that yours to represent YOUR thoughts? No. You would want a representative that shares your view points, right? Casting an uneducated vote is not practical when your and your fellow Americans' future is at stake. An uneducated vote is not worth the risk. Seriously, if you're willing to stand in the long lines to vote, you should at least take a few hours to research the candidates and determine who you think you'd want to represent you. Forming an educated vote does not take too much effort and is well worth you spend deciding on your vote.

It is your future. Who do you want to represent it?

Resources:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE2YE8hadnk

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.economicpopulist.org/files/donkey.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.economicpopulist.org/category/topic-meta-tags/recession&usg=__ajCx47c8O_44Dsy3HAxVn2ULSs4=&h=200&w=200&sz=8&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=0P1UA5kSxU7ZoM:&tbnh=155&tbnw=154&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpin%2Bthe%2Btail%2Bon%2Bthe%2Bdonkey%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D751%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=520&vpy=411&dur=54&hovh=160&hovw=160&tx=138&ty=50&ei=SmiRTJLbAsP88Aag87CkBQ&oei=SmiRTJLbAsP88Aag87CkBQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mbc/lowres/mbcn546l.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/p/pin_the_tail_on_the_donkey.asp&usg=__qV4_zILcQ8C9MKnR57Z-h-XHrc0=&h=400&w=400&sz=33&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=QTakF8fGaT9K2M:&tbnh=155&tbnw=154&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpin%2Bthe%2Btail%2Bon%2Bthe%2Bdonkey%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D751%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=653&vpy=348&dur=6015&hovh=225&hovw=225&tx=126&ty=114&ei=CWiRTOOkGcH98AbEhvShBQ&oei=CWiRTOOkGcH98AbEhvShBQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0