We've all seen the horrifying images of September 11th, and wondered if we are ever going to be safe again. The problem is that we can't be safe because we never expect an attack like this but now that we can imagine any form of attack, can we be safe? The answer is a definite NO.
We can never be completely safe for acts of terrorism and attacks are no longer precipitated by nations but by the ideological groups that conduct their operations within them. We aren't playing the domino theory anymore where if one country falls under a certain belief that we should move to contain it or risk losing others. These ideological groups like Al-Qaeda, the Tamil Tigers, Hezbollah, etc. act more like parasites (not in a derogatory way) but that they are free to conduct operations in any given country and even if one country catches them, a separate branch of that group takes over. The Cold war is another example for we imagined a possible invasion by the Soviet Union and even came close to a nuclear war with them during the Cuban missile Crisis. Another example would be the Maginot Line in France. After the first world war, France knew that Germany would inevitably rearm and rather than risk another bloody Western Front, they built a series of fortifications along the German-French border. They did not imagine the possibility of the Germans launching full scale assaults through Belgium and the Ardennes forests until it was too late.
Finally, we can't be safe because security has a certain scale of when too much has been added. I speak of course of George Orwell's famous 1984 scenario where security and governmental control is strong but liberty is extinct. That's why public opinion polls in New York City opposed the installment of security cameras throughout Central Park as the people would feel uncomfortable with security forces watching them all the time. There lies the tragedy, security is actually judged by the various opinions of the public not by some traffic light-like chart that indicates when the US is safe and when it is not. They want to feel secure yet not too secure. Sounds too much like the Goldilocks story. So when will Americans feel that security is "just right"?
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Security: to be or not to be?
Question: Because of the ambiguity of the term "security," can any country ever be fully secure?
Answer: No. We all saw in class today what a struggle it was for us to explain security. Since we can’t even define the meaning of the word due to its ambiguity, there is no way a country could possibly reach this unattainable goal or know if it was fully secure.
Security is only a mindset. For example, even though you may feel safer riding in a car than flying in an airplane, we all know driving has been statistically proven to be more dangerous than flying. This shows that the perception of security is often inaccurate. Even if we think that we are fully secure in a car because it is a common, reliable mode of transportation, there is always a huge threat of an accident that will keep us from being fully secure.
Let’s say that there was some incredible way to make a country fully secure (hypothetically speaking, of course, since there is no way as of now). Would you want to live in this fully secure world? Would you mind giving up your own freedoms for the overall security of the nation? That is what would happen if the government implemented its highest security programs. It would probably look something like you see in A Beautiful Mind with Russell Crowe… chips implanted under the skin of your forearm that can track everything you do. Or maybe the government would have to invest in some “precogs” that predict crime like seen in the film Minority Report. At any rate, prioritizing security above personal liberty is dangerous and I’m sure most people would resist this even if it means fuller security for the country. Is full security really worth the watching eye of big brother?
Answer: No. We all saw in class today what a struggle it was for us to explain security. Since we can’t even define the meaning of the word due to its ambiguity, there is no way a country could possibly reach this unattainable goal or know if it was fully secure.
Security is only a mindset. For example, even though you may feel safer riding in a car than flying in an airplane, we all know driving has been statistically proven to be more dangerous than flying. This shows that the perception of security is often inaccurate. Even if we think that we are fully secure in a car because it is a common, reliable mode of transportation, there is always a huge threat of an accident that will keep us from being fully secure.
Let’s say that there was some incredible way to make a country fully secure (hypothetically speaking, of course, since there is no way as of now). Would you want to live in this fully secure world? Would you mind giving up your own freedoms for the overall security of the nation? That is what would happen if the government implemented its highest security programs. It would probably look something like you see in A Beautiful Mind with Russell Crowe… chips implanted under the skin of your forearm that can track everything you do. Or maybe the government would have to invest in some “precogs” that predict crime like seen in the film Minority Report. At any rate, prioritizing security above personal liberty is dangerous and I’m sure most people would resist this even if it means fuller security for the country. Is full security really worth the watching eye of big brother?
Is a country ever really secure?
The term security can have very broad implications and meanings. The term can be applied to almost anything imaginable but these days it is most commonly applied to the word national, meaning the security of the US. To me it seems that a security threat against the US or any other nation has to be decided on an individual case basis. What constitutes a threat to one nation may not be perceived as a threat by another nation. But it seems that no country can ever be fully secure for two reasons. As Athkor suggests, a primary reason for failure at national security has to do with the fact that a country cannot build up defense against a threat that it hasn’t imagined yet. Even if the country has imagined the threat it can’t necessarily secure its self from that threat. These are both insurmountable obstacles to a country’s security. These security threats can’t be made to disappear by making bigger missiles or more amassing more troops. They are events that COULD happen but can’t be planned for. Therefore, a chink in the nation’s security armor exists beyond the nation’s control.
A good example of this stems from September 11. Before that date the US thought that it was secure on its own soil. To my knowledge, no one in this country had ever imagined the possibility of terrorists taking over commercial airplanes and running them into buildings. This was such a new, radical idea that the terrorists had, using the planes as their weapons. The only time that this had been done before was with kamikaze pilots. But they used their own planes, not commercial airlines full of people. Since the US had never thought of this, there was no way that we could secure against it. It’s only after the attack that we’ve taken a reactive response by increasing our airline security. Now we wait because we believe the terrorists are bound to find a new, unique tactic to strike the United States. But since we can’t imagine what it might be, we can’t really protect against it. So, no, we as a country are never really completely secure, because we always have groups like terrorists wanting to strike with new means that this country isn’t ready to defend against.
An example of a threat that we can’t secure against even though we’ve imagined it is that of Iran possessing nuclear weapons. America has certainly imagined that possibility and is trying to defend itself against the possibility of Iran getting the weapons. But short of bombing Iran and killing many innocent people and escalating the situation, the US cannot directly stop Iran. Right now the US is in the process of engaging the Iranians diplomatically and offering them incentives if they discontinue the nuclear weapons program. So a country can never really be secure because there is always some threat that hasn’t been imagined yet or because there are some situations that can turn into threats that are beyond a nations control.
A good example of this stems from September 11. Before that date the US thought that it was secure on its own soil. To my knowledge, no one in this country had ever imagined the possibility of terrorists taking over commercial airplanes and running them into buildings. This was such a new, radical idea that the terrorists had, using the planes as their weapons. The only time that this had been done before was with kamikaze pilots. But they used their own planes, not commercial airlines full of people. Since the US had never thought of this, there was no way that we could secure against it. It’s only after the attack that we’ve taken a reactive response by increasing our airline security. Now we wait because we believe the terrorists are bound to find a new, unique tactic to strike the United States. But since we can’t imagine what it might be, we can’t really protect against it. So, no, we as a country are never really completely secure, because we always have groups like terrorists wanting to strike with new means that this country isn’t ready to defend against.
An example of a threat that we can’t secure against even though we’ve imagined it is that of Iran possessing nuclear weapons. America has certainly imagined that possibility and is trying to defend itself against the possibility of Iran getting the weapons. But short of bombing Iran and killing many innocent people and escalating the situation, the US cannot directly stop Iran. Right now the US is in the process of engaging the Iranians diplomatically and offering them incentives if they discontinue the nuclear weapons program. So a country can never really be secure because there is always some threat that hasn’t been imagined yet or because there are some situations that can turn into threats that are beyond a nations control.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
My new favorite pigeon: Cher Ami
My thoughts on gun control are pretty firm, even though I understand both arguments. Yes, it’s true that guns can serve to protect you from other people with bigger guns. BUT the only way we can minimize death by guns is to make it harder to get these guns. The problem will only fester and worsen if action isn’t taken to control the gun market. Simple fact: fewer guns means fewer deaths. Action must be taken to make gun control more stringent.
I feel like everyone is going to reflect on guns, but I will try to take a different route. First of all, I’d like to take this opportunity to tell everyone to go see Changeling, by Clint Eastwood and starring Angelina Jolie. It was a superb movie, the kind that grasps your attention the entire time. In particular I thought of you, Rachel, because this movie was based in the 1920’s when women’s rights were atrocious. I was so disgusted by the way Jolie’s character was treated and I think you would be similarly affected. Even though it was disturbing, it’s the kind of movie that really makes you think. (And I know you probably don’t think very highly of Angelina as an actor because I don’t tend to think highly of her either, but she did a great job.) How does this relate to security? Well, the premise of the movie is about a young boy who is kidnapped. Without giving anything away, I just want to point out that there is nothing in this world (not even guns) that could have prevented this tragedy or many others like it. Instead, through easy access to guns, these tragedies will become more common as we can see with the increase of gun-related deaths in the past century. If there is a way we can learn to prevent gun violence, that would be wonderful. But until some serious funding is produced for prevention methods, guns should be off the street and hard to get.
Ahh and how could I forget about the spy museum?! Well I thought it was pretty darn cool. I wish that I could have spent more time there, but unfortunately I had to speed through to get someplace else on time. From what I did see, I was very intrigued. The fact that stuck with me was that D.C. has the most spies per capita any place in the world! First of all, how do they know this? And second of all, wow, that’s pretty scary (but in a cool way).
An interesting exhibit that I wasn’t expecting to come across was the one about carrier birds! I couldn’t believe how vital these birds were in communication of World War I and many previous wars. At first I thought the exhibit was a hoax and it couldn’t possibly be true. But I learned that some crazy statistic (I believe 95%) of all the messages sent from pigeons to humans were received. Who would have thought? And there was this one pigeon, named Cher Ami (Dear Friend) that even received an award of honor for being shot down in the line of fire but he still completed his mission and delivered the message to the officer! I was in complete awe. If you feel like smiling, check out the brief, heartwarming article on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher_Ami
The other thing I found interesting at the museum were the spy tactics of the ancient English royalty especially in the Queen Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots era. Admittedly, I am obsessed with this era of English royalty, but in general I thought Queen Elizabeth’s extensive spy service was fascinating. It was headed by Francis Walsingham, who ultimately caught Mary Queen of Scots (Elizabeth’s competitive cousin) in her scheme to take Elizabeth’s place and brought her down to her death. Without Walsingham, Elizabeth would undoubtedly have been murdered or dethroned by conspirators who thought a woman was too weak to rule England. Because of her network of spies, Elizabeth went down in English history as one of its greatest rulers of all time. Simply because Queen Elizabeth was in such a vulnerable position, this vast network of spying techniques were implemented by Walsingham and obviously were effective!
So those are just a few things I thought I would share with you all. One final note… did you guys notice how the spy museum portrayed spying to be an older “profession” that is somewhat history? I was disappointed that there wasn’t a lot of information about current day spying (at least not that I saw) and that most of the attention was on Cold War era spies. However, I am guessing that it would be much riskier to have information about modern day spies and also very difficult to obtain information about them... so I guess it’s ok.
I feel like everyone is going to reflect on guns, but I will try to take a different route. First of all, I’d like to take this opportunity to tell everyone to go see Changeling, by Clint Eastwood and starring Angelina Jolie. It was a superb movie, the kind that grasps your attention the entire time. In particular I thought of you, Rachel, because this movie was based in the 1920’s when women’s rights were atrocious. I was so disgusted by the way Jolie’s character was treated and I think you would be similarly affected. Even though it was disturbing, it’s the kind of movie that really makes you think. (And I know you probably don’t think very highly of Angelina as an actor because I don’t tend to think highly of her either, but she did a great job.) How does this relate to security? Well, the premise of the movie is about a young boy who is kidnapped. Without giving anything away, I just want to point out that there is nothing in this world (not even guns) that could have prevented this tragedy or many others like it. Instead, through easy access to guns, these tragedies will become more common as we can see with the increase of gun-related deaths in the past century. If there is a way we can learn to prevent gun violence, that would be wonderful. But until some serious funding is produced for prevention methods, guns should be off the street and hard to get.
Ahh and how could I forget about the spy museum?! Well I thought it was pretty darn cool. I wish that I could have spent more time there, but unfortunately I had to speed through to get someplace else on time. From what I did see, I was very intrigued. The fact that stuck with me was that D.C. has the most spies per capita any place in the world! First of all, how do they know this? And second of all, wow, that’s pretty scary (but in a cool way).
An interesting exhibit that I wasn’t expecting to come across was the one about carrier birds! I couldn’t believe how vital these birds were in communication of World War I and many previous wars. At first I thought the exhibit was a hoax and it couldn’t possibly be true. But I learned that some crazy statistic (I believe 95%) of all the messages sent from pigeons to humans were received. Who would have thought? And there was this one pigeon, named Cher Ami (Dear Friend) that even received an award of honor for being shot down in the line of fire but he still completed his mission and delivered the message to the officer! I was in complete awe. If you feel like smiling, check out the brief, heartwarming article on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher_Ami
The other thing I found interesting at the museum were the spy tactics of the ancient English royalty especially in the Queen Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots era. Admittedly, I am obsessed with this era of English royalty, but in general I thought Queen Elizabeth’s extensive spy service was fascinating. It was headed by Francis Walsingham, who ultimately caught Mary Queen of Scots (Elizabeth’s competitive cousin) in her scheme to take Elizabeth’s place and brought her down to her death. Without Walsingham, Elizabeth would undoubtedly have been murdered or dethroned by conspirators who thought a woman was too weak to rule England. Because of her network of spies, Elizabeth went down in English history as one of its greatest rulers of all time. Simply because Queen Elizabeth was in such a vulnerable position, this vast network of spying techniques were implemented by Walsingham and obviously were effective!
So those are just a few things I thought I would share with you all. One final note… did you guys notice how the spy museum portrayed spying to be an older “profession” that is somewhat history? I was disappointed that there wasn’t a lot of information about current day spying (at least not that I saw) and that most of the attention was on Cold War era spies. However, I am guessing that it would be much riskier to have information about modern day spies and also very difficult to obtain information about them... so I guess it’s ok.
East Coast Firearms
I wanted to use my reflection this week to comment on a website that we looked at on Friday's class. We looked at a website called East Coast Firearms. This website sells high powered assault rifles to ordinary citizens. I find this very frightening for many reasons. It appears than any ordinary person can log on and if they have the money buy one of these weapons. When reading about the buying process there doesn't appear to be any background check or anything to that extent. People seem to be able to fill out the order form and then click on whether they want to pay by credit card or money order. Second, relating to the first item, is that these weapons should only be available to the police or military. There is absolutely no reason that a person would need to buy one of these weapons to defend themselves or for hunting. I'm not trying to go against the 2nd amendment but get a pistol or shotgun to defend yourself, not a semi-automatic weapon. A pistol will do just fine for defense. Also for hunting purposes, a normal hunting rifle will do just fine. No need to pump multiple bullets per minute into a deer, one will do the trick. As I said earlier I'm not trying to get around the second amendment, I support gun ownership but I do support gun control. Even though gun control won't stop guns from being on the market or criminals using them, it will hopefully reduce the threat of criminals using them to perpetrate as many crimes as they do today. I believe that there needs to be more gun control in general and the thought of these types of weapons being sold to ordinary people is completely unacceptable.
Gun control: a curse instead of a blessing
During this past week, our World Politics class engaged in discussing security and its relevance in International relations. When Professor Jackson showed us a website which sold varieties of guns ranging from pistols to automatic machine guns, our discussion turned into a segment on gun control.
On this particular subject the students carried diverse opinions due to its controversial nature. I personally do not favor gun control as it will not stop gun-related violence from occurring. One reason being that criminals can still get weapons from from the black market (it does exist) and sneak weapons across the state borders for profit. This is similar to the War on Drugs where after the ban on illegal drugs, certain drugs like cocaine saw its profit value jump from piratically nothing to over triple its original cost. This also occurred during the prohibition where criminal mobs sold illegal alcohol for grand profits. This exact scenario would happen to us if we ban guns.
Another issue I had in the debate is how certain people in my group argue for gun control based upon the place they grew up like Chicago. I'm from Cincinnati, Ohio where racial tensions are still high and this city was the birthplace of notorious killer Charles Manson so do not think that those arguing for gun rights grew up in peaceful neighborhoods. Another student who will remain nameless said that "if a criminal enters a store with an automatic weapon he is unlikely to kill someone". WRONG!!! That 100% wrong because someone who goes around with an AK-47 in his bag is more likely to kill someone because he has spare ammunition to kill anyone who tries to stop him.
What these gun control fail to consider is that people in violent communities need these guns for protection. For example, in towns where Latino or African American gangs are going around attacking each other, civilians need to be well armed for the police are unlikely to show up in time to stop the violent crime from occurring. Gun control does not stop criminals, it makes civilians open for attack.
On this particular subject the students carried diverse opinions due to its controversial nature. I personally do not favor gun control as it will not stop gun-related violence from occurring. One reason being that criminals can still get weapons from from the black market (it does exist) and sneak weapons across the state borders for profit. This is similar to the War on Drugs where after the ban on illegal drugs, certain drugs like cocaine saw its profit value jump from piratically nothing to over triple its original cost. This also occurred during the prohibition where criminal mobs sold illegal alcohol for grand profits. This exact scenario would happen to us if we ban guns.
Another issue I had in the debate is how certain people in my group argue for gun control based upon the place they grew up like Chicago. I'm from Cincinnati, Ohio where racial tensions are still high and this city was the birthplace of notorious killer Charles Manson so do not think that those arguing for gun rights grew up in peaceful neighborhoods. Another student who will remain nameless said that "if a criminal enters a store with an automatic weapon he is unlikely to kill someone". WRONG!!! That 100% wrong because someone who goes around with an AK-47 in his bag is more likely to kill someone because he has spare ammunition to kill anyone who tries to stop him.
What these gun control fail to consider is that people in violent communities need these guns for protection. For example, in towns where Latino or African American gangs are going around attacking each other, civilians need to be well armed for the police are unlikely to show up in time to stop the violent crime from occurring. Gun control does not stop criminals, it makes civilians open for attack.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
economy and security
Despite its global impact, the 2008 recession cannot be categorized as a security issue. When the economy analyzed through a realist perspective does not tie into territorial security or military necessity. Before 1929, economic panics like the Panic of 1907, made the shareholders regard the economy as the bloodline of the United States but it was not considered a necessity when it came to security. In 1907, the Stock market dropped 50% in all its stocks and caused tremendous fear amongst the people but no security issues arose from this period. The only issue regarding the ailing economy was supplying social welfare and prosperity to the public. There was no mention of security during this period as it was regarded as secondary in importance when it came to the economy. Fast forward to the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks where the stock market fell dramatically but this was due to the mass evacuation of frightened New York civilians and the suspension of air travel. In this case, the financial effects were treated as a form of aftershock since the nation was more concerned with protecting the general public from attack. The only exception to the connection with the economy and security occurred during WWII. Here, the United States struck with fear by the Pearl Harbor attacks, rallied its civilians to defend itself against the Axis powers. This declaration of war convinced thousands of unemployed workers to resume work within military compounds and purchase war bonds. Even though this revived the United States economy, this only came about as an after effect of military patriotism. Overall, the economy does not align with the security of the nations because there is very little connection between the two.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Financial Crisis Reflect Part II and Presidential Debates
Well even through it’s only been a week since I wrote my last reflection, a lot has change regarding the world financial situation. Now it’s not just a problem for the United States but for the entire world. Many countries government are working with their national banks to bail them out. In the United States the Dow Jones Average is still fluctuating. On principle I don’t like that all these countries are balling their national banks out, but I do believe that it certainly has to be done. The world cannot let the financial markets collapse because there would be monumental consequences. Also the rest of the world shouldn’t be so quick to criticize the United States. Back when it was the United States being affected and the rest of the world wasn’t feeling the effects, other countries were critical of how we in the United States was handling our money. Honestly I think those other countries are “talking out of both sides of their mouth,” There still critical of the US regarding money but their going through similar situations in their own countries. More and more families are being affected by this crisis and once again the government needs to figure out a way that regular people aren’t paying for the mistakes of Wall Street and big financial institutions.
Also another event that I believe warrants reflection is the presidential debates. Last Wednesday, October 15 was the last presidential debate. I personally didn’t watch any of the debates because I fell that all the candidates do during the debate is bicker. I can form my own opinions without watching that. I do believe that we need change at the highest levels of government and I’m excited to see who wins the election.
Also another event that I believe warrants reflection is the presidential debates. Last Wednesday, October 15 was the last presidential debate. I personally didn’t watch any of the debates because I fell that all the candidates do during the debate is bicker. I can form my own opinions without watching that. I do believe that we need change at the highest levels of government and I’m excited to see who wins the election.
On Killing and Feminism
Even though I had already seen Lord of War in the theater, I was just as disturbed the second time that I saw it here last week. I don’t even know where to begin. First of all, I really hate it when I can’t distinguish between the protagonist and the antagonist in movies. As a viewer, it’s endlessly frustrating to feel torn between loving and hating a character. Since we knew Nicholas Cage’s character, Yuri, the most in the movie and followed him on his journeys, I felt like I should be cheering for him but at the same time he was a “bad guy” for trading weapons so maliciously. The viewers also felt like they should hate Ethan Hawke’s character, Jack Valentine, because he was trying to bring down Yuri but he was actually the “good guy” trying to do the right thing by stopping Yuri. I realize that this is often the best kind of movie – the ones that tear you up emotionally and morally. I realize there is a strategy behind the way this kind of movie is produced because it has such an impact on the viewer. However, I just get so uncomfortable watching movies like Lord of War that I can’t fully enjoy them. (Having said that, I think the movie was very well done.)
The idea of weapon trade as portrayed in the movie makes me absolutely sick. Yuri often uses the excuse that if he weren’t trading these killing machines then somebody else would be. I hate that we just accept this statement as true because of human nature. We all know that killing is inevitable, but there are ways to minimize it and limiting access to weapons would be an enormous improvement. Our country’s massive production and distribution of weapons is something to be ashamed of, but at the same time it is what brings us our power. Without our power, we wouldn’t have the liberties that we enjoy. So I am endlessly conflicted. There is no way that I could possibly say that I believe we should stop producing and distributing weapons because I know that could never happen… but if I could choose then I would do away with the whole thing. Without weapons in the hands of so many troubled, greedy humans, it would be much harder to kill and it would be much easier to live.
The worst part for me, and probably many of you, was seeing young boys with guns in their hands. It actually brought me close to tears because it’s just so unfair. We send our American sons to therapy and put them on medications for the slightest of reasons like anger management or aggression. Imagine how much more mental damage these young African boys must be coping with. It’s not just a shame for right now, but it’s a danger for the future. What is going to happen when these boys become men and by then are practically robotic killing machines? I’m not only distraught out of sympathy for these boys, but also scared for the future of the world population.
I’d like to say one last thing, not related to the movie. In class we were talking about marginalized groups and how they fit into the political scheme of things. Many American men and women disregard the need for these movements, like feminism, because in our country these problems are becoming less apparent. I have met many people who challenge me in my feminist beliefs arguing that feminism isn’t relevant anymore. We think that we are progressing past sexism, which, to a certain extent, is true; we are a very progressive country. But, there is SOOO much need for progression in the rest of the world that feminists and other groups can’t possibly give up yet. As long as there are still headlines in the New York Times about the extreme rape problems in Congo (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/world/africa/18congo.html?_r=1&ref=africa&oref=slogin) where hundreds of thousands of women are brutally raped in one country within the time span of a few years, there is work for feminists to do. If you can’t seem to grasp why feminism is still so important to our country AND the rest of the world then you need to read more articles like this. Personally, they are all the inspiration I need to keep fighting.
The idea of weapon trade as portrayed in the movie makes me absolutely sick. Yuri often uses the excuse that if he weren’t trading these killing machines then somebody else would be. I hate that we just accept this statement as true because of human nature. We all know that killing is inevitable, but there are ways to minimize it and limiting access to weapons would be an enormous improvement. Our country’s massive production and distribution of weapons is something to be ashamed of, but at the same time it is what brings us our power. Without our power, we wouldn’t have the liberties that we enjoy. So I am endlessly conflicted. There is no way that I could possibly say that I believe we should stop producing and distributing weapons because I know that could never happen… but if I could choose then I would do away with the whole thing. Without weapons in the hands of so many troubled, greedy humans, it would be much harder to kill and it would be much easier to live.
The worst part for me, and probably many of you, was seeing young boys with guns in their hands. It actually brought me close to tears because it’s just so unfair. We send our American sons to therapy and put them on medications for the slightest of reasons like anger management or aggression. Imagine how much more mental damage these young African boys must be coping with. It’s not just a shame for right now, but it’s a danger for the future. What is going to happen when these boys become men and by then are practically robotic killing machines? I’m not only distraught out of sympathy for these boys, but also scared for the future of the world population.
I’d like to say one last thing, not related to the movie. In class we were talking about marginalized groups and how they fit into the political scheme of things. Many American men and women disregard the need for these movements, like feminism, because in our country these problems are becoming less apparent. I have met many people who challenge me in my feminist beliefs arguing that feminism isn’t relevant anymore. We think that we are progressing past sexism, which, to a certain extent, is true; we are a very progressive country. But, there is SOOO much need for progression in the rest of the world that feminists and other groups can’t possibly give up yet. As long as there are still headlines in the New York Times about the extreme rape problems in Congo (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/world/africa/18congo.html?_r=1&ref=africa&oref=slogin) where hundreds of thousands of women are brutally raped in one country within the time span of a few years, there is work for feminists to do. If you can’t seem to grasp why feminism is still so important to our country AND the rest of the world then you need to read more articles like this. Personally, they are all the inspiration I need to keep fighting.
Reflection on Lord of war
On Wednesday, our world politics class watched the film Lord of War a film with Nicholas Cage playing a historic arms dealer who sold many illegal arms to African and Middle Eastern countries. In the final portion of the film, the dealer was captured but released by the federal government because the US was force to lie on the covert supplying of arms to pro-American forces in Africa. This form of military supplying is a new act of international support by the US who would originally supply open arms trade with their neighbors. After the successful covert operations during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which involved the US military sending aid and weapons to the mujaheddin through the Pakistani government, the US grew to belief that supplying pro-American forces through the black market and arms dealers would conceal the US from foreign accusations of active military intervention in war-torn countries. This would also keep the US from being held accountable for supllying pro democratic groups that carry out acts of mass murder.
Another part of the film I found interesting was that the corruption and militarism in African nations greatly exceeded that of any other country (even Lebanon). This is not due to political rivalry or the influence of the black market but due to ethnic pride. Even without the arms trade in Africa, ethnic tensions would still occur and would create the same amount of destruction and slaughter (the militias in Rwanda relied more on machetes to incite terror than they relied on guns). Since the African continent is made up of different ethnic groups and nationalities, the post imperailst period created tensions over the proper represetation of these various groups. The lack of compromise and historical conflicts between certain African tribes, created a wave of what I call ethnic supremacy. This term is meant to convey how the combination of social darwinism, tribalism and ancestral conflicts caused African ethnic groups to engage in wars with each other. Northhern Africa was spared from this movement due to the political and social influence Islamic law. Unfortunately, the region of Sudan whose tribal groups accused the Islamic groups of invading their lands, refused to coexist with the arab populations and indoing so engaged in a series of conflicts which seem to have no end. If Africa wishes to progress without resulting in more bloodshed, they would have to educate their civilians to obey governmental law and to ignore their tribal roots. Since Africa did not understand the meaning of self-rule until they were granted independence, they were unaffected by any sense of nationalism, which serves to keep the population from engaging in ethnic strife.
Another part of the film I found interesting was that the corruption and militarism in African nations greatly exceeded that of any other country (even Lebanon). This is not due to political rivalry or the influence of the black market but due to ethnic pride. Even without the arms trade in Africa, ethnic tensions would still occur and would create the same amount of destruction and slaughter (the militias in Rwanda relied more on machetes to incite terror than they relied on guns). Since the African continent is made up of different ethnic groups and nationalities, the post imperailst period created tensions over the proper represetation of these various groups. The lack of compromise and historical conflicts between certain African tribes, created a wave of what I call ethnic supremacy. This term is meant to convey how the combination of social darwinism, tribalism and ancestral conflicts caused African ethnic groups to engage in wars with each other. Northhern Africa was spared from this movement due to the political and social influence Islamic law. Unfortunately, the region of Sudan whose tribal groups accused the Islamic groups of invading their lands, refused to coexist with the arab populations and indoing so engaged in a series of conflicts which seem to have no end. If Africa wishes to progress without resulting in more bloodshed, they would have to educate their civilians to obey governmental law and to ignore their tribal roots. Since Africa did not understand the meaning of self-rule until they were granted independence, they were unaffected by any sense of nationalism, which serves to keep the population from engaging in ethnic strife.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Untitled
I thought of a brilliant idea for my reflection last night just before I went to sleep. I told myself that I would DEFINITELY remember what I was planning on writing because it was just such a good idea! All morning I have been racking my brain trying to recall my idea, but it just escaped into my dreamland and I don’t think I will ever remember. I hate that. Oh well, next time I will just have to write it down before I drift off into la-la land.
Oh, I just thought of something else to share with you though! When we were doing our research for the Sierra Club for this week’s minor simulation, we had the brilliant idea to actually go to the Sierra Club’s headquarters located here in D.C. I called probably six numbers and emailed three different people to try to set up an interview type situation. Every time I was referred back to someone else who specialized more specifically in what we were asking about and eventually the last “someone else” just never responded to my phone calls or email. It was quite disappointing since we had most of our video planned around our footage of actual employees of the Sierra Club. And also interesting that they really didn’t seem interested in helping us whatsoever. Perhaps they are very busy people and don’t have time for college students making films. Or perhaps they didn’t like the question that we were asking them because the answer they had was a bit wishy-washy. Any other ideas why they wouldn’t help us out? Well at any rate, it was very disappointing. The reason I thought of it was because the name of this one woman that I spoke with at the Sierra club was Lala which, if you remember, was my first name in the movie (I was Lala Sky). We were pretty angry with Lala for not helping us out, so we attempted to comically use her name in our video. And yeah, when I said “la-la land” up there I remembered to tell you all about Lala Shamirzaian, a trade specialist at the Sierra Club.
Anyone else read about the conspiracy with Parah Salin (haha this was my friend’s facebook status today, definitely lol’d)? Apparently our “Washington outsider” is actually pretty familiar with the dirty politics here in Washington that she so often reprimands. Here’s the latest from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/us/politics/11trooper.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
One last thing… I realized today that it’s pretty cool our whole floor is working on the same projects/papers. I think I take for granted the whole learning community thing too much. We’re lucky to be able to talk to so many people and bounce ideas off each other so effortlessly with just a walk to the lounge or a stroll down the hallway. I wish it could be like this for every class and every paper I write!
Oh, I just thought of something else to share with you though! When we were doing our research for the Sierra Club for this week’s minor simulation, we had the brilliant idea to actually go to the Sierra Club’s headquarters located here in D.C. I called probably six numbers and emailed three different people to try to set up an interview type situation. Every time I was referred back to someone else who specialized more specifically in what we were asking about and eventually the last “someone else” just never responded to my phone calls or email. It was quite disappointing since we had most of our video planned around our footage of actual employees of the Sierra Club. And also interesting that they really didn’t seem interested in helping us whatsoever. Perhaps they are very busy people and don’t have time for college students making films. Or perhaps they didn’t like the question that we were asking them because the answer they had was a bit wishy-washy. Any other ideas why they wouldn’t help us out? Well at any rate, it was very disappointing. The reason I thought of it was because the name of this one woman that I spoke with at the Sierra club was Lala which, if you remember, was my first name in the movie (I was Lala Sky). We were pretty angry with Lala for not helping us out, so we attempted to comically use her name in our video. And yeah, when I said “la-la land” up there I remembered to tell you all about Lala Shamirzaian, a trade specialist at the Sierra Club.
Anyone else read about the conspiracy with Parah Salin (haha this was my friend’s facebook status today, definitely lol’d)? Apparently our “Washington outsider” is actually pretty familiar with the dirty politics here in Washington that she so often reprimands. Here’s the latest from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/us/politics/11trooper.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
One last thing… I realized today that it’s pretty cool our whole floor is working on the same projects/papers. I think I take for granted the whole learning community thing too much. We’re lucky to be able to talk to so many people and bounce ideas off each other so effortlessly with just a walk to the lounge or a stroll down the hallway. I wish it could be like this for every class and every paper I write!
Reflection on the economic collapse
This has been one hectic week. With DOW dropping below 9,000 points, the world markets panicked and the EU rallied to create a plan to save their banks from complete collapse (which I think is the reason that the visit from the members of the European commission canceled out on us that one Wednesday). Those reading the declining numbers and observing the newspaper pictures of disheartened Wall Street workers showing the same dismay and fear as felt during the 1929 economic crash, speculate that this crisis may spell the end of the United States as a Superpower. However, this crisis does not fall within the same category as the Great Depression for that event began when all stocks fell within a matter of one week. In a historical context, this follows the same path of the Great Panic of the mid 1890s. In this event, the gold standard fell below its average value due to the overexertion of the Railroad company while the major corporation like Carnegie Steel and Rockefeller Oil consumed the lesser oil and steel businesses just like the merging of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America and the collapse of Washington Mutual. This panic was an extension of the Panic of 1873 just like how this collapse morphed from the 2007 mortgage crisis. What drove us out of the panic was renewed confidence in the Gold standard and the popularity of William McKinley. So the answer to our current economic crisis may lie with future president Obama (sorry McCain supporters if I offended you) combined with renewed consumer trust in the banking system. However, this plan can not be solved within a matter of weeks for the American, European and Asian markets must work together to restore hope within the consumers.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Reflection on the Financial crisis and the in class simulation
The financial crisis that has gripped America in the past few months has many people worried. Financial analysts believe that it started with the mortgage crisis, when many banks started to fold. That in turn has led to the stock market falling. Most recently, the Dow Jones Average closed below 9,000 points. With the declining market, people are losing money. The Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve have tried to stabilize the crisis but have not yet succeed. As everybody knows, the bailout package was approved in congress but even still, it will take a long time to see an effect from it. It’s scary to see the markets plummeting. My family has been very lucky thus far in that it hasn’t effected us. But if this continues, it could affect us as well as countless others. Even though the government and economists don’t really know what’s happening, they need to figure it out! They also need to do something to stabilize the market and not have “main street” pay for the mistakes of Wall Street and risky mistakes that banks made.
Last week, I reflected on preparing for the simulation. Now I want to write a brief reflection on the simulation its self. I really enjoyed this simulation. I felt that it was a great way to learn about how an issue like car manufacturing can be international. Also, it was interesting to hear from so many different angles. For example, I was surprised to hear that my group, the American Auto Manufactures, took a new stand on the issue from previous years. The stand of eliminating domestic content rules seemed so clear to us. It was interesting that groups before took the opposite stand that we did. I was a little disappointed that we didn’t have any time to persuade other groups to come to our respective positions. I’m very excited for our next simulation, because I really enjoy the hands on learning experience.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
We're all winners!
This is a tough question to answer because I was focusing so hard on making my own point and backing up my position that I could barely evaluate my classmates’ debate tactics. In a debate I always find it necessary to convince myself that my position is the most correct, therefore it’s difficult for me to say that anyone else’s argument really swayed me from my opinion as a representative of the Sierra Club. Regardless of this, I will try to answer the question at hand… everyone had a great case!
The consumers were very intense that their position was correct and thus tried very hard to persuade the Sierra Club in the caucus period. Their passion and confidence was wonderful! However, it was not enough to change our beliefs.
The United Auto Workers were in the same position as my group and I particularly agreed with them when they were discussing the poor ethics of outsourcing labor to places with lower standards. I didn’t sense as much enthusiasm from this group though.
Foreign Auto Manufacturers had some valid points about how their cars were more fuel efficient which is what my group had originally planned to argue until we researched and found out that the Sierra Club wanted to keep manufacturing here no matter what. I agree that foreign cars are probably better for the consumers, but the argument was where these cars should be made, not how fuel-efficient the cars are in the end result. There’s simply no way that we can know if the environmental standards in the production of these fuel-efficient cars is eco-safe. Whether or not the Kyoto Protocol says that the manufacturing needs to have certain environmental standards, we simply have no control over manufacturing overseas and therefore don’t know if they are following the guidelines. In fact, it is very likely that the environmental standards are not being met (look at how the Kyoto Protocol exempts China from many regulations as one example) since people tend to think of the environment in the aftermath. So Foreign Auto Manufacturers, bring your production plants over here and we’ll be happy!
Although I really really really really REALLY detest declaring superlatives (i.e. the best debate group), if you twist my arm and make me choose I would say the American Auto Manufacturers had the best argument. Perhaps this is because we all knew the president would pick their argument. Perhaps this is because their argument was most “realistic” for our country, which I reluctantly admit. Or perhaps they just did a great job debating! The group seemed to really grasp the full spectrum of their position and the video they made was very clear, informative, and persuasive.
In response to PTJ’s question that he posted on his blog, I would say that the American Auto Manufacturers had the best case. But the consumers had the most passion and therefore I think argued their case the best.
The consumers were very intense that their position was correct and thus tried very hard to persuade the Sierra Club in the caucus period. Their passion and confidence was wonderful! However, it was not enough to change our beliefs.
The United Auto Workers were in the same position as my group and I particularly agreed with them when they were discussing the poor ethics of outsourcing labor to places with lower standards. I didn’t sense as much enthusiasm from this group though.
Foreign Auto Manufacturers had some valid points about how their cars were more fuel efficient which is what my group had originally planned to argue until we researched and found out that the Sierra Club wanted to keep manufacturing here no matter what. I agree that foreign cars are probably better for the consumers, but the argument was where these cars should be made, not how fuel-efficient the cars are in the end result. There’s simply no way that we can know if the environmental standards in the production of these fuel-efficient cars is eco-safe. Whether or not the Kyoto Protocol says that the manufacturing needs to have certain environmental standards, we simply have no control over manufacturing overseas and therefore don’t know if they are following the guidelines. In fact, it is very likely that the environmental standards are not being met (look at how the Kyoto Protocol exempts China from many regulations as one example) since people tend to think of the environment in the aftermath. So Foreign Auto Manufacturers, bring your production plants over here and we’ll be happy!
Although I really really really really REALLY detest declaring superlatives (i.e. the best debate group), if you twist my arm and make me choose I would say the American Auto Manufacturers had the best argument. Perhaps this is because we all knew the president would pick their argument. Perhaps this is because their argument was most “realistic” for our country, which I reluctantly admit. Or perhaps they just did a great job debating! The group seemed to really grasp the full spectrum of their position and the video they made was very clear, informative, and persuasive.
In response to PTJ’s question that he posted on his blog, I would say that the American Auto Manufacturers had the best case. But the consumers had the most passion and therefore I think argued their case the best.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Another Reflection
During class on Friday, I couldn’t help but connect what we were learning about copyrights to a paper that I’m working on in my College Writing class about plagiarism. The basic premises of copyright and plagiarism are pretty simple and similar: give credit to the person with the idea and don’t use another's creation as your own. But there is something about copyright that seems so much more frightening, mostly because there’s a lot of ambiguity in copyright law. In writing a paper or article or book, it’s pretty straightforward what to cite and how to cite it. Yes, yes, it does get pretty complicated when you’re a professional and your work is being published, but as a college student citing my work is fairly simple as long as I pay attention while I’m researching and follow the correct format. In contrast, I felt overwhelmed by copyright because it’s such a long and complicated process to follow the laws and it’s unclear when you need to do so. The guidelines and restrictions are mostly clear, but when you try to apply them to the project that you’re working on it becomes confusing because every situation is different and a lot of the copyright laws are up for interpretation. But the presentation in class did help clear up some of my nervousness about copyright simply by making me aware of the rules.
Over the weekend I was struck by an article I read in the New York Times and since I don’t have a whole lot else to reflect on for class, I’ll give you a little bit of my opinion on the piece. It was about the affiliation between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers… do any of you know who he is? Well I didn’t either until I read this. Ayers was an anti-Vietnam activist in the 60’s and at one time or another he had plans to bomb the Pentagon and Capitol Building here in DC! The article further goes on to explain the relationship between Obama and Ayers and also addresses how Ayers has changed since his bomb-plotting days in the 60’s. He’s now a professor at University of Illinois at Chicago and has published many books. Apparently Ayers and Obama’s relationship is becoming controversial, though, as Republicans are using their friendship against Obama’s credibility as a presidential nominee. I have a problem with that… just like I had a problem with the whole Reverand Wright thing. Do we as citizens of the U.S. really have the right to tell a person who to associate with? I’m sure all of us have friends that may have done some bad stuff, but that doesn’t mean that we will do the same. I certainly don’t think that Obama would bomb our country… it’s almost funny how stupid that is. I know that Democrats definitely do that too, it just annoys me to no end how politics can become so nasty. There should be some sort of political ethics police that keeps the talk on policy not on personal life. Unfortunately, this next month will probably be overflowing with this catty behavior so I guess I’ll just have to get used to it! Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?th&emc=th
Also, I am awful at editing videos and I wish we could just present our points of view rather than go through the stress of figuring out iMovie. The end.
Over the weekend I was struck by an article I read in the New York Times and since I don’t have a whole lot else to reflect on for class, I’ll give you a little bit of my opinion on the piece. It was about the affiliation between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers… do any of you know who he is? Well I didn’t either until I read this. Ayers was an anti-Vietnam activist in the 60’s and at one time or another he had plans to bomb the Pentagon and Capitol Building here in DC! The article further goes on to explain the relationship between Obama and Ayers and also addresses how Ayers has changed since his bomb-plotting days in the 60’s. He’s now a professor at University of Illinois at Chicago and has published many books. Apparently Ayers and Obama’s relationship is becoming controversial, though, as Republicans are using their friendship against Obama’s credibility as a presidential nominee. I have a problem with that… just like I had a problem with the whole Reverand Wright thing. Do we as citizens of the U.S. really have the right to tell a person who to associate with? I’m sure all of us have friends that may have done some bad stuff, but that doesn’t mean that we will do the same. I certainly don’t think that Obama would bomb our country… it’s almost funny how stupid that is. I know that Democrats definitely do that too, it just annoys me to no end how politics can become so nasty. There should be some sort of political ethics police that keeps the talk on policy not on personal life. Unfortunately, this next month will probably be overflowing with this catty behavior so I guess I’ll just have to get used to it! Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?th&emc=th
Also, I am awful at editing videos and I wish we could just present our points of view rather than go through the stress of figuring out iMovie. The end.
Reflection on week 6
Copyright infringement is not a new idea for in every film, you are presented that same FBI warning on copyright laws. It didn't surprise me that the copyright laws had many restrictions but what astounded me were the individual loopholes within those laws. In certain chapters of the copyright laws, there were specific exceptions to these laws.
In one part of the copyright laws, it states that filmmakers are granted the ability to "employ copyrighted material as the object of social, political or cultural critique". This means that they can quote certain sciences or political actions without the need for citation as long as it doesn't overuse the material. When we watched that Britney Spears tribute, "A Piece of Me", the composers were obviously granted the right to reuse documentary footage and tabloid photographs in order to show the dark side of the paparazzi (Everyone knows the great agony that the paparazzi are capable of inflicting [see Princess Diana]). Due to the wide distribution of these tabloids and scandalous clips on the internet (like Youtube), the artist was able to avoid copyright infringement.Another factor I found interesting was the law stating that filmmakers could use "copyrighted material in a historical sequence". I believe that this abides to historical films like the Civil War film, Gods and Generals. There are more loopholes within these laws than anyone could imagine but there must be limits placed on these exceptions as people may exploit them for their own personal gain.
In one part of the copyright laws, it states that filmmakers are granted the ability to "employ copyrighted material as the object of social, political or cultural critique". This means that they can quote certain sciences or political actions without the need for citation as long as it doesn't overuse the material. When we watched that Britney Spears tribute, "A Piece of Me", the composers were obviously granted the right to reuse documentary footage and tabloid photographs in order to show the dark side of the paparazzi (Everyone knows the great agony that the paparazzi are capable of inflicting [see Princess Diana]). Due to the wide distribution of these tabloids and scandalous clips on the internet (like Youtube), the artist was able to avoid copyright infringement.Another factor I found interesting was the law stating that filmmakers could use "copyrighted material in a historical sequence". I believe that this abides to historical films like the Civil War film, Gods and Generals. There are more loopholes within these laws than anyone could imagine but there must be limits placed on these exceptions as people may exploit them for their own personal gain.
Simulation Prep Reflection
This week my group has been preparing for our simulation. Since my group is the American Manufactures Association we seem to have a pretty clear point. Getting our main ideas for filming was easy because of the clarity of our point. The actual writing of the script was difficult for me to help with because I’m not a very creative person. But I did what I could, making suggestions where I thought I had something to offer. Filming throughout the week was a lot of fun, although it was difficult, because there aren’t many things to be filmed in Washington that are relevant to car manufacturing, like a manufacturing plant. But that was ok. I really hope that “President Jackson” sees our point and will vote in favor of our group. It’s been interesting because this has been the talk of our floor. It seems like everywhere you go in our LC, people are talking about the project, what their ideas are, when and where to film, etc. This has been great to get the whole LC focused on a certain project. In the past I have had mixed feelings on group projects. I’m the kind of person who likes to get my work done early and ahead of time, and in a group that’s not always that easy to do. But I always figure out how to deal with that and they have always gotten in on time. This skill is good to be figuring out how to work in a group because group work won’t stop this year or even when I get out of college. There is almost always going to be some group project to work on in the business sphere. On the other hand, group projects in college are usually a “change of pace” and a hands on learning experience which is nice. Also the way the group works together definitely influences the enjoyment of the project. Our group worked together really well, which made this fun. So, this group project was great, because in addition to our group working well together it was great to have an interactive learning experience dealing with world politics.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Bretton Woods: reality or theory?
When the Bretton woods system first originated after the aftermath of the Great Depression, governmental agencies thought of reworking the economy by placing limits on exchange rates and the flow of international trade. This program served to stabilize the US treasury as well as the overabundance of the US dollar. However, this ideal is no longer applicable to today's economy.
As a mixed economy, the US economy can not be controlled by the governmental limits as proposed in the Bretton system. The current economy uses a combined set of economic theories that are meant to balance out the gold standard, free trade, supplying aid to corporations and the use of natural selection in stabilizing the banking and financial companies. Also, the limits would keep major corporations from exceeding in economic prosperity. Under the influence of the Bretton system, Bank Corp tried to create a world-wide currency, which failed greatly. The only exception to this theory was the wide distribution of the Euro but this only concerned the small continent of Europe. In general, the properties of the Bretton System do not carry well into our current economy.
As a mixed economy, the US economy can not be controlled by the governmental limits as proposed in the Bretton system. The current economy uses a combined set of economic theories that are meant to balance out the gold standard, free trade, supplying aid to corporations and the use of natural selection in stabilizing the banking and financial companies. Also, the limits would keep major corporations from exceeding in economic prosperity. Under the influence of the Bretton system, Bank Corp tried to create a world-wide currency, which failed greatly. The only exception to this theory was the wide distribution of the Euro but this only concerned the small continent of Europe. In general, the properties of the Bretton System do not carry well into our current economy.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Mix it up
There is no way that any theory could specifically address how to react to every “empirical event and situation” because that is against their very nature; theories, as PTJ said, are meant to be simplified. I like the analogy he used of creating a life-size map in that this humungous, expansive map (or theory) would actually not be effective for many reasons… how to physically build such a thing? How to know it’s accurate? How to even look at or analyze it? And what good would it do anyways? If the map were too detailed then it would lose meaning, which goes the same with IR theories. Therefore, theories can never be completely correct and are influenced by many factors in order to interpret the particular situation with the outline ideas that a theory provides. If there were a handbook or a driver’s manual, oh life would be too easy and uninteresting!
I kinda like that feeling of grey… that wishy-washy color in between the very firm black and white hues (if I remember correctly, black and white aren’t colors? I don’t know if that’s right, it’s been a while since I’ve taken art class, but that’s beside the point). Black and white are too constricting, too controlling, too stubborn. But then there’s grey! To get grey, you get to mix the two colors together, a little more of black and a little less of white or vice versa… it’s all your preference, your choice what color you want to make. So what I’m trying to say is that theories are just dying to be mixed together to form a uniquely delicious shade of grey depending on the mood or the situation. Black and white will never give you the creativity and flexibility that grey will.
As we saw in class on Tuesday, there was simply no right answer to which IR theory was most applicable to the Bretton Woods system. What seemed most suitable for an answer was actually a blend of the theories we’ve learned so far. I’m not going to say that theories are strictly opinions or that “it depends on your point of view”, but rather that everyone has the right to mix their own shades of grey and analyze particular events using a varied pallet of theories. Through mixing it up, we can respond to the demands of different situations in different ways. That’s all!
I kinda like that feeling of grey… that wishy-washy color in between the very firm black and white hues (if I remember correctly, black and white aren’t colors? I don’t know if that’s right, it’s been a while since I’ve taken art class, but that’s beside the point). Black and white are too constricting, too controlling, too stubborn. But then there’s grey! To get grey, you get to mix the two colors together, a little more of black and a little less of white or vice versa… it’s all your preference, your choice what color you want to make. So what I’m trying to say is that theories are just dying to be mixed together to form a uniquely delicious shade of grey depending on the mood or the situation. Black and white will never give you the creativity and flexibility that grey will.
As we saw in class on Tuesday, there was simply no right answer to which IR theory was most applicable to the Bretton Woods system. What seemed most suitable for an answer was actually a blend of the theories we’ve learned so far. I’m not going to say that theories are strictly opinions or that “it depends on your point of view”, but rather that everyone has the right to mix their own shades of grey and analyze particular events using a varied pallet of theories. Through mixing it up, we can respond to the demands of different situations in different ways. That’s all!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)