embedded vs. disembedded liberalism

Clearly, a combination of the two types of markets is most realistic and desirable, a system in which we can choose which type of liberalism (embedded or disembedded) to follow depending on the state of the market.

However, if I could only choose one, I would choose a market system operating under disembedded liberalism. Honestly, there is enough red tape for both businesses and individuals wishing to participate in the financial market already; adding more restrictions through embedded liberalism certainly would not help that situation. We want business to flourish, not to be weighed down by overbearing "grammar." So while certain rules are necessary to that the market can exist and function properly, more laws are unneeded. The government has more than enough responsibilities already, so by leaving the financial market in a laissez-faire state, unless emergency strikes, frees them to deal with more pressing matters.

Additionally, a disembedded market encourages interdependence among international countries and corporations more so than an embedded market which tends to promote autonomy and self-sufficiency before trade. As any economics student can (or should be able to) tell you, countries benefit when they specialize in producing a product for which they have comparative advantage and trade for other products. While surviving only upon what your country produces may have been necessary or practical at a time when travel was more difficult, that is no longer an excuse. As technology progresses - due to information trade - transporting products will become even cheaper and easier. We stated in class that embedded liberalism would make the world market less fragile; if one country's economy were to crash, the rest of the world would not suffer. However, the benefits that come from depending upon each other severely outweigh this possible loss; though this happened during the Great Depression, we now know the cause and the signs that led up to the Great Depression so that we may avoid any similar situation.

Though disembedded liberalism is not for developing countries, many of whose people need welfare and aid in starting new businesses, in a country such as the U.S., the majority can prosper under a more open set of rules. With too many restrictions, our innovation will be severely restricted as will our ability to prosper to the fullest of our potential.

merits of economic liberalism

Admittedly, domestic economic policy is a relatively abstract issue and I find it can be difficult to conceptualize. When debating the merits between embedded and disembedded liberalism, I find it hard to conclude that one system reigns supreme. Rather, I think they both hold merit in different situations. Generally, I believe the best economic system is one in which the merchants and businessmen have the greatest amount of freedom. This would be considered as “disembedded” liberalism; a system that places the control of the state economy in the hands of those who know it best. There is no debating that money is a motivator, and the government should not have to get their sticky hands into issues of economic policy. History tells us that the free, mercantile form of economic policy yields the greatest results. After all, it was the freeing up of the market that propelled England into world superpower status. France on the other hand was becoming increasingly tied down by its centuries old economic policies. There was just no way to efficiently regulate economic policy so strictly. The laissez faire attitude just makes more sense than the alternative-an embedded economic policy where restrictions are placed on the trade market. With that said however, I do think that there are merits to embedded liberalism. We talked in class about the Great Depression. In this case, when a nation is so struggling to get on its feet economically, I think regulations need to be put in place to protect the citizens of the country. Economic freedom within nations works best when each country is able to support themselves well. On the contrary, when there is mass unemployment, someone has to take charge.

peer review and insecurity

This week we had a different style of teaching given to us. We had our own classmates teach us some IR theory. It was an interesting way to teach the same sort of ideas that we have been learning this entire time with a different method attached to it. Overall, I thought that it was interesting to see IR theory taught in the way of commercials. Oddly enough, it worked very well. The commercials were able to play on peoples sense of insecurity and that the product they were selling, diet mountain dew for instance, would make that insecurity fall away. These commercials, just as the U.S. government, plays upon our fears and so when they give a solution, no matter how stupid, we give in and take it. The U.S. government exploited our fear and passed acts such as the Patriot Act. This overburdened fear led to our freedoms being taken away. These commercials that were played for us were able to give a representation of how that could happen. One of them played on our fear and then showed the army as one big happy, working, fearless group of people. Plus, in order for that to work the President needs all the authority the President can get. How can we have a nation that is safe if we do not have a well equipped, oiled army to protect us? The insecurity the government wants to instill on us is so that the President can gather all power around him and slowly move towards a dictatorship. The vast powers the President has gained is to protect the people of America, and allow him to do whatever he wants whether or not it violates US law or international law. The administration promotes fear so that they can use it to promote the laws and ideals that they want.

Insecurity

I found this week's discussion on insecurity very interesting because there are many ways in which to view perspectives on insecurity. This is part of the theme that we tried to introduce in class on Friday. In addition to the propoganda and commercials that we viewed, which show the media's plight to create insecurity in the customer (therefore resulting in more security when they purchase the product), the group also found some facts that show some other perspectives.

One of the points that I tried to emphasize is the fact that perception is often what causes insecurity. Many points in the Mueller article give examples of this, one of them being about Osama Bin Laden, no matter how far-fetched it seems. Mueller mentions that perhaps the hype over terrorism can create more damage than the terrorists themselves. Al Qaeda and Bin Laden have caused an extreme attack on the United States, but also consider the results of their actions and the fact that the U.S. has been searching for him for so many years. The amount of time, people, and money that this takes, in addition to security increases, has spent an incredible amount of resources.

Some other concepts to consider are how we consider ideas within our country such as homocide. Because of the media and how homocides/school shootings are shown throughout the country, it is easy to believe that the homocide rate has gone up recently and must be at a high now. The truth is that from 1992 to 2005, the number of homocides in U.S. schools actually decreased significantly(1). Something else that was mentioned in this week's article, was the fact that the total number of people worldwide who die at the hands of international terrorists is not much more than the number who drown in bathtubs in the U.S. (2). Therefore, why are we so worried about terrorism and not about drowning in a bathtub?! This is a perception of insecurity that we have.

Once we determined a theme for this week's class, it was easy to find examples. You begin to realize how often we generalize and look at society 'through glasses,' without actually looking at facts. Sometimes it is better this way, yet at other times it creates maniacal behavior and it would be better to understand the facts.


1. "Serious Violent Crimes in Schools." 28 Oct. 2007. http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/violence-in-schools/school-shootings.html

2. John Mueller (2005) Simplicity and Spook: Terrorism and the Dynamics of Threat Exaggeration International Studies Perspectives 6 (2), 208–234. doi:10.1111/j.1528-3577.2005.00203.x

reflection blog

This past wednesday I was fortunate enough to attend a gathering with former President Jimmy Carter. The topic of the forum was Sudan and the conflic in the Darfur region. While President Carter did not go particularly in-depth about the conflict, it was interesting to hear it from his perspective. He mentioned a new international initiative known as the "elders" project, which brings together past world leaders to try and solve human rights issues around the globe. He spoke of the ongoing struggle between the North and South regions of Sudan. Apparently, the discovery of oil along the border has caused peace negotians between these two areas to weaken. Presient carter did say that he did not believe either the North or South wanted to go to war, as the cost and consequences would be far to great. The primary issue with Darfur is that the number of rebel groups in the region is increasing all the time. What started as two or three rebel factions has risen to over 30, making it extremely hard to negotiate peace between them and the central government. Carter was hesitant to call the conflict a "genocide", saying that although it was a serious problem with many casualties, it has not been a premeditated and sustained effort to eliminate all blacks from Sudan. I really did enjoy listening to the President's adress. His southern charm and easy going nature drew some laughs from the crowd, and you could tell he was really sincere and genuine in his concern. I feel extremely lucky to be one of the 100 students allowed in the event. I hope the Mayoral visit was equally informative as to the workings of the DC government.

Friday's class was a nice change of pace, as the advertisements were both humurous and extrodinarily relevant to world politics. While I doubt the manufactures were thinking about terrorism, fear tactics, and freedom when making their commercials, the connections are striking. I especially enjoyed the Mountain Dew add that showed how much more dangerous ferrets are than grizzly bears. This came after I had read an arcticle explaining how American's and the national media constantly overreact to the threat of terrorism. An example is the common misconception that cars and safer to travel in than planes (we know this not to be true). Tom said it well when he gave the example that a news station will never say, "Today, all 1,500 flights landed safely today". You only hear about the one that didn't. So I am looking forward to some more creative student-run classes (not to knock on PTJ's lessons). My group is up next week, so we'll see what's in store ;).

reflection week 9

As this was parent's weekend, mine visited and brought me Halloween decorations and candy corn. Saturday night, a group of us were eating the candy corn and for some reason we related the way we ate the candy corn to the security of sovereign states as we discussed in world politics this week. Random? yes. Relevant? completely.
So after discussing the superiority of the pumpkin shaped candy corns - because they're richer in taste - we decided that if the candy corn were all sovereign states, the pumpkins would be the richest and thus (in this completely theoretical late-night situation) most powerful. However, their security was threatened and ultimately destroyed when I proceeded to eat all of the pumpkins leaving only the candy corns. While not nearly as rich, they became more powerful, more desirable when the pumpkins were gone and thus their security was also threatened.
I guess what I'm trying to say with this analogy is when the security/sovereignty/existence of a rich/powerful nation is threatened or overcome, the security of the weaker nations is then also threatened - they rely upon the other nation for protection. If the pumpkins were to focus only upon becoming richer and more powerful in hopes of being able to ward off potential enemies - which obviously cant happen as I will eat them no matter what - then they are not fulfilling their role on a "global" scale to the weaker candy corns. Anyways, I just found the whole incidence amusing and thought that I would share; as this is a reflection blog where we reflect on what has happened related to the class this week, I figured that this was a good place to do it.
I'd also like to add that I thought that both discussions this week were interesting; Tuesday we were able to relate current events to our weekly topic, which we should be able to do every week seeing as we're studying world politics and they are surrounding us, but I liked that we actually discussed specific, (very) recent events rather than just talking about theory. In the beginning, the class was split as to whether to focus upon domestic fires or international conflict in the middle east; as the class progressed, more people came to see that internal security is necessary before we can fulfill our role as 'global police.' The fires that many were saying should not be a priority because they were not a big deal decided to prove those people wrong. Though most are under control, there are still, after nearly a week, fires blazing in southern California. Meanwhile in northern Iraq, tensions are rising as the PKK, who sparked the initial conflict between Turkey and Iraq holds their position lodged, hidden in the mountains. It is good that the US did not brush off the threat of fire as they caused so much destruction; in the same time there is tension but no war between Iraq and Turkey- the peace held for this week as we dealt with internal affairs. Clearly we did not stop international diplomacy because as many in the class were quick to point out, we do not have to only choose one issue to deal with because one involves firefighters and the other, diplomats. True as this is, if we cared about budget, then we would have financial restrictions and may not be able to fund both projects at the same time. However, the U.S. likes to multi-task and we have already spent so many billions more in the middle east than was initially intended, does a few more really matter?

listen to an uneducated public?

If the average voting American could not pass a citizenship test, then why would we want them to completely determine national public policy? How could they avoid historical mistakes if they do not know them? How could they consider other counties' perspectives when they do not even historically know their own?

I agree that the current government seems to utterly ignore public opinion and disregards the public dis-rest that their actions cause; I am not arguing that public opinion should not matter as that is the entire point of living in a democracy. However, I would like to emphasize the lack of public awareness in regards to international affairs. If they concern themselves at all with such things, they hear only from a (probably biased) news report. There is no follow up or real concern in furthering their knowledge on the subject. A group may go online and educate themselves more thoroughly on world events, reading various sources to end up with a rounded set of information. This, sadly, is not often the case though.

Here at American University, in Washington DC and at the heart of our country's political being, it is easy to forget how unattached many areas of the United States are with politics. Their opinions are completely uneducated and thus are probably not the best thing to go off of when running a country. We elect public officials because we agree to trust their judgment. They should of course consider the will of the people, but if their foresight allows them to see outcomes unknown to the general public, then they must act upon that educated vision. Politicians are obligated (though they certainly don't always adhere to said obligations, that is another matter entirely) to do what is best for the country. I believe that those are the best guidelines, no matter how unclear, for national policy.

"What's best," though completely subject to opinion, requires (or tries to) national policy to consider America as a whole as well as individual interest groups. It is all-encompassing and thus impossible. Yet it is something to strive towards; the light at the end of a long, dark tunnel, it provides a goal for policy makers to look towards. The American public, I fear, has even less of a chance than the government does of discovering what is at the end of the tunnel and realizing how to reach it. So, though I wouldn't mind the government being slightly more responsive to public opinion, I prefer that they run the country.

The will of the people

So in my opinion, I think that the government should take the concern of people into mind but then do what they believe to be best. The founding fathers did not set up a direct democracy. They argued that it would be mob rule and bad for the country as a whole. However, it is argued that this country has expanded into a democracy through time. The will of the people does not take into account minority views. The whole basis of the reason that the founding fathers did not set up a minority because they knew that only the majority would be satisfied. However, I would like to put forward the argument that President Bush has been steadily making the Office of the Presidency into a dictatorship. With many of the laws he has enacted since the start of his presidency, such as the PATRIOT Act, President Bush has expanded the power of that office to a power greater than that of any other president. This then begins to beg the question; is it better to have mob rule or a dictatorship? In this case it would be better to have mob rule. In the case of mob rule, it is much easier to change the government. As the power of the presidency is increased each President that comes next will have to be increasingly careful to make sure that we do not end up as a totalitarian state. The best form of government would be to have a government that is in between a totalitarian dictatorship and mob rule. That way you would have the balance of knowledge of what the people want versus the knowledge that governs the people. This can be used as a system of checks and balances by acknowledging the people but also defending them from themselves. This way all people, in theory, will get what they want, if it is deemed to be good, and no single group will be discriminated against. This is the ideal theory but not the reality, seeing as how America is leaning further toward a dictatorship with the facade of a democracy.

Does our government even care?

I would like to say that I agree with Liz’s nothing that America’s leaders will “do whatever they damn well please, whether their people want it or not.” The last five years in Iraq have been hell and the Bush Administration knows it. Whatever false pretenses the invasion was based on are now mute and the United States government seems to be doing anything possible to get the American public on their side. While the President tries desperately to maintain some semblance public support, he faces an increasing amount of opposition from his fellow republicans. Democrats on the other hand are enduring an all out fist fight over who opposed the war most vehemently, who came to that conclusion quickest, and who will be best suited to end the conflict. And while I do not doubt that each candidate is genuine in their concerns and positions on Iraq, I do think the ongoing debate is almost entirely due to growing dissent about the war. If, for example, people suddenly decided to care solely about North Korea, Darfur, or HIV in Africa, these policies and actions would change from thirty-second sound bites to the focus of all speech and policy. They need to be reminded that we control them, not the other way around, and that we aren’t just simply going to trust that they’re doing the right thing.

Public interest (and vote-getting) aside, I would like to take a moment to highlight the brighter, albeit less represented side of public and foreign policy. Although the general will is ultimately a driving factor, I think that many of our state and world leader’s realize what our values are as a Nation and do not simply blow with the wind, catering to the daily demands of society. For example, I just got back from seeing former President Jimmy Carter. The president spoke of his work on the Elder’s Campaign, a sort of “think tank” task force that deals with issues of human rights abroad. When asked the question of what the next elected President can do to restore our international respect and standing, the answer was simple. In the words of the president himself, “I believe that within a half hour of our next president being inaugurated, we can restore our good standing in the world.” He went on to explain that we must eliminate preemptive war, striking only when our SECURITY is IMMEDIATELY threatened. He also said that we must stop torturing our detainees, and become a champion for human rights across the globe. President Carter truly is a man of incredible knowledge and extreme compassion and the views he expressed are held by everyone, regardless of their party affiliation. I think these are just fall under certain general expectations that we as Americans have of our governmening officials. Unfortunately however, not everyone in positions of authority think like President Carter. Thankfully, he has been able to remain someone of great influence throughout the world.

Public Opinion

I am going to respond to Liz's blog with an opposite set of ideas. First, I would like to make the argument that there are many United States citizens who believe that in general, the US is ruled by the people and that decisions are made to better the lives of the people. It is not possible to represent every single person and each specific belief. The point is that there will always be two sides to the situation, those who agree and those who don't.

As we have been discussing in class, security is perhaps the most important goal for sovereign states. Many examples show that the need for security will over-rule the will of the people. Yet, doesn't the overall will of the people consist of a security wish?? We want to be sure that terrorists will not attack the United States and we want security against internal and external threats, so is this not working for the good of the people???

The government and foreign policy do not always look past the will of the people. There are numerous accounts when protests and letters written to the government have changed an outcome. This is how the people can be represented. Our government system also gives a choice to each citizen to elect the politician that will best represent the people.

To respond to the question, I believe that it is not enough to only take public opinion as a concern and as the main grounds for acting. Often, the public does not know what the higher officials are dealing with, and many times, we have no idea what is happening in a foreign country. Remember that we only hear about the most popular and explosive topics and that there is much more that has not been brought to our attention. It is essential that politicians and policy makers take into account the public opinion, but there also is a separation between what the people should be able to influence, and what needs a more discussion among professionals.

reflection 8. spies and nuclear missiles

I really enjoyed wednesdays class. The spy museum was definately an interesting place to explore and they had a bunch of good war history and artifacts. I especially liked the sections they had about WWII and the german code enigma's. It was an interesting fact that I had never really looked into with much detail. Obviously another highlight of the day was attending the Dali Lama ceremony. Although it was not an "official" class activity I thought it was cool to be there in the midst of such an occasion. His holiness did not adress the crowd in english, but through a translator he conveyed his ideas of world peace via inner peace and how we much all work together in a non-violent way to achieve unity. Now, I'm not one to say that world peace is a realistic goal, but it is encouraging to know that people out there are trying hard to attain that goal.

So...friday's class. I suppose "interesting" might be a good word to describe what it included. First of all, I think the artcile we read was complete BS and I don't know why anyone would take what Ms. Cohn had to say seriously. It seems to me that she is just a paranoid feminist who likes to pick on men and is just pissed off that she can't have the same job they can. Instead of going around complaining and acting like some self righteous preacher she should just relax about the whole thing. The discussion we had in class about the use of nuclear "jargon" was totally pointless and I can't believe people actually cared so much. It doesn't matter what words you use its the same thing. Nuclear warefare isn't guys night playing Halo 3...it's a serious matter. I don't think you can fault a security force for calling a hole a hole or a shaft a shaft. Different missiles are different sizes and its ubsurd to draw any further conclusions. Hell, I could take just about anything and make it into sexual innuendo. In fact, I believe there is a facebook group of that name. The point it is there is no point. You can't expect world peace or that you are just going to "get rid" or all nuclear technology whatsoever. The fact that we were forced to disgaree with the preeceding comment only made it worse. Don't get me wrong, that stragety works when debating issues like abortion or taxes or healthcare but when you are talking about what some crazy lady thinks about what guys do it's so stupid. We can spend our class time fantasizing about the ideal society or we can learn about actual real issues that affect the world.

reflection week eight - rants on disarming, oblivious feminists, and necessary jargon

I thought that Friday's discussion, once it got going, went really well. It had a somewhat slow start; not only was it a little confusing at first, but sometimes you don't want to argue with the person before you. Though it was a good concept (as the other 'snake' was) since everyone had to participate in the discussion, I thought that once it was open so that anyone could speak after each person, we brought up much more substantive points. It is sometimes difficult to be forced to comment on something; the activity that I preferred was the one in which each person had to speak but they did so by raising their hand and responding to what was said before them - when they chose to participate. Regardless of the method, there were several ideas however that I completely disagree with and would like to take advantage of this blog to refute.

First, someone brought up the idea of disarming and taking a technological step backwards so that warfare would not have such large destructive potential. As nice as that would be, I think that it is completely impossible. If the U.S. were to get rid of their nuclear weapons, other countries would not follow along and also disarm; rather, we would have more attacks than ever before as we would be in a weakened state and would not be able to retaliate as effectively. Terrorists would take advantage of our ignorance and we would have hell to face. Once the technology exists, we cannot simply ignore or abandon it. Though we do not have to actively use nuclear weapons, we should be prepared to do so if necessary. Though this sounds incredibly realist, disarming would compromise our security and thus we should not consider it in the slightest.

Second, is the issue of females working in such a male dominated environment such as nuclear war possibilities. Though we didn't seem to have anyone advocating that females do not belong in such a position (thank goodness or I would have gone off on them as would, I believe, many of the other girls in the class), the unequal ratio was questioned. Someone stated that it is a difficult field for females to get involved in since it has always been so male dominated. I do not believe that this is true. Do you know why liberal arts schools like American have such a skewed ratio of girls to guys? It is because at technical schools the ratio is reversed. Many girls pursue careers in other fields rather than continuing in math and science as seen in this commercial. If they wanted to, females could pursue those careers. The problem is not really the lack of female presence in defense intelligence, but rather the lack of confidence in those who are there. The ratios do not need to be equal simply because they aren't going to be so long as females are not forced into math and science. The way each gender is treated in the work place should be equal. That however is not attained in the U.S., much less in other nations worldwide and thus is an issue for another day...

Finally, many argued that the jargon used was an unnecessary way to avoid thinking about the responsibility that comes with the destruction that these "nuclear strategic analysts'" jobs. They claimed that the jargon distracted from the seriousness of their jobs and the outcomes of their choices. I, however, believe that this distraction is necessary. The analysts are supposed to look at how to react to possible outcomes, namely the "worst case scenarios." Considering the results would make it impossible to create an effective strategy; they would think only of the death involved and not be able to fully consider the damage that was/could be done in the first place. In times of trouble, there is not time for planning; a decision must be made immediately. If there are already multiple scenarios mapped out with an action and a possible reaction, does it matter what kind of language is used to express the ideas? Someone mentioned that a metaphor is used to make things easier to understand, so they should be used in complicated matters such as nuclear weaponry. If that makes it easier then leave them be. Let the diplomats deal with avoiding war and nuclear weapon use. Let the thinkers ponder the possibilities and make plans now that could possibly save us in the future with whatever language they choose.

Israel and Nuclear Power

During last Friday's class, we discussed nuclear weapons with a definite emphasis on the United States as a main player; in fact, in almost every example, the United States was involved. I have a brief point that I was thinking about during class, which is that, we, as the United States, pick who we are interested in as potential risks, and that is all that really matters. North Korea, Iraq, and Iran are the nuclear threats....and they also happen to be enemies and rivals of the United States.

I am very interested in Israel, as many have probably noticed by now, but I couldn't help thinking about Israel during last class. In the 1950's Israel began planning a nuclear-production spot in the Negev Desert in Israel (1). There is an interesting video that reveals the details, announced by Vanunu in 1986. Israel does not actually announce that they have nuclear weapons and the production is secretive within Israel, literally in the middle of the desert. Today, the production is a 'public-secret' because the existence of nuclear weapons is acknowledged. Although the United States has toured the Dimona site, they were unable to understand exactly the production capacity and the goings-on... it is believed that Israel could have up to 200 nuclear weapons(1).

This being said, I think it is interesting that no one talks about nuclear weapons in Israel, except Iran, which feels threatened by them. I believe that nuclear weapons are a measure of boldness and a means of showing the status of a country. When people mentioned disarmament, I thought about a country like Israel, where if they were to disarm, would probably be immediately attacked, a repeat of many wars past. Countries need to have this threat, even if no one will use them. It is all a 'game' of appearance of strength and of connections. We are allies of Israel, therefore it does not matter whether it amasses nuclear weapons and keeps them 'in secret' for the possible use on enemies.
VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf39qkvwOhU

1. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

How Queers Explain the World update

I realized that I did not explain what a cub was for those of you who do not know. A cub is a younger hairy gay man who, just because of age is not quite a bear; he will become a bear once he gets older.

How Queers explain World Politics

In the gay world we have several subcultures that reflect world politics and our discussions of this week. To start off we have bears, this is not the animal - I REPEAT NOT THE ANIMAL – the bear I am talking about is a hairy, older virulent gay man. For the purpose of this blog, the bear can be related to the hegemony that is the United States. The bear is a man who is usually older, and more influential in the sub-culture. They represent the United States this way by being at the top of the game. They are the ones that dictate the rules, the expectations of that particular way of life. This is attractive to others and makes them want to emulate the bears. The cubs are the allies of the bears just as countries such as England are the allies of the United States. This relates to the cold war as the United States and England and the allies grouped together to fight off the evils of communism and today terrorism. The common enemy; communism made the countries of the world feel unsafe and need to do all within their power to be secure in property, life, and liberty.
Next, we have the otters. These men are like the bears except in the fact that they are younger and generally fit. They are like the developing nations of the world. These are the nations that look to the United States, or their enemies, for help. The otters look to the more mature, self-sufficient bear as an example of how to live, act, and behave. These men look to the bears for aid of economic and social help. We have, in the world of politics, third world nations that look to America and its allies – or the bears and cubs – for economic aid, and policy making. In the Cold War, America/bears took it upon themselves to make sure that the cubs and otters, allies and third world nations, stayed on the ideological track of democracy and freedom and not give in to the pressures of the wolves, or the USSR.
Wolves – NOT AN ANIMAL – are hairy gay men who are dominant and aggressive. This represents the USSR during the Cold War days and terrorism for the world of today. This more aggressive sub-culture looks to destabilize the dominance of the bears. While there are wolves the bear lifestyle will always be threatened to the point that the bears will always be trying to keep bettering themselves and their standing in the world. This is also America’s justification for staying on top. While there is always a threat against the ideal of democracy, whether it is the threat of communism or terrorism, the United States must always be striving to stay on top.
While there are wolves, the bears will always fear for their safety and freedom. This never ending fear will lead to an always increasing sense of need for security. The ideals of democracy will always be threatened by an outside force and so there will always be a need to defend ourselves from domestic enemies and our enemies abroad. The gay subculture is an analogy of world politics in the past and today’s world. The ideologies and practices of world politics can be used to explain other societies and groups and vice versa.

National Security

I found the 2001 National Security article very interesting and something that I was able to relate to very well, partly because of the language used and because of the fact that it was not written only for highly-authorized personnel.

I would like to focus on this article and on the theory of realism, which I find very prominently in the ideas. The beliefs in realism would agree strongly with most of the ideas presented in the article, specifically the security examples. The United States is at a height, militarily and economically and will do anything to ensure safety, which is part of the realist theory, although realism would not agree with the fact that the United States will try to create free societies and a balance of power.

I do not think that the article follows up much on this subject. The following paragraph states that the fundamental concern of the U.S. is to ensure safety of OUR nation and then it continues to detail the methods of ensuring the country which include methods of military, intelligence, law, and defense. These are all essential parts of defense and security for the theory of realism.

The ideas listed to help prevent terrorism begin by sounding more liberal, yet the bottom line is the safety of the United States, OUR NATION, which is listed over and over again throughout the document. Some of the goals mention relations between nations which in effect will create 'world peace,' yet the end effect is the safety of the United States. The theory of realism is the basis of all decisions made by the United States and this is obvious in the security article. The most important part of this article for realists would be the discussion about destroying terrorism. The methods are clearly listed, and although many reasons including international benefits and preventing attacks against other countries, the main reason to focus on this is the for the security of the United States and other countries BECAUSE IF OUR ALLIES ARE ATTACKED, WE WILL HAVE SECURITY RISKS.

Because of my view on realism, I think that liberalism and constructivism are more parts of realism than theories on their own. I believe that anything can be traced down to realism, because in the end, security is the main concern, and this is the fundamental idea and necessity of realism. Just by the title of the security article, realism is prominent and is the basis of this piece of writing.

Thoughts on national security documents

Let me begin by saying I found it refreshing to read some "real" documents. That is to say, ones that were based in more modern day issues and weren't the simply the product of theorical IR brooding. It was just cool to know that I had been reading something that was previously "top secret". With that said, I would like to focus on NSC-68, a US security document dealing with the threat of the communist Soviet Union in the 1950s. I found it particulary interesting because, although I learned about the red scare and the threat of the USSR, the information you get in text books is no match for the original.

With the general tone of the document being a genuine "good vs. evil" type of deal, it seemed natural to take a realist standpoint. The overwhelming message of the briefing was that the Soviet Union was a potential threat to the safety and security of the United States and, on a larger scale, the world. The IR realist would take to the idea that we (America) must not trust the USSR to be peaceful. We must prepare for the worst and use our military and economic powers in an attempt to crumble to soviet regime. By allowing the USSR to grow in power, the US would lose ground as the world superpower. The document also gives the impression that the United States would be prepared to take action against the USSR in order to preserve it's own well being. War however is mentioned as a possible way to deal with the USSR, but it is reserved as a last resort. I think if the document was written in the purely realist sense, war would not be looked down upon. After all, if you are a realist the best and most efficient way to eliminate a threat. Of course, liberals maintain that rational people will do whatever possible to avoid going to war as the consequences far outweight the benifits

Aside from the aforementioned realist qualities, there are also strong elements of liberalism present in the nsc-68. For example, the United States has always believe in the promise of the democratic state. This goes along with the notion that the USSR is evil and archaic and the United States is wonderful. The idea of spreading democracy and eliminating communism is present throughout. It is even postulated that communism doesn't represent the will of the Soviet people. On the contrary, they are simply forced to comply. This cites the liberal ideal that people want representation and that they are rational at the core. No one would wish communism upon themselves. Liberals tend to believe that those who were raised and live in an autocratic society would welcome the introduction of democracy with open arms (of course as we can see today, this is not always the case). This idea of spreading representative forms of government and protecting the homeland is seen more in the document regarding the US security policy. It is liberalism and constructivism in the truest sense. It honestly seemed more like a patriotic speech (a bit of propoganda even) than an official guide to national security. It was almost a pump-up speech, like we were going to justify all future military conflicts on the basis that America is the best country and we won't put up with any crap from anybody. Something about phrases like "freedom is on the march" just give the aire of cautioned empire building. I'm not really sure what that means...but I just don't like the idea of assuming responsibilty for every governmental issue in the international community. God only knows we have our fair share of problems to deal with here.

Reflection on EU/AIM and the week

This week we went to the EU commission to the U.S. The most interesting thing about the debriefing was that the guy ended up saying absolutely nothing of importance. Everything he said could be found on the EU commission to the U.S's website at . Furthermore, he never answered the questions to what the questions were actually asking, not even the one about how the EU was set up. Overall, it was slightly disappointing and uninformative.
So during the last class, a bunch of us were on aim having a discussion. While admittedly, some of the discussion had nothing to do with the actual class, most of it did. I'd also agree with Autumn about many of us not being able to speak when we want to simply because everyone wants to speak. An aim discussion during class will help in allowing everyone to voice what they want to say whether they say it out loud or on aim ; this is the link to autumn's comment. Also, after that class Rachel, Erica, and I were walking back from lunch and talking about the class and PTJ came up and we were discussing the fact that we were still talking about the class and also about the blog discussion that we had. He liked the fact that we were also talking about the class on aim and said that there might be a possibility of having aim groups set up for a future class so we could discuss out loud and on aim and see where one conversation went versus the other and to how related the two actually were. I'd like to end this reflection by saying that the aim conversation should not have to be defended and that while the aim discussion might not have been 100% serious, neither are the class discussions; I mean how can they be when we are trying to relate creepy Ian to marginalization?

reflection week seven

Though controversial on several levels, I thought that this week's discussion went well.
Many people did not approve of our discussing "creepy ian," a boy that they did not know and thus were reluctant to marginalize. Out of those who had met him, it seemed, at least to me, that we did not mind categorizing him as "creepy" and separating him from our ian (larry! haha) so that others could be aware of the distinction. Yet was the categorization of "creepy" a difference or more of a stereotype (by the definitions given in my previous blog this week)? Even after the stories and meeting him, I still think that "creepy" is a stereotype. There is no (proven) biological/physical difference between people who are "creepy" and those who aren't; although certain personality characteristics are common threads through each of these characterizations, I belive that personalities are interpreted differently by everyone. Many may consider "creepy ian" to be creepy and thus justify stereotyping him as such but, since it is not something that all can agree upon, it is not a "real difference."

Another topic that I would like to address is that of aim conversations during world politics class. It seems that some do not like that others partake in this act; I, however, (as should be clear by my posting a conversation from this weeks class) think that they are a great way for more people to participate and get their ideas heard throughout the class. With so many opinionated people in our class, it is sometimes difficult to get our ideas heard; by conversing about them on aim as we have a discussion, people who get the opprotunity to speak can bring up points made in the aim conversation. I defintely would like to further the idea of one big class chat (which is what I was going for this past week - if you have aim & are on in class, let me know & i'll add you to the chat next time); after tuesday's class, some of us stayed and spoke with ptj about having one class in which the conversation is recorded as everyone also participates in an aim chat - but in 3 distinct groups - so that we can track how ideas move through chats & the class discussion. I think that if we have technology that can make expression easier, then we should take advantage of it; this experiment would allow us to do so even more than normal.

maginalize the difference

To look at stereotyping versus characterization one should look at the various different groups and also Hollywoodization of groups and definitions of terms and their changing word usage. The changing culture of homosexuality is a perfect example. In the early 1900s homosexuality was a lifestyle not allowed for the motion picture venue. It was treated by the population as a culture that did not exist. As times changed and activism was starting for the gay and lesbian culture, perception of reality started changing. In the 1960s there were riots targeting homosexuals and the people responded in anger against those riots. By the late 1970s homosexuals started appearing on the big screen, however, they were seen as being suicidal or depressed figures. By the early 1980s, homosexuals started being seen as adolescent relationships. This was a huge step in hollywood dramatization of homosexuals. This showed that the lifestyle was starting to become more accepted by mainstream America and not shown as a sick and twisted lifestyle. The gay epidemic of the 1980s set back acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle and it showed in hollywood portrayals as a backlash. However, by the 1990s the homosexual lifestyle showed an accepting lifestyle. DeGeneres became one of the first homosexual out actresses that was portrayed in a good light by the American media and Hollywood. Along with DeGeneres, television shows such as L-word, Queer as folk, and Will and Grace starred gay characters living a normal, or semi-normal lifestyle. With the changing of perception of the homosexual lifestyle in the media the perception changed in the streets. The stereotyping changed from one of hatred and ignorance to that of acceptance and flamboyance. Mainstream America has taken the homosexual lifestyle and made it into one of flamboyance and drama queens. The use of descriptive words has changed from gay to queer to fag. With the homosexual population taking each word in turn and making it their own and no longer a derogatory word. The marginalization of this particular group has made it so that the group itself changes and sticks together. Marginalization has made the group change and grow and show that Hollywood does not portray the label as what it actually is. Taking Jack, from Will and Grace, the homosexual lifestyle has been shown as one that is loud, flamboyant, and sexual. Hollywood has marginalized the culture to that and just as the straight culture, there is more to the homosexual lifestyle then that. Hollywood characterizes a group of people, right or wrong, and then it becomes how society perceives that group. While some in the culture are undoubtedly like that, the big majority of the minority act nothing like Jack and mainstream America does not realize this because of the large influence that Hollywood has on our population.