Reflection 13

Throughout the semester, Professor Jackson has asked us to view the places our class visits as texts. We've analyzed the architecture and ceremony of Nationals Park, Arlington Cemetery, and the Spy Museum. In all these places, presentation has made an implicit argument about how the substantive elements of a place should be understood. The National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI), which we visited this Wednesday, struck mew as a place with a particularly odd dialog between substance and presentation. First, the NMAI didn't serve the typical substantive function of a cultural museum, housing historical relics. Many aspects of the museum that at first seemed like presentation in fact, upon reflection, constituted artifacts central to purpose. Second, although the museum made arguments about Native Americans, it didn't really link those arguments to artifacts. The result was a museum reimagined as a theme park; although I enjoyed the trip, as I have most of our University College expeditions, I didn't feel that I gained much intellectually from this particular trip.

The substantive function of any museum, in my opinion, is to display artifacts, whether impressionist painting, T-Rex skeletons, or German submarines. The presentation of a good museum, meanwhile, presents an argument that contextualizes these artifacts and gives them meaning. The artifacts in the NMAI were distinctly atypical. Only two of the building's four levels contained conventional exhibits at all, and, with the exception of an excellent art exhibit by Fritz Scholder, conventional artifacts did not figure prominently into these exhibits. Instead, the exhibits were based around large, prominently placed text and video installations that rarely referenced the more marginally positioned historical relics beside them. The first and second floors of the museum were dedicated, not to exhibits, but to an admittedly delicious cafeteria and a sprawling gift shop. The museum only makes sense when the artifacts the museum is designed to display are redefined: the video displays, the foods, and the overpriced crafts are the museum's artifacts, while the historical relics are merely wall decorations.

            Without an effective presentation, artifacts are meaningless. Unfortunately, the elements that are typically used to frame artifacts, are artifacts in the NMAI, and there is nothing with which to make a unifying argument about the significance of the museum's artifacts. Although the cafeteria was one of my favorite parts of the trip, and could even be considered a significant cultural experience, the food wasn't placed in a context where it had meaning beyond the aesthetics of taste. Likewise, the museum's text and video installations usually adopted the immersive and uncritical perspective of a native, rather than the objective and critical perspective of an anthropologist. There was no voice present that could make an argument as to what the various cultural perspectives meant, and why they were important. Even the architecture of the museum referenced naturalistic, rock-hewn forms that failed to engage in a dialog with the surrounding spaces.

Reflection 12

I was excited to go to the Native American Museum because that was one of the few museums that I hadn’t been to before. Overall, I thought it was a good museum. I really liked the exhibits and thought they had a lot of good information. I was surprised how big it was and going through it with everyone was fun.

Now for what we did in class this week. I think I liked this weeks simulation better than any of the other ones we’ve done. I thought the idea of a trial was a good one. Although we didn’t actually put Cortes on trail I thought it was a good learning experience to be able to argue both sides even if you didn’t agree with your side since the groups were picked randomly. I also like that it forced us to not only use theouries of why Cortes should be guilty of crimes against humanity, but we had to find proof and prove to Jacquelyn that our argument was the best. In the end Cortes was found guilty which is the stance I would have taken.

yes, i know, i should have used a synonym for justice some of the time

On Friday, my group and I taught the lesson about justice. Through our trial/debate simulation we tried to ask is the court system a good way to practice justice. Through our recent readings, visit to the American Indian Museum, and classroom discussions I would say no. I am not saying that justice does not exist within the court system because sometimes is does. However, as we pointed our in our lesson, sometimes the winner is whomever has the best argument, and that method has the possibility to not reach a just ruling. So, how do we prevent this method? How do we make sure the just answer alway prevails? Well, I’m not sure we can.  A trial or debate is about making arguments, there is always a better arguer.

Additionally, as we mentioned when we talked about both Cortés and Columbus and their encountering of the natives, different groups of people have different perspectives.  According to their values, both men were able to justify their actions whereas we could argue that the men’s actions were not just. One question our group prepared for the class but I do not think we has time to ask was, “can perspective/ideals determine justice?”  I would say yes because without looking and one’s perspective and ideals how can one decide what was just?  However, this also makes room for clashing ideas of what justice is because clearly people frequently do not have the same ideals/perspectives.  In scenarios where people cannot agree on what is just ideals are always imposed on someone who does not agree with them.

I really liked the American Indian Museum and I am planning on returning to see what I did not get a chance to look at.  For those of you who did not see the special exhibit, Fritz Scholder, I would suggest going back!

I hope everyone has a good break and a Happy Thanksgiving!

I AM "BABY JESUS"!!!!!

I’M FREE!!!!! I finally got out of the Psych Ward of Sibley. Thanks to everyone who visited me in that boring place. While at the hospital, I encountered some interesting people. Being the youngest one there was a bit daunting considering once they put me on the drugs I as feeling normal and was a bit creeped out. I saw a side of society that I probably wouldn't see normally. Ironically, I can relate this to poverty and justice. I will admit I can in with some preconceived notions about the people in the ward. Sadly, I was mostly right. Some of the people were really nice and let me be, but this one lady would not leave me alone. I was trying to read my articles for my economics paper but she decided to it next to me and tried to talk to me. Half of what came out of her mouth was gibberish but decided to call me “baby.” I don’t know why but she did. Then I became “Baby Jesus.” By the end of the day she was calling me “Baby Jesus” and following me around. If it wasn’t for the nurses, I would have been stalked by some lady who obviously needed to be there. But that’s now behind me, so its time to get back on track.

The Museum of the American Indian was interesting. Two levels of gift shops, thats a bit much even for a free museum. But besides that I found the exhibits interesting and informative, even though I wasn’t at my best that day. The food court was good but very expensive. But if I didn’t leave when I did, I wouldn’t have seen the president of Bolivia. I was maybe 10 feet away from him in the lobby. Pretty amazing experience if you ask me. This week was long and rough but I have come out for the better. Hopefully this week goes better with Black Friday and all the amazing sales to look forward to.

Is our way of knowing better than Columbus' way of knowing?

As we talked about in class during Columbus’s time people valued tradition and faith, they generally believed what they were told by people in authority. Today, people value science and proof without a doubt. While the questions may be the same I think these are two different ways of looking at the world. I’m not sure which one I would say is better though because I think there is good and bad about looking at the world both ways.

Today we are more critical and I would say a lot more cynical, which I don’t think is such a good thing for society. However, we shouldn’t just believe everything someone in power tells us. That is just as dangerous to do. Columbus did what he thought was right based on his faith and education at the time. Today, scientists also do what they think is right but because they are trying to prove/dispove things we’ve never been able to know for sure.

Not to avoid the question, but I would say that a combination of looking at the world Columbus’ way and the way we look at the world today is best. I don’t think the answer so much matters though because we will never know who is right. People years from now may wonder why we believed what we do today, they may come up with some alternate way of deciding truth.

Response 13

Is our "way of knowing", our contemporary empirical standard of truth, better than the deterministic standard of truth that Tzvetan Todorov attributes to Columbus? In a way, I feel like answering this question is cheating, because its a question that my last reflection and conversation with BoVice fairly directly addressed. But in another way its nice to engage in a more sustained, less fragmented dialog than what typically occurs in this forum. The nature of truth is a question that we can examine in almost infinite detail and study along almost infinite tangent

The purpose of existence is by definition to achieve happiness. In judging a standard of truth, we should evaluate the ability of that standard to create happiness. The first question we must answer is whether there are things that exist objectively and supersede a particular standard of truth. I would answer yes. First, our own existence and the sensations that constitute this existence are fundamentally and objectively true. Second, the nature of happiness is fundamentally true. Unfortunately, while we are party to the first truth, we are only partially party to the second truth. Without a standard of truth, we cannot link feelings to external causes; we realize that the sensation of pain makes us unhappy but do not understand why we are in pain.

In order to analyze the utility of a standard of truth, we need to first adopt a standard of truth. First, let's adopt some modern and vaguely empirical standard of truth. Although it is impossible to definitively know whether Columbus was happy, Todorov's portrayal isn't one of a deeply unhappy man. Plus, empiricism tells us that, statistically, religious people are happier; although whether this is a result of religion or community involvement is up for debate, the certainty of eternal bliss seems likely to promote happiness. By this standard, Columbus's "way of knowing" actually seems pretty effective, and perhaps more effective than an empirical standard of knowing that means we have to spend a lot of time worrying over our own fallibility and the uncertainty of  the future.

On the other hand, empiricism would also suggest that, in the long run, an empirical standard of truth is the only sustainable one. Empiricism, like any standard of truth, is based upon arbitrarily deeming certain things as true. However, in an empirical standard of truth, it is not a particular experience that is deemed as true, but rather the preponderance of experiences. If we posit that there is some degree of universality in the human experience, basing truth on the preponderance of what individuals experience leads to the creation of a fairly common standard of truth -- one in which individuals are unlikely (or at least less likely) to be at odds with each other. Columbus may have been happy, but if his weapons were not superior to those of the Indians, his life would have been a short happy one.

uhhh...no

Today we know what we know because it is proven. We know the earth is round and about subatomic particles because scientist have confirmed their existence. Even though any one individual cannot explain these “known facts” that individual can go to another individual who does know the answer and can explain/justify it  Today we are taught to question theories and ideas that have not been proved. Has a whole, humans today are naturally skeptical, we analyze things because we are taught that by blindly following people or believing ideas without proof we might be believing something that is not true. 

Saying all this, humans only know what comes before us. We know science thanks to the scientists that have existed before us. In other words, everything we think or know comes from a pre-existing idea-- nothing is original. Even new discoveries have been inspired by what comes before them. Basing our ideas and justification of what is true by what has come before us makes us the same a Columbus.

As Lucas said in class, “Columbus was a product of the society in which he lived.” Like we do today, Columbus only knew what came before him. He knew mermaids exists because those who came before assured him so-- they saw mermaid! In 1492 people did not have the skepticism that people have today. There were not scientists nor the scientific technology like we have today, knowledge was gained through experience.

Basically, I am saying that our way of knowing is not better than Columbus’ because our two ways are fundamentally the same. Society today and in 1492 told people how they know things. In 1492 through pre-existing experts, and today, through scientists, researchers, or experts in the field. In both cases people “knew what they knew” in the way society told them was the proper way to know something.

I dont know

Columbus is an interesting fellow. He was originally taught as the great man who conquered America. Then he was taught as the explorer who violated the rights of the natives. Now he is...well I don’t know what. Columbus believed in a lot of things that we now find odd or proven to not really exist but are we truly better at knowing thing than Columbus was. My answer is kind of. Columbus was a product of his time, obviously. He was religious, believed in myths, and followed the direct orders of his country. Those are the ideas that he were brought up upon. He was taught to believe certain ideas that may seem out-dated and stupid in our modern context, but back then almost everyone followed those ideas. Columbus just did not have as much science as we currently do. Science and reason existed but they were driven by religion or the monarch (still religion). The way of knowing in Columbus’ time was more faith-based than modern times, but it doesn't mean its any worse than the way of knowing today.

Today a new scientific study comes out about everyday. The amount of data and research about everything has drastically increased over the last few decades. With the technology boom, the process of collecting and processing data has been cut in at least half. Now something is being proven false or true each day. We have learned to become more skeptical and look at situations with a more critical eye. Most people do not follow religion blindly. There is more information out there now and we are left to determine what we consider true. Where Columbus was handed his beliefs, we have to dig through the piles of research papers to determine what we believe. People believe that are aliens out in space. Isn't that like people believing in dragons and mermaids back in Columbus’ time? Our way of knowing involves more personal choice in what to know and believe compared to Columbus’. Both ways are not perfect but they worked. There are pros and cons to each way of knowing. The point though is that both ways educate the people so one day people will know as much as they possibly can.

P.S. Thanks to me, people knew and saw Evo Morales in the museum today.

I did it, with ZERO regrets

Okay, I admit it, when I first found out that DC would be one of the many cities having a protest against Proposition Eight I considered not going.  Its not that I don’t believe in the cause-- the right of homosexual marriage is one of if not the social issue that is most important me.  Although like in my last blog I often refer to an ideal situation like Bovice, I am a realist.  I knew my actions would have no immediate affect, and that saddened me.  I wanted to go out there say what I had to say, and for all of the people of CA to change their minds.  But, we all know that’s not how it works.  After I reminded myself that the protest was not about changing CA’s laws but publicizing the issue of the injustice that Proposition Eight was and to be spreading the message limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman limits individuals liberties.  I won’t go into specific details about the protest since Seamus McGregor already did.  Even with the pouring rain and threat of a thunder storm, I am glad I went.  Shouting along with the thousands of people surrounding me who feel the same way I do and listen to people tell their stories to the crowd gave me an overwhelming feeling of hope-- that things have to change and they will.

As for Wednesday’s lab, I sometimes felt Tippett was not really answering all the questioned she was asked, but overall, I like her message.  As a product of an interfaith marriage I was brought up to have one specific faith but to not only respect others but UNDERSTAND them.  With what seemed like 99% of my friends growing up having a different religion than me there was always someone to pester with my questions.  Interestingly enough this week’s Shabbat services were interfaith services, and some of my non-Jewish friends came with me.  They share the same interest and respect in Judaism that I have in their religions (actually after services we went to Starbucks and listened to Christian musicians).  I fully recognize that religious institutions have their flaws but at the same time their benefits.  I feel that only through complete understanding of others beliefs is the only time the benefits can outweigh the flaws.  And yes, I am fully aware that will most likely not happen-- at least not in my lifetime.  I look forward to discussing this with you all further this week during dinner.

Reflection 12

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to make it to our World Politics dinner and religious discussion tonight. But I’d still like to elaborate and rearticulate an apparently controversial statement I put forward to SilenceDogood following the University College event with Krista Tippett: that religion is inherently irrational. I think I can be slightly more specific. Not all elements of religion are irrational, but some defining elements of religion are; as a whole, religion is incompatible with strict rationality. We can discuss religion more productively by dissecting the term into the two distinct intellectual traditions it contains: philosophy, which is rational, and faith, which is not. Although many elements of religion are beneficial, the poorly defined idea of “religion” as a single tradition is dangerous. There are situations in which irrational behavior is destructive, but the catchall concept of religion lets irrationality leak into those arenas from which it should be insulated.

Neither philosophy nor faith can be proven absolutely and empirically, but the former is founded upon correlation and extrapolation from empirically evident truths. It is recognized as probable conjecture; it is justified, but only as far as it is supported by the observable world. Faith, in contrast, needs no correlation with the observable world. An article of faith is held as inherently true, and may be used as a standard by which the empirically observable world is judged and held, perhaps, as false. Most if not all religions contain reasonable, probable articles of philosophy: propositions on the nature of humanity, morality, and the universe. But for an intellectual tradition to constitute religion, it must also contain arbitrary articles of faith. In the Abrahamic religions, the primary article of faith is that the word of God is expressed in a particular text – not an assumption that we could deduce logically, considering the number of contradictory claims to the divine truth.

Religious moderates implicitly acknowledge that, while philosophy may inform our public life, faith must be contained within the private life. Articles of faith, they realize, often claim conflicting truths and preempt peaceful coexistence between peoples. But the concept of religion does not distinguish between rational and irrational articles; most moderates have only Krista Tippett’s childish sense that there is “good” and “bad” religion. In The End of Faith, Sam Harris makes a compelling argument that moderates are complicit in religious extremism: in defending the validity of religion through argument and example, moderates create a discourse in which religion as a whole is accepted unthinkingly. Patently ridiculous beliefs are considered valid and even encouraged because they are “religious,” while articles of religous philosophy that can and should be examined rationally are held as off-limits. Although the Christian views of human and divine nature are not unreasonable, most Christians could not give reasonable explanations. Because of the terms in which discourse is framed, valuing religion means devaluing reason: Philosophy and rationality are Nonoverlapping Magisteria ,but religion and rationality are not.

It’s still possible to make a strong case that religion is more beneficial than harmful. I differ from Harris and most of his militant atheist cohorts in my view of human nature, an article of philosophy. Whereas "anti-theists" are convinced that a world without religion would be governed by rational self-interest, I take a dimmer and more Hobbesian view of human nature as impulsive and myopic. Religion is a powerful normative pressure that can use irrational means to ultimately prevent irrational behavior; a flawed but perhaps necessary bargain.

P.A.DC

To be perfectly honest, I have nothing to reflect on. I did not attend the Prop 8 protest like almost everyone else on this floor. I spent that day sleeping and playing Fallout 3. I guess I can talk about the activity we did on Friday in class. I think that the group in charge did a good job and I enjoyed the activity. The point of the activity was clear and I understood what happens when a country or person has little resources and has to completely change its priorities. I know that after my parent’s divorce, my mom and dad had to completely rearrange their resources to keep afloat. After 5 years, they are still not settled and are still adapting to keep themselves, my siblings, and me afloat. Without scholarships, I wouldn’t be here right now. Anyway poverty is a no-win situation. Even the tinniest thing can ruin the equilibrium so carefully established.

Lastly before I end, I would like to thank everyone for their support when I was feeling down this week. I truly appreciate all your support. Thank You. So to end this week on a lighter note, while playing Fallout 3 (which conveniently takes place in a post-apocalyptic Washington, DC), I noticed all the landmarks, but also how the characters are fighting to survive in the “Capital Wasteland.” This just goes to show that even the Great USA could possibly go under.

and just for fun....

I would like to bring up a possibly not so popular topic. I know that a lot of people in the UC, on Leonard 7, and at AU in general are planning on going to the capital on Saturday to protest Proposition 8 that was passed banning gay marriage in California. People obviously have a right to protest and to disagree with that view, but I question what it is people here are protesting. Proposition 8 was put up to California voters (so first of all only people in California should really have a say in this particular amendment!...not to say that they can’t be upset about the defeat of gay rights in general) The fact is that Californians voted and they were able to legally ban it. Whether one is for/against gay rights, the people of California had a right to vote and they voted for it. If the courts were to overturn it, I feel like it would be an injustice to our whole system of democracy. Activist judges should not be able to disregard what the people want. For the record, I support gay rights, but I support the Constitution more, as I would with any issue. Gay marriage is a state issue; marriage is not in the Constitution! California had a right to vote on it, they did, and that vote, no matter how much I or anyone else may disagree, should count. To overturn it would be a gross abuse of power. I am not against protesting for gay rights!!! I am just upset that instead of rallying for gay rights, people are specifically protesting proposition 8 and that is not right to me. Don’t protest a legitimate vote by the people of a state, protest for a cause! If Proposition 8 is ever going to be overturned it should be by another vote, not by a judge.

Basic needs or changing structural conditions???

I don’t think there is a clear answer whether it is better to concentrate on meeting people's basic needs, or to concentrate on modifying structural conditions of a country. I think there needs to be a balance between the two. But, I do think in the long run it is more important to change the structural conditions of a country. Like someone mentioned in class on Tuesday, it is better to give people the tools to help themselves, rather than just giving out handouts. The first kind of help will stabilize and sustain a nation, while the latter too often results in a quick fix that doesn’t last. This is in why I am somewhat skeptical of the idea of welfare in general.

People need the basics, and maybe they need those first, so they are equally if not more important, but after that they need something more. For example, people need things like food and water to live, but they need opportunities for capital in order to get rid of some of the causes of poverty. Otherwise the cycle of poverty will continue, because simply giving poor people handouts won’t build their lives or give them any means to change their economic situation. Even if a country is given the basic needs, there is no way to completely make sure that the already corrupt governments of these poverty-stricken nations won’t use the money for other things. In a lot of cases, the problem is not whether enough aid is available, but what happens to it. If you change how the government is run or give people the opportunities to rely on themselves instead of the government, there will be a greater chance that conditions will improve.

Poverty has a lot of causes and I think each cause should be looked at individually to determine what plan will work best to help that area. For example, in a nation hit by a natural disaster, their main need is getting basic needs such as food and water to sustain life. However, in an area affected by war, giving people basic needs won’t necessarily save their lives. In getting rid of global poverty we should focus on making opportunities available. I feel like both are important, but development and education are things that will have a greater lasting impact, instead of just providing aid for these countries.

Reflection

I know my reflection is late, but I wanted to write more about the election and besides the paper I had due I couldn’t concentrate on what I wanted to write about every time I thought about it. But I would still like to write one. After some days to reflect on the election, I have lost a lot of my anger. I am still disappointed, but I am not going to stay upset about something I can’t change. Besides, I will give Obama a chance like I would anyone before they give me a reason not to. However I would like to address something that is not exactly “politically correct”. The only thing that makes me still sad about the election is not that Obama won, it’s one of the reasons why I think he won. I do think a big reason why he won, and maybe even why he deserved to win, is because the Republican Party needs to change. The Republican Party has not been acting very republican; instead we made government bigger in the last 8 years and spent more money than we should have. This is something that I got to discuss with Senator Coburn tonight when he came to speak to the college republicans. Before I heard him speak I hadn’t really thought of the reasons behind why we lost. For the most part America is a conservative nation, but Bush wasn’t really a conservative. Looking back on the last 8 years I see that a lot of campaign promises weren’t kept. As a result, people wanted change. Obama was smart enough to realize this and to convince people that he will do that. I thought that he would win for a long time before the election. (of course when your in his campaign office and everyone is so hopeful, you start to believe too, which is what happened to me in Colorado) I was actually surprised that the popular vote wasn’t higher for him.

Obama was supposed to win, he is new, the media was/is in love with him, and people just didn’t want another republican in office. Those are legitimate reasons to vote for him (except for my dig at the media), especially if you share his views (which I don’t doubt most people do). However, what makes me question this election is the number of people I met who were simply voting for Obama because he is black. I understand and sympathize with blacks about the importance/significance of having a black president. I am also happy that this election proves that America is definitely not as racist as it used to be. However, when I hear people tell me that that’s the only reason they’re voting for him, it makes me sick. Especially when you hear from some of them that they don’t even know his views and don’t care. The Presidency is too important to be used by some people to prove a point. I can at least respect people who voted for him based on his policies (although I might question their intelligence;) ), but I have no respect for the ones who voted for him only because he is black. Because, honestly, I feel like we will never be able to get rid of racism until race doesn’t matter at all. If we are not racist, it shouldn’t matter the color of his skin. He will be a good president because of what he does, not because of what he looks like. I can’t help but think that this reveals deeper problems in our society.

For example, I was eating in tdr a few days after the election when they had the radio on. The station played mostly rap music, with a mostly African-American audience, but they had a morning show on that day. I listened as the announcer talked about how happy she was that Obama was elected because he is black. She went on to say that finally blacks will get the things they need, that John McCain wouldn’t have cared about black people and only Obama understands what they’re going through. While it may be true that Obama is able to understand other blacks better than McCain, because he is black, I am worried by the perception that whites don’t care, or wouldn’t be fair. I am worried that there may still be a significant racial divide in our country, and it’s not what everyone thinks of as racism. Instead, it is the distrust that blacks, at least the ones on the radio show I was listening to, have of white people. This makes me sad because I would hope that in today’s world we could move past any bad feelings toward people based on race. Like we heard from Kristin Tippert today in her Speaking on Faith book discussion, it’s not religion that does bad things, its bad people who happen to be religious, and whom wrongly do things in the name of their religion that do bad things. The same should be said about race. That individual people can be good or bad no matter what race they are, and they should be judged accordingly. I hope that one day we live in a world where people don’t trust or distrust others based on what they look like. I am not writing about this because I am bitter that Obama won or something, that is in no way my point at all! I am simply bringing up a topic of discussion that was brought to my attention unintentionally with the results of his victory. I do hope that the fact we have a black president helps to heal some of the wounds that racism has caused this country. I just think that if we are going to discuss issues of racism because of the election, that we discuss all of them.

Response 12

I think it goes without saying that, when fighting poverty, balance is necessary. It's not feasible to address structural issues when you don't have a healthy labor force to constitute an economic system -- when malnutrition, war, and disease cripple a society. On the other hand, it seems self-evident that merely addressing the needs of the global poor on a day-to-day basis  is shortsighted and merely perpetuates the status quo, in which handouts are perennially necessary. Of the blog entries I have read so far, most seem to argue in favor of giving greater weight to addressing overarching structural issues (Athkor is the only one who does not); it seems unpleasant for all parties involved to be locked into a perpetually dependent relationship.

I would agree. It makes more economic sense to invest in infrastructure programs (as well as education, civil society, and market development) that provide a return on our investment. Much of the impoverished world is rich in natural resources, and lacks only the capital to effectively exploit them. But, at the same time, we cannot take a messianic view of infrastructure, education, and microcredit. We must acknowledge that, as Inayatullah pointed out, the capitalistic division of labor generates vast wealth but also creates inherently unequal power relationships. Any economic system which generates surplus wealth will distribute that wealth unequally and create an institutionalized underclass, which is simply impossible to eradicate without reverting to subsistence farming and autarky. The best we can do is create a relatively efficient economic system that creates a relatively small institutionalized underclass, and then acknowledge that the only way to ensure the survival of that underclass is via direct welfare. 

I would argue against Antonio Ipparalde, though, and say that providing for that underclass is necessary. This derives not from any moral imperative, but from simple utility. In an increasingly specialized, globalized economy, social problems have a way of spreading. Although a starving underclass probably couldn't pose a serious military  challenge to any established government, they could serve, for example, as a breeding grounds for all types of nasty and decisively not-fun-to-have diseases. Specialization and automation can generate enough wealth that, in many cases, "charitable" giving has a greater personal utility for an individual or state than direct investment does. 

P.S. After writing this blog post, I was struck with a revelation: it is entirely possible to eliminate the root cause of poverty. Poverty is fundamentally caused, not by any economic structure, but by poor people. Therefore, we can eradicate poverty quite simply by eradicating poor people. 

"The last domino falls here"-Liberty Prime

Poverty is a tough topic to discuss. Considering I am looking at the topic through the eyes of someone who has some prosperity, my answer to the question is diffused. In my opinion, the basic needs for survival are food and clean water. Basic needs are the basis for human survival. Every human needs these to live. I don’t think anyone will complain trying to keep people alive but who should provide for these needs is where the trouble begins. Infrastructure is the basic structures that help society run. Without infrastructure like roads or power plants, a nation cannot get jobs and goods out to its people easily. It would take more than just people to get a manufacturing plant started. The people need to get to work from the countryside somehow and the plant needs to be powered so the machines could work. A balance of basic needs and infrastructure needs to established into to help reduce poverty in the world. Without basic needs, people will not want to work or do anything. Without infrastructure people cannot get to work. Both push people to work and help a nation become productive. The question now falls to who pays for all of this?

Money makes the world go round is probably the one phrase that never seems to fail. Without money, stuff doesn’t happen. In order to reduce poverty basic needs AND infrastructure needs to both be addressed but who get the privilege to pay for all of this. I believe that the responsibility can be split temporarily between international organizations and the state government. Basic needs can and should be supplied by international organizations for a short time. Basic needs are cheap and should be guaranteed for every person. This can easily be accomplished by the World Food Program or other international groups. This wouldn’t last forever though. Infrastructure should be taken care of by the state government. Each nation’s government should take care of its roads and water supply. With power plants, water processing plants and roads set up, people will be able to work. When people are able to work they will be able to pay for their own food, therefore international organizations can fall back and the nation will provide for its people entirely. Achieving the goal to remove poverty is a difficult task because it has to deal with balance, and anytime balance is brought up in international politics there is always trouble. And so I’ll end this post with 2 questions: Is balance between basic needs and infrastructure possible? and Would you support a robot that spouts out pro-American, anti-Chinese phrases and throws nukes from its back? Just something to ponder.

structural, BUT

As we discussed during Tuesday’s class there are different ways to approach aiding the poor.  First, providing aid for people’s survival or second, aiding in the ability to be rich.  I think the it is more important to provide aid for people’s survival.  How can one be rich without first having the means of survival?  With this in mind I would say that although I think both basic needs and structural issues need to be addressed I think basic needs need to be taken care of first.  However, I think the most effective way to address basic needs to first achieve the structural issue of having a good leader.

 

In an ideal situation the first step of getting a population out of poverty would begin by having a strong leader.  Keep in mind this situation is an idea-- the leader would not fall to corruption, would not have solely his/ her own or his/her party in mind.  The leader would look out for the interest of the entirety of the states population equally, not discriminating on sex, age, gender, social status, etc.  Rather than focus on first establishing other structural issues I think the leader would first need to address basic needs.  By ensuring basic needs, the leader is assuring the survival of the state’s people, without a population there is not way a state can achieve anything.

 

When group one of the fish bowl talked, they said there are three categories of factors of how states become poor or rich; idiosyncratic factors, having a good (or bad) leader/government, and the historical background of a state.  We said having a good leader or government was one factor itself but, having a good leader or government can also determine the effects of idiosyncratic factor.  Take for example the US government’s actions after Katrina.  If FEMA had acted differently the outcome could have been entirely different.  Of course the government could never have prevented Katrina from coming, but it could have found better ways of getting aid to those who needed (and still need) it.

 

By first ensuring the basic needs of its people I think structural issues addressed later on with have a higher rate of success.  Once a person is assured that he or she have the ability to survive the person can then look beyond survival.  The person can begin to think about getting rich.  It is at this point that structural issues other than leadership (building such as roads, establishing manufacturing/industry, etc) should be addresses.

Dustin Schnoor, Future Rich Person

This week we all witnessed history. The United States elected its first African American president. Barack Obama will become the 44th President of the United States on January. Go Team!!! Running around campus after midnight was probably the most physical activity I’ve done since I got to campus. Seeing the celebrations caused by this election made me realize how much has happen since the 1960s. Most of the people who voted in this election can still remember the civil rights movement. Within 40 years, the entire country has gone through more social change than any other time in our history. To be a witness to one of the nation’s most historic event is a privilege. This will probably be on my grandchildren’s history tests; thats creepy. But onto something more relevant to class.

Friday’s exercise confused me. I didn't get the full point of the exercise. I was surprised to see that i won the first round. Then again i did make a few back room deals (Thanks Athgor) but I was still surprised by the amount of candy I got. I basically sat in my sit and watched deals go around me. I even asked in the beginning if I could invest my chips. I didn't want to spend my chips, I wanted to save them up and get candy later when i wanted it more. The second round, I didn't get why we divided into groups. If the point was to show that we would make deals with those around us it worked only because we thought we had to go through the round as a team. My team tried to get a monopoly but due to inefficiencies in the system we had a ton of extra chips and no Kit-Kats! Anyway, the activity was fun and I enjoyed it even though I didn't understand the point.

Reflection 11

Most foreign policy is framed in terms of a few basic concerns: security, prosperity, and liberty. But, at least in the individually-oriented, liberal discourse of the West, the pursuit of these ends rests upon a basic assumption that security, prosperity, and liberty contribute to the self-interest of the individual. We assume that this trinity of policy goals helps satisfy the fundamental motivating purpose of humans, the desire happiness. In many cases, it is necessary to achieve our ultimate ends through specific, quantifiable proxies. But in orienting the goals state, myopically pursuing narrow proxies can lead us astray. It seems only logical that the policy of the state should be informed by a broad understanding of our ultimate goal.

The overwhelming conclusion, summarized here by David G. Myers, of psychologists is that humans define happiness subjectively, in relation to other people, to previous experiences, and to expectations. Although it is often assumed that money brings happiness, this is not always true: although wealthy people and wealthy countries are happier, people and countries do not become happier in the long run when they become wealthier. A state cannot increase long-term happiness by reaching a given absolute threshold; people will simply adjust to a new standard living. Happiness requires constantly increasing (or at the very least not decreasing) our quality of life. 

Happiness is constituted both by fixed-sum and by positive-sum games. The power relationships between individuals constitute a fixed zero sum, because for one individual to gain social power another individual must lose social power; the state cannot improve the social power of the whole. Communism fails precisely because it envisions a society not bounded by human nature, in which relationships are entirely egalitarian. It is necessary to acknowledge the innately competitive facet of human nature, and to channel competition into sectors -- such as the market -- where it generates external public goods. Other dimensions of happiness, however, are variable in sum: contrasts between the present and the past, and between the real and the imagined. It is debatable whether states can effectively emphasize variable-sum definitions of happiness. But there is little question that the economic and diplomatic policy of a state can ensure that the variable-sum relationships always, or almost always, come out positive. 

Expanding material resources seems crucial to any effective "happiness policy," and, with modern technology, this is eminently achievable. But maximizing collective happiness does not necessarily entail maximizing the overall magnitude of capital; instead, it would emphasize maximizing the diffusion of capital expansion. As long as an individual's standard of living is increasing relative to his or her subjectively defined standards, he or she is happy -- regardless of whether the gain is great or barely visible. Currency allows individuals to redeem objective, shared measures of prosperity towards increasing a subjectively defined standard of living. But, because it is objective, it is conducive to measurement. Money, as Marx argued, allows individuals to measure their standards of living against each other even when they hold divergent goals; it lures individuals into measuring fixed-sum dimensions of happiness. An effective happiness policy counteracts this tendency. First, by engaging in redistributive activities that mask differences in wealth, and second, by providing means for individuals to circumvent currency in achieving subjective goals -- promoting an active, public, civic and cultural life and public goods that foster participation in that public community. 

My Best Friend Was In Grant Park, I Think I Deserve The Prize for Second Most Interesting Place to be on Election Night

On Tuesday I was reminded why I came to DC in the first place.  I felt much more involved in the election than I ever had in the past.  From 2pm until closing on election day I worked as a poll technician.  The precinct I worked at was in Northeast DC, it was within a poorer part of the city where the majority of the voters there were black.  Here, I saw first hand just how many people were voting either for the first time or the first time in a long time.  One woman was literally shaking with excitement telling me she was 27 and this was her first time voting.  A friend of mine working at another precinct said one man told her he had not voted since Kennedy.  While I was happy that these people where getting out to vote, I also felt many people still do not fully understand the election process.  DC uses touch screen voting machines and paper ballots so voters can ask poll workers a question while they vote.  A lot of voters said they did not want to vote for anyone other than Obama-- meaning they did not care about any local elected officials.  It seemed to me that many people either voted only for president or voted for local officials based on party affiliation.  Since so many people were voting for the first time I think that if Obama did not win the majority of first time voters would lose faith in the political system and never vote again.

As we all saw when Obama’s victory was announced the city went crazy.  About an hour after the announcement I reminded myself that despite my next day 8:30 am class, I came to AU rather than a small town school for a reason, so I went to the White House with some of my friends.  As we walked through the city there were people everywhere, all on their way to the White House.  Car horns were honking, people were screaming and giving ‘high-fives’ to anyone that passed.  

By the time we reached the White House it was insanely crowded.  I think for many Americans this is the first time in eight years that people have had pride in the US.  People were not just chanting “Obama” and carrying Obama/Biden paraphernalia, but singing songs like the “Star Spangled Banner,” carrying American flags, and expressing pride in the US.  I did notice there were a lot of Secret Service and police around, but for the most part things seemed peaceful.

What struck me most about both my election day and night was that people felt that the day was historic.  Most of the people I was around embraced the day with the idea they would always remember it.  I on the other hand value its importance, but do not think we should get ahead of ourselves, I hope people are not naive and expect change overnight.  Our nation needs a lot of help right now, and its going to take a lot of work, only time will tell.

My Campaign trip to Colorado...

So my trip started off flying out of Reagan at 5 am to Denver. 8 AU students ended up going along with 8 GW students. It was an all expense paid trip to Colorado to Campaign for John McCain and Colorado U.S. Senate Canidate Bob Schaffer. Overall it was a good trip, I had a lot of fun. But it was also a behind the scenes look at how campaigns are run. I think I learned more about elections in those 5 days than I learned in any text book I've read.

When we first arrived in Denver we were picked up by campaign staff which took us straight to McCain and Schaffer Headquarters, which we in the same building. There we started working right away. At first we just did basic volunteer work. We put together yard signs and literature that we would distribute. We also did some phonebanking and we got to know a lot of the staff/ask them any questions we had about the campaign. Later we got to meet Mr. Shaffer and ask him questions about why he was running and about his campaign. He was really nice and open about the amount of work and money it takes to run a campaign. He started campaigning a year ago and has had a staff employed for about that long. Most of his staff was relatively young, with most just graduating from college a few years ago. The rest of the day we spent doing whatever the campaign needed from us. When we finally got back to the hotel which was around 1 a.m., we were all exhausted from our early morning flight, but had to be at headquarters by 7 the next morning.

Sunday we sign waved early in the morning, did some phonebanking, and spent the rest of the day for about 7 hours canvassing different neighborhoods. We knocked on doors talking to people and passing out literature. The neighborhood I went to was really nice, and most of the people I talked to were polite, even if they didn't support McCain. Later that night we were supposed to meet Sarah Palin at a rally in Colorado Springs, but the campaign decided to leave us behind to do things at the office while the staff went to the rally. We were all pretty disappointed, but we still had fun hanging out together in the office. However, we did get to meet someone cool that night when Mitt Romney decided to stop by our office. He was such a nice guy and is really easy to talk to, I was really excited to get a picture with him. He ended up straying for about an hour. Once people found out he was there, more people started showing up to see him. Eventually we had to move outside so he could talk to everyone becuase the building had become too small.

Monday we were driven to different campaign offices to work, (I went to the office in Greely)then we split up to canvas different neighborhoods all day. This neighborhood, unlike the first, was kind of bad. I was kind of mad that they left us there by ourselves, especially since I had two cars stop and I was chased by a dog when I went up to a house and didn't notice the rottweiler that was sitting on the porch on a leash. We ended up walking for 7 miles passing out literature. Later that night we went back to our different campaign offices and did more work and phonebanking. We ended up going to bed around midnight even though we had to get up really early on tuesday.

Election Day was the most fun I had on the trip. We got up at 2:30 and were at headquarters by 3 a.m. to go "signing." I learned you have to do this early in the morning so the city won't remove your signs. This is because canidates in Colorado (I'm not sure about the rest of the U.S.) are not alloweed to put up signs on highways or on city property without permission, but they do it anyway. At first I was a little hesitant to dress in dark clothes and get into cars to put up signs illegally, but I felt better when I realized that both parties do it, and if we wouldn't have, we wouldn't have had any signs up, while the democrats would have becuase they were out doing the same thing. It was a lot of fun to compete with the other campaign to see who could put up more signs. We did mess with each other's signs, which your not suppossed to do either, but it was done in friendly competition. We even posted signs in front of the democrat party headquarters, which were removed within 5 minutes. lol We watched our signs get taken down, and had some people yell at us, but we also ran into people who helped us and honked as we put up our signs. That was the most fun I had the whole trip. In the afternoon we passed out more literature at the polls, and then spent the rest of the time, until the last polling place closed, phonebanking. We called reminding people to vote and offering people rides to get to the polls until the last minute. Everyday we were at headquarters there were a lot of people volunteering and phonebanking, but election day was crazy. People used their own cell phones because the campaign ran out of phones, and people were everywhere sitting in the hallway and even in the stairs making phone calls. I was shocked by how many people came from far away to campaign in Colorado. I personally met volunteers from Texas, Nevada, Utah, Alaska, an American citizen from Germany, and a family from Illinois. Also, during the day a lot of congressmen stopped by to talk to people working and to campaign. We didn't really get to watch the news or see any results until after they had started coming in because everyone was running around doing things until the last second of the campaign. The atmosphere in the office was the best part, because even though we were down in the polls the campaign did a good job of making us hopeful. They held competitions to see who could make the most calls, and had an endless supply of food. lol I don't think I've ever eaten that much at one time before. Everyone was in such a good mood and very optimistic.

Afterwards, we went back to our hotel and changed for the "victory party" at a hotel downtown,which didn't turn out to be a victory party afterall lol. By the time we got there we already knew that both McCain and Shaffer had lost the election. It was a really formal event and it was nice to see everyone all dressed up, but it was also really depressing to be at, although the speakers tried to motivate us for 2010 and 2012, it was hard to listen to. However, I am glad I was in Colorado with other republicans, instead of on AU's campus from what I heard and saw on the news. Being in D.C. probably would have made me go crazy, even more so than I already did after the election. lol We ended up having a good cry, lamenting on how much work we had put into campaigning, and then having a late night dinner party afterwards.

Although I'm very moderate, this loss devestated me, and continues to make me very sad. Before I left for the trip I thought I would be ok with Obama as my President, but having put so much work into campaigning this past week and since the beginning of summer (back in Ohio) before then, and meeting him, and other supporters, I am not. Say what you you want about McCain, but he is my hero. I look up to him as a canidate, and as an overall good person. He is the person I supported for President from the beginning, he is someone I trust. I think America made a mistake and I can't wait until 2012!!! I would like to write more about the election and of McCain's loss, but I'll do it in another post.

Blog Post Week...I dont remember all I know is that we are almost done

According to Dictionary.com, Wealth is:
1.a great quantity or store of money, valuable possessions, property, or other riches: the wealth of a city.
2. an abundance or profusion of anything; plentiful amount: a wealth of imagery.
3.Economics.
a.all things that have a monetary or exchange value.
b.anything that has utility and is capable of being appropriated or exchanged.
4.rich or valuable contents or produce: the wealth of the soil.
5.the state of being rich; prosperity; affluence: persons of wealth and standing.
So to summarize all these different definitions, wealth is having a lot. Ruggie’s argument how a wealthy state is one that has full employment and a wealthy individual is one with a job has some merit but just having a job does not make one “wealthy” in my book. Having a job is very important to an individual but it is not the only thing that makes a person wealthy. Wealth for the individual has many levels: emotional, financial, social. Emotional wealth is when a person is happy. If a person is happy they have enough to consider themselves wealthy. Social wealth is having a well structured strong social support system that can help you up when you fall. Financial wealth is the most obvious kind of wealth, the more money you have the wealthier you are. I am wealthy but I only am socially and emotionally wealthy but I do not consider myself financially wealthy. As I said in class, I have a great family and good friends (most of you are included in that list), so i feel that I am lucky and wealthy in that aspect, but when it comes to finances, I am pushing the “lower middle class.” When my mother is struggling to pay the mortgage or when I am relying on Federal and private loans to pay for my education and have to worry about paying for next year. When my family can barely afford to pay the bills, I don’t consider myself wealthy. But wealth is more than a job, it about how one is emotionally, socially and financially.

When it comes to the wealth of the state, full employment is impractical for wealth. For a state to be productive it needs to keep up with technological changes. Full employment would cause a state to become too concerned with getting people in jobs. With people wanting more jobs, machines would have to be replaced with people. We would be going backwards technologically. Why would a state that wants to be wealthy want to go technologically backwards? Full employment though giving everyone a job means going in the wrong direction in technology and falling behind. A wealthy nation is one where the people of the nation have wealth. The US is wealthy because most of the population is living above most people in the world. Though Washington, DC has a high poverty level, most of the African nations are worse off.

Wealth, I still don’t have an exact definition. Wealth, in my belief, is all relative. Like the “Mainwaring Line”, the “Schnoor Line” is what I can judge wealth on. When it comes to the wealth of a state, that has to do with the wealth of its people. Thus I am done and to all of those who voted McCain, I'm sorry but it was a good fight, to those Obama supporters, YES WE DID!!!

i now know what guy fawkes day is!!!

Is a wealthy country one with full employment?  I bring up the question we discussed during Tuesday’s class, what is wealth?  According to my Macro class a nation’s wealth is based on its GDP.  Based on this definition the United States is the world’s richest nation.  Yet, the statistic I found says that the US has an unemployment rate of 4.8% (I’m not sure if this number takes into account of our current financial crisis).  So, if being rich equals being wealthy then unemployment is not a big enough factor in defining a nation as poor.

We also said that wealth could be based on having opportunity.  As the US is known as the “land of opportunity” and the classic American story is from going from rags to riches.  According to this definition, again, the US would be considered wealthy, despite the fact that is had unemployment.

Looking at the other side would be a country with a zero percent unemployment rate.  Take Andorra for example.  Despite its high employment it is considered relatively poor with a GDP of only $2.77 billion.

I see only one argument that would support the idea that a nation’s wealth is based on its unemployment rate: if all of a nation’s citizens have work it would ensure that every individual was independently wealthy.  However, just because an individual is employed does not mean that he or she is wealthy.  It is possible that a person is employed let’s take an example of Mr X, for some extenuating circumstances he has no excess monetary wealth (perhaps his expenditures are greater than his means), his low amounts of assets does not allow him to obtain his wants, he has constant worries and anxieties of how is future will turn out, and finds that due to some reason (maybe his lack of education, or limitations by the government) has little opportunities. A state populated with employed Mr. and Mrs. Xs would be considered wealthy because its citizens would not be independently wealthy.

I continue to think that wealth is a relative term.  Until we have a standard like the “Mainwaring Line,” there is no set definition.  You can define a state’s wealth according to its GDP, opportunity, or ability to obtains its wants but there is not way to define wealth overall.

HAPPY GUY FAWKES DAY!!!

http://www.wisegeek.com/which-countries-have-the-highest-gdp.htm

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/lab_une_rat-labor-unemployment-rate

Response 11

At the level of the state, the proposition of the Breton Woods systems articulated by John Ruggie -- that a wealthy state is one with full employment -- strikes me as eminently reasonable. In some ways, this initial reaction is the most important reason why, regardless of what further reflection and logical analysis argue, I will  be inclined to agree with Ruggie's proposition. Most of the class, if not all of it, seemed to agree with Ruggie's underlying argument that wealth is subjectively and socially constructed; therefore, if I construct a wealthy state as one with a full employment, then a wealthy state is one with full employment. I'm further inclined to believe this construction is widespread, and most people associate low unemployment with prosperity. Many large-scale poverty reduction programs, including Indiana's WorkOne program, are based exactly on the on the connection between unemployment and poverty -- reflecting a degree of political agreement on the construction.

At the level of the individual, I react far more skeptically to the idea that a wealthy person is an employed person. I can simply think of too many cases where this isn't the case and employed people aren't what I consider wealthy. No matter how hard I worked at my job, for example I was never able to exceed the Mainwaring Line representing wealth.The volunteers we spoke with today at Bread For The City mentioned the political rhetoric appealing to the "working poor," a rhetoric which is rarely challenged and directly contradicts the values expressed by Breton Woods.

Does this mean that our construction of wealth at the individual level fundamentally differs from our construction at the state level? Maybe, but not necessarily. Wealth may not be fundamentally constituted by employment, but in a large population there is nonetheless a strong correlation between the two. However, with small sample sizes the strength of the correlation decays (I'm not sure if I'm articulating the mathematical logic correctly, but the principle fundamentally works out; I'm drawing a blank on statistics right now) We can then tangentially discuss another question: if employment is only a proxy for wealth, is a monetary policy that pursues employment the best way to pursue wealth? My instinct is no, following the general logic expressed by Seamus McGregor in his most recent post that we shouldn't be maximizing labor input but rather productive capacity. But I'm not going to tackle this issue in detail; monetary policy is my weakest are in macroeconomics (although, to be fair, my high school econ class consisted mostly of watching The Apprentice and I'll leave it up to BoVice and MNadler to argue the finer points of full employment. 

Only 51 days left to get Dustin the BEST GIFT EVER!!!!

Halloween has come and gone and now begins the start of the Christmas shopping season. Only 51 days left people!!! But this Halloween was the first time since 9th grade that I went trick or treating. Going to the different embassies was probably the most fun I had when all I got was a few pieces of generic bubble gum. India and South Korea actually let us into their embassies. Looking at the exhibit in the South Korean embassy gave me new insight into their history and culture. Not to mention the plum candy was actually good to eat. The whole irony was my costume. Kim Jong Il finally invaded South Korean territory. The whole experience of walking down Massachusetts Ave with about 300 college students dressed as Kim Jong Il and standing next to a chicken was something that I probably never forget. But time to move on to something more pressing, insecurity.

Sometimes things work out so that when I'm writing a paper on CNN in college writing I can talk about it in World Politics. The media presents the stories that believe their viewers want to see. They are still a business after all. But they also like to tell stories that just compare statistics to make one threat look more severe than the other. That story I found in class about how motorcycle accidents killed more marines than combat in Iraq. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/30/marine.motorcycles/index.html) The story is more about motorcycle deaths than a threat to marines, but the way the title puts it, the story is made out to be more than it is. Though the story does talk about a more common threat, it still seems funny to be comparing death by combat to death by motorcycle crash. It was also the top story for a while on Friday. The media will sometimes not talk about the real threat but talk about what makes the people happy or more scared. The media’s influence on our feeling of security is something that should be looked into more before some crazy network starts scare tactics to make money.

Third Time’s a Charm

Saturday was my third visit to Arlington.  The first time I was seven and only know I went because my dad told me I did.  The second, the infamous eighth grade trip to Washington so, Arlington was squeezed into a day of “see as much as you can”-- the only thing I remember being affected by was the Columbia Space Shuttle memorial because I vividly remembered the disaster that took place only a year earlier.  On that visit Arlington was just another tourist destination.  So, despite the fact that I have been there twice already I felt like Saturday was my first “real” visit to Arlington.

The first thing I noticed was a sign on the gate that said “no jogging.”  I didn’t know what to think about that.  A visitor might assume that it had to do with being respectful, however my dad told me that when he lived in Roslyn he jogged in (not around but in) Arlington every morning.  This made me wonder if it was a security issue.  Does Arlington seem safer without people treating it like a park?  If so, (or even if it was a security issue) why wasn’t the rule in place twenty years ago.

Of the paper PTJ gave us on Arlington the topic that stuck out the most to me was identity.  I do not usually consider myself very patriotic, but walking through the cemetery I felt an immense sense of pride for my country and a deep respect for those who have fought to give me the freedoms I am accustomed to.  I felt a deep respect for those who sacrificed their safety for me.

The most memorable park of my visit was what I mentioned during our pizza dinner, the guard yelling at a tourist to stand up during the changing of the guard.  When this first happened I was appalled.  Although personally I would always stand as a sign respect during the ceremony I did not think it was necessary for the guard to yell at the man.  Though standing is the respectful thing to do, I was thinking that it was that individual’s personal freedom to not stand.  When the ceremony was over I expressed my concern to SilenceDoGood who had a very different reaction than I had.  She pointed out that Arlington is not public cemetery it is military cemetery.  Therefore, the military has every right to not only ask for respect, but demand it.  

That is what was most interesting about Arlington to and made it different from most cemeteries-- its not public.  I may treat it with the same respect that I would another but at the end of the day if I did something wrong it would not be an issue of morality but of legality.

I had some thoughts that I never expressed during Friday’s class that I never had a chance to say.  I think feelings of insecurity derive from instances with massive consequences (think 9/11, Katrina).  The article we read mentioned that well are at a much higher risk on a train or in a car, yet people are not usually afraid to ride in them.  On the other hand people are afraid of plains because they have seen incidents with massive amounts of casualties in the media.

I also wanted to say what I thought would happen if security was removed from the airport.  I think people would freak out, mostly because they are used to it.  It would not so much be the lack of security but the drastic change from lots to none.  When we use other methods of transportation it does not bother us that we do not go through the security check.  I think people’s feeling of insecurity would increase significantly.

Reflection 10

I normally don't care about getting in the last word, but on Friday I was hoping I could conclude the discussion. I wanted to bridge last week's topic -- insecurity -- to next week's topic -- prosperity -- by proposing a simple hypothesis: at a national level, security is inversely related to prosperity. The more prosperous we become, the less securer we are as a nation. 

At an individual level, the relationship between security is fairly strong but direct. The more resources an individual has -- in other words, the more prosperous he or she is -- the more likely it is that the individual will be able to satisfy the conditions of survival regardless of external circumstances. If I have ten loaves of bread, it is less likely that mold, rats, or robbery will leave me without enough food to survive; furthermore, I am less susceptible to externalities because I can feed the fire department or trade my bread for water. It does seem logical that, because personal security and personal prosperity are related in a particular manner, that the relationship will apply in the same manner on a larger scale. But if we recognize that a nation or state is constituted by a particular arrangement of social relations, not merely a collection of isolated individuals, the logic does not necessarily apply; states and people are not analogous. An increase in productive capacity creates a surplus of resources which are exchanged rather than directly and immediately consumed, thereby creating more flexible and dynamic social interactions and power relations. The security of crystallized relationships that constitute an institution are eroded by exchange and interaction.

It is a common axiom that technological advancement has created all kinds of new and horrific methods of destruction -- automatic firearms, land mines, nuclear weapons -- that have elevated the scale of war. This may be true, but it is incidental. The casualties and fatalities that result from the application of destructive technology, John Mueller notes, are ultimately marginal; they do not approach such a scale that the security of the state is threatened by the insecurity of individuals.

Bovice has criticized Mueller’s thesis as shortsighted because it treats national security as the sum of constituent individual securities. Mueller recognizes terrorism only as a threat to the security of the person, articulated through the destructive technologies of guns, bombs, and airplanes; he does not consider the threat to the security of the social order, articulated through constructive production and communications technologies. The modern institutions of the market and the media amplify the level of social interaction – which is critical in efficiently distributing resources and realizing prosperity – but the amplification leads to a feedback effect. Large but diffused threats to the individual security – disease, for instance – are muted and cancelled out by means of the sheer number of interactions that take place in the contemporary world. Relatively small but concentrated threats – terrorism, in Mueller’s view – reach a certain critical threshold and begin to color the overall social discourse. While tragic, the actual 9/11 attacks influenced a small proportion of American society – however, they influenced a small proportion of American society in a sudden, unexpected, and immediate way. The flaming, smoking towers of the World Trade Center were no longer located in New York, but on virtually every TV network and newspaper across the planet. It could very much be seen like an epidemic plague, leaping from person to person in the confines of the crowded metropolis until reaching the point of saturation.