Reflection 10- Rally: “There is no one more American than we”

The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear on Saturday at the mall was filled with a unique combination of special guests whom I never thought would have appeared on the same stage simultaneously. The Roots, Jeff Tweedy, Yuseuf Islam, Ozzy Osbourne, Tony Bennet, John Legend, the Myth Busters, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar were a few who joined with Colbert and Stewart to put on an outstanding rally. Stewart began the Rally by saying "I know there are boundaries for a comedian/pundit/talker guy, and I'm sure I'll find out tomorrow how I have violated them. This was a reaction to the criticism that came before the rally. People were skeptical that it would be too serious, too political, or not serious or political enough. In my opinion, the rally was exactly the type of feeling Stewart and Colbert have always delivered on their shows.

I thought Colbert and Stewart did an excellent job of media criticism and satire. The “fear montages” Colbert played during a mock-debate with Stewart, showing the reaction of the cable news networks in blowing stories out of proportion. With the criticism of the media I admired how Stewart kept to his word and promised a show that was not politically partisan. The only time I thought that was at all politically partisan was when Stewart and Colbert awarded medals for Reasonableness and Fear (making light of Glen Beck’s “medal of honor” awards at his rally in August).

The recent fame of the JetBlue flight attendant Steven Slater even recorded a video where he stood up for reasonableness by stating that he could have handled his frustration toward the passenger better than he did (instead of his choice of grabbing a beer, pulling the emergency slide, and the leaving the plane)

The musical debate collaboration between Stewart and Colbert with Yusef’s (Car Stevens’) performance of “Peace Train” paired with Ozzy Osbourne’s “Crazy Train” and the compromise of The O’Jays’ “Love Train” was so bizarre and odd-that it was a huge success. The crowd broke out into dance and cheered every time one of the artists played. The mashup was a great example of how the most unlikely group of different people can come together and create something together.

However, with the entertainment, guest appearances, and comedy satires the high point of the rally came at the end when Stewart took the stage to answer the question “What exactly is all this?” Stewart went on to describe the rally as a tool for proving that Americans who think differently can behave as if “we live in hard times, not end times. And we can have animus and not be enemies”. He went on to say that “everyday people work together to get things done every damn day. The only place we don't is here"—indicating Washington—"or on cable TV." He summed up his point with my favorite analogy-- the mundane but sweet example of traffic merging into a tunnel: people are in a hurry, they're running late, yet regardless of what's on the bumper sticker of the car ahead of them, they take turns merging. Sometimes a jerk will cut in line, "but that individual is rare, and he is scorned and not hired as an analyst.”

In the end, did a Comedy Central entertainer need to set up his soapbox on the Mall to make this point? I ask the question in return-who else was going to? One of the closing remarks made by Stewart was that "sanity has always been in the eye of the beholder. But to see you here today, and the kind of people you are, has restored mine."

As Tony Bennett closed with singing “America the Beautiful” the guests came back on stage one last time and the crowd around me began to burst out in cheers of “USA! USA!”. My last reaction to the rally at the close was of complete respect, admiration, and pride of what was achieved. I feel, and I know the several thousands of people that were there and at home thought that that there is truly no one more American than we everyday AMERICANS.

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/30/AR2010103001573_2.html?sid=ST2010102500055

Reflection Week 10

Although I did not get to go to the rally this Saturday, I had the chance to see John Stewart's closing speech on Youtube. I must say that Stewart's final speech was definitely inspirational, while at the same time, very insightful. I am not very familiar with the United States politics involivng Democrats and Republican ideals, with the Tea Party thrown in, but what I know is that United States have been concerned with terrorism for a very long time. However, at the same time, it has been dealing with various other issues, both concerning the international and national stages. The only problem with so many issues were that most of them, if not all, were serious issues that could have huge influence over the entire country. Because each of these issues that were on the agenda for US for the past decade were all important, it is no wonder that US tried to address each and all of them, leading it to become overextended.

In his closing speech, Stewart said "If we amplify everything, we hear nothing," and this is the exact problem with overextension of any government, not just US but any other country as well. There are hundreds of problems that governments should address, but if everyone emphasizes different issues until all the problems that one country faces is threatening the very survival of the state, then there is no sense of direction for the government to take; the pressure is on them to do everything. However, the government and the state has the same 24 hours everyone else haves, and it doesn't have all the capabilities needed to address all the issues, and if the government tries to address everything because everything is "amplified," then it will come to a point where nothing would be done at a satisfactory level. What does this mean? A dire threat to the national security by overlooking some issues that are more "important" than others. What this means is that the government, despite being chosen by the public, should not concern itself with what each individual "amplifies" as the biggest problem, but it should carefully prioritize to make sure that its most fundamental goal of survival is achieved, and then they can go down the ladder and address other problems.

Another aspect of Stewart's speech that caught my attention was how he emphasized that despite different ideals, Americans were working together to get things done as he showed the video of the cars merging and in a jam. This is in essence true, because things do get done despite all the ideological differences and media's discourse about what needs to be feared what needs to be corrected. The government doesn't simply sit there talking about who is right and who is wrong, while nothing is getting done, which is also apparent in Mr. Person-Who-Came-From-The-State-Department (Sorry, I can't remember his name), when he said ideology doesn't really matter in the bureaucracy because the bureaucracy is there to get things done. However, I think this might be generalizing too much about America in general, because despite my lack of knowledge and experience with America, there is a great deal of barriers being set up by different ideals. If everyone was working together, then why isn't all the bills in the Congress get unanimously either get voted against or voted for? Why is there Republicans and Democrats fighting over the policy and the presidency and the Senate seats and all other government institutions? If indeed everyone was working together and not putting forward their ideology first, then there would have been no debate about whether to go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan. With such complicated ideology battle taking place in the government, I really do wonder if Stewart's opinion of working together does really apply to the entire United States.



Sources and video from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXmbzLI3pnk

Reflection week 10

At the rally to restore sanity and/or fear on Saturday, I was so impressed by Stewart’s speech to close the rally. He managed to change the tone of the rally, previously comedic, to one of seriousness that conveyed a specific vital message. Stewart’s discusses the importance of tolerance, cooperation, and not conforming to an attitude of fearfulness.

One section of this final speech struck me as being particularly relevant to our class this week. In discussing terrorism, we touched on the overaggressive nature of combating it, and the exaggerated fear of terrorism in the world today. Stewart rightly stated “There are terrorists and racists and Stalinists and theocrats, but those are titles that must be earned. You must have the resume. Not being able to distinguish between real racists and tea partiers… is an insult -- not only to those people, but to the racists themselves, who have put forth the exhausting effort it takes to hate. Just as the inability to distinguish between terrorists and Muslims makes us less safe, not more.” This point rings true today, because when we allow ourselves to overanalyze everything, and live in constant fear of the unlikely, we just set ourselves up as a nation for attack and weakness. By having such heightened security to defend against the dreaded terrorists, we merely encourage the terrorists to be smarter, and discover new methods of evading our security measures. As well as pushing terrorists to be more innovative, focusing so much on terrorism is effectively placing blinders on the United States—allowing us to see only the threat of terrorism ahead of us, and nothing approaching from the sides.

Stewart also emphasized the influence of the media upon the current of fear running through America. The role of the media should be to report facts, updating the public on prevalent issues—not carefully cultivating frightened citizens and placing more weight upon stories instilling fear into those who learn about them. Had terrorism not been made such a news story to implant fear into Americans, who is to say we would not be equally afraid of car crashes or being shot on the street?

Sanity, Security, and Fear

>

I couldn’t pick a side between fear and sanity. Fear seemed too absurd and I just laughed, but I’m not sure I’m ready to subscribe to the sanity as described by Jon Stewart. My rally experience was different, exhilarating and full of laughs, funny pictures, and hilarious signs. Waking up at 4:30, then 4:45 only to be fully awoken at 5:30 (when we intended to leave at 5:15) to walk in the 39 degrees to Tenleytown thinking the Metro opened at 6 a.m. Boy were we wrong. It didn’t matter though; we got to enjoy coffee and breakfast at Starbucks before heading into the mall. Since we made the first trains, we got to go all the way to the Smithsonian station. It was very exciting since we weren’t sure how busy it would be first thing in the morning.

I enjoyed myself at the rally. I’m not a superfan of Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert but I enjoy their satire, because I think the world needs a bit of humor. However, my lack of knowledge of the subjects at the head of the rally made the purpose a bit vague. I got caught up in wondering if they really had a purpose, or were just making fun of Glenn Beck and his “Restoring Honor” rally. I may seem a tad apathetic at this junction, but that is how it seemed while I was down on the mall.

Something that was said at the rally that I wholeheartedly agreed with was that islamophobia has no place in our world. While it is true that the actors against our nation are members of the Islamic faith, it must also be mentioned that there are 1.5 billion Muslims in this world. Islam, one of the Abrahamic faiths, derives from a peaceful and forgiving stance. It is unfortunate that extremism has impacted such a beautiful and rich culture negatively. People who practice Islam should not be eschewed because of a small group of people painting them in a negative light.

On the topic of our discussions this week, I must make some things clear. Plain and simple, I think that our primary focus should be the physical security of the nation. I identify with the realist perspective and Machiavelli, so this opinion shouldn’t be a surprise. I approve of the fact that the Defense Department’s budget is the largest single sector of the United States budget. As we saw this week, there are many holes in which terrorist groups manage to find new ways to attack our interests both domestically and abroad. Two packages were discovered in Dubai and London containing explosives that had destinations in the United States. While the investigation is underway, it has become clear that these explosives originated in Yemen. This new discovery only drives my point from a few classes ago home that terrorism is evolutionary. While our security against a defined nation such as the Soviet Union was absolute, we must adopt new strategies to defend ourselves against an undefined conglomerate of people.

And now we move into Week 11 of 15. The semester is getting shorter, and I can smell Christmas.

Biggest Threat in the World

To start off, what exactly is a threat? The basic definition of a threat as given by various dictionaries is something that is a menace or a source of danger. This makes the term threat very subjective to the person who is actually considering what a threat is. On a state level, one state can consider the environmental problems as a threat, because they are sinking (yes, Maldives, you are sinking) but environmental problems may not be considered a threat by other states that may not be directly affected by it now. Therefore, whether something is conceived as a threat or not depends on who is actually defining what is threatening. However, despite this subjective interpretation of the term threat, there are several problems that can be considered as the biggest threat to the entire globe, and consequently to all states, and the problem is called oil.

In modern society, oil is god; not only does it drive your car around, but it drives the industry that produces all the goods we need, and is the basic source of all things that we have. Furthermore, intellectual advances would not be possible without oil, because every nation's basic infrastructure is based so much on oil, and the human race has come to rely so much on oil that once oil is gone, then the most likely there would be a catastrophe, and as everyone know,s there is limited amount of oil available in this world. Oil has been formed through fossils over millions of years, and humans are using it up like crazy that it will be gone before we reach our next millenia. Of course, this problem has been realized and now many states and people are aware of the problem of dependency on oil, and has tried to cut back on its usage by investing in green technology, increasing awareness recycling and in general, trying to save the environment and use less oil. However, despite these efforts, the world continues to run on oil, because the green technology is not yet sufficient to replace oil completely. Therefore, dependency on oil is a threat to the all the states in this world; the effects are not visible right now, but once the world runs out of oil, the effect will immediately take place; all the cars that used to run on oil would simply be heaps of metal junk put together; there would be drastically less electricity available, and we may be lighting our stove with two pieces of wood and rubbing it furiously.

Threat of oil depletion is not a threat constrained to one nation. Furthermore, it is not highly prioritized because as mentioned before, it doesn't have an immediate impact or even a continuous impact. This makes oil even more dangerous; one day, everyone will be happily consuming oil and suddenly, oil would be rationed until all the last reserve are gone. This may happen in the next hundred years even in the next decade and no-one knows for sure. However, one thing that is a fact is that the world will run out of oil. This threat may not be considered the most threatening if one has faith in the development of green technology; however, it is a race. Will green technology be developed fully and incorporated into the society to the grass-root level, that there will be no problem when we run out of oil? or will the oil run out first? Even with the full development of green technology, its implementation to all aspects once governed by oil would be a painfully slow process, because we are so dependent on oil. Therefore, it is likely that even with green technology, oil depletion will have serious negative impact on the globe as a whole.

Oil is not only a looming threat that has not yet manifested itself. It is also a threat at this very moment. Because all nations are oil dependent, oil became a valuable resource for a nation, and nations with oil, typically those in the Middle East, has come to maintain a high leverage over the international community as one can see from the oil crisis involving OPEC in 1973. This threat has died down as OPEC has become less hostile; however, it cannot be denied that OPEC holds a large amount of oil. In the current global society, oil has the power to shake the entire global economy and this huge threatening power is in the hands of one party. This can also be described as power concentration in certain pockets. What this means is that those with oil have certain leverage over the whole world, and if needed, can be turned against other states. This power concentration means that other states will be trying to keep a check on this power, while the ones with the power itself would try to stay autonomous. This can give rise to various conflicts over oil, and become the cause of a threat.

IT is undeniable that the world runs on oil. Because of this high dependency and the power that oil gives, it is a resource that is as dangerous as a nuclear weapon. It can destroy an entire nation when the state runs out of oil. When it finally runs out in the world, without a viable replacement technology or resource, the world would meet its doom.

The Greatest Threat to Global Peace and Security...

First off, I need to explain what I see as a “threat” so that my position can be better understood. For the purpose of this blog, I see a threat to global peace and security as something that involves a) a severe encroachment on the freedoms of individuals, b) an impacting of the functioning of a country, and c) has no ‘easy fix’. One issue (aside from terrorism) that meets all three of these criteria is education. Across the globe, the education system is failing children.

Education is a basic human right, and in so many countries—including our own, children are being deprived of that right. One of my favorite books is Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson. He has devoted the majority of his life to building schools in rural areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan for children without a place to learn. Although he began his mission long before September 11th, Mortenson’s work has become increasingly focused upon combating terrorism through education. By educating the young men of these Middle Eastern nations in schools not established and funded by terrorist organizations, they acquire a non-biased and worldly education, preparing them for a life outside the fighting. The fact that a school costs merely $12,000 on average to build and buy supplies for in these rural areas is lost on many, and if governments only devoted more funding and energy to unraveling the education crisis in the world today, perhaps we would have more successful men graduate from school instead of becoming suicide bombers.

In addition to the vitality of the education of boys, the enrichment of girl’s education should be focused on as well. In Three Cups of Tea, Mortenson explicitly states the vitality of women’s education. Especially in countries where women do not have equal rights to men, education is an issue that needs to be addressed. By educating a girl, you help empower a village. Other young girls will take advantage and pursue further knowledge. One example given in Three Cups of Tea is of a young girl who was the first to complete high school in her village, went on to get her degree from college, and returned to her village to become a midwife, nearly eliminating single-handedly the huge number of maternal deaths previously occurring with each birth. Studies show the correlations between girl’s education and maternal health, lower infant mortality rates, the further education of the woman’s family, and higher wage rates for the woman. Education benefits everyone, including the securing of higher paying jobs, being healthier, and having more civic participation.

While education in developing/third-world countries is far more difficult to secure, and is further behind, the educational system in many developed and powerful nations is also lacking. For example, the United States. While students educated in private schools or public schools in utopian suburbs may receive the education they need and deserve, those in inner city or poverty-stricken areas do not. These schools are understaffed, underfunded, and undervalued. The students are seen as only numbers, and of lesser worth to many, simply because of their background and/or behaviors. A prime example of how the public schools are failing is demonstrated by the No Child Left Behind act of 2001. NCLB, while containing a worthy objective, did not benefit the public schooling system of the US. On the contrary, it worsened it. Now, teachers are encouraged to “teach to the test” in order to achieve high scores for their students and be rewarded. So not only are inner city and impoverished school districts lacking teachers, support, and supplies, many of the teachers they do employ are taking a passive stance in educating the students.

Again and again, political leaders (Obama) bring up the education system, and say we need to rework it. Again and again, the youth are called upon to make good grades, stay focused, and stay in school. But again and again, nothing significant comes of it. Most countries have issues they deem far more pressing and grave than education, but this is simply an evasive tactic. Education ties in to so many other issues countries are facing, and if governments look at education as the root of many problems and legitimately make a concentrated effort to repair the system, a good education can function as a building block for the illumination of other problems.

Education meets the requirements of a ‘threat’ because by denying children the education they deserve, their rights—a high paying job, confidence, and an escape from poverty— are effectively taken away. With a dearth of educated individuals, a country will become stagnant, and cannot thrive. However, when a country’s population is well-educated, even with basic education, businesses generally prosper and multiply, the quality of life improves, and the country gains a more positive assessment in the eyes of the international community. The Educational system will not be easy to improve, but serious modifications are crucial for the world to solve this prominent threat.

Global Threat: The HIV/AIDS Epidemic

Our visit to PEPFAR highlighted how the magnitude of the HIV/AIDS global epidemic in some areas of the world has turned the disease into a threat to political and economic security. A threat, in reference to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, is a danger to society that would drastically and negatively alter the peace, health, and strength of a country. These three areas have all been impacted by the spread of HIV/AIDS thus leading those countries or geographic locations effected by the disease as threats to global peace and security.

In early 2000, the UN Security Council came together through UNAIDS, and declared the disease as a threat to international peace and security. A positive consequence that came out of this was that the issue of HIV/AIDS and its security threat enjoyed an increase in intellectual profile. This shaped the global response to the pandemic. PEPFAR, as was shown in our presentation, was a great example of the Bush Administration’s response to addressing the threat of this disease. The establishment of PEPFAR has already begun to leave a substantial impact for those regions affected with HIV/AIDS all around the world. “In fact, the last weeks of the Bush administration, the National Intelligence Council published Strategic Implications of Global Health, that emphasized HIV/AIDS economic costs and identified “medical diplomacy” as an opportunity for US leadership”. This report can also be read as a plea to the incoming Obama administration to continue funding and support of PEPFAR.

A topic we have begun to discuss in class is the change in security in the post-cold war era. After the end of the cold war, security was understood to encompass more than just armed conflict; it additionally hoped to incorporate the ability of people to live safe, healthy, and productive lives. If the human security approach is focused on improving not only the survival of the state but also the survival and welfare of individual human beings, then HIV/AIDS must be raised to an important security issue within this framework. “HIV/AIDS is already among the five most frequent causes of death worldwide”. In Africa the illness even vies for the unenviable position of posing the greatest human security threat. “In Africa HIV/AIDS is not only the leading cause of death; it is also estimated to cause more than ten times as many deaths as armed conflict”. AIDS thus already poses a numerically greater risk to the survival and welfare of individuals in Africa than armed conflict.

Finally, the growing HIV/AIDS pandemic also has security concerns in terms of political stability in these regions. “Four countries in sub-Saharan Africa where HIV prevalence is estimated to exceed thirty percent: Botswana (38.8%), Lesotho (31%), Swaziland (33.4%) and Zimbabwe (33.7%)”. These numbers raise important questions about the long term impact of how such prevalent rates effect the country’s political stability. However, although HIV/AIDS is unlikely to generate the state’s collapse independently of other factors, high rates of HIV/AIDS nevertheless continues to pose a threat to society.

In conclusion, in order to help address the global threat of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, international policy-makers begin to acknowledge these dimensions more widely. The United States and the UN Security Council have taken steps through the establishment of PEPFAR and UNAIDS to try and prevent HIV/AIDS from spreading and to educate people regarding the disease. However, in order to make any large impacts to global society, this movement must be an international effort by several countries. If not addressed soon by more countries, the global threat of this epidemic will only increase and the disturbance to international peace and security could affect our world in global proportions.

Sources

UNAIDS, Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic (Geneva: July 2002), 33

Mark Schneider and Michael Moodie, The Destabilizing Impacts of HIV/AIDS, (Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies, May 2002), p. 6.

National Intelligence Council, Global Trends 2015, 17.

UNAIDS, AIDS Epidemic Update (Geneva: December 2003), 3.

UNDP, Human Development Report 1994, 22.

Racism:The Real Threat

Americans view of the biggest threat to global peace and security could, unfortunately be tainted by the ever present threat of terrorism. However, on a global scale there are many other threats that must be evaluated with just as much credibility. In my opinion, the biggest threat will always be racism. Considering the many different types of racism and how it, as a practice, manages to overpower the ethical systems of people around the world, it has the potential to bring many nations to their knees.

One of the most profound, ongoing examples of racism in today’s global climate is the human rights violations in Darfur. While I feel that Darfur tends to be the whore example of human rights violations, its foundations are based upon racism. The Sudan Liberation Army and Justice Equality Movement are fighting a civil war in Darfur that originates from the claim that the Sudanese government oppressed and killed many black Africans while allowing Arabs to act as equal members of society. The relation to global peace and security should be obvious. Racial divisions between the Sudanese killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and displaced millions. This could cause undoubted unrest, which causes many to lash out and commit physical acts of retaliation against the (Sudanese, in this case) state. Racism tends to exist in large numbers in Africa. The racial conflicts that emerge on the African continent are significant in number. While it may seem to be a hasty generalization, it is most likely safe to assume that 99% of civil wars in Africa in the past century have been the result of racism. This African racism stems all around the world. For example, the lack of an economy due to racial based civil war in Somalia has led many to begin piracy in the coasts off of Eastern Africa.

Racism within our borders also can be attributed to significant conflict around the world. While new age racism can be said to find it’s roots in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the racism that followed has been created by the media and government organizations to foster a widespread agreement towards the policies that are imposed to make our world safer. Racism towards Muslims who are on board aircraft is simply a creation of the media and government. While a small number of Muslims are classified as extremists, it must be interjected that Islam is a religion of peace and rational thinking. The absence of this truth from the ongoing racism in the United States provides instability among the American people and that instability in itself is a threat to global security. Abraham Lincoln once said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” And if the American people continue to be divided against other Americans, it will topple like a house of cards.

Racism is undoubtedly the biggest threat to global peace and security. While it may not represent a strong physical force, the impact that racism has on the world has changed the course of history. The inevitability of change only means that some sort of change can happen again. If racism is not eradicated, somewhere and somehow the peace and security of the world will be at stake.

Reflection-Week 9

Security as a theme seems very important in this day and age. We spend a great deal of time as Americans focusing on our own national security. While most of us don’t realize these objectives until we arrive at the airport to be screened by TSA officers, they are ever-present factors of our daily life. Living in DC has only made that clearer to me. Security cameras discreetly are placed at most intersections and in the Metro stations, and even a plethora of police cars, both District police and federal police pass through the streets of DC every day, seamlessly blending in with our daily lives. In addition a majority of this security comes from unmarked cars, discreet officers, and top-secret measures that are designed to ensure the safety of the American people.

As time has gone on, the necessity for a secure homeland (not a reference to Homeland Security) has become paramount in the domestic goals of the United States. While in retrospect we are able to evaluate the “threat” of the Soviet Union as mainly a power struggle that never escalated, the very real threat of terrorist organizations has been made very clear in the past decade. As we discussed in class, during the Cold War it was very possible to locate the enemy. The enemy could be clearly marked on a map as the USSR. Today, that ability has ceased to exist. Terrorist cells are known to operate in certain regions of the world, but they have no borders and cannot be contained to prevent the spread of their ideology. This increases the threat they pose. If we cannot fully secure ourselves against the threats against us, there will always be fear. Because our security measures are only as good as the information we have, it is also important that we recognize the importance of being two or three steps ahead and acquiring accurate information gathering technology and reliable sources. It seems impossible sometimes, but considering the prevented terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11, it is very clear that our security policies and the changes that have been made since that fateful day are effective.

While many strive for peace within the world, it is clear that cultural differences among the members of this earth prevent that possibility. Tolerance may be the ultimate goal, but peace might never be achieved. It must also be noted at this time that war leads to the development of society economically. While I do not condone war as a means to repair the current state of the economy around the world, the future outbreak of war could have both negative and positive effects on the world.

Security is the optimal goal of any society. After examining the change in domestic security policy during the Cold War, immediately after September 11^th, and today, it is clear that our nation’s leaders have a firm grasp on the powerful role they play in securing the nation as a whole.

It also must be said that while many see George W. Bush as an inept leader who was incapable of thinking on his own, the security strategy implemented during his presidency immediately following 9/11 successfully set the stage for the secure America we know today. While there are many factors that are valid points upon which to criticize “Dubya”, I feel that it would be unpatriotic to admonish his leadership in the year following that fateful day.

Reflection Week 9

With the conclusion of the Diplomatic Risk game and starting the discussion of security, I was reminded of how important survival in this world was. If everyone was allies with each other and there was complete trust between states, then there would be no need for a "national security" despite the ambiguity inherent in itself as pointed out by Wolfers. In the end, despite different understanding of what national security is, it boils down into one basic goal; survival of the state.

As mentioned in my substantive post for this week, survival seems to be the primary goal of a state in order to "win." Therefore, every state would pursue its own survival by any means, and that leads them to adopt national security measures. However, the national security as widely used by everyone, is usually directed against another state or entity (e.g. Al Qaeda) or addresses issues hat are "man-made", as can be seen from NSC-68 and Obama administration's national security strategy we read last week. By the term "man made" issues, I refer to issues such as alliances, human rights, other groups that originated from man. This notion leaves out the natural issues out of the discussion of national security. Aren't hurricanes, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, and (not likely, but entirely possible) meteor strikes that can cause huge destruction, a threat to the national security? Even now, there is another hurricane brewing in the Caribbean that poses threat to many nations, yet, we have never seen these issues fully emphasized in national security documents. These natural disasters may be addressed in the general term of "global environment," but they are never explicitly described as a national security threat. After all, its not as if we can shoot down hurricanes, and hold the Earth still so that it doesn't shake.

So in terms of national security, should natural disasters be incorporated as threat against a nation? This is a question that may draw different reactions; some people may say that nature poses threat, yes, but it doesn't pose a threat that we cannot recuperate from; US have survived Katrina and California still exists despite the frequent earthshakes. In contrast, war and terrorism (terrorism is questionable, but for now, it can be grouped together with war) can actually bring the end to a state. Some could argue that nature is just that, a nature. We can prepare for it, but it doesn't have "evil" intentions. Whatever argument one may make against nature being incorporated into the list of national security threat, it is up to the policy makers to decide, and evidently, they see natural disasters and global warming as a danger, but not dangerous enough to be called national security.

However, the fact that the leaders of numerous discuss the potential threats of global environmental problems and its dangers show that nature is dangerous, yet it is not a national security threat. From this, it is possible to deduce that global environmental problem is not a national security threat, but an international security threat; a threat to the globe. From this, then, we can further deduce that national security is a strictly self-interested goal of a state; if a problem belongs to everyone, then it is not a matter of national security. This notion, then lends more credibility towards realist approach to national security more advisable than any other school of thought's approach.

Reflection week 9

This Thursday’s discussion regarding the similarities and differences between security policies was something new for me. I’d never taken the time to actually read Obama’s current security policy, much less one from the era of the Soviet Union.

The similar elements throughout the two documents were striking, and far more frequent than I had anticipated. Culture and the preservation of American ideals and unique way of life is discussed in both, and although the specific enemy we defend against transforms, the general idea of a powerful enemy with America’s destruction as its objective remains the same. This enemy is thought to be morally depraved, in the wrong, and in opposition to everything Americans hold dear. The United States’ identity remains fairly constant through the times, as we continue to see ourselves as a benevolent power, primarily preserving self-interest, in addition to looking out for other countries.

The differences between the Obama and Truman administration’s views were just as frequent and prominent as I had predicted. NSC68’s principal argument was that the soviet menace must be destroyed by any means necessary. To facilitate this, the US should build up their nuclear strength, build and maintain ties with other nations, and fortify the nation against the eventuality of a soviet attack—thinking only in the present and concerned with surviving now rather than plans for the future. In contrast, the 2010 policy focuses on building, maintaining, and increasing innovation domestically –in regards to economics, human rights, security, manufacturing, employment—as a priority, with an emphasis on the complete dismantling of Al Qaeda’s operations. Obama talks about international cooperation and the need to build America’s image to be an example in the world, as well as looking for peaceful solutions, as opposed to a selfish warlike mentality.

The two security policy documents really are representations of the times in which they were written. During the cold war, nationalism was rampant, and so the enemy was made out to be an evil entity, “enslaving” other nations instead of allying with them, and the document really concentrates on only America, and is not concerned with the world outside the cold war nations. Today, I think the war against terror has lost much of its support, so Obama refers to the mission as against Al Qaeda. The broad term of the war on terror previously used deals with a much more general goal, and one that cannot easily be achieved. When a country is fighting a war on terror, they cannot win the war until all terrorism has been exterminated. This is incredibly difficult, because when one leader is eliminated, another quickly steps up to take his place. By narrowing the purpose of our Middle Eastern occupation, America can more easily achieve the goal, and morale will be improved by giving the war a face Americans can rally against.

Reflection 9 Goodbye Juan Williams

As an avid listener of NPR, I (like the rest of America) was saddened to see Juan Williams, a long time correspondent for National Public Radio, fired for his statement made on the O’Reilly factor this past week. I respect NPR’s decision, and I was shocked that a man with Williams’ experience working with the media would not think before he said such an outright blunt and shameful statement.

“What I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country," he said. "But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

This remark by Williams reminds me of a similar comment made by Jesse Jackson’s blunt (and controversial at the time) observation that

“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved….”

Jesse Jackson’s comment was a personal confession from someone who admitted what many were thinking at the time. The comment Williams made is similar—and it could be interpreted that he made it in the hopeful mindset that social changes in America will make his fears irrelevant in the future. However, his comment as an employee and representive of the National Public Radio was out of line and therefore questioned his credibility as an analyst.

Williams, a liberal African American commentator who had written extensively on civil rights in America, previously got in trouble with NPR for comments he made while appearing on "The O'Reilly Factor" in February 2009. At that time, he described first lady Michelle Obama as having a "Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress thing going." It is interesting to be aware of that after the Carmichael quote, Williams' position at NPR was changed from staff correspondent to national analyst.

What shocked me the most about Williams’ remark was that his comment was based on the appearance of muslims. It was not related to any terrorists groups, whom they stood for or what they stood for --just appearance. Last month in class we spoke about different cultures and the social norms for appearance. Mr. Williams’ comment in relation to the way different social groups dress was nothing short of ignorant. What fueled my frustration about his comment was his discrimination and “fear” based off of the appearance of the Muslim community.

Many of the counter remarks to the firing of Williams have been his first amendment right to free speech. Nonetheless, I stand next to NPR’s decision for Williams removal. Unlike Jesse Jackson, Williams’ statement was in my opinion more direct and hurtful to the Muslim community. As a leading figure in American journalism, his comment represented a significant misrepresentation to the American values and ideals.

Sources: http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/10/22/juan.williams.controversy/

Winner and loser in world politics?

While playing Risk during class, winning objectives were given to each team, but that is never the case with real world politics, because in real life, world politics is a continuous process; just because someone has obtained a treaty or has successfully taken over a territory doesn't mean the world ends at that point and declares a nation a winner. In reality, each action has its consequences and reactions by other parties, and by these measures, it is difficult to distinguish a black and white victory objective for a nation. Furthermore, in real world politics as it was with the Risk game, everyone has different agenda they wish to achieve. One nation achieving one of its goal doesn't necessarily mean the same thing for another nation. Therefore, the notion that there is a definite set of goals that a nation can achieve in order to be considered the "winner."

These limitations on absolute victory conditions doesn't mean that there is no "victory" in real world politics. As mentioned before, the world doesn't end at the point one nation achieves "victory" however, there are certain kinds of actions one might consider to be victory and thus, define a winner in world politics. Every state has its own agenda and list of goals they wish to achieve, whether it be obtaining trade treaties or enforcing their will in certain regions, and these agenda differs from one state to the other. Because these goal's reflect what the state wishes to accomplish, these goals can be represented as saying what each state's goal is towards "winning" in the global politics; however, with the changing environment, these agenda is continuously changing and also reactions of other states limit the extent to which these items on agenda are achieved; some will be successfully accomplished while others may have to be discarded. Therefore, it is never possible to determine one "winner" who will be winner forever because no state ever gets it their way the entire time.

To sum it up, each state's agenda reflects each state's goals, and these goal's can be seen as representing the country's objective for "winning" yet the continuous changing nature of these goals makes it difficult for one nation to be determined as winner. However, at a deeper level, the agenda does not matter. When we talk about a state's agenda, we are assuming that it has some degree of capability to achieve these goals, but more importantly, that it is autonomous; it didn't choose these goals because PTJ told them that these set of items are their goals; they chose those items because they believe it will be beneficial to accomplish them. Because autonomy plays such a vital role in determining the objective for "winning," autonomy in itself becomes an objective for a state. A state cannot be a winner without being autonomous, therefore, autonomy is the first step to determining who is a winner. Thus, it follows that at the most basic level, a "winner" is a state that is autonomous and capable enough to achieve goals that better itself rather than serving others, and in that sense, most states that we know can be considered winner, or on their way to becoming a winner, in the eyes of their citizen only, at some point in history.

The never ending game of world politics

One of the most successful football coaches in the NFL, Vince Lombardi, said “If it doesn't matter who wins or loses, then why do they keep score?” From the early childhood days on the playground to real life politics, society tends to view events, people, outcomes, and games in categories of the “winners” or “losers”. Why was this mentality created and more importantly why does society continue to embrace it? The winning mindset is contagious and addicting- one that desired more and more after each successful accomplishment. When has the Superbowl champion one year sat back the next because “we already won once, let’s have someone else have their chance at winning the title”? Unfortunately for society winning has been a dominant trait in our culture (some societies more than others), and it is how the people and countries react to this tendency which helps define their true character and morality.

Looking outside the field of sports to the question of what does winning mean in actual world politics is a debate that could never be answered in a manner that is simply black and white or with clear winners and losers. Even in our class game of Risk it was impossible to understand who the “best” team actually was. If black, yellow, or red team had won over the blue would the “world” in Risk be better off? Of course not, because as soon as the players on the teams leave the classroom we were taken away from the board game and pieces of plastic that represented armies and put back into the real world of consequences for our actions.

From my experience studying different wars in history,I have observed that it is justifiable to call winning a state of mind that is so powerful that it has the ability to spread to others. To this day one of the most successful victories viewed by the people of the United States has been the American Revolution. In grade school I clearly remember being taught about the victory of the peace seeking and moral colonists over the greedy and money hungry people from Great Britain. To Americans the “victories” achieved by the colonists against Great Britain for separation from the crown were a model example of true leadership and the successes that can come from “winning” a war. The strength and power felt by the colonists spread all across North America. Americans began to “win” in wars against the Native Americans, Spanish, and French for conquest of the North American territory. The concept of “winning” in world politics is thus impossible to define today because there is never a clear cut victory- as it depends upon whose perspective one is viewing any confrontation. The viewpoint from which I remember being taught American history was drastically skewed and left me with a serious misinterpretation. Unlike Risk, there will always be consequences of war either in casualties or monetary loss. However, it is how a country recovers from a “win” or “loss” of a war that shows the true strength they have as a nation.

In the game of Risk, even with outcomes getting increasingly difficult for some teams, they never gave up. In world politics even though “winning” can never be clear, the true victory rests in a country’s ability to unite against outside forces or attacks and to emerge stronger and more unified in the end. With the attacks of September 11th (slightly similar to troubles some of the teams had in our game of Risk), it was difficult for our country to emerge from the heartbreak and destruction the attacks and misfortunes created from that tragedy. However, we were able to recover from the attacks stronger and determined to prevent such misfortunes from occurring again.

In world politics one country can never just “win” the game of territorial conquest or protection of resources because it’s a game that never ends. In response to Vince Lombardi’s quote, the mentality of winning and losing will be forever prominent in society. However, it is important to remember that even if one country thinks they might have won- in world politics the game is never over.

"All I do Is Win, Win, Win No Matter What, Got Money on My Mind, Can Never Get Enough"

In risk, my team’s objective was to obtain either no wars, or alliances across two thirds of the board. Should we achieve this objective, we would effectively win the game. While on a risk board, the strategic maneuvers and preferred outcome of the game was relatively simple, in the modern day world, nothing is as easy. Each team’s objective in essence represented a different country in today’s world. Perhaps, for the countries symbolized on the board, accomplishing their objectives would constitute “winning” in their minds. For example, the red state’s goal of possession of the territories surrounding their motherland of Ukraine could be construed as winning for the nationalists, but who can really define winning? Although the Ukrainians may have achieved their goal, did they really win? They may be in a state of economic or social turmoil due to all the battles they fought, or they may have lost many troops in the fighting. The word winning can be taken to mean all sorts of things, and I think it’s incredibly hard to apply a single working definition to it.

Today, “winning” for a country like the United States, at this point, would involve economic stability, improved welfare, advancements domestically, improved foreign relations, and defeating terrorism. These broad items would only allow us to win short term however—eventually, our goals will change and we will no longer have “won”. In terms of the war on terror, people talk all the time about “winning” wars, and especially this war. The thing is, wars rarely have a defined winner and loser. Sure, one side is victorious, but they lose troops, lose support, lose morale, and lose standing in the international community, so although they are technically the “winner” of the battle, the term is applied only in the sense that they don’t have to make reparations.

In general, I think winning in the world today entails a nation maintaining its identity, political system, economy, and standing internationally. But dependant on the conflict, the meaning of “winning” fluctuates and evolves.

Winning The World Today

When applying the principles of Risk to winning, a primary goal becomes clear, maintain your position in your territories and eliminate others. However, the concrete objective of Risk can’t be applied to real world politics. In a world that has established equilibrium as to the territories that exist, the brutal force exhibited in Risk have no place in a world that has begun to attempt diplomatic negotiations. That is why winning in actual world politics seems a bit different. One must take into account the use, by a state, many factors including hard and soft power, negotiations, and diplomacy. In my mind, a country that can maintain its position as a hegemonic power and utilize all of these factors has “won”.

The tact that is required by states to maintain influence derives from the ability to employ soft power, hard power, negotiations, and diplomacy. An effective balance of these four proves to be an effective strategy for any government that desires to thrive.

The obvious example is the United States. While I may sound biased, I cannot think of many other states that are able to both economically and politically persuade their fellow countries to agree with them, in addition to forming using legislation to encourage other countries to agree with United States policy. In addition, the United States is the center of negotiation and diplomacy. Washington D.C. has the most consulates than any other nation in the world and the United Nations, a coalition for peace and the facilitation of cooperation between nations, is located in New York City. That concentration of power indicates that other nations trust that the United States is capable of maintaining a power that will uphold their own interests. There is a reason the United Nations isn’t headquartered in Haiti or Azerbaijan. Nations would simply not trust said nations to uphold the security of their diplomats and their values. The application of this diplomacy secures the reputation of the United States. While this sounds like a reiteration of realist IR theory and The Prince, it is merely an elaboration and application of what we have learned thus far.

In a game of Risk played by any person outside of our class, the objective is clear. Obtain all of the territories in the fewest rounds to win. The world is much more complicated than this. Winning can mean many things. Winning can be economic, meaning who can produce the most with the least inputs. Winning can be political, meaning who can be the most diplomatic and give off the best image of its government. Any means of winning in real world politics is relative. However, as explained above, it seems the United States has managed to “win”. We, as a nation, employ the necessary tools to ensure our survival. Herbert Spencer summed up Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory into the phrase “survival of the fittest”, and I interpret winning as surviving. So the use of the above factors means the United States, in it’s current position today, has won, simply because it has survived.

Reflection Week 8

Past week's reflection has been interesting in that the board game was transformed so drastically that you could actually see how the situation sometimes can only be most effectively addressed by certain behavior which can be then traced back to a certain school of thought. Since the game is not finished, it would be inappropriate to comment on specific objectives.

However, one aspect that is interesting is that because there is no severe consequence for going to a war (except for losing one troop every turn per war) the diplomatic status changes quite often and war is easy to wager if there is enough resource. This is somewhat true in the world today because if a state has resources it can go to war at any time, yet it faces much international consequences in today's integrated international community. Without much justification, nations are certain to be criticized if they go to war without an overpowering reason. This was an aspect that seemed to be missing in the game and would have made the game more similar to the real world.

Because the wars went somewhat unchecked, it seemed that most teams were relying on a realist notion of self-help. However, alliances were formed not to balance the power against the hegemon, but for strategical reasons and troops were maneuvered around to defend better or to get into a better position to strike than for an outright assault. However, there were certain countries that relied heavily on alliances and stayed out of conflicts. Interestingly, when alliances were suggested, not many, if not all, were reciprocally accepted, which kind of is similar to the liberal notion.

All in all, as PTJ mentioned, you can see several schools of thought being put in play in to the risk, despite the fact that none of the teams have really decided beforehand which school of thought they should pursue.

Reflection-Week 8

Risk is one of my all time favorite games. Only when I began playing again in class did I realize my true passion for it. The incorporation of both diplomacy and tact make this game pop off of a two-dimensional board and inject itself into our real lives. Using our class as a setting for an ongoing game made one of my favorite games become all the more real. Secret conversations between diplomats, secrecy, and intrigue were all major players in the way the game unraveled last week. Unfortunately, we haven’t reached a conclusion, so tomorrow (or later today, rather) will be very interesting.

The process of finishing the first analytical essay was a lot less painful than I thought it would be. The real stress came from listening to the entire floor talk about it for hours on end right up until it was due. I found myself avoiding pressing the 6^th floor button in the elevator and running from the elevator to my room. While I enjoy helping others, if I had to read about another NEO committee I don’t know what I would have done.

Last week was also very nice because Fall Break allowed us all a chance to take a small breath. Though I spent the long weekend away, I was unable to take a breather because I had a weekend full of catching up with family, friends, and football, the three most important F’s in my life. Even though the weekend is over, I look forward to getting back to the daily grind and working hard to finish our first semester.

Reflection Week 8- Risk

Playing the board game Risk in world politics this past week has been so important because it has shown me the true passion and understanding of life that comes out of the study of world politics. After being separated into teams, I was fascinated to watch all the defensive strategies of the other members. As I observed the unanticipated powers that had appeared and the ways the teams formed alliances and went to war, it made the game more unpredictable than I had originally imagined.

The prospect theory in psychology states that individuals have a tendency to treat gains and losses differently. It holds that decision makers seem to fear losses more than they desire gains, and this translates into a willingness to take greater risks to protect what they have and fewer risks are taken to acquire what they want. I noticed that all the teams in the class, while they always desired to acquire more territory, were first and foremost concerned about protecting what territory they already possessed.

The status quo (in this example a state’s current territorial possessions) becomes a reference point which helps to predict, according to Jack Levy in Prospect Theory and Rational Choice, “risk-averse” or “risk-seeking” behavior. With all the teams given separate instructions and objectives, it was hard to identify which team was the risk-seeker and depending on the circumstances (if the team was at war or allied with another) if they were demonstrating risk-adverse behavior to protect their own best interest. Thus, when possible, it is important to understand that the status-quo of a country may have a different reference point than one may think. Knowing a decision maker’s actual reference point and alliance with other countries are key factors in the opposing country’s success.

The heads of state and diplomats in our game of Risk were acting in neo-realism and neo-liberal assumptions that could be viewed as an example of game theory in international relations. Game theory is a method of states (in our example with teams) developing strategies that act as a method for developing rationalist theories. Neo-realism tend to view that the security of the state is always at risk. Neo-liberals tend to seek out the plan that is in the best interest for their own state.

Game theory and its application to international relations is constantly undergoing change to take into account the decision makers’ attitudes toward risk, as well as other’s insights into the decision-making process. Similar to game theory, the board game Risk we had been playing in class is useful in its ability to demonstrate how a county’s behavior affects the global community.

Citations:

Prospect Theory, Rational Choice, and International Relations Jack S. Levy International Studies Quarterly Vol. 41, No. 1 (Mar., 1997), pp. 87-112

Reflection week 8

This week’s UC common event of Salome was really interesting to me. I had never been to an opera before, so it was a new experience. I suppose that was the point of making it the UC event, because the majority of students had never seen an opera before either. The plot of the opera, while disturbing in nature, was exciting to follow. Although the opera was sung in German, the sur-titles made it easy to understand what was going on. The problem was dividing my attention between the action on the stage and the sur-titles above it. Many times, I found myself just listening and watching the action unfold and ignoring the sur-titles entirely. Even though this meant that I couldn’t have an exact translation, the music and actions of the characters meant that I understood the general plot nonetheless. The music and expressions on the stage served as a bridge between languages, facilitating understanding without using words.

Reflection Week 7

This week's simulation was interesting and I believe our group did fairly well in presenting the argument of our group as realistically as possible. Besides this week's simulation, there is not much to discuss about in-class material. However, one thing that caught my eyes while browsing through the news was an interesting series of events happening in North Korea.

First of all, one of Kim Jong Il's son, Kim Jong Un, was named a four-star general few weeks ago, and there was a speculation that he would be the next North Korea's ruler once Kim Jong Il passed away. However, recently, it has been published that experts on North Korea speculate Kim Jong Un to be the 6th in line of succession after several high-ranking party officials. Moreover, there has been a parade in North Korea to which 60 journalists were invited to attend, which is surprising considering how North Korea didn't allow much media coverage of its nation, in which Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un were both present. According to the CNN report, the parade was full of fireworks and applause, yet the central focus remains on the presence of Kim Jong Un together with Kim Jong Il.

It has been speculated for a long time that Kim Jong Il was in a fragile health and experts on North Korea were frantic on predicting what would happen to North Korean politics once he died. However, naming of one of his young sons as a 4-star general seemed a political move in which Kim Jong Il was choosing Kim Jong Un as his successor. Although I am not an expert on politics, and especially in North Korea, it seems to me that there are conflicting political battle going on within North Korea. Kim Jong Il is in a fragile health and wants to appoint one of his sons as his successor, while internal party politics do not allow it to be so, as we can see from what the experts speculate to be the line of succession where Kim Jong Eun lies 6th. Therefore, it would be interesting to see whether Kim Jong Il gets it his way, or the internal party politics play out to produce another leader.

However, another point to consider is that North Korea is adept at manipulating the media; it invites journalists to events they want to show, while banning any other media coverage. Because there is not much information available, North Korea's next move is unpredictable, and it would be worth it to watch out for how the politics end up when Kim Jong Il dies and how it would affect East Asia.

Reflection Week 7- Hooligans Threaten Serbia EU Membership

In Serbia today thousands of “hooligans”, as described by the BBC, violently tried to disrupt a gay pride march in downtown Belgrade. According to the report more than 140 people were hurt and 200 were arrested. Since our reading of How Soccer Explains the World, I have noticed a significant difference in the cultural reactions and violent riots of Europe. Soccer was merely the underlining “punching bag” of anger for the Europeans to take out any violence or aggression they had on a different country. However, this type of violence as shown in Serbia is morally wrong and dangerous no matter what viewpoint an individual holds.

Sunday's gay pride march was viewed as a major test for Serbia's government, which has pledged to protect human rights as it seeks European Union membership. After our class visit to the European Union just a few weeks ago we were able to touch on some of the debates and conflicts that coincide with membership. Serbia's pro-European government still faces strong opposition from the conservative and nationalist forces opposed to the modernization and reform of the country. The opposition by the conservative group to reform the country could be damaging for the entire scope of the economic stability of Serbia if not addressed promptly. The parade was the first of its kind in Belgrade and was seen as a test of Serbia's readiness to become a more modern, open society after years of war in the 1990s caused by ethnic hatred.

These right wing extremist groups are devastating not only to the people within the country, but are a stumbling block for the opportunity for Serbia to join the EU. These extremists group argue that march is contrary to the values of predominantly conservative Serbia. Even though last year the Serbian parliament passed a bill banning discrimination against homosexuals, anti-gay sentiment still runs deep in the country.

Similar to the hooligan rights illustrated in How Soccer Explains the World, the country of Serbia needs to establish increased protection and security when they are informed that a parade is going to occur. My only hope is that because of these riots Serbia chances to be accepted in the European Union will not be drastically impacted.

Sources

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11507253

Reflection-Week #7

It was nice to have last week of from class and a structured blog post. While I enjoy our class and our discussions very much (believe me, they make my day most days) it was nice to have a change of pace. This semester, apart from WP, has become monotonous quite quickly.

Considering our “free time” this week, we really used every minute of the time preparing for our project. The simulation was a lot of fun in my eyes. I don’t know about my colleagues, but I really do learn better when we apply the concrete theories into a simulated experience. As much as I want to say that I was able to retain a good bit of the information that we discussed on Thursday, I can’t remember most of what happened. I do remember one question of mine that remained unanswered. During Ford’s fantastic presentation, they mentioned a new effort by Ford to use more recyclable materials in the production of their cars. These recyclable materials include soy-based foam for seats. My question is this: What happens to the growing number of the population of people who want to reduce their impact and purchase a Ford with these new materials but are allergic to soy? I applaud Ford’s (the company, not the representation of them in the simulation) desire to be more environmentally friendly, but I think that allergies must be taken into consideration when new products using natural substances are employed.

I’m looking forward to getting our first analytical essay out of the way. But that’s more something to speak on next week. Hooray for Fall Break. It’s going to be a much needed vacation.