Final Reflection

Overall I think my UC experience was a good one. I enjoyed meeting everyone and I think I formed some good friendships. Although the class wasn’t really something I’m interested in and although I didn’t really talk a lot, I learned a lot listening to everyone. I learned a lot about the different IR theories and enjoyed Professor Jackson’s teaching. I will admit though that throughout most of the class I felt like I never really knew what was going on which was really frustrating at times. Originally I was really upset I was put in the world politics UC because I had my heart set on the Politics in the U.S. UC, but with the people I met here I don’t regret deciding to do this UC.

As for my first semester of college, It wasn’t as bad as I thought it might be, but It definitely wasn’t as good either. I can’t expect the straight A’s that I got in high school and that is something that I will have to adjust to. But I’ve had a lot of fun!

The End of the Beginning

Well, its been fun. Thats about the best summery of the semester i can give. To be honest, I wanted to be the in the UC just because PTJ sounded like an awesome professor. I was taking an IR class at the time I heard about the World Politics class and decided to check it out. After reading into i thought it would be cool. Little did i know I would meet my best friends here. (Aww moment everyone). But decided that i learned more than I ever could have expected. Although I talked the least and did not understand a good quarter of what was going, I still learned more than all of high school when it comes to world politics. I came into this thinking it would be like my IR class where we look at each part of the world and analyze its relations relative to the world. Boy was I wrong.

Now it is the end and I have nothing else to say. Thanks for the ride and remember that Mama D is watching you. GO TEAM!

Reflection 15

It's finally here. The end of the semester. Among other things, this mean's its time for the final World Politics reflection. I'll try and keep it as sappy, saccarine, and long-winded as possible.

I've thoroughly enjoyed this class. It's been the highlight of my first semester at American and one of the best classes I've ever taken, period. In part, I liked the class because I thoroughly enjoy the subject matter. But the greater part of it is because the class has made me grow as an intellectual and taught me to think more rigorously. Professor Jackson did an excellent job of challenging our logic and the assumptions on which our arguments rested, but so did my classmates -- in particular, I'd like to shout out to BoVice and Antonio Ipparalde. it's a sharp contrast from high school, where I could generally get away with any gaping hole in my logic as long as I used pretty metaphors and cited sources properly. Although most people came away with a positive opinion of the class, not everyone enjoyed it as much as I did. One complaint, voiced by several people, was that it had "too much theory". Although I don't agree with this complaint, I do think it suggests ways in which the class could be improved.

International relations is the study of the goals that international actors use to make decisions. If you want to learn about the processes by which decisions are made, take a class in Comparative Politics (which should really be required for international studies majors) and if you want to learn about the issues that states decide on, read The New York Times or The Weekly World News. The goals that we study in international relations generally fall into three categories: realist, liberal, and constructivist. In order to argue about the merit of any actual foreign policy, we must first decide what we want the policy to accomplish. Is it important that our actions support an identity of the United States as a champion of freedom? Or is it more important that our actions support the security of the American government?

However, I do think the class could put greater emphasis on asking students to analyze particular policy solutions from different ideological perspectives. The second half of the semester (the security, prosperity, and justice part) seemed designed to do this, but I think it could have been more explicit in asking: how should we design a system of international justice in order to maximize mutual economic gain? to maximize sovereignty? to support our identity? What perspectives do the policies of great powers most reflect, and how, knowing this, can we engage with these great powers? Although having students teach can be pedagogically useful, in this case I think it undermined making a strong argument for the relevance of international relations theories. We simply didn't have that goal in mind when we were teaching.

Also, a few other comments:

I would have liked to see ProfPTJ interact with us on the blogs more. The syllabus provides a quite reasonable pedagogical explanation for keeping blogs: they create a more dynamic intellectual environment than writing and submitting short papers to the professor. But while I certainly have learned from my peers, feedback from someone who is A) a professional scholar and B) going to be giving us grades is also useful

I didn’t like the simulations all that much. First, I’m not really sure how they tied into the rest of the class. They asked us to form positions and adopt stances on issues that most of us had little to no background on, from the perspective of countries that most of us had little to no background on. Second, the timing of tsecond simulation in particular was very inconvenient. I would have enjoyed the project if I wasn’t worry about several end-of-the-semester research papers at the same time.

How Soccer Explains the World seemed useless. I learned a lot about soccer, which I enjoyed, but I didn’t learn much about the world.

final blog

Firstly, for those of you who did not make it to the Newseum I would definitely recommend it.  I spent the majority of my time in the room that contained every Pulitzer Prize winning photo-- talk about a picture’s worth a thousand words!  My emotion ranged from near tears to overwhelming feelings of laughter and joy within that room.  If you haven’t been that room alone was totally worth a trip to the Newseum.  Another room I thought was interesting talked about reporting in East Berlin during the Cold War,  they.  When you first walk into the room you are facing several sections of the Berlin Wall from the West Berlin side all covered in art are graffiti after looking at that a video instructed you to look at the other side of the wall which as I expected, were clean.  Seeing the contrast for myself was very different from seeing it in pictures or reading about the contrast.

As Tori mentioned in a recent blog post PTJ’s influence makes me wonder what a museum’s message is.  However, even without PTJ’s influence I think I would be able to figure this one out.  Walking through the Newseum and only seeing positivities of the media it is very clear who established it.  It was much more subjective than most non-for-profit museums are.  But despite is subjectivity, I really enjoyed it.

So, the semester is almost over-- wow!  UCWP was not exactly what I thought it would be, but I think I gained more from the experience because of that fact.  My favorite aspect of the class was the fact that it was always a discussion.  Yes, I know I did not usually verbalize much, but I have always gotten a lot out of listening to others.  In a discussion setting I feel that as a class we were independently able to learn what PTJ wanted to teach us through trial and error.  Often, through the realization of error, or that I was first missing the point is when I learned the most.

Snow Crash:Fact or Fiction?

I know this last question is late but with finals and my depression trying to accomplish things has been rough. But time to talk about Snow Crash. Personally I enjoyed the book. I found it thrilling, exciting and funny. I know many people were upset with the sexual references but that is not the point of the book. It is only a part of the narrative. But the point of the book was to offer a look into the future and I believe that Stephenson’s view of the future is a plausible one. Obvious I’m not suggesting that all girls get dentata, but I could see private franchises running the world and the creation of a “metaverse”. First of all there is something like the metaverse now, the Internet. Furthermore, the private sector is growing. With the decrease in regulation in the past 20 years, new doors were opening for the private corporations. If the trend continues then some corporations will have the wealth to create their own private city states. With a trend towards a more laissez faire society, the idea of McDonalds creating its own sub nation in California is not too far fetched.

Looking at this point through a modern lens, it is scary to think that this was written in 1992. With things like Second Life and Playstation’s Home, a metaverse liked described in Snow Crash is being created. The power of private corporations and franchises have risen. About 16 year after this was written, most of the ideas Stephenson talks about are coming true in some form or another. Since parts of the Snow Crash future are already coming true, it is not unreasonable to see the Snow Crash world as a possibility for the future.

Could Snow Crash happen in the future??

Since parts of what Stepheson wrote in Snow Crash have already become reality, I think it’s possible that more of what what is the book could also come true. As I think was mentioned in class, he did a good job predicting the role of computers in today’s society.

A lot of things in the book I could see as being possible in years. What I thought was most interesting is the value of having everything you want when you want it, which is a mindset I think contributes a lot to the future in Snow Crash. We see this kind of behavior now already, all you have to do is go black Friday shopping. This is also a reason that we are in the financial crisis we are in today. People want things that they can’t afford but they aren’t willing to wait for them. (just like people weren’t willing to wait for a pizza to be delievered late in the book)

I hope our society doesn’t lose all its values and traditions though. I don’t want our futue to be taken over by McDonalds! Our society has become more privatized as regulation has decreased, but hopefully we won’t ever get to the place society is at in Snow Crash. I don’t think we will because I’d like to believe we are smart enough as a society to realize when things have gone too far. I think we would stop things before they went toofar as I think they did in the book.

How the financial crisis changed my mind

If I had read Snow Crash a few months ago I would mostly likely be blogging that although the scenario suggested in the book is extremely exaggerated, it does portray possibilities of what the future world might be like.  A few months ago I would have pointed out how overall, government is weakening, especially in terms of its control over financial systems.  As government in Snow Crash is nonexistent and replaced by different franchises it is obviously an extreme example.  I do not think the world would get rid of governmental systems completely, but I do think businesses and corporations are and will continue to have increasing amounts of influence over the government.  Take for instance the United State’s government.  Many political decisions are influenced my non-government forces, for instance, lobbyists, activists, and special-interests groups.  Even though that fact that these groups have so much influence in the United States government is highly criticized, it is not denied.  In addition to the government allowing these types of institutions to influence its actions the government has also allowed some institutions-- specifically financial institutions to act independently from the government.

However, I did not read Snow Crash months ago, I read it now when the government is seeing the consequences that have arisen from letting financial institutions from having such independence.  As the government realizes that the current financial crisis was caused by its own action it shows that the government plays a vital role in the public’s well being.  The public cannot be dependent on private institutions as the public is in Snow Crash.

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.