Labels

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Reflection of Time

This semester has been awesome.  The discussions throughout the semester have consistently covered various issues throughout the world that were extremely interesting.  The semester actually feels like a Legend of Zelda game.  Yes, bear with me here.
You see, we all started the semester as Young Links.  Young, inexperienced, yet full of potential and destined to be heroes of time (more or less).  We all came from different places, or in the context of LoZ, different timelines, and have unique stories and backgrounds.  What bound us together was a common desire to learn more about the world and how it operates.  Our quest to analyze why the world operates the way it does allowed us to examine micro and macro level issues that ranged from self-determination to unipolarity.  What brought us all together in this world politics class could have been destiny, curiosity, or even the Triforce.  While we all started the semester with a unifying issue of world politics, as the semester progressed, diversity within the class emerged.  Some of us became Dekus, Gorons, and Zoras, but these were loose roles and anyone in the class could easily take off one mask and put on another one. 


To elaborate, I'll start with Dekus.  Throughout the series, these humanoid creatures never played a substantive role.  They were clearly sentient and had an organized society but generally kept to their selves.  They generally within their villages in the forest but are sometimes seen in more populated areas doing small business.  Their role in the series drastically changes with Majora's Mask.  In this game, you spend the beginning of the game as a Deku version of Link.  As the game progresses, you begin to actually see the lifestyle and community behind the Dekus.  They're extremely environmentally conscious creatures due to their homes being part of the environment.  Additionally, Deku villages have a very tight sense of family and micro-level issues as they are generally disassociated from the rest of Hyrule (primary setting of the series).  While there is a hierarchy of Dekus and there are internal politics, the close-knit nature of the Dekus.  Like Dekus, there were those in class who may have not said much throughout the semester, but when they did speak, they provided unique insights and perspectives on critical issues.  Certain topics appealed to certain people.  While I'm not strictly categorizing people, as it's possible to be both a Deku and a Zora due to Link's mask abilities in Majora's Mask, it was interesting to see how some people excelled on issues such as self-determination while others thrived on the benefits of a unipolar system.
Gorons are notorious for being big, strong, and always getting the job done.  They may not be the most rational creatures, but they find the best way to obtain their goals.  They use the resources and capabilities that are given to them in order to complete tasks.  Their is a common misconception that Gorons are unintelligent, but this becomes clearly false in Twilight Princess in which the Gorons have industrialized before any of the other races.  The correlation between Gorons and World Politics isn't muscle size, but rather their straight-forward approach to the world.  The class consisted of some discussions regarding unipolarity and America's power in the world.  I feel that Gorons were able to uniquely contribute to these discussions due to personal beliefs or even just knowledge on the subject area.  The importance of increased military presence and military funding could be correlated with the Goron's raging muscles.  Finding solutions that benefit the U.S. quickly and efficiently is identical to the nature of the Goron.  Thankfully, classes weren't entirely Goron-based and Dekus and Zoras were able to provide alternate perspectives to these issues.



Finally, Zoras.  This sleek and slender species is known for being the water species within the LoZ series.  While they originally started as annoying enemies that shot fireballs at you in the earlier games, they eventually became peaceful sea creatures.  They are extremely rational and look for logical solutions to problems.  This is evident within their monarchical government and a council of Zoras that exists. Aesthetics and beauty are generally important for the Zoras as evident by their general demeanor and their habitats.  Additionally, Zoras are calm and peaceful and it is rare that they are truly angry.  Zoras exist within our world politics class through the purely rational thinkers.  Those who question the implications of action and logical results of actions/theories.  They enjoy the structure and logical actions.  I could see Zoras really liking simulations.  







Like I articulated above, the great thing about World Politics and LoZ is that us being Young Links meant that we weren't tied down to a single race/role in class.  There were times when we could put on our Deku mask, Goron Mask, or Zora mask.  The range of topics allowed us to think from different perspectives while discussing and debating with our peers who may have donned different masks.
While I wanted to elaborate more on connections I found, I'm pretty tired and have other finals to study for.  I wanted to go on and explain how the TAs are like Navi & Tatl, fairies that consistently help you throughout the game/year.  Or how the knowledge we started and ended with are similar to Link's transition from a wooden sword and shield to the Master sword & Hylian shield.  Regardless, the semester has been great and I can't wait to see how our second semester projects turn out.

Thanks for a great first semester!

Final Reflection

I can't believe its already the end of my first semester of college. Its been quite an adventure. I am so glad that I did the World Politics UC. I have made so many wonderful friends and I have learned a lot from Professor Jackson, Erin and all my intelligent peers. I enjoyed the opportunities that the Wednesday labs offered. I definitely went to areas of the city I may have never been able to visit.

I enjoyed the major simulation this past week. It was fun to be China in a World Bank session and it was also fun to haggle, negotiate, vote and legislate with classmates. I wish we could have continued our World Bank discussion because I think we, as a class, would have made some really interesting changes to the original World Bank list.

I am so glad that Winter break is so close! I can't yet imagine how wonderful its going to be without academic responsibilities for a month, but I soon will and I can't be more thankful.

Does Sovereignty Protect Difference?

I think sovereignty can protect difference, but I do not think it is necessary to protect difference. As a student at American University, I walk around daily with people of very different cultural, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. America, the country, is full of people who are different and though they may not be as strongly represented in the U.S. government as white, males are, they are still protected.

Sovereignty, though it may protect the self against the other, it doesn't always protect the differences within itself. The banning of the burqa in France can be viewed as an example of when sovereignty could have protected a difference if it was in the hands of an Islamic government. Though sovereignty may be good for the overarching population, the exceptions to the norm may not be protected by sovereignty.

If the world broke into sovereign bodies based on differences, it would be a disaster. From a realists perspective, multiplying the amount of "others" would only be many times more threatening as the number of enemies grew. Continuing to evaluate from a realist perspective, sovereign bodies would then begin to take over other sovereign bodies and then potentially squelch the difference in the other body.

Horizons

In theory, I agree with the assertion that sovereignty protects diversity. Sovereignty means that countries can pass laws that are as different from other countries as they wish. It allows countries to retain identities and social systems, regardless of what other countries wish them to do. In this way, cultures can retain their identities, and the human race stays diverse.

However, diversity is not always a positive thing. Sovereignty allows Arab nations to ignore woman's rights, and allows for the passive perpetuation of the caste system in India. These things are part of the culture and diversity of those countries, but I, as a girl that has been raised in relatively liberal America and ingrained with visions of social equality and economic mobility, don't think they should have a place anywhere on this planet.

Monday, December 6, 2010

The Final Reflection

This reflection is not going to be good enough for a final reflection for this class but as I sit here, sick, tired and recently returned from an emergency trip to Minnesota over there weekend where I was treated to driving snow and frigid temperatures, my wont is to just get it out the door and maybe make something respectable of it at a later time.

I remember when I first knew that I was going to be taking World Politics. I figured that I would walk in and immediately astound everyone with my brilliance and would henceforth go to class surrounded by swimsuit models and wearing a fur coat and a purple fedora. However, as I soon found out that was not the case. And as it would be repeatedly shown to me, I am not that smart of a student of IR. Which was fine, if emasculating. I certainly have become a better one with time (though, as PTJ would be quick to point out, "better" does not mean "good").

One interesting phenomena is that I have become more conservative and more realist. PTJ even said on my essay that I sounded awfully realist for a self proclaimed liberal and that may be (though I do admit to tossing the rules out a bit when the annihilation of humanity is on the line). I don't know if that is a bad thing or not, or even if it is something to which a "good" or "bad" label (whatever those mean anyway) can be ascribed. When my brother went to college he came back with his "coexist" posters and a big beard and I have none of those. Though, I admit to being jealous of the beard.

College has been many things to me but it hasn't been the huge transformational experience I thought it would be. AU is certainly not at fault for that (though I do occasionally wonder what Fordham, GW or the U would be like now). This will sound awfully narcissistic [even] for me but I think it's because I came to college a little more mature than my brother and others. Maybe "mature" is not the right word but with a more developed sense of purpose. I know what I want to do, I've known it since Freshman year in high school. Maybe that will change, and maybe then college will be the huge trans-formative event I've heard about but maybe not. I'm only a first semester freshman, there remains a lot to be seen, a lot [LOT] to be learned and a lot to discover. Only time will tell.

I have 2 dogs: Scout and Amy

They are, but that's beside the point. In his book, 'Conquest of America' Todorov writes a dedication on the inside cover and while dedications are usually to loved ones or close friends, he writes his to an anonymous Mayan woman who was killed and thrown to the dogs when she refused to sleep with one of the Spanish soldiers. This curious dedication is best seen not as an actual homage to a nameless, faceless woman who was killed by some jerk, but instead as a representative of all those who would die and suffer horrible fates from the coming colonization of America. What happened to that Mayan woman was the bell weather of things to come, she was the vanguard of the millions who would be slaughtered by the coming waves of Europeans.

The Mayan woman was heroic, in Todorov's eyes, because she resisted her would be rapists. Unlike Montezuma who fiddled while his Empire burned, she was brave. She kept her promise to her husband and stood on principal, even if that principal got her killed in horrifying fashion. The coming centuries of slaughter and brutalization were perfectly encapsulated in the episode of the nameless Mayan woman. He seeks to immortalize her story as a example of the dangers of violent cultural conflict in the absence of knowing and understanding the other. Millions died because of colonialism and millions upon millions have died as a result of not knowing the other. There are millions of stories of men and women being killed and raped and they must all be remembered as a cautionary tale, if one so oft unheeded. As he writes on p 247, "I am writing this book to prevent this story [Mayan woman] and a thousand others like it from being forgotten. ... My hope is not that Mayan woman will now have European men thrown to the dogs (an absurd supposition, obviously), but that we remember what can happen if we do not succeed in discovering the other."

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Todorov's Dedication

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure why Todorov dedicates his book to the woman devoured by dogs.  I do have some theories though.  I personally believe that the dedication is for those who are marginalized, suppressed, or silenced in general.  The anonymity of the woman creates a generalization in which no one specifically is targeted.  He may be attempting to commemorate or highlight the importance of these people historically and continually within society today.  Throughout the book, various implications of marginalized populations are evident.  As I've explained in previous posts, the implications of marginalization can occur throughout society.  Even minor discursive representations have the ability to fragment society and create distinctions between people.  In my Columbus post, I talk about how the imperialist mindset devalued the importance of humans.  Todorov could potentially be writing for the people who have been devalued and treated as less than human.  I believe that this could be possible due to the method in which the woman is killed.  She is devoured by dogs, an animal.  While I do understand that there are anthropocentric justifications for humans simply being species of the world and that there isn't a hierarchy of species within the world, I do believe that animals can be considered "less than human" due to their beast-like nature and lack of a high level of sentient and comprehensive thought (this is a generalization obviously, there is a legitimate counter-argument to this claim but I don't want to deviate to far from the thesis of this post).

While people do die from animal-related deaths in the world, the way Todorov's dedication is targeted is uniquely important.  He dedicates it to a woman "devoured by dogs".  This could potentially imply that the woman was part of the animal food cycle.  She was on the level of animals, probably even below a dog, and was devoured by nature's food cycle.  This could be representative of the type of dehumanization that occurred with the West's encroachment upon the Natives of foreign lands.  While there are probably flaws in my logic, this is what came to mind when I thought about the dedication itself.  Thus, I feel that Todorov's dedication was potentially for those who have been silenced and dehumanized to a point in which they can not even be considered human.  His book sheds light upon the situation and attempts to highlight the importance and implications of such behavior.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Reflection

Over Thanksgiving break I had a very detailed discussion with my Uncle Adi about the political debate regarding the building of a mosque two blocks away from ground zero. I began the discussion by expressing my outrage at how Renee Ellmers uses the terms "muslim" and "terrorist" interchangeably and how I think she is ignorant and offensive. I also told him that I think that a Muslim cultural center is a perfectly peaceful and pleasant idea for the old coat factory near ground zero.
My uncle, who is very liberal and very open minded and accepting of all colors, races and religions, asked me if I'd seen a particular video of the Dutch politician, Geerd Wilders, speaking. Geerd Wilders is a very radical politician who believes that Islam is spreading to the West because the Koran bids those of the Islam faith to conquer the West. Watch his video and see what you think.
<"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAe9ovNSTg8">

It seems very peculiar to me to think that religious persons are migrating westward in order to smother out other religions. When we visited the French Embassy for our Wednesday lab, the French diplomat told our group that the French government is worried because those who are immigrating into France aren't taking on a French identity. The same issue is happening all over Europe. Persons are immigrating into a country but still identifying themselves as individuals from their country of origin. The French government is trying to reiterate the importance of maintaining French culture and not letting it get diluted with other culture. These ideals are what prompted the ban of the wearing of burqas.
I don't know where I stand on the issue. I certainly don't think all muslims are extremist terrorists trying to take over the world. Learning about this Geerd Wilders and others who agree with him has definitely prompted my recent interest in immigration patterns and the muslim faith.

Monday, November 29, 2010

Reflection

This past week was quite a lesson on human interaction. Through the noisy insanity of the screaming mass that is my family, I saw parallels to the larger world of international relations.
Constructivism
My cousin Ryan, the roofer and husband, shocked us all when he broke from his labels and assumed another one- father. Of course, we all knew about the birth of his daughter only months before, but when he altered his behavior and began to do things like help clean up messes and watch his language, we all were a little shocked. We weren't sure how to treat him in his new role. He was always the sort of renegade cousin, and when he changed his identity, we shifted the way we treated him.

Liberalism
Jessica was in charge of the mashed potatoes.
I was in charge of the pie.
We made friends.
She got extra pie
I got to lick the spoon from the mashed potatoes.
Thanksgiving + liberalism = :D

Realism
By it's very nature, Thanksgiving rejects the idea of realism on a micro level. However, on an international level the holiday is all about realism. If you throw a little cynicism into the mix, Thanksgiving Day quickly becomes Thank God I'm Not An Impoverished Congolese Woman Day. Thanksgiving is all about what we Americans have, not how we can help other countries. It is very much America individually celebrating its success.

Reflection #14

***Updated, found some awesome articles that explain the scenario.

Going home was something I had surprisingly been looking forward too.  I love being in DC but didn't think I'd miss Denver as much as I did.  The break basically consisted of a complete detox from school.  I was able to hang out with my friends, eat a lot of food, do some Black Friday shopping and ended going to a Basshunter concert which was crazy.

While this may not be the most substantive post, I wanted to branch off a post by Christian regarding the recent Korean incident.  My response was not surprisingly different than Christian to North Korean's attack on South Korea.  When I heard about the attack, one of my first thoughts was "IMPACT UNIQUENESS FOR MY NORTH KOREA SCENARIO".  While this probably doesn't make sense to much people (except PTJ), it's not a generally useful thought.  Regardless, as I thought about the matter, I wondered whether or not the world would actually see a real life zerg rush from the North Koreans.  Right now the balance between the two nations is extremely wobbly.  South Korea is prepared for retaliation, North Korean propaganda is perpetuating hate, China is attempting to act as a balancer, and the U.S. is trying to help South Korea while simultaneously trying to push through a South Korean Free Trade Agreement.  Now while I don't know if North Korea has nuclear weapon capabilities, they're playing an extremely convincing bluff.  A professor at Stanford recently indicated that North Korea has a "stunning" secret nuclear plant and even North Korean officials are claiming that they have thousands of nuclear centrifuges.  It is still unsure as to whether nor not these centrifuges are capable of enriching high grade uranium that is a prerequisite to nuclear weapons.  This level of uncertainty means that both the U.S. and South Korea will have to tread carefully to ensure that determine that there's no risk of a nuclear launch.  Additionally, the way China approaches this scenario could potentially change U.S.-Sino relations.  Signs indicate that China is carefully considering its actions and comments as it is receiving pressure from the U.S. regarding its North Korean policy.

Christian's second scenario is quite the scary one.  I'm pretty sure the video I linked above describes what a worst case scenario could become.  With the introduction of nuclear weapons, the situation becomes scary.  If this happens, someone will eventually have to GG.  The future decisions by policymakers will have to be made carefully.  Only time will determine the outcome of this situation.


Tired of formulaic reflection titles

After failing in spectacular fashion to change my essay writing style this past few weeks, I'm going to give it another shot. The events of this week beg an interesting question: What should happen to Julian Assange and Bradley Manning?

As it stands, Bradley Manning faces 57 in military detention for the illegal dissemination of classified documents to an unauthorized source and is currently in custody awaiting a trial. Assange is currently on the run with an INTERPOL 'red-notice' on him for rape and sexual assault in Sweden. His current whereabouts are unknown. But, while the US has not yet leveled any charges against him, he remains on the run from what he perceives are foreign intelligence agencies sent to kill him.

Regardless of whether that is true or not, should it be? Should the United States, or other interested parties, attempt to kill Julian Assange? Ignoring people like Rep King who make outrageous statements about Wikileaks being a Foreign Terrorist Organization, it certainly seems that Assange is bent on trying to harm the United States through the illegal dissemination of classified materials without care as to their affect on innocent peoples. The US, of course, has laws and regulations prohibiting the execution of foreign nationals who are not making war upon the United States (how we get around targeted killings of terrorists) but let's suspend that for now. Is Assange making war on the United States? Is he guilty of treason?

Treason is the only crime specifically delineated in the US Constitution (owing to the definition of said crime being used and twisted by the Crown to prosecute US citizens). Article III Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


However, as the US Code 18 U.S.C. § 2381 makes clear, this only applies to those "owing allegiance to the United States". Assange is not a US citizen and never has been, so it would be neigh impossible to make him fit that category. The other option is the 1917 Espionage Act which prohibits "supporting" America's enemies in wartime. Considering the Afghan War logs included the names of Afghan informants and the Taliban assured us they would be coming through them for names, it seems fair to state that by disseminating un-redacted classified information (something every responsible media outlet would do -- the names are immaterial to the story) Assange has underminded the war effort and supported our enemies.

But Assange is not a US citizen, and thus US law does not apply to him, correct? Well, no. The US has a long history of enforcing US law outside our borders (we arrested Manuel Noriega, after all) and bringing criminals to be tried in the US court system. But the Espionage Act is problematic because this was passed before the Supreme Court expanded First Amendment rights (NYT Co. v US) with regard to the dissemination of classified information. As well, this all pre-supposes that we are dealing with Assange within the confines of US law. To quote an Australian official who spoke with regard to Assange, "You operate outside the rules, you will be dealt with outside the rules".

So given the problematic nature of legal action and the clearly detrimental effect that the releases are having, should Assange be dealt with "outside the law," specifically, should be be killed or rendered back to Sweden or the United States for criminal prosecution?

The latter is the easiest do deal with. The political fallout from kidnapping a foreign national in a Western European country (one who will inevitably be painted as a first amendment martyr) would be far worse than that of the cables. And Sweden would probably be reluctant to prosecute someone who was kidnapped from another EU country and put on their doorstep. That would leave prosecution in the US under the Espionage Act which, as stated before, is problematic.

The former begs an interesting question. States do operate outside of the law, some more than others, and are often not caught or penalized for such an action. In fact, some of the time it is incumbent upon the state to operate outside of the law for purposes of keeping its citizens safe or other circumstances and it would be negligent for the state not to do as such. If the NYPD had caught a terrorist who knew the location of a hidden nuclear device in Manhattan, but the court threw the case out on a legal technicality, it would be incumbent upon the state to intervene and detain the suspect without charge. Extremely regrettable? Yes. But it is a valid tool of statecraft when the stakes are so high (and improbable, it should be noted).

So, that said: Does Assange merit such measures? Millions of lives are not at stake here, at the very worst case a few dozen informants will be killed but a few months later and nothing appears to have come of that. The leaks have not seriously imperiled the war effort and diplomatic relations (so far) appear to be unaffected. The only crime Assange is guilty of is disseminating classified information and being an unlikeable jerk. Plenty of spies have done far worse and some are walking the streets as I type. But unlike spies, Assange is not associated with any state actor and that makes him all the more dangerous. Spies feed their information to another state, one with which we can talk, negotiate and coerce; one that operates in a rational manner with identifiable self interests. Assange is a person, whose only apparent motive is to make as much information public as possible. This is done to achieve certain ends such as political change or embarrassment but it should be noted that all actions thus far lead to Assange being very ideologically motivated to the point where he will release any classified data he comes across.

So, if he is such an ideological radical, is he a threat that needs dealing with outside the law even if his actions thus far do not indicate as such? If someone leaked the names of US assets operating overseas, there's little doubt that Assange would publish that information and that many people would die or be prosecuted because of that. If it were discovered that Assange had such information, would it not be prudent of the US to arrange his death? It directly imperils the lives of US citizens operating overseas and protecting the lives of its citizens is one of the most important duties of any state. Even if that comes at the cost of killing a non-citizen.

But what if he published information of the location of US nuclear missiles? A serious security matter, to be sure but one that does not imperil lives. US nuclear assets are held under strict military guard and any attempt to steal or otherwise attain them would be neigh impossible; and we don't have any immediate threats who would be able to tactically use such information in any conceivable eventuality. So, if he's leaking very important information but information that doesn't imperil any lives, does that cross the line?

This could go on all day, and I'm sure very few are still reading, but the basic question boils down to this: When is it OK to release classified information that imperils lives? The answer is, as far as I'm concerned, that it is OK to release said information when you are doing it for a specific purpose that is in the public good. Just because something is secret, doesn't make it nefarious. Releasing classified information for the sake of releasing classified information is harmful to the state and her legitimate objectives. If there is evidence of another My Lai or of some nefarious plot, then I fully support any leaking to expose it. But there is a difference between "Whistle-blowing" to stop a specific act of questionable legality or morality and just releasing classified information because you have it. Unfortunately, this distinction seems to be lost on Mr Assange. Though we can take some comfort from this unfortunate business: If anything, these leaks have shown just how transparently and openly the United States has prosecuted two wars and operated diplomatically. That these cables reveal no major scandals or malicious deeds on the part of our government come as a great comfort to me. Ironically, the person most frustrated by this episode is probably Mr Assange.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Time

Yesterday I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine. We were discussing our common interests in studying WWII and the Civil War (or the War between the States). We talked about the Battle of Gettysburg, the Gettysburg Address, President Lincoln, Pickett’s charge... the whole works. I was expressing how much I have always wanted to go to Gettysburg. She told that it is not a haunted place, but a hallowed place. My friend, Liz, began to tell me a story about a Union family taking in a wounded confederate soldier, and how they befriended him, loved him, and he became a member in their church two days before his death. She said that Europeans don’t think America has history, but we do. We have stories of revolution, love, war, strength and defeat.
Liz and I started talking about WWII and she brought up an interesting point. She said that our children will never meet a WWII veteran. They will never understand the level of gratitude we owe to them. I added that they will also never meet a Holocaust survivor. It just made me realize how peculiar it is that the world keeps turning and generations keep reproducing. WWII was the last war in which America united as a country to participate in. Pacific theatre, Atlantic theatre, and the home front were all war-centered areas. In a few years, the greatest generation will have to be told to our children by secondary sources or they will have to read, but they won’t be able to fully understand.
In my junior year of high school I had to read “The Greatest Generation” by Tom Brokaw and complete a corresponding project. I had to interview a WWII veteran. My mom introduced me to a veteran in our church and the next week I drove to his house to interview him. He told me getting his draft letter when he was 18 years old and leaving the North Carolina farm he had grown up on so he could serve his country. he ended up going to flight school, but because his vision was poor at night, he remained in the states to train other pilots in instrument flying before they were sent over. He was a precious person and he gave me a copy of his book. He has written a book that is a compilation of poems and stories that he wrote. I went home after the interview and started reading his book. It was the most beautiful poetry to his wife before and after her death. A few months later Mr. Betts, the WWII vet, became very ill and passed away. I felt so privileged to have heard his story and to have been able to share it with others.
Just think, there will come a day when there are no longer any persons alive who were alive on September 11th, 2001. It seems so strange and impossible but the clock keeps ticking and time is flying by us faster than we ever expect.

Eyem in yoor dreemz - scurrin u (Reflection 13)


This week was all about my people, the Indians.  Obviously PTJ has a racial content quota to fill but that's besides the point.  I actually enjoy studying about Native Americans.  I feel that the issues surrounding Native Americans. or the American Indian, are broad and interesting to discuss.  Concepts such as sovereignty, biopower, imperialism, colonialism, identity, culture, etc., all find themselves within the history of the Native Americans.  I think the timing of this week was great given what we've learned so far.  Our discussions on poverty, representation, and sovereignty on the international level set us up well for discussion on micro and macro level implications of Columbus' actions.

One area I had hoped we would discuss more is the self-determination of the Native Americans.  I'm interested in seeing how their self-determination has changed over the years and what their status is society is today.  In an earlier comment I had on Hilary's post, I talked about the importance of tribal courts in the status quo.  To summarize, the Native Americans don't have jurisdiction over criminal issues that exist within their territory.  My comment goes into more depth regarding this, but I'm curious as to whether the U.S. has progressed over the years regarding their policy to the Native Americans.  One one level, I think they have.  The United States has attempted to rectify the problems of the past through legislation targeted towards Native Americans, Museums, and other policies.  But on a discursive and representational level, I'm not entirely sure.  When I went to the other section's class on Thursday, we discussed the discursive representations of Native Americans.  Indians, Native Americans, Redskins, and American Indians are all names that are correlated with these people.  Throughout my post I've been referring to them (not trying to create an us-them dichotomy here, just trying to make a sentence flow well), as Native Americans, which has negative connotations associated with the term "native".  Additionally, issues such as blood quantums are surprisingly prevelant today regarding Native American policy.  Blood quantums are a way of defining what consists of a Native American based upon the degree of ancestry or blood correlated with a tribe.  The government determining what an ethnic group consists of is an entirely separate issue that could be debated in full, but the fact issues such as this exist today is extremely intriguing.

Regardless, class last week was great.  I can't wait for Thanksgiving break as I'm writing this in the early hours of the morning since I just came back from my debate tournament.  Hopefully everyone has a great thanksgiving!

Monday, November 22, 2010

Mozart? MOZART! (and Levin)

The vast majority of my week was preparing for and performing Schicksalslied, Op. 54 by Brahms and the Levin completion of the Mozart Requiem, which has made me think about the nature of thought ownership.

Mozart died in 1791, before he could actually finish his Requiem. The Requiem was completed by one of Mozart's students, Süssmayr. Over the years, numerous other composers have tried to re-complete his work, based on scraps of notes left behind by the composer. One of the better known, more recent completions was done by Robert Levin, a noted musicologist and professor at Harvard. It was this completion that the AU Chorus and Orchestra performed this past weekend. The Levin completion is noticeably different from the traditionally recognized Süssmayr completion, with significant changes to the orchestration, and even an entirely new movement based on nothing but one scrap of paper and trends in composition at the time.

So, with all these changes, do we still really get to call it the Mozart Requiem? Sure, he was a musical prodigy, the kind that comes around every few centuries, and sure, he did compose the themes before his death, but how much of the work in its recognized modern state is actually still Mozart?

There is a problem on the other end as well. Süssmayr doesn't get much credit for completing the Requiem in its earliest and most widely recognized form. However, Levin gets to put his name just below Mozart's on the musical score. Functionally, Levin is only a bit more significant than an arranger. And yet, he has widespread notoriety in the classical music world because he changed up the ideas of a man long dead.

1 for 285

The United States is a country at war against an insidious enemy who would like nothing better than to senselessly slaughter civilians to satisfy a bastardized version of Islam. The enemy must be fought with all possible means and we must take all necessary precautions to secure the United States, even if that means an occasional violation of civil liberties -- it is worth it to keep Americans safe. Using a civilian court system in a time of war to try terrorists is unconscionable and unreasonable. This is war and military detention is the only reasonable and safe solution to the problem.

Or so the conservative national security wisdom goes. At least, that's the only reasonable conclusion to reach after watching the numerous politicians and hopefuls pouncing on the Ahmed Ghailani case as an excuse to lambast the Obama Administration.

Ahmed Ghailani, a Tanzanian and not a US citizen, was acquitted of 284 of the 285 counts the government had brought against him for his role in the 1998 Embassy Bombings. A member of al-Qaeda, Ghailani had assisted their efforts in conspiring to attack US assets overseas. The case against him had been brought in Federal court after his capture in Pakistan and rendition to the United States. Of the 285 charges brought against him, the jury acquitted him of all but one -- one count of conspiracy. The conviction means that he will spend at minimum 20 years and at most the rest of his life in "Supermaximum Security" ADX Florence along with other noted criminals such as Richard Reid (Shoe bomber), Ted Kaczynski (Unabomber), Zacarias Moussaoui (9/11 conspirator), Mahmud Abouhalima ('93 WTC Bomber) and Ramzi Yousef ('93 WTC Bomber).

There are those who criticize the use of the civilian court system as "coddling terrorists" or for being "ineffective" and "harmful to national security". The US is at War, after all and we don't try enemy POWs in civilian court, that'd be crazy. And if their assumption was correct, that would be a very logical progression given the facts established. The problem is that their underlying assumption is incorrect.

The United States is not at war, or at least not in anyway that matters to the current discourse of how to try international terrorists. We are, of course, at war in Iraq and Afghanistan but that is not what this is about. Ghailani did not attack US troops in Afghanistan, he did not attempt to bomb a market in Baghdad, he attacked US assets overseas in Tanzania. As such, he was subject to US laws, as many other have been before him. The US Federal Court system has plenty of experience trying terrorists successfully and has done so many times since and before 9/11. There is no reason to give him a status he does not deserve. He is a terrorist, a murder -- a criminal. He is no warrior, no soldier -- he deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison.

The other flawed assumption behind the aforementioned reasoning is that we are in an existential conflict with al-Qaeda and affiliated organizations. Their continued existence poses a threat to the very existence of the United States. But this too is flawed; al-Qaeda cannot destroy the United States, no matter how long and hard it tries. It may hurt us, it may kill thousands of people but in the fight between 300million people, 14 trillion dollars and the most powerful military in history against a few hundred people who are perpetually broke, the outcome is preordained. What has a greater ability to hurt us is ourselves: bankrupting ourselves with costly wars, sacrificing our civil liberties and our values for questionable security gains and our willingness to point fingers and political opportunism.

It's also not as if there is no precedent for the trying of non-US citizens for crimes against the United States, my personal favorite is Manuel Noriega, who never set foot in the United States but was nonetheless captured, tried in federal court and incarcerated in the US prison system. Since 9/11 hundreds of people have been convicted of terrorism/terrorism related offenses in the civilian court system. To be precise, 524 people are currently in US prisons on terrorism related charges (prosecuted since 9/11). The other option that detractors of the prison system support are military tribunals. Since 9/11 there have been 4 people convicted in these tribunals, 2 of whom are walking the streets and one of which is 15 years old.

There are some, very isolated cases in which there is a genuine legal uncertainty about the proper methods of trying terrorists. An al-Qaeda member who blows up a Baghdad market should be tried under Iraqi law. A Talib who throws acid in a girls face for attending school should be summarily executed, I mean... tried under Afghan law. There are a few cases where the legal system or prison system in the countries of origin is so precarious as to make it genuinely dangerous to keep them in the country and that is a rare exception. But with that caveat noted, terrorists should be tried in civilian courts. And yes, there will be some cases where the courts acquit a terrorist and he goes free. Such is the price we pay for having a just society. Such is a price I am more than willing to pay to keep it that way. Ahmed Ghailani is not a terrorist mastermind, and any possible damage done by releasing him is entirely manageable. Nor, even if he was would it be unreasonable to release him. The United States, the judicial system, is bigger than any man, regardless of how horrible his crimes.

The reason the United States is worth saving as more than a collection of disparate peoples and material goods is the values upon which we were founded and attempt to live up to every day of our lives. Equal Justice Under Law isn't just a pithy quote relegated to the fresco of some stone construct in downtown DC, it is the underpinning of our entire judicial system and changing that would do more damage to the United States than Usama bin Laden could ever dream of doing. To close, a quote from Judge William Young at the sentencing of Richard Reid:

This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair and a just sentence. It is a righteous sentence. Let me explain this to you.

We are not afraid of any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is all too much war talk here. And I say that to everyone with the utmost respect.

Here in this court where we deal with individuals as individuals, and care for individuals as individuals, as human beings we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that happens to be your view, you are a terrorist.

And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not treat with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists.

We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court. You're a big fellow. But you're not that big. You're no warrior. I know warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders.

In a very real sense Trooper Santiago had it right when first you were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and where the TV crews were and you said you're no big deal. You're no big deal.



Thank you, and vote Ballingrud/Scout in 2012.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Representations of Injuns

Representations can be a trick subject to delve into.  In a recent post of mine, I try to explain the time-bound nature of certain representations and how the discursive materials available can shape these representations.  When I'm given the decision to choose which representation is better, Redskins or American Indian, I end up leaning towards American Indian.  While I'm not entirely offended by the term Redskin, I  can understand how there are negative connotations associated with the term due to its racial nature.  I also feel that there are negative implications of terms such as "Native American", which as PTJ highlighted in class, can connote a primitive nature of the American Indians.  There potentially is even a literature base that opposes the term "American Indian".  Regardless, I feel that representations are a serious issue but can sometimes be falsely associated with a malicious nature.

In the context of the Redskins, there has been consistent controversy from the issue that has even reached the Supreme Court twice.  Certain Native American parties believe that the term is rooted in insensitivity towards their people.  This is understandable since the history of the word does seem to be correlated with racism.  Interestingly, Sports Illustrated and University of Pennsylvania conducted comprehensive polls that indicated that a majority of Native Americans found the term acceptable.  This seems to me to indicate that the oppressive power of the word, from which it was originally founded upon, has gone away over time.  The word may be rooted in racism, the implications in a generally more sensitive period have been decreased.  This made me think about the concept of reappropriation in which terms such as "nigger, queer, faggot, tree hugger, redneck" etc., have been used by the discriminated groups as a method of disempowering the negative connotations of the words.  It seems to me that representations can sometimes be based upon the mindset behind these terms.  Yes, all of these terms are rooted in in racist history and yes, they are used presently in racist ways, but movements and forums that disempower the effectiveness of these words exist.  I do believe that representations are extremely important and can be used to marginalize populations.  Additionally, I do feel that discourse has the ability to shape reality.  I'm just curious as to whether a mindset shift and/or an actual policy proposal is necessary to address these issues.

I feel that the flawed representations of lolcats is another area of controversy which is a vital issue to discuss:

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Colombus - A Real American

Colombus is infamous for "discovering" America.  His discovery of a new world is both praised and criticized.  On one level, he started the progression towards the inhabitance and development of our country from the west.  On the other hand, his discovery inevitable lead to the destruction of countless indigenous people and the "imperialist" policies that acquired the Native American's land.  Now whether it's fair to blame Colombus for what happened, I feel that it is not. I've attempted to explain my argument regarding this in class but I'm not entirely sure that this was fleshed out well enough.  I decided to evaluate this issue in consideration to the time-bound nature of the question.  I feel that the actions and interactions he had at the time were justified and inevitable.  I want to back this up with an understanding of western imperialism. 

Generally, imperialism is correlated with colonial and territorial policies couple with economic and/or military dominance and influence.  This was due the materialistic mindset that existed at the time.  European history had been deeply rooted in expansionist policies that was evident throughout the Roman Empire.  The reason behind this expansion were the economic benefits from collecting resources from foreign lands or colonies.  Obtaining these resources was only possible by guaranteeing they were secure.  To ensure this, control was exerted through military means.  While states were clearly attempting to ensure their own security, the easy access to resources with virtually no resistence was an opportunity they couldn't afford to ignore.  At the time, France, Spain, Portugal, and the United Kingdom were spreading colonies throughout the world.  None of the nations wanted to be left behind so they seized every opportunity that was available.  Because this mindset existed at the time, the result of Columbus discovering new and rich land was inevitable.  The way expansionist policies existed at the time meant that it was only a matter of time before some country found the "New World".  His actions were fair for the time being because he couldn't have predicted that colonizing foreign lands would be criticized in the future due to their fair nature at the time.



A second facet of the inevitability of Columbus' actions is the philosophy of the world that existed at the time.  While material gains were extremely important for countries, their philosophies on life were rooted in Eurocentric thought that prioritized the white male over other beings.  This prioritization of life caused these countries to believe that the people that inhabited the land they were occupying were less than human.  This justified violence against them because they weren't of equal status with the Europeans.  Also, the Europeans felt that it was their religious duty to God to attempt to convert these new populations.  Any resistence to their attempts to convert were instantly stifled.  The material and superior mindset that existed at the time made the actions against the Native Americans inevitable at the time.


Stealing the Moon



If one is to accept the notion that Columbus is responsible for the resulting genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas then one must also accept that people are responsible for the actions of others that follow their own. There is no charitable way to put this: Columbus was kind of a jerk. He thought of the Indians as a clean slate upon which to project his version of “civilization”; he thought them only moderately more intelligent than animals and he had no qualms about trampling all over their civilization, all the while treating them in a very paternal and condescending manner. But he cannot be blamed for the resulting genocide for the simple fact that it was inevitable. Once he discovered the Americas, people like Cortez were going to come over and ruin some days regardless of how Columbus treated the Indians. There was far too much inertia on the part of the Spanish Crown for him to have changed the inevitable course of events.

One of the key exonerating factors for Columbus is that he never seemed to have any malicious intent toward the Indians on his first voyage, before he reported back to Spain and took more people and such along. The main motivations for his voyage were religious, to spread Christianity and to raise money for the reconquest of Jerusalem, as opposed to people like Cortez who came in with malevolent intent for the peoples of the Americas and designs of their wealth and land.

“And he concludes with astonishment that, although naked, the Indians seem closer to men than to animals.

His attitude with regard to this other culture is, in the best of cases, that of the collector of curiosities, and it is never accompanied by any attempt at comprehension: observing for the first time certain masonry constructions … he contents himself with ordering a piece of it to be broken off to keep as a souvenir.” (p34-35)

Contrast that attitude to the later actions of people like Cortez:

“Having learned of the existence of the Aztec empire, he begins a slow progress toward the interior, attempting to win over to his cause, either by promises or warfare, the populations whose lands he passes through.

Cortez reaches Mexico City, where he is cordially received; shortly thereafter, he decides to take the Aztec sovereign prisoner and succeeds in doing so.” (p54-55)

The discovery of the Americas was inevitable, and the actions of people like Cortez were going to happen even if Columbus had treated the Indians as equals. The allure of a land ripe for pillaging with its riches was too much for anyone to resist at the time. Columbus may have started off poorly, but as soon as he discovered the Americas, their fate was sealed regardless of his possible actions. Once word first reached Europe of the riches of this new land, the indigenous populations never had a hope of survival.

That is not to say that Columbus doesn’t deserve blame for being an arrogant, eccentric jerk; but rather to say that you can no more blame Columbus for Cortez’s actions than you can blame Gary Anderson for missing the field goal in the 1998 NFC Conference Championship – our defeat was already ordained and nothing Anderson did could’ve changed that. That said, I hate the man for missing the kick.

Indians

What a brilliant picture! I must first compliment Erin in her idea for the shot. Secondly I must point out that, in my opinion, both depictions of Native Americans is incorrect. The Redskins football team has a derogatory name and shows a very stereotypical drawing of a Native American.
The museum was built as a tribute to Native Americans, yet is just as incorrect and offensive. The museum, though it contains beautiful art, artifacts, and remnants of Nativa American culture, it omits some of the most brutal, yet important aspects of Native American history. The museum conveniently leaves out the numerous accounts of American repression and ruthless cruelty toward the Native American peoples. Even though I am not of Native American decent, I am personally offended that the creators of the museum could so intentionally left out a very defining part of Native American history. I say it is defining because the history of Native Americans, at least as far back as written documentation, has been shaped most violently by European settlers who soon developed into the America we call home. Native American peoples have suffered endless Supreme Court Case loses, brutal attacks, and stripping of rights. I am surprised the museum has gotten away with its silence on the subject for so long. It is as if the museum is determined to blatantly lie to the children and other visitors to the museum, looking to avoid marring the American image. Then again, it may be best to avoid sharing the stories of American evils toward the Native American tribes with children, because unlike the bad guys in fairytales, there is not hero that has sent the evils away, righted all the wrongs and saved the day. Who wants to tell their kid that the American dream they spend their afternoons thinking about is tainted by the red blood of Native American peoples.
There is no difference in the two depictions of Indians in the picture. Both are politically and morally incorrect.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

A New Kind of History

This week has been crazy. I have had nine performances in 7 days. I really enjoyed hearing Ann Tickner speak. How are these things related? They are much more interrelated than one might think! The musical I was in, I Never Saw Another Butterfly, was based on a true story of a Czechoslovakian ghetto during the Holocaust in which a famous Czech artist became a teacher to the children in the ghetto and helped them paint and write about how they felt and what they saw. The teacher hid the paintings and poems in hopes that they would be discovered after the war. A suitcase full of the children’s creations was found in the 1950s and there was a book made.
How is this linked to Ann Tickner? She talked about rewriting history from the point of view of those whose voices were silenced. She said history is written by old, white men and she is attempting to write history from the view of minorities and women.
I thought it was interesting to evaluate the musical as a means of voicing a piece of history that would make it to the history page. The basic facts have been stated. Hitler, FDR, Winston Churchill, Terezin, and Nazi are all terms that make the page in the history book but in between the lines are so many stories. The show I was in was a means of projected the voices of the victimized children onto the ears of students and members of the community.
What if, instead of accepting the history presented to us, we meandered off the beaten trail and discovered more than what the well-known people said in each era? What if we began to see history as a myriad of voices, some deafening and others whispering, but all adding to history and its significance? Just some thoughts.

Monday, November 15, 2010

Reflection

So, this week seems to have three themes for me; Harry Potter, Mozart, and human rights vs. human needs. All in all, a pretty good week, I'd say. In between being excited for the upcoming premiere and rehearsals for my pending Mozart Requiem performance this weekend (Come see Gabe, Colin, and me!!!), I found some time to think about the difference between what people deserve and what people need.

I really don't like people getting free handouts, but at the same time I would like for everyone to at least have the opportunity to support themselves. The solution? It's an NGO! It's a corporation! No, it's Grameen Banks! More economically sustainable than an NGO, more helpful than a bank, it's here to save the day!

If you couldn't tell, I am a huge, flag-waving, screaming fan girl of Grameen Banks. They are such a great solution; a small loan can allow someone to lift themselves out of poverty. The Grameen method of loaning also utilizes support groups, peer pressure, and education, which results in a payback rate of 97%. No one gets anything they didn't work for, and they can support themselves after the loan rather than relying on society. Not only that, but it satisfies our (or at least my) human inclination to help others in need. Win-win, pure and simple.

Week 12 Reflection (11/8-11/12)

The week began with Tuesday's class being rescheduled in favor of a lecture by a noted feminist scholar of international relations, J Ann Tickner. The lecture itself provided some useful points and made a good point about the imperative to study alternate histories and perspectives. And on a personal note, I will admit myself to being militantly in favor of woman's rights and equal treatment. My mother is a gainfully employed professional and a very, very strong woman and my favorite teacher in the universe was a former marine corps colonel who had 2 daughters (1 marine, 1 army officer) who are also gainfully employed professionals so I've had a great deal of pro-woman influence growing up.

That said, I found several aspects of Ms. Tickner's lecture to be cringe worthy. The biggest was her aside that she's "gotten into arguments with physicists". Wait, what? I understand that in the soft sciences there is a lot of room for this type of stuff but I cannot fathom how she can argue for "alternate perspectives" in things like Physics. The Law of Partial Pressure is just that, a law. It's not up for debate. Now, I agree that on a certain level even the hard sciences go soft and are up for debate and interpretation. But I, as I would counsel Ms Tickner, would leave that to the PhDs.

The lab on Wednesday was also a bit disappointing (this really wasn't my week). The lady who presented did a well enough job (even if she did take an enormous amount of time) but the subject matter was not terribly interesting. International aid and development is very important, but so is the rule against perpetuities and nobody is clamoring to learn about that if they don't have to.

Thursday's class posed a very interesting questions about human rights and what they should entail and where they come from. I am very interested in this question but do not feel I could do it justice at the moment. Look forward to me published an essay on it down the road, though.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

PTJesus and his 12 Reflections

This week was great.  Starting out with a lecture from Tickner, a presentation from the World Bank, and the discussions we had on Friday all created a substantive week in world politics.  While I would love to continue my discussion on Tickner into my reflection, I was really intrigued by the World Bank presentation.  I personally believe that the World Bank is an important institution, but I'm curious as to whether or not it is effective.  More specifically, whether it provides an equal representation to countries that it's comprised of.

One of the main criticisms of the World Bank is that it is comprised of 186 countries but is organized and run by a very few economically powerful countries.  These countries are able to choose leadership and senior management and a result of that is that their countries' interests are a priori.  The problem with it being an international institution is that it needs to remain both active and politically neutral.  Foreign investment, international trade, and capital investment should occur in developing countries where needed, not based upon political biases or senior management.  While I'm not advocating that the World Bank is corrupt or purely biased, and I understand that there are a limited amount of resources that the World bank controls that need to be meticulously allocated throughout the world, I'm curious as to whether there are ways to increase the effectiveness of the institution.  Whether that means more money needs to be allocated or a more democratic decision-making process needs to be established, I'm unsure at the moment.  As a political organization, the World Bank needs to be able to meet the demands of the various donors and borrowing governments annually, it must additionally be a action-oriented institution which remains politically neutral while specializing in development and technical assistance.  Studies have indicated that this balance has caused the World Bank to adopt policies that dictate which poverty is "best alleviated" through the implementation of market prices.  While I feel that there are many philosophical objects as to this policy, whether it be a capitalist, neoliberal, or even a poverty rhetoric criticism, I feel like this market-based poverty reduction policy has prevented a truly holistic implementation of the World Bank's resources.  Understandably, as resources are limited, maybe a holistic policy is utopian.  Regardless, the World Bank's role is a truly interesting one which was highlighted in the lecture this week.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Alternative Perspectives in IR

This week provided a lecture from J. Ann Tickner which provided a justification for the feminist perspective within international politics.  When prompted with the question as to whether these perspectives have value within international relations theory, I would say they do.

While most IR theories establish reasons why the world exists as the way it does in the status quo or past, Tickner and the feminist perspective question the underlying methodologies and epistemological understandings of the world that general theories portray.  One of Tickner's main criticisms include the science upon which realism and various IR theories are based upon.  These theories utilize science and a rationale that derive from Western philosophers such as Kant.  Kant's theory included that men are bound together by the "necessary obligation to so arrange their social and political lives that they could gradually realize a condition of universal justice and perpetual peace" (Tickner, 1997).  While one may believe that Kant uses the term "man/men" in a gender neutral sense, he truly believed that women diminished the development of man and that women shouldn't be educated.  The typical counter argument is that these theories are all time-bound and do not exist in a more gender sensitive world.  Tickner argues that though we do live in a more gender sensitive time, the underlying assumptions of IR theories still consists of patriarchal values.

Another aspect of the feminist critique is the question as to whose interest security is serving within IR theory.  Tickner and another theories, Edward Kolodziej, claim that certain theories, specifically in the context of Walt's, contain a philosophically restricted notion of social sciences in which policymakers are led to determine what is real and relevant.  This is based upon definitions of science that exist within IR theory that tend to prevent any form of ethical and moral discussions from occurring. This mindset has created an epistemic hierarchy that allows conventional security studies such as realism, liberalism, and constructivism, to set themselves up as the "judge" of alternative claims to theirs.  This inevitably prevents alternative epistemologies from existing based upon the rationale of them not being "scientific".

Thus, I believe that an epitemology that examines identity and the methodologies upon which other theories are based upon has a role within IR theory.  This stimulates discussion that opens up new frameworks of thought that aren't purely constrained by masculine lenses.  Some feminist argue that this creates a form of institutionalized militarism within IR theory that stifles other potential viewpoints.  An open forum is an educational forum and the feminist perspective provides that.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Election Reflection

In the past week I have been officially embarrassed. No, I didn’t trip on stage or have toilet paper stuck to my shoe. Its worse. I am now officially represented politically by Renee Ellmers. “Whats the big deal?” you might ask. If you haven’t stumbled across her before you are in for a surprise. As I shared with the class on Thursday, Ellmers has flaunted her ignorance for all to see. The pinnacle of her witlessness can be observed in her video entitled, “No Mosques at Ground Zero.” Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QvKOdiyFaw

Yes. Renee Ellmers just called all muslims terrorists, she implied the supremacy of the english language and she called places of worship “victory mosques.” Not horrified yet? Check out her interview with CNN reporter, Anderson Cooper.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfAqarG8l6w&feature=player_embedded

Just to clarify. She says that she is representing the people of district two of North Carolina. Well, I’m from the second district of North Carolina and I detest the ignorance that this new congressman sports with blind pride!

I must admit, I finally feel the sting of election loss. This was my first election and it is truly infuriating to watch one’s country prepare for destruction when all you can do is add your tally to the votes of the masses. I am embarrassed that this woman is even considered a productive and acceptable member of society, and I am mortified that constituents in my district have stooped to voting for such an inconsiderate, ill-informed person. This time, it goes beyond party lines. This is about co-existing, no matter what your person beliefs are.

Reflection

So... Since we didn't have class today, I wasn't really sure when our reflections were due. But, I have a few things from this past week that I'd really like to talk about.

The most fascinating thing is something that I witnessed when I went to the Kennedy Center for a concert this past Thursday. I was lucky enough to get my ticket for free from my voice teacher (I had to write an essay about it. Stank), but a lot of the people attending the concert were quite wealthy, as the performance was a vocal recital held in the Terrace theater, a venue for which most patrons hold season tickets. In the Hall of Nations on that particular night, there was a display where a grain of rice equaled one person. So, they had piles of rice representing things like the number of people in the world that live on less than a dollar a day, the number of Americans without health insurance, and the number of draft-eligible Americans that moved to Canada during the Vietnam War. It seemed like I was the only person at the display that was not utterly shocked by the size of the pile representing the number of people without health insurance, or the number of people living on less than a dollar a day. It really worries me how ignorant some members of the upper echelons of society are about the plights of the poor. They are the ones with the resources to fix the problem; I suppose they often just don't know about it. Who's worried? I know I am.


Oh, yeah. And the concert was super good. Yay for Alice Coote and her skillz.

Monday, November 8, 2010

Week 11 Reflection (11/1-11/5)

Yeah so my entire reflection previously got deleted because firefox is awesome like that. Anyway, let me begin this reflection by voicing my dismay at the way class was conducted this week. But before I begin, I shall preface this by saying that I don't think they were done poorly, but that it wasn't what I had hoped.

Based on the readings and blog posts I had been hoping for an epic confrontation between me and the entire class against our lone idealistic interventionist Rowland. Considering how we prefaced the week by watching Black Hawk Down and routinely had dueling blog posts, I look forward to the class being raucous and lively -- preferably with chairs being thrown or something. In this, I was to be disappointed.

What I found interesting was our shift on Thursday to more unconventional definitions of security and wealth, talking a great deal about what makes wealth and how it relates to security. Unfortunately, it seemed we never really got to the Mueller piece but I still found the discussion to be enlightening. After all, is anyone really economically secure? I've seen successful professionals go from the high life to near poverty in as little as 6 months. But speaking on a national level, I think as long as the fundamentals of the economy are sound, then one can say that a country is "economically secure" even if those foundations are occasionally rocked every so often. As I mentioned earlier in a different blog post, there's no such thing as perfect security, either in the traditional sense or the economic sense. A worrying idea and one that affects us all. But by my way of thinking, this is still the best economic system -- there's either a winner and a loser, or just 2 losers.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Reflection One-One

This week continued our discussion of security from the previous week into more specific forms of security.  The visit to the pentagon and the analysis of the NSO security document and Judt's paper highlighted an important aspect of security for me.  What I found interesting was the constant changing nature of security. 

A question that was asked to the tour guides at the Pentagon was how it had changed with the occurrence of the attacks on September 11.  Not only were there significant changes in domestic and foreign policy, there were actual structural changes that occurred.  The Pentagon itself was restructured.  Escalators that used to directly take one from metro to inside the Pentagon were removed.  Additionally, two new security checks were implemented as a result of the attack.  The biggest structural change which I'm sure most people noticed were the increased security within airports.

This was interesting because it reminded me of trends in changes of U.S. security policy.  Specifically, the introduction of nuclear weapons produced school drills such as "duck and cover" and the President's Emergency Operations Center (PEOC).  So, as globalization increases and technological advances continue to occur, I'm curious as to the structural effects threats will have to the U.S. in the future.  In the comparison of the security documents, it became evident that Obama's document isolated numerous threats that existing in society ranging from bioterrorism, poverty, nuclear proliferation, and even cyberterrorism.  Will the future contain drills that teach kindergarten students how to effectively use McAfee and Norton to be ready for a cyberterrorist attack?  Regardless, the issue is increasingly interesting and may be prevalent in years to come.

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Humbug. Afghanistan and the Long View

This is the prompt I’ve been waiting for, no longer dealing with nebulous IR theories, we’ve finally settled down on a specific policy question with real world debate about this very issue going on as we speak. But, in addition to being my favorite, it is also the most difficult; I must admit to being conflicted on this issue. I don’t know what I would do if I were President. On one hand, Rowland makes a compelling argument for the necessity of staying (though, he intentionally neglects the human right argument, which I find to be strange considering it is one of his strongest arguments); but on the other hand you have the train of thought that says we can deal with the consequences and it would in fact be better for our security to withdraw. That said, I’m going to argue a position I don’t necessarily agree with 100% but I think makes a compelling overall argument. I’m not a huge fan of bullet pointing/numbering my points on an essay, but I think it suits this format. So, without further delay, here are five reasons that continuing to prosecute the Afghan War as it stands now, will be damaging to our collective long term security. Considering that the prompt and the question of “Should we be in Afghanistan” are closely related for the rational thinking, some of my points will address the latter more directly.

The most important reason is that the War may not, in fact, actually be making us safer because whatever security gains it reaps is offset by the increase in the number of our enemies. For example, on September 10, 2001 our main enemy in Afghanistan with the potential to strike outside the borders of that country as al-Qaeda; now, we face not only al-Qaeda but also various other organizations which have decided to make war upon us in retaliation for our attacking them for harboring al-Qaeda. Specifically, we now find that the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is interested in striking at US cities and even tried as much with Faisal Shazad, the failed Times Square Bomber. We are helping to create more and more enemies with heavy handed military interventions. But how? It’s complicated, but it has roots in Pashtunwali – the tribal code of the Pashtun people. Per this code, it is incumbent upon a home owner to offer shelter, and aid and comfort to any guest or defeated enemy in battle, this practice is known as Melmastia with a little bit of Nanawata, the former being hospitality to guests and the latter asylum for a defeated enemy.

After the defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda suffered in October 2001, they crossed over the border into Pakistan and made use not only of the long standing alliances they had with the people (dating back to the 1980’s with the al-Ansar guest houses and such) but also the tribal custom that required them to provide aid and comfort to the beaten, bloodied and defeated Taliban and al-Qaeda remnants. The ensuing 9 years of relentless American bombardment, often failing to distinguish the Taliban/AQ members from their hosts (as was the point, remember?) helped to drive the two together and forge an alliance. In the aftermath of the Red Mosque siege of 2008, numerous disaffected Pashtun militant groups banded together to start the TTP and immediately began to wage war on the Pakistani state and Afghan/ISAF forces in Afghanistan.

It is also interesting to note that groups like the TTP and Haqqani Network (another militant group straddling the Durand Line) don’t necessarily have a lot of contact with the Quetta Shura Taliban (what most people mean when they say “Taliban” which is translated merely as “students”). The QS Taliban is based in Baluchistan while the TTP, Haqqanis and other militant groups are based in North Waziristan. Damage done to the QS Taliban does not translate to damage done to the TTP or others. Note that the QS Taliban has not actually taken any offensive terrorist actions against the United States, nor do they show any intention to. They are not currently any threat to the US homeland, yet we are spending hundreds of billions to fight them with several hundred thousand US troops. The groups that do pose a threat to the US Homeland are being fought with Special Operations Forces, drone strikes and the Pakistani military, all at a far lesser cost to the US in terms of blood and treasure. So, riddle me this: If the 100,000 US troops there are only fighting a domestic insurgency with no threat to the US homeland, how does that make us safer? The real threat to the homeland seems to be from the lawless border line between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that seems to be managed with drone strikes, SOF operators and domestic police and intelligence regimes.

But oh yes, the safe haven argument. This continues to perplex me because to believe it, we must suspend reality. The argument goes that we cannot leave Afghanistan because the Taliban will topple Kabul and again provide shelter to al-Qaeda and affiliated groups who will then use Afghanistan as a launching pad for another 9/11. A compelling argument, I admit and one with a solid historical basis. The QS Taliban and al-Qaeda continue to cooperate and reinforce each other and wouldn’t it make sense that they would return to the good old days of 1996 once we were gone? Perhaps, but perhaps not.

First, we must deal with the implications of the aforementioned safe haven being reestablished. This is not the doomsday scenario that most make it out to be. Firstly, we already have safe havens all over the world – nearly all of Yemen and Somalia is outside of the control of their respective governments, as well is most of Afghanistan to be honest and so is most of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan. Terrorism is not a numbers game, and it is not a matter of territory, no matter how much we may try to make it out to be. The Red Brigades in Europe managed to wreak havoc with no safe havens and little domestic support. A terrorism campaign is not the same as an insurgency, and we need to stop conflating the two. The latter requires territory and popular support and the former does not. The safe haven argument is also outdated – based on an old model of al-Qaeda terrorism that hasn’t been used since 9/11 – expeditionary terrorism. Safe havens only work if you use them to train and then send terrorist abroad. But despite having numerous safe havens already, al-Qaeda has not tried this tactic since 9/11, preferring to outsource it to international branches, domestic allies in Pakistan or self-starting Jihadis, none of which depend on using Afghanistan as a safe haven. As we have already seen, our enemies are perfectly capable of trying to attack us without the use of Afghanistan.

All that’s not to say that withdrawing from Afghanistan wouldn’t have serious consequences and for the US and our allies: there would certainly be a very bloody civil war between the Afghan government with re-armed tribal allies in the north against the resurgent Pashtuns in the south. The oppression of women would continue, only much more severe. Human rights violations would be widespread and it is entirely possible that al-Qaeda would be able to use the territory as a launching pad. Our inglorious retreat would also be a huge boon to al-Qaeda’s media and propaganda efforts by painting itself as having defeated America and protected the holy lands of Islam from yet another invader – this would be a huge opportunity for al-Qaeda to paint itself as a legitimate defender of Muslim lands as opposed to the terrorist group it is now. Al-Qaeda has had no successes in its efforts to topple apostate Muslim ruler or to expel the “crusaders” from the lands of Islam, this would be its first “victory”.

But on the other hand, aren’t all of these manageable? The argument never was that the consequences wouldn’t be dire, but that they were worth it and we could handle the after effects. The war and bloodshed would be regrettable but it seems that whatever happens, Afghanistan is in for a very bloody future in any case. The repression of women is another horrible but inevitable event, even the Kabul government we support so has curtailed and oppressed women. The launching pad argument has already been addressed and since when has al-Qaeda propaganda been constrained by reality? Withdrawing so many troops was also painted as a victory for the Islamic State of Iraq but that was no big boon to business for them; they gained no legitimacy and no huge recruiting boost. Al-Qaeda may claim it, but that doesn’t make it so – plus I hazard that not many people would be joining up to kill Americans as they retreated from Islamic lands. So far it appears to have been our presence there that radicalized most people; somehow I doubt our leaving would have the same effect.

So far from what I can tell, our presence in Afghanistan is not directly serving our security interests and is instead increasing Jihadi recruitment, radicalizing more groups against us, costing us hundreds of billions of dollars in what seems to be a failing effort and is a huge military commitment in an era when the center of world power is moving away from the storied pomp of these ancient lands and instead moving to Asia and the South Pacific. Al-Qaeda isn’t the military’s war -- it’s a job for intelligence agencies and the police.

Al-Qaeda can be contained, managed and even defeated without a deployment of 100,000 troops. Paradoxically, withdrawing these troops might be one of the preconditions for overall victory. During the Second Punic War, Roman General Fabius Maximus refrained from attacking Hannibal directly, instead focusing on harassing and targeted attacks. Hannibal, like al-Qaeda, fed on victories and needed the prestige and support they brought him. Without victories, Hannibal was unable to convince the government in Carthage to support him and he eventually withdrew for lack of support. Without a successful attack, or an inflammatory act by the West, al-Qaeda would be starved of the propaganda it so desires and would be starved of legitimacy and recruits. Al-Qaeda is only as successful as the world and the ummah perceives it to be.

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Afghanistan... does having troops there make you feel safe?

Nope.
That's the simple answer, I suppose. Having troops anywhere outside of the US makes me nervous. This is because I always feel as though the presence of US troops in countries we are at odds with breeds dissent and actually makes the people in those countries hate us all the more, making terrorist attacks more likely.

So, that's why I don't feel safe with troops in Afghanistan.

Now, as to whether I am actually safer or not with troops in Afghanistan, I'm not well informed enough to actually speak in terms of facts. I think that troops in Afghanistan make me safer than I would be if there were no American troops there. Who is to say that the whole country wouldn't just collapse back into the Taliban's control if American troops were to pull out?

Security and Afghanistan

*Sorry, my computer has been freaking out and I think it deleted this post, so I re-uploaded it.

This week's question asked us whether or not we feel secure with the presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.  Personally, I evaluated this question from two perspectives. The first being from my personal life, and the second being a citizen of the United States.  I split up my response to this question because, while both perspectives aren't mutually exclusive, I feel that my life can be evaluated on a daily and a holistic level.

On a personal level, I would have to say that I'm neutral on our troop presence in Afghanistan.  The reason being is that I haven't identified a clear connection between my life and the war in Afghanistan.  While I do understand there are strategic and important interests that lie in Afghanistan, I'll explain that in my other perspective.  There are multiple reasons why I don't identify with the war in Afghanistan.  The main reason is the proximity of the war.  Being almost halfway around the world, I don't see any risk to my security in D.C. or Denver as a result of failure, spill-over, or even success.  While proximity can be used as an argument for the irrelevancy of foreign policy in general, I'm not advocating irrelevancy in foreign policy.  I'm merely using proximity as a mitigation of the importance of the war in Afghanistan to my personal security.  Issues such as illegal immigration from Mexico have a greater affect on my security than Afghanistan.  The reason being that Mexico is of a closer proximity.  There's a higher risk that the issue effects me due to the implications of drugs and jobs taken.  To clarify, it's easier for drugs from Mexico to enter the United States and affect my security than it is for a threat from Afghanistan to enter the U.S.

As a citizen of the United States, I find some importance in the war in Afghanistan.  I feel like there are strategic benefits for stabilizing the Afghanistan such as ensuring the war doesn't spill over into other countries and effect key resources such as natural gas and oil.  Additionally, the war serves as a reassertion of our hard power hegemony which allows us to ensure that various spheres of influence don't overexert themselves.  Strong U.S. hegemony allows us to act as a mediator within conflicts and is a method of maintaining our national security.  Additionally, the minuscule risk of terrorism is more easily dealt with when we have a troop presence in Afghanistan.  Given that, I feel like the war in Afghanistan doesn't have an immediate effect on my personal security, but on a holistic level, it does make me feel more secure.