Because of the infinite meanings of security, can a country ever be completely secure?

Because national security can apply to so many things in society: the military, the economy, education, the environment, etc... it is almost impossible for a country to ever be completely secure. The government only has so much money, which is divided between all of these concerns. Because of a lack of funds, the government cannot protect us from every possible threat to our national security. And since we cannot fully define what exactly national security is, it is hard to estimate what could be a threat. If we cannot predict what threats we are facing at any given time, because there are so many, the government will not be able to always protect us.

A problem with this question is that security and what it means to be secure is different to each person. For example, in class Adam mentioned that he thinks the condition of our public schools is a greater risk to our national security than terrorism. However, I would disagree. This example helps prove why a country will never be totally secure, because a country can't even agree on what it means to be secure. Some people will feel secure, while others won't. Because of this disagreement and division, a country can sometimes not even be secure from itself. A good example of this division is illegal immigration. Some people want amnesty, some want no immigration at all, some want only a work program or visas, and some want a fence. Because there are so many opinions about which one of these solutions would make us more secure, the government has not done anything because they can't agree on what is best. There is not necessarily a right or wrong answer as to what it means to be secure, and because this is such a subjective question, there will be many different answers. As a result, a country can never be completely secure.

Response 10

At first, the answer to this week's blog question strikes me as painfully obvious: no, a country can never be secure. But, although I could probably spend a few paragraphs phrasing this in creative ways and bringing in various anecdotes to support this statement, the answer is obviously a simple yes.

Then I look at the question again, more specifically, at the first part of the question. And, when I look at the question, a second time, I'm inclined to change my answer to an equally resounding "no". I remain firmly convinced that security is not a binary state, and not something that can ever entirely be achieved. But I am convinced, just as firmly, that this has nothing to do with the ambiguity of "security." We can define security in any arbitrary way we which, so we can have an infinite number of goals that are unrealizable with a finite number of resources -- so in this sense "security" is unrealizable because of ambiguity.

But, although a definition can fundamentally never be "wrong" per se, a definition can be useful or useless. The semantically-grounded argument that "security" can be defined in infinite ways ignores that, in the popular discourse, "security" does have at least a relatively fixed meaning. I can say that "popsicle" is the integer between three and five, and this definition isn't wrong, but it fails to capture the meaning (defined by prototypes, not algorithms) of what other people conceive as "popsicle" -- my definition of "popsicle" can not actually serve as a vehicle for communication, and is not a constitutive part of the popular discourse

The way in which I would attempt to algorithmically summarize how the concept of "national security" (as opposed to "individual security") exists within the popular discourse is that national security is the stability of the institutionalized power relations among the constituent people of a state. The precise ends that can be used to achieve this definition of national security are ambiguous, and this definition of national security is only minimally useful in policy formation. But the concept is both fairly valid and fairly precise. We can perhaps achieve a few different algorithmic definitions, in addition to this one, each of which do a sufficient job of summarizing the prototypical definitions of national security that exist in discourse -- but the number of such effective definitions are finite and quite limited. Irrelevant definitions should be ignored; for all effective purposes, they do not exist.

According to the definition of security I presented here, and before that in class, security is unachievable because it is algorithmically based on the stability of social relationships -- and social relationships are defined by the constantly shifting sum of social interactions. Any interaction between actors redefines, in some way, the scope of the interaction between these actors.

However, interactions may stay within a relatively constant, stable scope, or a relatively volatile one. "Security" and "insecurity" are not absolute binary states, and can never be achieved; rather, they are directions on an axis. They are comparable to "positive" and "negative" on a number line, positions which may never be reached but may be traveled towards.

Reflection 9

I'm very much looking forward to reading this week's blog reflections and entering into the seemingly imminent melee. Friday's class discussion finally sparked some healthy and substantive debate, mostly centered around the issue of gun control; We're still debating the same issue of liberalism-versus-realism just transposed from an interstate to an interpersonal scale: can people cooperate, reduce or eliminate guns, and maximize payout in the Prisoner's Dilemna? Or are they fated to compete, arm themselves, and reach a Nash equilibrium? I think the very fact that gun control sparked such a more vibrant debate than straight political has is a validation of constructivism: most people identify more directly with (and are more passionate about) a position on gun control than a position on international relations theory. We're not even debating policy alternatives: the general consensus seems to be that gun registration and restrictions on assault rifles are a good idea. 

Because this is really a debate about theory and not policy, I'd like to address BoVice's assertion that, as he would put it, "idealism is silly" because it is a normative statement ("this is how things should be") that ignores fundamental limits on what can be and provides no prescription for how things can change. I don't entirely disagree with this assertion: applying the gun control example, it is silly to claim that "no one should have guns" because curiosity, greed, and an aggressive streak in at least some humans ensure that there will always be a demand for guns,  and the demand for guns ensures that there will always be a supply of guns.

Yet the logic of this argument extends only to a point. An unachievable end should be conceptualized as a kind of mathematical asymptote, which can never be reached but may always be approached. In some cases, approaching an end yields drastically different results than achieving an end -- as in the case of communism and objectivism, which collapse because they are exploited and corrupted by a finite if variable number of people who don't conform to the respective philosophies' unrealistic assumptions about human nature. Attempting to ban guns absolutely would probably produce such a catastrophic effect: a massive illegal arms trade laden with all the negative externalities of organized crime. But the more targeted, albeit still idealistic and unachievable, aim of banning automatic weapons would produce useful results: although such weapons would still exist, they would be less frequent and more expensive; arms with less destructive potential would prevail.

I'm not entirely sure how to algorithmically distinguish useful and helpful from destructive and useless aims. Anyone who solves this question should let me know, so we can share in the Nobel Prize for Figuring Out The Universe. It's possible that some of it may be circumstantial. But, as a general rule, I'd say aims should be circumscribed only by a handful of laws governing human nature and the physical world: humans will always be imperfect and incapable of acting on consistent principle, they will never be entirely rational, they will always have desires, ambitions, and animosities, and...oh, I don't know, there are probably some more. Oh, yeah, and they will always be innately lazy. As a social science student, I'm not all that good at the physical world: i vaguely remember relativity, Newton's laws, and so forth, but in general these are a pretty minor factor in restricting the achievability of ideals.

That Thing in Italics

Most of the blogs I’ve read so far are advocating personal opinions for gun control, although they have made me reconsider what I want to blog about I’ll continue with what I intended to blog about since Friday’s class: my gut reaction to our discussion...

To me, security is simple, it’s the act of feeling safe physically and emotionally.  Naturally, all humans concerned with their well beings would be aware of security.  As security is a basic human need (the second level that much be achieved on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs) there are always people/businesses/etc taking advantage of individuals worried about their security.  This can be exemplified in the “Rubber Chair” commercial we saw in class on Friday-- a company saw where people have doubts in security and took advantage of consumers.

Of course the example of security in class that caused the biggest discussions was the website selling guns.  I have never looked up guns on the internet, let alone try to find a website trying to sell them.  The website made me extremely uneasy.  Yes, I know that anyone can buy anything over the internet, but seeing the website and seeing how easy it would be for anyone to by not only guns but huge assault rifles.  I found it sickening, the website made me feel less secure.

I have family members that are have passionate, firm, beliefs on both sides of gun control.  Although I personally have no desire to never own a gun, for any purpose, I understand both sides of the argument.  I may not agree with it, but I understand people’s desire to defend themselves and their right to bear arms.  When I say this, the gun I imagine is something used for hunting or self-defense, I do not see a huge assault riffle.  You certainly are not going hunting with that thing even if someone trying to threaten you that thing is not necessary.  Someone asked in class “are these guns useful for your personal security”...ummm I think not, in what domestic situation will you need a weapon for that ability?

In Friday’s class it was also brought up that of the examples of personal security we discussed in class, individuals are often taking security into their own hands.  If individuals are handling their security themselves it infers that the government is not doing its job of keeping people safe.  Perhaps if the government was doing a better job and making people feel secure people would not feel the need to buy guns capable of the destruction as the guns we saw in class were.

And referring to Mama D’s blog, when I found out on Friday that oil was sixty-something dollars a barrel I made a point to ask my parents how much it is back home (I admit not having to pay for gas has made me pay less attention to the prices).  I finally see a big scale example of supply and demand.  I wonder what the implications will be, will OPEC decrease production (I think I read somewhere that was a possibility)?  Most people have decreased their driving in order to use less fuel, will these habits continue?  With the desire of alternative fuels change if the prices continue to go down? And, of course the ever important self-involved question, during winter break when I have to drive to work will the prices continue to be this low? 

I cannot think of a clever title for this one so ill leave it up to you to think of your own

I wasn’t going to get involved in the whole gun control debate because I thought it had nothing to do with class but after reading Nate’s post I feel that I need to at least mention my feelings on the situation. I believe that a person has a right to own a gun, BUT that does not mean I am advocating for no gun control. Gun control and registration are important and making sure that Joe the Gang Leader (get it...it’s a McCain joke) doesn't have the means to arm his gang with AK-47s is still important but that should not prevent any “sane” person from getting a gun. I know “sane” is a loaded word and it sparks debate but I’m not arguing who or what makes a person sane that is up to. As you all know I’m from New Jersey, aka Hell on Earth or The Best State Ever. Within New Jersey there are three major cities where gun violence is an issue: Trenton, Camden and Newark. I live 5 minutes outside of Trenton so the threat of gang violence spilling over into my town is very strong. To have one moment of political incorrectness, most of the violence in Trenton is caused by the African-American community, but they are not attacking every white person walking down the street in Trenton. Yes, I knew someone who was beaten to a pulp in Trenton, but he decided it would be fun to play a prank on the Bloods. They didn’t attack him because he was a rich white kid. Racial tension obviously exists in most cities, but it not causing the violence. People become stressed and worried about their state of being so a natural reaction is to fight for survival, hence the arrival of the street gang. But I am digressing. To respond to Nate’s post directly, if guns are completely banned, which is unlikely to begin with, gun prices will go up. Yes, that is basic economics, but how will a common street thug, fighting to pay his rent, be able to buy a gun at a higher price. Okay someone will argue that someone will make cheap guns in their basement g yes that is true and it will keep gun violence but it would be a bit lower. Though I know I will be seeing comments on this I need to stop because I feel other people are making better arguments (aka Bovice) and I don't know enough to support my arguments.

Now its time for my other reflection...yeah so the market is still in the crapper. But gas prices are low. I asked my mom this weekend what the average gas price back home was and it was $2.53/gallon. Last time I had to fill up my car gas was hovering around $4/gallon. At least there is some good coming out of this crisis. Only a little over a week until the election....hope everyone got their ballot. Yeah...halloween this Friday, still don't have a costume. That it. Can’t write anymore.

Reflection

This week I have been reminded how important my rights are. First, at Jasmine's event Totalitarian Islam and Free Speech, and then in class on Friday talking about the Second Amendment.

In regards to Free Speech, the U.S. needs to stand behind the rights of publishers/editors like Flemming Rose to publish material that might be offensive to some. Politicans need to stop being so politically correct, and we need to remember that the rights of individuals trump the rights of any group. Groups don't have rights, the individuals of the group do and give the group any rights it has. Censoring things that could be offensive to someone/group is a bad idea because it comes back to you. An example of this are Israeli groups that have tried to ban opinions that the Holocaust didn't happen, these groups are now being threatened as anti-Islamic.

Our right to offend is most important because what offends someone else might not offend you. But if the situation is reversed, you are not going to want to get in trouble for saying something that you don't think is offensive at all. Everyone has a right to free speech, but some governments and radical ideologies violate this and don't allow it. By limiting free speech we are self-censoring ourselves out of fear. We should not be let a certain groups rights become more important than others.

The Second Amendment is another right that needs to be protected. I first want to disagree with the person in class who said that the Second Amendment only applies to militias or an army. The Second Amendment applies to the individuals who made up the militias in case an overthrow of the government was needed. Guns are dangerous and they do kill people, but they can also be used for protection. The Second Amendment is important to our security as a country and as individuals.

I feel like it's hard to look at the good that guns do because they are capable of doing so much harm, but sometimes you need to. Guns are dangerous, but the way to stop gun violence isn't by taking guns away from people who want them legally and for the right reasons. Criminals will still get guns illegally and as U.S. citizens we should have the right to protect ourselves from them. I think that some gun regulation is needed and I don't think guns should be easily bought on the internet, but with certain restrictions, people should be able to own and carry guns.

One of the more interesting, but brief forms of security, we talked about I thought was Social Security. I completly agree with Jasmine when she said in class that it protects you from yourself. I think we should get rid of social security because it assumes we can't plan for our own futures and it relies on some people to contribute who won't get anything back. People need to take more personal responsibility when it comes to their money. If they would have, the financial crisis might not have happened.

Also, I liked the video we watched in class, A World Without the U.S. I think it was able to show why it might be important to secure the world if we want the U.S. to be secure. Although I don't believe we should try to democracize the world, I think it helped explain why a preemptive strike might not always be bad. I do want to disgree with Adam in class who said that the video promoted the idea of manifest destiny. I think the video just pointed out that if the United States doesn't step into some of the conflicts it does, then no one else will. I don't think it's so much that the United States has to step in, but sometimes I believe we should, as we did in WW II, becuase it's the right thing to do.

If I win Monopoly the Bro Palace will look like...

Since September 15th, the United States stock market has been in a state of confusion. The collapse of Lehman Brothers and AIG has led to the sharp decline of the Dow Jones Industrial and other large indexes. Since the world’s largest economies are interconnected, this once domestic crisis has become an international financial disaster. The problem with this crisis is currently contained in the financial sector of most countries, so it currently does not pose a large security threat to any of the nations involved.

The United States economy has been hit hard. Unemployment is on the rise. CNN Money reports that mass layoffs, a layoff of over 50 people, haven’t been this high since September 2001. The credit market is basically froze. Foreclosures are at levels not seen before. A recession approaching if not already here. Though the US economy is failing, our security as a nation has not been jeopardized. Most of the trouble is in the financial sector. Luckily not much of the trouble has affected real capital. Most people on “Main Street” haven’t felt the full force of the crisis yet. The people, though upset, will not start a domestic security threat. Defense contracts are not being broken. The United States is not losing any of its defense capabilities. Most nations affected by the crisis are not losing anything when it comes to defense capabilities. The crisis is not affecting any nation’s security right now.

The threat of the crisis becoming a security issue exists. The crisis is not at its worse possible point yet. The entire global economy has not crashed. The world has not entered a state of chaos and disorder. If for some odd reason the world was to suddenly have a financial crash then some countries might become unstable and security would become an issue but that is not realistic at this point.

Though it could become a security issue at one point, the financial crisis is not going to cause a state to worry more about its security.

How the Financial Crisis Is a Security Issue

According to The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, “We seek instead to create a balance of power that favors human freedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty.  In a world that is safe, people will be able to make their own lives better.”  By stating “economic liberty” is a component of security infers that economics is a component security.  When a state is secure economically it will have a stable economy.

When a state experiences a financial crisis it limits the economic abilities of the state’s citizens.  When citizens of a state undergo a financial crisis and they have poor personal finances it limits their abilities to make their own life better.  They do not have as much economic liberty as they would during a time of prosperity.  The reason their freedoms would decrease it when people have less money they still need to purchase basic needs (such as food, shelter, etc), this means they do not have the ability to buy luxuries and items they would buy by choice to make their lives better.  

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America specifically addresses the threat of terrorism throughout the document.  Seeing the financial crisis as a weakness of a state, a terrorist could use it to his advantage against the state by targeting financial institutions or finding ways to make the economy worse.  Lastly, as we discussed in class throughout history many states turn to war as a way to get out of a financial crisis.  This means being in a financial crisis could threaten our sense of peace and security in the future.

Although my interpretation of The National Security Strategy of the United States of America addresses national security I think our currently financial crisis is effecting people’s personal security more drastically at this time.  With the possibility of losing their homes and money invested in stocks people fear for their own personal welfare.  However, for the reasons I listed above including its limitations of liberty our current financial crisis has the potential to effects the security of the nation as a whole rather than the individuals within it.

Is the financial crisis a security issue?

The current financial crisis is a security issue because the economy has such a big influence in our nation's overall stability. The more money our government spends bailing out financial institutions, the less amount of money they are spending on our military and defense. This can go so far as to limit our future intelligence capabilities compared to other countries, especially since we are in the middle of fighting a war, and with Russia acting up again. Also, the more money we borrow from other countries the more in debt we are to them and the more we have to rely on others. This threatens our national security because it ties us to other countries who may, or may not like us. For example, our country has borrowed a lot of money from China.

The financial crisis is a global security issue because our stock market is so closely connected to so many other countrie's economies. Trade is a big part of our economy and with our economy the way it is today, the dollar is weak compared to a lot of other currencies. This is bad for our country because it lowers our economis standing in the world, which lowers our legitimacy as a world superpower. We will continue to lose money and jobs with a bad economy. The fact that we have to get help from other countries to stabalize/maintain our economy is dangerous.

Writers Block...Warning this Blog Doesn’t Quite Flow...Do Blogs Need to Flow?-- Yet Another Stream of Consciousness

So, fall break is over, and I have made it through one-sixteenth of my college career.  My weekend did not go according to plan, instead, I found myself spending most of my weekend up on the seventh floor.  I try to visit frequently but I never can as much as I like.  This weekend however I had the pleasure of being in the company of my UC bros and (do the girls even have a nickname if so will someone please tell me what it is?).  Yes, we watched movies and the SNL skit, and ate pizza but we also got to talk-- really talk, not about the things we have to do or the stress we are encountering but whatever we were feeling.  Mindless yet meaningful chatter.  My high school lit teacher told me the best, most impressionistic part of college is the 4 am chats, and I understand why.  It is in these informal, relaxed settings where you really get to know another person, and sometimes yourself.

Maybe this is a stretch, but I think the “getting to know you” aspect of college, or life in general can be related to IR Theory, specifically constructivism.  Just a state has its own identity so does a person, and just as a state identifies other states we tend to identify other people.  Maybe that’s the whole point, maybe that’s why PTJ knew I would like constructivism so much, or maybe it’s just my writers block.  

While writing the constructivist perspective part of my essay I think I finally really grasped the concept of constructivism.  To me it makes sense, particularly I like that it recognizes the possibility of change.  My problems with realism and liberalism is they counted on things being constant-- it me they did not seem realistic.  The world is ever changing and an IR theory should recognize that.

Reflection

Since we didn't have class Friday I guess I will write my reflection about the movie we saw.

I hadn't seen Lord of War before and I thought it was really good. But, I was surprised how much it affected me. I left the movie feeling really depressed and helpless. I would consider myself to be a fairly moral person and someone who likes to do the right thing. I've also always been really uncomfortable breaking the law, which probably contributes a lot to me wanting to be a lawyer. To be more specific, a criminal prosecutor. This is something that I feel has always separated me from other people my age who I sometimes think the highlight of their week is getting wasted, which may or may not be a good thing depending who you ask, as I am not judging anyone. But I guess growing up and witnessing some of the injustices that I have firsthand, I have always had an urge to fight for doing the right thing. I guess this is why I don't like breaking laws, because a society that doesn't follow laws loses its legitimacy, and therefore, its ability to protect those that need to be protected.

But, then thinking about this I am also a hypocrite, or maybe just too zealous for justice?? (which might be even worse?) because I also would be the first one to defend the illegal wiretapping by the government. This is because, even though I value my and others civil rights a lot, I feel like it did more good than harm. This reminds me in the movie when the investigator who chases Nicholas Cage's character knows he is illegally trading weapons but doesn't have the evidence to prove it. Instead of arresting him without the evidence, he chooses to let him go because he wants to follow the law. When this happened in the movie I thought of what I would have done and although I would like to say it would be an easy decision to let him go, I think I would really have to think about it because I know the effects that his guns have on people. So I guess really I'm just a messed up person whom is very conflicted. This is something I deal with a lot, especially with politics because I agree/disagree with the positions of both political parties. I've always considered myself to be a moderate conservative because I agree with slightly more things in the republican platform than I do in the democratic one, and I feel more strongly about those issues.

But going back to why I left the movie depressed and helpless, before I went off on my tangent. At the end of the movie it is exposed that the United States also sells/trades weapons. This could be to protect our self-interest in conflicts we can't afford to publicly get involved in or to support certain governments that are pro-U.S. and help them get elected. So at the end of the movie we are basically left to think about our own government and morals. This is especially hard for me because I am usually so pro-U.S., mostly because I really do believe (and think it can be proven) that the United States does more good in the world than harm. And because for the most part I think the U.S. is a fairly moral country compared to others. But after seeing all the harm that these weapons do, how can you support that? So I feel helpless because we live in a world where we are forced to do bad things, even when attempting to do good. I feel helpless because people like the investigator, who try to do the right thing, lose. Because eventually Cage's character is set free and alloweed to continue to make his living illegally. I think the reason this movie literally brought me to tears is because I am able to relate to the investigator so much in my own life. I'm not certain that I will go to law school or what exactly I will do with my life, but I have always wanted to do something to make a difference. People always talk about how corrupt the world is and how impossible it is to make a difference, I guess this movie just kind of proved it to me. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying, it just makes me see the world in a different way. I guess I've always been a pretty trusting person, too much so for my own good sometimes. But I would still like to believe that people are, for the most part, good.

Reflection 8

I’m not entirely sure whether it was this week or last week that we were discussing marginalized groups and challenges to international relations theory in Professor Jackson’s class. After an utterly relaxing fall break – which included ordering pizza three times in one night, taking my first trip as a college student to the National Zoo, spending far too much money at Pentagon City, and dining on some fine West Asian fare at the Afghan Grille in Woodley Park (highly recommended) – I’m far too relaxed to bother checking the syllabus. Regardless, I wanted to be a bit of a narcissist in this posting, and build momentum for an issue I addressed that didn’t really gain traction in class discussion.

In class, whenever it was, I argued that social scientists tend to periodically reinvent the wheel. Many critics of the international relations mainstream focus on political activity outside of state-to-state, such as the kind of gender relationships that Rachel alluded to in her last reflection. They feel that the mainstream is myopic in addressing only state-to-state interactions. In truth, the critics are the myopic ones. They fail to recognize that there are vast bodies of knowledge discussing political relations between non-state entities, like people and corporations: these vast bodies of knowledge are generally referred to as sociology, anthropology, and economics. Critics of international relations theory want to reinvent the wheel; they want to claim credit for discovering entire fields of social science. Although I don’t hold a PhD, and I don’t regularly peruse an extensive catalog of academic journals or attend scholarly conferences, I’ve had enough exposure

Academia today is highly specialized – perhaps too much so. There is little danger that any possible field of knowledge will avoid being classified, criticized, and quantified (consider PTJ’s own article in the book Harry Potter and International Relations); the easiest way for a young scholar to make their mark on the body of academic knowledge is by finding some obscure and comfortable niche to work in. The danger is that knowledge will be classified, criticized, and quantified redundantly. Social scientists are so specialized that they overlook existing discussions of a given phenomena, and create substantially similar theories. These redundant theories are worse than useless: they may present a stunted, less nuanced, less developed view of a given social phenomenon, they may fail to consider some empirical evidence and theoretical criticisms, and they almost certainly confuse academic discourse by creating an impenetrable thicket of overlapping technical terms. The fringe movements of international relations are largely redundant academic movements, but they’re hardly the only members of the club.

As a political science major and the child of a political scientist, political science is the academic discipline from which I can best draw examples. Michele probably remembers our Comparative Politics professor’s criticisms of academic work on political social movements. Professor Cowell-Meyers has pointed out, on multiple occasions, that the sociologically trained scholars writing on the movements characterize define them as characterized by contentious power relations. Some of these scholars have gained prominence and probably tenure for their definitions. But to political scientists, their definitions are obvious and simplistic; All power relationships are contentious. I’m also reminded of a political scientist who remarked that he didn’t have time to read Jared Diamond’s seminal book Guns, Germs, and Steel because he was too busy with readings in his field. The scholar wasn’t directly affected by Guns, Germs, and Steel, but in my view it still had relevance: understanding how geography formed the current political and economic order is important for anyone studying that order.

Academic myopia isn’t an easy thing to cure. The easiest solution is to call for a return of the “Renaissance Man” – the general academic who read and wrote on a wide variety of topics. But this solution would probably be worse than the problem it purports to fix. Specialization isn’t always a bad thing – it has birthed the comprehensive body of academic knowledge that exists today. If academics did not claim relatively small areas of research, the result would be more, not less, redundancy: nearly every scholar would write on the same, obvious, easily observable topics. And I have a vested interest (in the form of a University of Notre Dame faculty tuition benefit) in preserving academic jobs; without specialization, there would simply be fewer such jobs. and fewer such tuition benefits, around.

Checkpoint....Do a Barrel Roll, Fox!

Fall Break, the Friday off in October to make up the Monday we had off in the beginning of the year to make up for Labor Day. I went to Baltimore to visit my friend at Loyola. Let me just say that they custom order their food. No TDR style buffet, but we still win because our food is better. Any way, I went to aquarium and saw sharks, frogs, sting rays, turtles, lizards, snakes birds, and dolphins. The dolphin show that we saw was AMAZING!!!!!! They did tricks and jumped up high and splashed the audience. But on the MARC I noticed that there was nothing between Washington and Baltimore. All the stops were just giant parking lots. To get off the train, you would have to jump off the train to the tracks and walk to the parking lot. The only stations where there were more than cars were BWI and Baltimore Penn. The reason why there isn’t much seems to be that is where all the people who work in the cities live. The MARC is a commuter train between the two cities. There are only about 6 stops between Union Station and Baltimore Penn. Baltimore and Washington have developed a metropolitan area that creates a large amount of suburbs in between. Since both cities have such a large commuter work force, the suburbs are also large.

So now to unfunny first Sarah Palin sketch on SNL. Maybe unfunny isn’t the right word or a word at all, but the sketch had so much potential. I did enjoy the fact that she could make fun of herself so easily. The opening was clever only because it was very hard to tell the difference between Palin and Tina Fey. Not the best sketch but still okay. The better Palin sketch was her appearance on Weekend Update. Amy Poehler’s rap about Palin made the show relatively funny. Thats all I have to say...so yeah...We are already 1/2 done!!!!

Maury is on in only ONE HOUR!!!!!!!!

Friday’s class was amazing!!!! We talk about so much. But anyway, to more serious matters, the simulation on Tuesday was a lot more enjoyable than I thought it would have been. Though after learning that our group was the first American Auto Manufacturers to want the removal of domestic content rules, I thought we did something wrong. I went to read people’s blogs the same day and then saw that a whole bunch of people agreed with my side and thought that we won the debate. I was surprised. I personally had stuff prepared to answer questions with but none of that was relevant. I found a way to “BS” my way out of the question on how the Ford Focus was $1,000 cheaper than the Honda Civic. People actually thought that we made a good argument that made all groups somewhat happy.

Now to something on a funny note, my paper is already completed and turned in. HA! But seriously, the issue of space can be taken many different ways. After talking to people about their papers, I realized that we all had different view points on the issue. Though we all talked about all three IR theories we still ended up with different ways of addressing the question.
Now as I sit here waiting for Maury, I will leave you all with some words of advice:

“Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils ...” - Louis Hector Berlioz

Reflection 7

After reading Antonio Iparralde's October 5th reflection on the failure of the state in Somalia, I was inspired. By Antonio's count, there are at least five separatist regions in the country, which together compromise a significant portion of Somalia's land area: Somaliland, Puntland, Galmudug, Maakhir, and and Northland. Sudan's two simultaneous civil wars pale in comparison to the armed Somalian free-for-all: although vague and sometimes shifting alliances form between the separatist groups, the Federal Transitional Government, the reconstituted Islamic Courts Union, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and various world powers, the factions battling in Somalia seem innumerable.

Secession movements are nothing new in Somalia, so why not start one of our own? Professor Jackson's World Politics learning community could quickly emerge as a major force in Somalian power politics. Think about it: the total cost of one year's tuition, room and board, and assorted fees at American University is $49,441, according to the American University admissions web site. Less any financial aid, the average out-of-pocket cost is still probably in the neighborhood of $30,000 a year. If all twenty-one University College students were to drop out of school and establish our own state in Somalia, and Professor Jackson were to reroute some of the University College programming money to us, we'd have an annual budget of over $600,000 a year. According to Wikipedia (I know, I know, not a reliable source, but maybe if we didn't have a World Politics midterm due today at 5:00 pm I'd have a little more time to do research) the purchasing power parity GDP per capita in Somalia was $600 a year in 2007. Paying twice the prevailing wage, we could hire an army of around 500 soldiers - plenty to defend a small emirate or constitutional monarchy.

I'm still working out a few details on the precise form of our soon-to-be-formed emirate/kingdom/jingoistic republic, but there are a few things that seem obvious. The state would naturally take on the name BroTopia, and the national anthem would be Soccer Practice by Johnny McGovern. Patrick Thaddeus Jackson would be eternal president and head of state, a largely ceremonial post but one which could significantly boost his name recognition via appearances on 90-foot tall Soviet-style posters. As the founder of BroTopia, I am only the logical choice for head of government (prime minister, because I'm leaning toward a parliamentary system of government). A few other people have already called spots in the BroTopian political system, or just seem to naturally merit them. If you want to reserve a spot, just comment with your request.

Eternal President: ProfPTJ

Prime Minister: Myself

Minister of Kicking Ass:

Minister of Taking Names: Seamus McGregor

Minister of Making Friends: Rachel

Minister of Holding Hands: AngelDust

Minister of METAL:

Minister of Propaganda:

Minister of Abstract Nouns:

Opposition Leaders:

Parliamentarian: Jacquelyn

Just A Private Citizen and Definitely Not the Chief of The Secret Police: Antonio Iparralde

*Reflection

So it is Sunday night and I am not yet done with my paper. I also have a midterm in Comparative Politics tommorrow morning that I feel like I have been studying for forever. Because of this I am not going to spend a long time on this reflection. In fact I am going to write my reflection about how stressed I am this week.

Since I've been here I have felt kind of lost. I did well in high school, had no problems motivating myself to study, and usually felt like I at least understood what the teacher was talking about. However, here, and especially in my comparative politics class, I have felt dumber than I ever have before. I think a lot of it is the change in schedule, homesickness, and wanting to socialize more than wanting to study since there are so many people I don't know here, unlike in high school. But with the realization earlier this week that I am actually going to have midterms, I have started to get back into a schedule like I had in high school, which includes actually sleeping. (something I haven't really been doing since I've been here, as most of the people in the UC could vouch for) I also started studying, something I wish I would have started a lot sooner as I look at all the notes about civil society, political theories, legitimacy, etc., that I am trying to cram into my brain tommorrow for the four essays I have to write in an hour and fifteen minutes.

Overall, I guess It is good that I have realized my mistakes and am now trying to fix them, although I wish I wouldn't have made them in the first place. Now I only hope I can get a decent grade on my midterm and the paper, which I only have four hours to finish tommorrow.

Yet Another Stream of Consciousness...This Time About Space...

Before this project I cannot say I never put too much thought into the importance of space programs.  Although we were specifically told that this essay was not a question of policy, my mind could not help but wonder.  Although I always regarded NASA and other international programs as innovative and at the cutting edge of technology over the past few days I began to think despite those characteristics are they necessary?  NASA was established 50 years ago and what has it gotten us?  Sure, we can orbit Earth, walk on the moon, build a space station, send robots to Mars, etc but, what has that gotten us?  What exactly are the benefits space discovery?  Are there benefits or do we discover to discover?  I am sure there are many arguments against me, but all I see space discovery for is a luxury...

As I talked to Lucas earlier today he pointed out that programs like the international space station have strengthened relations between states, this is true but still what exactly do we gain from the physical space station.  I don’t mean to be a critic of science I know all scientific discoveries were once unknown.  But, is it worth several nations spending billions of dollars annually on something that does not seems to have a significant affect on the human race over the fifty years?...

I have heard space being suggested as a dumping ground for garbage once Earth becomes too polluted.  That can’t help international relations between states.  Not every state can do it, it would be too much pollution.  How would the world decide who gets to gets to launch their garbage into space?-- no one owns it.  Do only the states with developed space programs have the ability and therefore right to do it?  Not that I know anything about the subject but to me it does not seem like a good idea to dump garbage into space-- it seems like common sense that garbage would harm the universe.  If this situation came to be, it could harm relations between states because states would argue if states had the right to dump things into space or not, and if so who could and how much?...

I mean no offense to scientists, engineers nor anyone else involved in space exploration.  I just mean to play devil’s advocate and wonder if is it necessary for all states so spend so much on space exploration when we could be using the money to solve problems here on Earth?...

who made the best case...and who did not

According to Ziggy “the Sierra Club was downright wrong” well, sorry to my group but I would have to agree.  I think we argued the club’s position extremely well and accurately portrayed the groups ideal put personally I think the club’s position is contradictory-- yes, it is good that the clubs wants to pass legislation for higher environmental standards in the US but in terms of reality  if domestic content rules were  eliminated and more people were buying foreign, fuel efficient cars it would motivate American car companies to manufacture cars that appeal to consumers over the foreign cars (isn’t that how capitalism is supposed to work???).  But the question wasn’t who’s case was the worse...so back to the question...I think the teams with the bests case was the FAM and AAM.  I think there were able to prove not only that economically the situation would be beneficial to most parties involved but that environmentally removing the domestic content law would be most advantageous.  I think the teams made a good argument in saying that in many cases nations that are manufacturing cars (mainly those who have signed the Kyoto Protocol) have higher environmental regulation than the US.  Economically, which clearly is am extremely important issue right now, I think the groups made the best points as well.  Both foreign and American cars would be manufactured cheaper and the cars would be at a better price for the consumers.  Going into our simulation I thought the big argument against the AAM would be concerning American workers but, according to the group there would still be many American jobs (which I don’t really remember why that works out if someone would like to reply and explain it would be appreciated-- is it because only the car parts would be manufactured oversees and Americans would put the cars together?).  It seems to me that removing domestic content rules would make the most sense economically, environmentally, and for consumers.

AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who won Tuesday debate over domestic content rules? My answer is: the United Auto Workers. I am probably in the majority here, but there is good reason why I agree with them. As the American Auto Manufacturers, my position was difficult. Ford over 20 years (1985-2005) has only lost .5% of it market share (18.8% to 18.3%), while GM has lost 16.2% of its US market share (42.5% to 26.3%) (Ward Automotive Reports). Ford cars are still bought a lot in US, and owns enough in the international market to hold its own. GM on the other hand has been going through a rapid decline and is not in the right shape to continue the fight the way it is. The way GM is organized right now is not the best to fight in the current market. Though they have started to take on more environmental friendly programs, such as the new Chevy Volt (to be sold starting in 2010), and they have began to recover from the 2007 United Auto Workers Strike, GM is still not as strong as Ford right now. The UAW group was able to argue against our points and fight against every groups.

The United Auto Workers argument was in favor of domestic content rules. Their base argument was based off the IR theories we learned earlier in the years. Though that argument was one of the less powerful in the debate, the UAW won on the rebuttal. The group was able to logically argue against all the other groups and make our points look irrevalvent and wrong. The fact that the rest of the groups couldn’t come up with any points to fight back helped make the argument stronger.

But to sound corny, all my children won the debate. But since I have to make a choice, the UAW would have to be my choice. Now to end on a better note, if you want to see the DVD extras (which are Rachel’s bloopers) just ask.

Who had the best argument...

The group with the best argument was the Foreign Auto Manufacturers. They wanted to get rid of the domestic content rules. They argued that the without the tariffs Americans get the best cars at the cheapest price, while helping the enviroment. While I would personally tend to support consumer choice and a free market economy anyway, I think the FAM did a good job arguing their position. I thought they were very convincing when they pointed out that the majority of cars are still made in the U.S. despite being owned by foreign companies, so the United States isn't really losing jobs in the free market. I think they also made a better argument for helping the enviroment. They argued that the countries making cars overseas have better fuel emission standards that make their cars more eco-friendly and fuel efficient. Most of these countries also are members of the Kyoto protocal as well.

Foreign car companies also have the reputation of making better cars and at a better price. Consumers shouldn't have to choose between having to own a good car or keeping jobs in the U.S. Instead, American car companies should adapt to the market and become more competitive by making more fuel efficient cars. Because the FAM could prove that Americans aren't losing jobs and that the cars made overseas are better, cheaper, and more enviromentally clean they made me think that the best thing for everyone is to eliminate the tariffs.

Domestic Content Laws debate

Professor Jackson ended class on Tuesday by declaring that, at least in the parallel universe where I’m a high-rolling lobbyist with a Rosslyn penthouse (check out the master bedroom with separate His and Her bathrooms!) and the president is a thirty-something college professor, domestic content rules for American automobiles would be repealed. But the venerable professor also noted that the question was resolved by political dynamics, not by the content of the arguments, and asked us to consider who would have won the debate if it content were the sole criterion for victory. I think its difficult to do that, precisely because the arguments never really got to the point of exhaustion: the key differences in perspective that underrun the debate were never systematically exposed and critiqued. I left class feeling like I still had something meaningful to say, and I’m tempted to continue arguing and assuming the primacy of my value framework (the subjective framework that constructivists view as inevitable) rather than objectively analyzing the arguments.

Nonetheless, I thought the United Autoworkers made the best individual argument of any interest group. Their case was well-articulated and consistently rooted in empirical evidence. More so than any other constituency, the UAW addressed a variety of possible decision-making perspectives (realism, liberalism, constructivism) and argued the strength of a certain policy from each of the three perspectives, although in terms of maintaining the realism of the simulation it would have been better to do so without explicitly arguing that “from a liberal perspetive…” The UAW also effectively engaged in an uphill battle, in that everyone in the class is really a member of the consumer constituency and is predisposed to arguments addressed towards consumers rather than workers.

When the arguments of the constituencies were pooled into pro-tariff and anti-tariff categories, I think the anti-tariff case won despite the pluralistic victory of the anti-tariff UAW. First, there were simply more groups on the anti-tariff side, and more opportunities to present narrow individual arguments that collectively address a broad variety of theoretical perspectives. Second, the AMA, the AIAM, and the consumers all incorporated a more sophisticated body of academic theory into their argument; in economics – although not in sociology – the case against trade barriers is far more prominent and probably better developed. But the case wasn’t predetermined in favor of free trade; it was won and lost following the presentations in the questions, caucuses, and rebuttals.

The consumers and the manufacturers all utilized the post-presentation period to question and undermine the link between other groups’ practical ends and the policies they supported, while neither the unions nor the environmentalists did so. The United Autoworkers attempted to do so, but they misappropriated facts in their arguments: although eliminating content laws might (as they argued) increase the profit margins of foreign manufacturers, they didn’t argue that it would decrease the sales or profits of domestic automakers. I felt the consumers and the foreign manufacturers presented a better case advocating free trade on environmental grounds than the Sierra Club did opposing free trade (although my understanding is that the simulation Sierra Club followed the positions of the real Sierra Club; this is a critique more of the occasional myopia and inflexibility of the environmentalist movement than of the skills of my classmates).

Of course, my analysis is inevitably colored by my own participation as a member of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers. It’s easy to say that we can argue for one side of a debate without compromising our actual beliefs, but the truth is more complicated: there’s an interesting psychological phenomenon called cognitive dissonance, which basically means that when people are asked to work with a perspective irreconcilable with their own views, they tend to subtly shift their views to match their actions. I waffle a bit on free trade and globalization in general: I think its beneficial, but only when contingent upon strong labor and environmental standards that prevent a “race to the bottom.” But I walked out of class with a firm, if not passionate, belief that I was right.

Diplomacy, the game

The lowercase "d" game of diplomacy, the intricate back-room acrobatics of international relations, can be played from any of the three theoretical perspectives that we have discussed in Professor Jackson's World Politics class: realism, liberalism, and constructivism. But the uppercase "D" game of Diplomacy, the online board game moderated by MNadler, is at first glance an intensely realist perspective on world politics. 

In Diplomacy, the goals of the state are explicitly outlined in the rules: states "win" by conquering territory and amassing "supply centers", which can be seen as collections of resources. Although realism does not necessarily dictate conquest as a means to achieving security, and liberalism does not necessarily exclude conquest as a means to achieving self-interest, the military achievements of the state in Diplomacy are the only achievements. The capture of supply centers is a transcendent and inviolable goal, not a means by which to access resources and enhance quality of life. Without supply centers, it is impossible to achieve victory; because the number of resources -- supply centers -- is limited, Diplomacy is a zero sum game. Some supply centers are neutrally held at the start of the game, but once this finite supply is exhausted the gain of one state is the loss of another state. Territorial integrity -- the possession of resources -- seems integral to success in Diplomacy.

The case for Diplomacy as a liberal paradigm of world politics is weak. States do not pursue self interest, and they do not operate in a positive-sum world. But, on close examination, the case for a constructivist reading of Diplomacy is strong -- stronger, I feel, than the realist interpretation of the game. Although the number of resources in the world of Diplomacy are indisputably limited, the competition for supply centers -- for resources -- is only a competition when viewed as such. The players in Diplomacy do not actually gain any concrete benefit from capturing supply centers, conquering territories, and amassing resources. A seven-way draw, in which players expand to occupy neutral supply centers and then end the game without eliminating each other, would have no less benefit to any player than the emergence of a single dominant power. Players' action in Diplomacy, with an upper-case "D", are predicated upon the assumption that  Diplomacy is a competitive game which must have winners and losers. The rules do not specify it must.

Reflection

The simulation we did made me think a lot about my own views regarding regulation by the government and globalization. Before the experiment I didn't really relate to the Sierra club's point of view, mostly because I thought their views completly disregarded a concern for the economy. However, I really believe that we can help the U.S. economy while helping the enviroment. By getting rid of the tariffs and passing legislation that forces American car manufacturers to make more fuel efficient cars, the U.S. will become more competitive in the auto industry. The more competitive American car manufacturers become the better off we will be. This is beacause cars will eventually be able to be made and sold cheaper here, and we won't have to rely on other countries. By making more of the cars in the United States, jobs stay here instead of being shipped overseas. More people will want to buy American cars because they will be helping themselves by buying them. The money people save by buying American cars will then be reinvested into the American economy. This way the U.S. would be able to have a stronger economy, that doesn't rely on other countries, and help decrease negative gas emissions into the atmosphere. If there is a way the government can build a strong economy and help the enviroment I think it should seriously be considered.

...and I would also like to second Sydney's recomendation on the movie...I liked it a lot:)

Syd’s Stream of Consciousness

On Tuesday I was with Angel Dust aka Mama D welcoming in the new year, so like him I cannot comment on Tuesday’s class.  As for Friday I left class felling well informed with Brittany Spears stuck in my head, but not particularly enthusiastic.  On Saturday along with some other UCWP kids and another friend I saw Burn After Reading.  It basically is a satire of the government and I thought the movie was hysterical.  I think part of my appreciation for the movie is the fact that I am now living in DC.  I’ll try not to spoil it for all you who want to see it but the gist of it is a top CIA worker unjustly demotes a CIA employee and all chaos ensues.  So, everything could have been prevented if the CIA official did not plan to unjustly demote someone. In a nutshell, the government does something for no reason, BAD stuff happens to innocent people, the government could care less-plus several coincidences.  

Today, the general public expects our government to fail.  According to my US History teacher the American public once revered our politicians but once we became accustomed to scandals and corrupt politicians we became skeptical.  Now we always expect the worse.  When we don’t we encounter an unpleasant surprise.  The first two who come to mind are Governor Spitzer and Senator Edwards two men that the public loved until we found out their secrets.  Of course this judgement is not fair, I’m sure that most politicians are good people but, we remember the scandals more than the good deeds.  

Clearly today as we see from the record low approval ratings with the war in Iraq, the financial crisis people are upset with the Bush administration.  With the public’s pessimism I really feel this will be a monumental election, and I want to see what happens.  I wonder if once Bush is gone will people regain faith in the political system?  I mean we have to regain faith eventually, hypothetically if we were never able to regain our trust in the system the public would demand a change.  Again to quote my history teacher “we will never know until the history books are written.”

But yeah...I would recommend the movie

I'm a maverick too

So I missed class on Tuesday because of Rosh Hashanah. I would like to wish everyone, Shanah Tovah!!! Second of all, I would like to let everyone know Mama D is on vacation and might be back soon. Okay now to the serious stuff. Since I cannot comment on the stuff discussed Tuesday, I’ll talk about the Vice Presidential Debate. I thought that it was the most interesting and entertaining debate to date. Though I am not the biggest fan of Sarah Palin, I thought that she held up to my expectations. She was not the best debater, but she was able to not mess up. What I found interesting was her comment about the third graders. I did not find that to be very vice presidential. That seemed a bit unprofessional. I don't know if her point was to seem all American or “Joe Six Pack” but I didn't buy into it.

So now that I have talked Palin, time to address something else: the video. Due to unforeseen circumstances on Wednesday, our group had to delay our project till this weekend. Though under a tighter time constraint, we were able to pull it off. Go Team!!! So to end this short post, I will quote Tina Fey from SNL this week,

“To all of you playing a drinking game.....MAVERICK!”

What is an analysis?

What is an analysis? An analysis is an explanation of a pattern. It highlights certain trends in empirical data and asserts a causational force behind them; it posits the existence of invisible laws guiding visible phenomena. Motive can never be known for certain: if knowledge is seen as dichotomously divided into facts and opinions, into that which can proven and that which cannot, an analysis will always be an opinion. This categorical view of knowledge does not necessarily imply that all opinions are equal, because opinion may be subdivided into further categories, but it does eventually imply finite classes or levels of objectivity. Professor Jackson’s question is difficult because it assumes this view of knowledge while suggesting knowledge with which it is incompatible. In effect, he asks us whether a hexagon is a circle or a triangle. It is neither: circles and triangles are not absolutes but ends on a continuum of polygons, just like opinion and fact are ends on a continuum of objectivity.

 

Whereas circles and triangles are concrete points, fact and opinion constitute merely abstract directions. Knowledge stems from human experience in a single physical universal: shared physical laws preclude experience and knowledge that are entirely individual, while shared physical contexts preclude experience and knowledge that are entirely collective. In other words, people can never experience life from the same perspective in time and space, but must always experience life under the same laws of physics and chemistry.  The degree to which each of these two factors inform the formation of knowledge determines the relative objectivity of knowledge: knowledge based primarily on law is more objective, while knowledge based primarily on context is more subjective. In this regard, while an analysis cannot be true, one can be superior to another – “truer,” perhaps – in that it asserts a causational force based not just on circumstantial or anecdotal evidence. An analysis, like any knowledge, can approach fact as it draws on broadly observable laws.