This Saturday, I had lunch with my high school French teacher and a couple of other people from the class. Anyways, she told us about her son, Dan, and how he's currently in New Orleans with the Teach for America program. The ideas behind this program are good - to provide quality education for children in poverty. Granted this program is (as the name subtly points out) only for children in America, but regardless, the standards that it wishes to abide by are in no way a reality. The schools are in shambles - money is sent to repair them but the school boards cant seem to get it to schools to make repairs. In early September, half of the electrical grid shut down at the school where Dan teaches and it has yet to be repaired. The classes from that section of the building are shoved in various other locations providing an unstable learning environment. The teachers have few supplies to work with and must purchase many out of pocket, which in an area such as New Orleans, is not a large salary. At the start of the year, they were expecting 600 children to come to school; only 200 showed up.
America may have a school system that can educate those in poverty, but if they cannot or do not go to school, then what help is it? If children must drop out of school as young as 13 or 14 to work and support their family, how can they have a good education? Besides having low attendance and buildings that are falling apart, the education that is provided in such areas of poverty is no where near that of the remainder of the country. According to the Teach for America mission statement, "Nine-year-olds growing up in low-income communities are already three grade levels behind their peers in high-income communities." This means that these nine year olds, who would in other places be at a third grade level, are learning at a kindergarten level. Nine year old kindergarteners. Even with programs sending more qualified teachers to improve the level at which the children are expected to learn, how can they do so without their basic needs taken care of - if they are hungry, tired, cold how can they learn? if they have no way of getting to school, have to work, or simply choose not to go because of societal pressures, how can they learn?
In class Friday, we argued over the value of education and how important it is for lifting people out of poverty, but I ask: if America, the so-called 'land of opportunity', cannot provide a decent education for those in poverty, how can we expect to spread this knowledge worldwide? Don't get me wrong- I think that at least achieving literacy in one's native language is incredibly important and we should definitely invest in providing that to all, but I'm curious as to how we can achieve these ambitious goals. I think that our class did a good job of arguing about which things, given limited resources, are the most important to repair, but the real - more important - question that we must face is how. How can we ensure that funding does not stop within the many levels of bureaucracy, that it actually goes to improving schools? So many non-profit organizations gather money to aid third world countries, but so many people remain in poverty, uneducated, unable to get to school due to a lack of infrastructure. Instead of talking about what needs to be fixed, lets choose a problem and discuss how to solve it.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Poverty
This week we looked at poverty in D.C. and the world. We visited bread for life and i thought that it was very interesting that they had a free medical service and basically a life improvement service on top of food and clothes. This makes perfect sense to me as if you give someone food they will come back for it and not know how to improve their life. This shows that this company has realized that giving away things is not good enough. The old cliche give a man a fish and he can eat for a day, teach a man how to fish and he can eat for a lifetime rings true. That is exactly what bread for life is doing, "teaching men to fish." They are also giving away "fish", but those people will come back and then ask for the other services.
This then made an interesting turn around in the class on Friday. There was means to give people knowledge to get them out of poverty, global education, but no group chose this means. They chose something similar, literacy, but just because you are literate does not mean you know what to do with what you have. Just because you can read does not mean you suddenly have the means to get books and therefore the literacy is then pointless to have. Having an education will allow someone to be able to do something with that literacy they would gain from their education. They would also be able to do countless other things and get themselves out of poverty and not have to rely on anyone else. Dignity is an important part of self-esteem and if you have no dignity then you have little self esteem. You will have little to no dignity if you know you cannot provide for your self or for your family, if you have one. If only one point is taken from reading this blog it should be that education is vital to eliminate poverty, as well as other things. Teach a man how to fish, he can eat. Teach a man knowledge, he will be able to survive and thrive in a harsh world. Knowledge, global education, is a weapon that will allow someone to live above the poverty line and be able to thrive. Strive for an education and a means for allowing yourself to live. Don't throw away dollars or cents to those who do not know how to use them. Give your money to the organizations that knows what to do with the money to help eliminate poverty and help the poor overcome their status.
This then made an interesting turn around in the class on Friday. There was means to give people knowledge to get them out of poverty, global education, but no group chose this means. They chose something similar, literacy, but just because you are literate does not mean you know what to do with what you have. Just because you can read does not mean you suddenly have the means to get books and therefore the literacy is then pointless to have. Having an education will allow someone to be able to do something with that literacy they would gain from their education. They would also be able to do countless other things and get themselves out of poverty and not have to rely on anyone else. Dignity is an important part of self-esteem and if you have no dignity then you have little self esteem. You will have little to no dignity if you know you cannot provide for your self or for your family, if you have one. If only one point is taken from reading this blog it should be that education is vital to eliminate poverty, as well as other things. Teach a man how to fish, he can eat. Teach a man knowledge, he will be able to survive and thrive in a harsh world. Knowledge, global education, is a weapon that will allow someone to live above the poverty line and be able to thrive. Strive for an education and a means for allowing yourself to live. Don't throw away dollars or cents to those who do not know how to use them. Give your money to the organizations that knows what to do with the money to help eliminate poverty and help the poor overcome their status.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Poverty in the world
I have a quick story that I just remembered about a moment when I encountered poverty and was quite affected by it. Last summer while I was in Peru, I took a bus ride from Cuzco to Lima, which is supposed to take 18 hours. Instead, the ride took 30 hours in a bus with no heat/air conditioning and no food. This was caused by professors across the nation who were on strike, and as a result, camping on the highways all night, burning trees and throwing boulders into the road. We ended up sleeping 6 hours on the side of the road and the next morning, yelling face-to-face with professors. It is amazing that this is how the 'intellectual' crowd deals with problems. There were many elderly and babies on the bus, but no option for help, food, etc.. Upon arrival at the destination around 3 AM, it was rainy and cold and the streets of Lima, a fairly dangerous city, were dark. An elderly woman who only spoke Quechua, the native language of Peru, was being taken care of by a younger woman and her small daughter. The woman, crying was very angry because the elderly woman could have died, she was sick, and no one took care of her... plus she had no blanket and we had to wait outside in the cold until the sun rose. Meanwhile, the young daughter needed to use the bathroom with cost 50 cents, about 20 American cents, yet the mother told her she did not have enough money. This is where you realize the dirt bottom and you feel incredibly guilty for no particular reason. The fact that people live like this is a disgusting feeling especially when you see it directly in front of you... and I knew that I would always be the white one who probably had no idea what they were talking about. My time in Peru has definetely changed my view on poverty.
Unlike most of the topics that we have discussed in class, poverty is something that most of us have background knowledge on. I felt like I could finally state an opinion on something that I was sure on; I am very secure with my opinion on poverty and really enjoy studying and discussing poverty.
I am happy that there were many voices raised, as in volume, during class. By the fact that there are so many opinions on this subject, it is obvious what a large part of our world poverty is.
When leaving class, I and a few other people continued the discussion about education. The argument that general education (in our simulation using the complete budget), is essential in ending poverty, I believe shows the view of an American, specifically a view of America and how perhaps HERE, education is the basis to pull out of poverty. We are speaking of world poverty, however, which means that the basic on which decisions should be made, is at a third world level, because poverty in the United States and poverty in Haiti have two incredibly different definitions. If we want to look specifically at ending poverty in the U.S., then yes, education would definetely raise the number of people living above the poverty line. However, consider much of the world that lives without an infrastructure, something that we take for granted here, and that allows us to skip to the education step. How would introducing education help these people who do not have clean water, a method to even get to hospitals, much less read and write their own language? This is why my group chose literacy over education because with literacy, the people can read and speak their native language. They speak this language, so learning to read and write only develops the ability to understand health pamphlets, methods of agriculture (which brings food), and methods of transport. Without roads, aqueducts, bridges, electricity, and irrigation, as were included in the infrastructure section, trade is reduced and there is very little interaction between people.
We must also remember that we are speaking of education as in education how we view it in the United States. Do we need to teach rural farmers of Peru about chemical reactions in chemistry class, or trigonometry? How is this at all relevant to their survival which is threatened by pollution, health risks, and almost no contact with large cities and trade? These people work every day, from sunset to sundown, perhaps in the fields, and they may not care about topics that seem important to us here. Their goal is survival; producing food and perhaps an occasional visit to the doctor or dentist, and if anything is left over, a child might go to the university. With literacy, native people will be able to understand how they can better their own lives. With the ability to read, many opportunities open up and the hope is that people will be inspired to pursue further education.
I also really enjoyed this week's trip to Bread for the City and feel that it was a necessary trip for a World Politics class. After all, we are learning about IR theories, economies, and poverty has played an incredible part in determining the strengths, weaknesses, finances, and responsibilities of states. As someone who would like to spend my life in international social work, I am especially interested in people who do this as a career, whether internationally or within the U.S.
Unlike most of the topics that we have discussed in class, poverty is something that most of us have background knowledge on. I felt like I could finally state an opinion on something that I was sure on; I am very secure with my opinion on poverty and really enjoy studying and discussing poverty.
I am happy that there were many voices raised, as in volume, during class. By the fact that there are so many opinions on this subject, it is obvious what a large part of our world poverty is.
When leaving class, I and a few other people continued the discussion about education. The argument that general education (in our simulation using the complete budget), is essential in ending poverty, I believe shows the view of an American, specifically a view of America and how perhaps HERE, education is the basis to pull out of poverty. We are speaking of world poverty, however, which means that the basic on which decisions should be made, is at a third world level, because poverty in the United States and poverty in Haiti have two incredibly different definitions. If we want to look specifically at ending poverty in the U.S., then yes, education would definetely raise the number of people living above the poverty line. However, consider much of the world that lives without an infrastructure, something that we take for granted here, and that allows us to skip to the education step. How would introducing education help these people who do not have clean water, a method to even get to hospitals, much less read and write their own language? This is why my group chose literacy over education because with literacy, the people can read and speak their native language. They speak this language, so learning to read and write only develops the ability to understand health pamphlets, methods of agriculture (which brings food), and methods of transport. Without roads, aqueducts, bridges, electricity, and irrigation, as were included in the infrastructure section, trade is reduced and there is very little interaction between people.
We must also remember that we are speaking of education as in education how we view it in the United States. Do we need to teach rural farmers of Peru about chemical reactions in chemistry class, or trigonometry? How is this at all relevant to their survival which is threatened by pollution, health risks, and almost no contact with large cities and trade? These people work every day, from sunset to sundown, perhaps in the fields, and they may not care about topics that seem important to us here. Their goal is survival; producing food and perhaps an occasional visit to the doctor or dentist, and if anything is left over, a child might go to the university. With literacy, native people will be able to understand how they can better their own lives. With the ability to read, many opportunities open up and the hope is that people will be inspired to pursue further education.
I also really enjoyed this week's trip to Bread for the City and feel that it was a necessary trip for a World Politics class. After all, we are learning about IR theories, economies, and poverty has played an incredible part in determining the strengths, weaknesses, finances, and responsibilities of states. As someone who would like to spend my life in international social work, I am especially interested in people who do this as a career, whether internationally or within the U.S.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Comment for Tom
Sorry guys, this one is for Tom.
You mention that states mess things up when they think poverty should be eradicated. Aren't the responsibility to help poverty-stricken people and the complete eradication two different things. I would agree with you that poverty is not something that can be eradicated, yet shouldn't the government, the leader of the country, have some responsibility to all of its citizens, especially those who work and live below the poverty line? You mention a few examples of countries that act on something and when you say these names, specifically it refers to the government of that country... they are also the ones that cause financial and economic problems within the country.
You mention that states mess things up when they think poverty should be eradicated. Aren't the responsibility to help poverty-stricken people and the complete eradication two different things. I would agree with you that poverty is not something that can be eradicated, yet shouldn't the government, the leader of the country, have some responsibility to all of its citizens, especially those who work and live below the poverty line? You mention a few examples of countries that act on something and when you say these names, specifically it refers to the government of that country... they are also the ones that cause financial and economic problems within the country.
poverty
I am posting this comment which is intended to respond to Ian's blog, but I can't figure out how to post it on that blog without creating a LiveJournal account.
In your first paragraph, you sort of leave the decision up to tax payers, as to whether they want to fix poverty or not. My response to that would be that, for example, how we are now and the amount of money that taxpayers are giving to the government-wouldn't many of them rather have a larger percentage of their money spent towards poverty than perhaps Iraq or other research? Is it necessarily dependent on what the taxpayers want, as doesn't the government have the ability to use the money that it has already aquired, and have the responsibility to use it wisely and to its best extent?
In your first paragraph, you sort of leave the decision up to tax payers, as to whether they want to fix poverty or not. My response to that would be that, for example, how we are now and the amount of money that taxpayers are giving to the government-wouldn't many of them rather have a larger percentage of their money spent towards poverty than perhaps Iraq or other research? Is it necessarily dependent on what the taxpayers want, as doesn't the government have the ability to use the money that it has already aquired, and have the responsibility to use it wisely and to its best extent?
governments and poverty
So we are talking about poverty whether it is domestically based or internationally based. I believe that governments have the responsibility to help their citizens out of poverty. While it is not the direct fault of the government that some people are poor; it makes sense to believe that the government does have the responsibility to help promote the welfare of its citizens. However, a major distinction of who is poor or not depends on the definition of poor and who goes along with that definition. Reagan once said, about his own Illinois childhood, "We were poor when I was young, but the difference then was that the government didn't come around telling you you were poor." What gives governments the right to decide who is poor? Someone might be poor in materialistic needs -therefore the government would classify them as poor - alas, they might not themselves classify them as poor seeing as how they are rich in spirit. Also as class discussion went along, it was discussed that a millionaire would be poor compared to a billionaire. This has to do with perception. One person's definition of poor will not be the same as another persons definition of poor. The government should be focusing on poverty but what they should be doing is helping prevent poverty. Giving people jobs before they become impoverished, helping people learn skills to help them get a job etc. In doing projects like the ones mentioned before, it would greatly decrease poverty. Any government that has the people of that country as its greatest challenge to help, should focus on eliminating and preventing poverty. This should be the goal of any country that is not run by a dictator or an oppressive tyrannical leader. A government should help as many believe in the pursuit of happiness, or some form thereof, and so should help its people not live in poverty and squaller as no one is happy in those conditions. Saving the countries poor should be a major concern of any government in the world.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
minimizing poverty
Before addressing the questions at hand, I would like to take this opportunity to provide a dictionary definition of both poor. According to the first entry, poor is having little or no money, goods, or other means of support. It is not until the fourth definition that "poor in something" is brought up. To me, this signals that while someone may be "poor in" solid gold bars, it is much more urgent to address the needs of the person who has an empty bank account and no cash.
Despite some people insisting that there was a significant difference between poor and poverty, poverty is merely the condition of being poor; the two terms can basically be used interchangeably.
That being said, I believe that the government is obligated to minimize poverty. I do not think that poverty can ever be completely eliminated, but it is necessary to attempt to achieve that goal. People in the United States have an expectation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; it is quite difficult to pursue happiness when you are homeless, jobless, and unable to get out of the situation because of the way society runs (such as when welfare is taken from those who are still in desperate need of it - as we discussed today at Bread for Life). The government needs to provide aid in some way so that people are capable of - or at least have the opportunity to - realistically get out of poverty. This could be done through government programs or through donations to private companies aiding the poor. Since it is really about the money that is being invested, they may as well just provide more funds to non-profit organizations to help the poor so long as there are checks to make sure that no one at those organizations is skimming off of the top and indeed making a profit.
As far as international situations, I do not feel that our country alone should be obligated to aid all impoverished nations. Don't get me wrong - I definitely think that we should help! I just think that our government should deal with some of the poverty within our country before or while sending aid abroad. When some nations have a GDP in the hundreds and most are well within the thousands, there is clearly an issue that needs addressing. Rather than just relying on the United States, all well-off countries should donate to the people of those countries as many governments are corrupt and hoard their wealth among only a select few individuals. If aid - food, clean water, clothes and supplies - are sent into these countries, then their standard of living may be slightly raised. Also, this coalition of governments should expand upon already existing microcredit programs so that the capital of the people and the country will be raised, albeit slowly. Perhaps similar programs could even be introduced within the U.S. to deal with poverty? It is certainly something to consider ...
Despite some people insisting that there was a significant difference between poor and poverty, poverty is merely the condition of being poor; the two terms can basically be used interchangeably.
That being said, I believe that the government is obligated to minimize poverty. I do not think that poverty can ever be completely eliminated, but it is necessary to attempt to achieve that goal. People in the United States have an expectation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; it is quite difficult to pursue happiness when you are homeless, jobless, and unable to get out of the situation because of the way society runs (such as when welfare is taken from those who are still in desperate need of it - as we discussed today at Bread for Life). The government needs to provide aid in some way so that people are capable of - or at least have the opportunity to - realistically get out of poverty. This could be done through government programs or through donations to private companies aiding the poor. Since it is really about the money that is being invested, they may as well just provide more funds to non-profit organizations to help the poor so long as there are checks to make sure that no one at those organizations is skimming off of the top and indeed making a profit.
As far as international situations, I do not feel that our country alone should be obligated to aid all impoverished nations. Don't get me wrong - I definitely think that we should help! I just think that our government should deal with some of the poverty within our country before or while sending aid abroad. When some nations have a GDP in the hundreds and most are well within the thousands, there is clearly an issue that needs addressing. Rather than just relying on the United States, all well-off countries should donate to the people of those countries as many governments are corrupt and hoard their wealth among only a select few individuals. If aid - food, clean water, clothes and supplies - are sent into these countries, then their standard of living may be slightly raised. Also, this coalition of governments should expand upon already existing microcredit programs so that the capital of the people and the country will be raised, albeit slowly. Perhaps similar programs could even be introduced within the U.S. to deal with poverty? It is certainly something to consider ...
Eliminating Domestic Poverty
The role of any government is to ensure and protect the well-being and security of it's people. After all, if the citizens of a nation do not have the means to succed in life, the country itself will suffer. In respect to the issue of poverty, state governments must take it upon themsevles to try and alleviate this misfortune. We need to have citizens that know how to read, know how to write, know how to interact with each other, know the value and importance of punctuality, and how to carry themselves in today's world. A good point was brought up today at Bread; the importance of dignity. If we can preserve and foster the dignity and self esteem of the hardest hit people, society will finally be on the upswing.
feel that domestically speaking, it is absoluetly necessary for governments to adress dispairitys among people. Unforunately, the government (at least in the United States) does a horrible job of dealing with this issue. Sure, food stamps and welfare programs look great on paper, but when put into practice they fall well short of a creating a sustainible solution. The resources pumped into these programs do not go into solving poverty but rather feed the never ending struggle to get ahead. It's a vicious cycle and the gap between the rich and poor increases daily.
Now, some may argue that people are poor or homeless simply because they are lazy or irresponsible. While this is certainly plausible and does make up some part of the impovrished, a number of people find themselves struggling simply because they had a bout of bad luck. Back in New Hampshire, I voulunteer my time at the local soup kitchen. Most of the people we get there simply do not have the skills or resources to provide a hot, nutrious meal for themselves. Others are there more for acceptance and fellowship then anything else. I find that many common misconceptions about the "homeless" do not ring true. Sure, I would not reccomend going into Southeast DC alone, or wandering through Dorchester, MA at any time of day, but a good number of impovrished people just need a helping hand. They are not hopeless from birth. I don't believe people are born with a predisposition towards violence. But I digress, that is a completely difference discussion all together.
So the fundamental question is, should governments interve to try and alleviate poverty? The obvious answer is, "yes". We owe it to our citizens to ensure that they all have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I know it sounds cliche, but it is the simplist way I can think of to describe why we must adress poverty. Luckily, there are a number of nonprofits such as Bread for the City that are doing a hell of a lot better than our government could ever do. Sadly though, they cannot continue to do what they do withouth the funding and support of federal and private donors. The rate of poverty is not declining, whilst all the factors that contribute to it (oil prices, inflation, housing costs) continue to skyrocket. There is no immediate solution in sight but as long as we keep committed to helping those in need and eliminate the popular stigma towards "poor" people, I believe there is hope out there.
feel that domestically speaking, it is absoluetly necessary for governments to adress dispairitys among people. Unforunately, the government (at least in the United States) does a horrible job of dealing with this issue. Sure, food stamps and welfare programs look great on paper, but when put into practice they fall well short of a creating a sustainible solution. The resources pumped into these programs do not go into solving poverty but rather feed the never ending struggle to get ahead. It's a vicious cycle and the gap between the rich and poor increases daily.
Now, some may argue that people are poor or homeless simply because they are lazy or irresponsible. While this is certainly plausible and does make up some part of the impovrished, a number of people find themselves struggling simply because they had a bout of bad luck. Back in New Hampshire, I voulunteer my time at the local soup kitchen. Most of the people we get there simply do not have the skills or resources to provide a hot, nutrious meal for themselves. Others are there more for acceptance and fellowship then anything else. I find that many common misconceptions about the "homeless" do not ring true. Sure, I would not reccomend going into Southeast DC alone, or wandering through Dorchester, MA at any time of day, but a good number of impovrished people just need a helping hand. They are not hopeless from birth. I don't believe people are born with a predisposition towards violence. But I digress, that is a completely difference discussion all together.
So the fundamental question is, should governments interve to try and alleviate poverty? The obvious answer is, "yes". We owe it to our citizens to ensure that they all have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I know it sounds cliche, but it is the simplist way I can think of to describe why we must adress poverty. Luckily, there are a number of nonprofits such as Bread for the City that are doing a hell of a lot better than our government could ever do. Sadly though, they cannot continue to do what they do withouth the funding and support of federal and private donors. The rate of poverty is not declining, whilst all the factors that contribute to it (oil prices, inflation, housing costs) continue to skyrocket. There is no immediate solution in sight but as long as we keep committed to helping those in need and eliminate the popular stigma towards "poor" people, I believe there is hope out there.
Poverty is the Responsibility of the Government
Unlike many of the opinions voiced on this week's response, I believe that the government and poverty are directly related and that the government does have an obligation to address poverty. As Caitlin mentions in the beginning of her blog, a major concern of the government should be creating the best circumstances for its people which can include potential of its own people. Some people have said that the government is a separate section from the people and that a small group of people who are living in poverty should not dictate a responsibility onto the government. This, I disagree with completely because poverty is tied in with many factors included the economy and social problems, many of which are created by the government. With tax cuts, tax raises, new law reforms, presidential bills, changes in the economy and stock market system, the effects on the population are endless. Much unemployment occurs from a loss of jobs caused by the government. As we heard today at Bread for the City, the government is responsible for putting many citizens in a difficult position between employment and welfare. Is it right that once employed, the government can take away from that person health insurance, pushing them back into poverty because they do not earn enough to pay for bills? Liz writes in her blog about the government's responsibility to its people in general, not only those in poverty. It is important to remember that the government does reflect the people and if a specific government is passive about ending poverty, this reflects the entire country. Poverty is something that weighs down a government, so if for no other reason, it should be top priority to raise minimum wage and employ those who are unemployed.
This is not even mentioning the moral requirement that is attached to a government, no matter where in the world it is located. Thankfully, in the United States, our government is fairly wealthy, (although in great debt). I find it hard to believe that if we can fund excursions into other countries for security reasons, how can we not work to end something that is so prominent in our society? Poverty is most definetely an issue for public policy to undertake. Public policy should have to do with undertaking problems and projects that will benefit the people.... although sometimes this is addressed, policy should literally mark poverty as a government responsibility. Poverty is a weakness in the country, which can be considered the government, therefore, with a government that has such a weakness, it should be happy to try to fix it.
Lastly, as many people have mentioned in previous blogs, poverty is most likely something that will never be ended. This is life: from the most miniscule, one individual, to larger scale of states and economies, people will not survive without competition, without the need to do better than someone else. This can work the same with states...the economic level of certain nations will probably never, or at least take quite some time to reach a level as, for example, the United States. This point is to push the fact that poverty is permanent and therefore needs designation and an agreement from the government, the highest power that can 'do something.' So, although poverty may be something with no end, this does not give the government the right to look away.
This is not even mentioning the moral requirement that is attached to a government, no matter where in the world it is located. Thankfully, in the United States, our government is fairly wealthy, (although in great debt). I find it hard to believe that if we can fund excursions into other countries for security reasons, how can we not work to end something that is so prominent in our society? Poverty is most definetely an issue for public policy to undertake. Public policy should have to do with undertaking problems and projects that will benefit the people.... although sometimes this is addressed, policy should literally mark poverty as a government responsibility. Poverty is a weakness in the country, which can be considered the government, therefore, with a government that has such a weakness, it should be happy to try to fix it.
Lastly, as many people have mentioned in previous blogs, poverty is most likely something that will never be ended. This is life: from the most miniscule, one individual, to larger scale of states and economies, people will not survive without competition, without the need to do better than someone else. This can work the same with states...the economic level of certain nations will probably never, or at least take quite some time to reach a level as, for example, the United States. This point is to push the fact that poverty is permanent and therefore needs designation and an agreement from the government, the highest power that can 'do something.' So, although poverty may be something with no end, this does not give the government the right to look away.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Liberalism simulation
As appears to be the case with most of the class, I found it hard to distinguish between the concepts of embedded vs. disembedded liberalism. The Ruggie article was extremely detailed and the language was just not easy to understand. Tuesday’s “fishbowl” type discussion did help me to understand a bit, although being outside the “bowl” made it easy to drift away and lose focus when talking about such an in-depth topic. It felt like everyone was still tyring to make sense of the issue, and the fact that you were only contributing half the time did not help the cause. With that said, I hope Friday’s simulation did help people to make sense of the two economic theories. As a member of group 2, we tried to come up with something that would be both fun (candy) and easy to understand. Our goal was to come up with ways to facilitate trade among mock nations while providing an accurate arena to explore the two theories. Unfortunately, several groups were more interested with keeping their candy than engaging themselves in the simulation. This was very frustrating, as the purpose of the exercise was rooted deeper than getting candy. If you want candy, just go to CVS and buy some of your own. The introduction of the ICF and unpredictable changes in reserve requirements seemed to cause more trouble than good. I guess recreating a world market is more complicated than meets the eye. Of course, you always have the black market and other powerful states that prefer to break the rules or not trade at all rather than cooperate with the greater community.
The other event that took place this week was the UC common event. I was placed in the “Politics in the US” section with professor Steven Taylor (not Steven Tyler…) We had a good discussion about the book and the movie “gangs of New York.” We also talked about the validity of movies vs. journalistic accounts when doing research. It was an interesting conversation, touching upon the roles that motives (specifically money), bias, and prejudice play in writing and research. I did enjoy the discussion and it seems like the common event was a good idea in that I got to experience a new subject and different teaching styles. After taking this seminar I am strongly leaning towards taking more government and polisci classes in the future. Professor Taylor really stressed the importance of scholarship and learning in the world.
The other event that took place this week was the UC common event. I was placed in the “Politics in the US” section with professor Steven Taylor (not Steven Tyler…) We had a good discussion about the book and the movie “gangs of New York.” We also talked about the validity of movies vs. journalistic accounts when doing research. It was an interesting conversation, touching upon the roles that motives (specifically money), bias, and prejudice play in writing and research. I did enjoy the discussion and it seems like the common event was a good idea in that I got to experience a new subject and different teaching styles. After taking this seminar I am strongly leaning towards taking more government and polisci classes in the future. Professor Taylor really stressed the importance of scholarship and learning in the world.
reflection week ten
I liked that this week's discussions related to economics as I am taking macro, so I felt that both made a little more sense.
The fish bowl on Tuesday was ... strained; usually there are an abundance of people who wish to participate in discussions. Those such days would benefit from the separation into smaller groups. However, the reading was difficult to get right away and thus not very controversial. The difficulty discouraged those who are usually quiet from talking for fear of being wrong about their interpretation of the piece. Also, it was not a topic that anyone was versed in beforehand, meaning that those who did not do the reading could not participate at all. With the class already cut in half, these other restrictions on those who could intelligently discuss the topic decreased immensely. Yet I am definitely looking forward to trying the fish bowl again with a more controversial topic; I feel that it will then serve its purpose in allowing more (and different) people to participate.
The discussion did, however, give me a much more solid idea of the differences between embedded and disembedded liberalism than the reading did. Upon blogging and reading others' blogs, I really felt that I knew the basics of each system. Though I felt that many people avoided the question and chose not to take a stance on one side or the other; Obviously a mixture would be best, but the question proposed a hypothetical situation in which only one system could be present. Choosing one forced us to compare and contrast the two and to actually know what we are talking about...
The simulation on Friday was really good. It solidified the differences between each type of liberalism for me and it was fun (though pretty much anything involving candy -and keeping it at the end - is fun). I liked that each group had different requirements and depending on our starting resources, made us represent different countries from the start. Through our actions and our types of candy we established ourselves in the first round, each trading to reach a certain goal. In the second round, much of the trade stopped. I feel that this was because there were few incentives to continue trade; there were only a few new items introduced and those groups with the new types of candy were reluctant to trade them away because they would rather, understandably, keep them. I think that this could have been improved by giving out many new types of candy so that people would actually want to trade for other kinds. I understand though that this is not the most practical of things in our setup, but regardless, it is a suggestion. Overall, I thought that Friday was delicious as well as a great learning experience. Good job group 2 :)
The fish bowl on Tuesday was ... strained; usually there are an abundance of people who wish to participate in discussions. Those such days would benefit from the separation into smaller groups. However, the reading was difficult to get right away and thus not very controversial. The difficulty discouraged those who are usually quiet from talking for fear of being wrong about their interpretation of the piece. Also, it was not a topic that anyone was versed in beforehand, meaning that those who did not do the reading could not participate at all. With the class already cut in half, these other restrictions on those who could intelligently discuss the topic decreased immensely. Yet I am definitely looking forward to trying the fish bowl again with a more controversial topic; I feel that it will then serve its purpose in allowing more (and different) people to participate.
The discussion did, however, give me a much more solid idea of the differences between embedded and disembedded liberalism than the reading did. Upon blogging and reading others' blogs, I really felt that I knew the basics of each system. Though I felt that many people avoided the question and chose not to take a stance on one side or the other; Obviously a mixture would be best, but the question proposed a hypothetical situation in which only one system could be present. Choosing one forced us to compare and contrast the two and to actually know what we are talking about...
The simulation on Friday was really good. It solidified the differences between each type of liberalism for me and it was fun (though pretty much anything involving candy -and keeping it at the end - is fun). I liked that each group had different requirements and depending on our starting resources, made us represent different countries from the start. Through our actions and our types of candy we established ourselves in the first round, each trading to reach a certain goal. In the second round, much of the trade stopped. I feel that this was because there were few incentives to continue trade; there were only a few new items introduced and those groups with the new types of candy were reluctant to trade them away because they would rather, understandably, keep them. I think that this could have been improved by giving out many new types of candy so that people would actually want to trade for other kinds. I understand though that this is not the most practical of things in our setup, but regardless, it is a suggestion. Overall, I thought that Friday was delicious as well as a great learning experience. Good job group 2 :)
liberalism
I would like to start off by saying that I was not emotionally stable for the first part of the week and so my attention to class was minimal. As the reasons for my instability had nothing to do with the class I will not go into detail about it, but I am overcoming it. And for that reason this reflection blog will not be very long this week.
So for the discussion this week on embedded versus dis-embedded liberalism I was very confused. The entire discussion did not make much sense with how circular the discussion seemed to be going. However, with the class simulation we did with the fake candy market, my understanding of the two became much more clear. It was very interesting to note that even though there were two different markets represented the groups tended to act in similar ways. The only difference seemed to be that in the first one, there was rules and regulations and the second part had no rules. The majority of the groups did not seem to care about the regulations in the first part and then as there were none in the second part, there was little to no trading going on.
So for the discussion this week on embedded versus dis-embedded liberalism I was very confused. The entire discussion did not make much sense with how circular the discussion seemed to be going. However, with the class simulation we did with the fake candy market, my understanding of the two became much more clear. It was very interesting to note that even though there were two different markets represented the groups tended to act in similar ways. The only difference seemed to be that in the first one, there was rules and regulations and the second part had no rules. The majority of the groups did not seem to care about the regulations in the first part and then as there were none in the second part, there was little to no trading going on.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Cross-Cultural Communication and Embedded Liberalism
I started out this week feeling very lost on the topic of embedded liberalism, and because of this, I was not able to say anything in class on Tuesday (as I was busily trying to look up more information online about embedded liberalism). After reading quite a bit online, I began to understand a few facts, but it was not until today's class, Friday, that I really understood the basics of embedded liberalism.
Although I am not a big fan of simulations, I thought that today's simulation designed by group two was very accurate and helpful in demonstrating some of the key parts of both the embedded and disembedded systems. My group began with probably the smallest amount of resources, yet because of larger institutions like the IMF, we were able to create agreements that would ensure us wealth, or at least an unchanging set of rules. When there are trade laws that require countries to retain a certain amount of resources, it also creates an even playing ground for every nation to know the value of the resources. (Of course, if the value changes, such as a new use for oil is discovered, as we discussed, the known value will also change.) Having an embedded market allows for that to be part of the social system, dealing with trade between countries and an almost constant power that controls the system, unlike disembedded liberalism.
We were able to see with disembedded liberalism how the value of items was very inconspicuous, which to me seems like it could lead to so-called corruption in the trade environment. There will be some countries that can never afford what the wealthier have and trade becomes dependent on who can find the best deal. Although in the classroom, much of the hoarding of resources was because of a like or dislike of a certain candy, in the disembedded system, the goal would be to have as many resources of different kinds, but since there are no rules, some countries can not even keep resources.
I am beginning to find this topic interesting, especially because I do not know much about trade between countries, yet would like to understand embedded liberalism in more detail. I like the rules that it outlines and see how it could work and function in the world.
In the second part of my reflection, I would like to talk about the UC Common Event that we had this past Wednesday. I ended up being in Cross-Cultural Communications, which for me, is an incredibly interesting subject, and something that I have considered studying. A few years ago, I began playing chamber music in a 'Playing for Peace' program that brought together students from around the world, especially those from conflict areas such as Israel/West Bank, Cyprus, Ireland, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Iraq, and Jordan. Through this experience, I began to learn the importance of communicating in different cultures and about how there are so many differences between cultures that are unimaginable to us. I became obsessed with other cultures, learning about them, speaking with people from other countries, because I felt that I was learning more than I ever had, even just learning one word in Arabic. I have now lived in South America and in Israel, and I see even more the presence of problems creating by miscommunication. Not only can we not speak the same language, but we are also not willing to open up and view another culture for its own values, that may be completely different from ours. In our discussion on Wednesday, we talked about the idea that it is only possible to truly understand another culture by living in it, experiencing every day life, speaking the language, cooking, attending cultural events, and viewing in real life the parts of life that are essential to that particular culture.
This is just to reflect on the fact that I really enjoyed the common event. It really made me think and consider the reasons that I began to interest myself in other countries, in studying and living abroad, and in coming to AU. I hope to continue in the path of cross-cultural communication because, for me, individual cultures are the essence of the world, yet there needs to be some middle-ground so that miscommunication does not cause unnecessary wars.
Although I am not a big fan of simulations, I thought that today's simulation designed by group two was very accurate and helpful in demonstrating some of the key parts of both the embedded and disembedded systems. My group began with probably the smallest amount of resources, yet because of larger institutions like the IMF, we were able to create agreements that would ensure us wealth, or at least an unchanging set of rules. When there are trade laws that require countries to retain a certain amount of resources, it also creates an even playing ground for every nation to know the value of the resources. (Of course, if the value changes, such as a new use for oil is discovered, as we discussed, the known value will also change.) Having an embedded market allows for that to be part of the social system, dealing with trade between countries and an almost constant power that controls the system, unlike disembedded liberalism.
We were able to see with disembedded liberalism how the value of items was very inconspicuous, which to me seems like it could lead to so-called corruption in the trade environment. There will be some countries that can never afford what the wealthier have and trade becomes dependent on who can find the best deal. Although in the classroom, much of the hoarding of resources was because of a like or dislike of a certain candy, in the disembedded system, the goal would be to have as many resources of different kinds, but since there are no rules, some countries can not even keep resources.
I am beginning to find this topic interesting, especially because I do not know much about trade between countries, yet would like to understand embedded liberalism in more detail. I like the rules that it outlines and see how it could work and function in the world.
In the second part of my reflection, I would like to talk about the UC Common Event that we had this past Wednesday. I ended up being in Cross-Cultural Communications, which for me, is an incredibly interesting subject, and something that I have considered studying. A few years ago, I began playing chamber music in a 'Playing for Peace' program that brought together students from around the world, especially those from conflict areas such as Israel/West Bank, Cyprus, Ireland, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Iraq, and Jordan. Through this experience, I began to learn the importance of communicating in different cultures and about how there are so many differences between cultures that are unimaginable to us. I became obsessed with other cultures, learning about them, speaking with people from other countries, because I felt that I was learning more than I ever had, even just learning one word in Arabic. I have now lived in South America and in Israel, and I see even more the presence of problems creating by miscommunication. Not only can we not speak the same language, but we are also not willing to open up and view another culture for its own values, that may be completely different from ours. In our discussion on Wednesday, we talked about the idea that it is only possible to truly understand another culture by living in it, experiencing every day life, speaking the language, cooking, attending cultural events, and viewing in real life the parts of life that are essential to that particular culture.
This is just to reflect on the fact that I really enjoyed the common event. It really made me think and consider the reasons that I began to interest myself in other countries, in studying and living abroad, and in coming to AU. I hope to continue in the path of cross-cultural communication because, for me, individual cultures are the essence of the world, yet there needs to be some middle-ground so that miscommunication does not cause unnecessary wars.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, October 29, 2007
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.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
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
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 ;).
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?
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?
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)