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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Cheerleading Follow Up

From the combined reflection that Elle and I wrote last week about the dynamics of cheerleading, we found that liberalism is the eventual goal of the team, with the use of realism and constructivism to reach that. However, at practice yesterday, this goal was actually made concrete in the words of our coach. The attempts at forcing the team to bond had, in fact, led more to factions splitting off, between not just rookies and vets, but the vets themselves. Our coach stood up yesterday and told us that we literally can’t do anything without each other, that we are all “allies,” to quote, out on the mat. The question still remains if the team will take this to heart and form the dependent alliances necessary to become an effective team. Because the focus is on rational actors choosing what benefits them, our coach and the captains are hoping now that each team member will choose to work with everyone else by using their talents and encouraging the growth and development of others.

Boundaries to Security

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

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

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

World Politics: Cheerleading Edition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Elle and Kate

Rules of Risk

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

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

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

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

Reflection Week Eight

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

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

Reflection Week Seven

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

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

Political Party Marginalization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theories as a means to an end

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

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

Reflection Week I Don't Even Know Anymore

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

What can the state do?

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

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

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

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

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

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