Reflective Post 15

World Politics has finally ended. That semester flew by, which is surprising since it was our first semester at college. I expected it to go slowly, but alas it did not. Overall, I enjoyed World Politics. It was an interesting class, and it sure taught me a lot about International Relations theory. I thought it was a great first international relations class here at American University. And the fact that PTJ loved sci-fi helped also…

I took a class similar to this in high school. It was a class on just domestic policy, as opposed to international. It too was a discussion based class since we used a teaching style that involved a harkness table (which is basically just a wooden table you all sit around and discuss). So for me World Politics was very similar to this class, except in that class we discussed more controversial issues, and never went to in depth into different topics. What I enjoyed more about World Politics was that we went into more depth in all the different subjects, especially the International Relations theories. I have never been really big into political discussion classes since I am not very well versed in the subject, but I enjoyed the class because when I look back, I realized I have learned a lot.

I am very excited for next semester. My group is awesome, and our topic is very interesting. So all in all, I have to say World Politics was a good time.It had its up and downs, but I am very happy with the amount of information that I learned.

And no this picture doesn't have anything to do with World Politics, but I thought this was funny. woo.

Reflective Post 14

Two days ago it was Thanksgiving, a time of when we should be celebrating our thankfulness for everything in our life. A time, when I was taught in elementary school “where the Indians and Pilgrims came together and had a Thanksgiving feast”. In 1^st grade before Thanksgiving break, half the class would dress up as Indians and the other half would dress up as Indians. We would then have a joyous feast of apple cider and goldfish. Not the most spectacular thing, but it got the point across that the Pilgrims and Indians were friends and liked each other. I had this belief of great friendship between the two groups up until the end of elementary school. I was watching a PBS special one night by myself on the relationship between settlers and the Native Americans, and it was here I learned the truth. The Indians and Pilgrims were not friends, they were enemies. All my childhood thoughts of the two groups were wrong. My World felt like it was crashing down. Just kidding, I’m exaggerating, but it was a rough blow to my childhood thoughts of joy and love and happiness between the Pilgrims and the Indians.

What confuses me during the holidays is why we were never taught the truth in elementary school. I’m sure some schools do tell the truth, but mine was certainly not one of them. I had to find it out on my own, and then had to ask the teacher to explain it to us the next day in class. Sure, some could argue the situation is to morbid for children to learn about, but why even mention it then? What I’m getting at is children never learn about Nazi Germany or the Holocaust in elementary school because it is to morbid for them to learn about, so teachers could easily not tell us about the pilgrims and Indians instead of giving us a false truth. Why do elementary schools teach us false facts? Its school! We should know the entire truth behind the story. They should not just tell us the Indians and Pilgrims were happy with one another, that they taught each other how to plant corn and hunt, and then they lived happily ever after. Teachers should follow up with the ending, and talk about the bad parts of the story too, not just the good parts.

Reading Todorov, we learn more about the tension and hardships between the Native American and the settlers. Todorov tells his version of the truth, a truth more believable than what we believe in elementary school. I am glad we read this book and went to the Museum of the American Indian before we left for Thanksgiving break. It reminded me that Thanksgiving is not just a happy feast between the two groups of people.

Image Source: http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb152/karnivorous/thanksgiving.gif

Extra Blog 1

I think that the Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian does a more acceptable job at portraying the “Indian” than the Washington Redskins does. I believe that most people would agree with me, if not feel free to comment and tell me otherwise. I have talked to a ton of people who did not like the Museum of the American Indian at all. They all tell me and try to convince me on why this museum is inaccurate, and how I should not listen to half the things in there. Personally, I do not know if they are true or just paranoid. In school, we never really learned about the Indians. We learned about Christopher Columbus, and all the other European settlers, but growing up my teachers never taught me about the lives of Indians. The only times Indians were brought up were when we were talking about the Pilgrims, during Thanksgiving, and once when we went to a Native American festival for a field trip (which consisted of archery, tribal dances, and gift shops—so nothing too informational). So going into the museum, and even now I do not really have a “vast” knowledge of Native Americans and their culture. But I found that the museum was pretty informational. Even if it was inaccurate, I am sure some of the facts in there are legitimate and portray the Native Americans history pretty well.

The Washington Redskins definitely does not do a more acceptable job portraying the “Indians” at all. First of all the Indian, is red and featured with a headdress. I am sure that this is not the portrayal Native Americans want at all. When reading the blog question, I showed my friend who is a Native American, and she laughed at this question, asking if the answer was a joke. She said she definitely would not want to be represented by the Washington Redskins mascot. First of all, if you go to a sporting event, the Indian mascot is portrayed as uncivilized, and definitely not supposed to be seen as an equal as us. Even when you look at the teams name—the Redskins, which is not acceptable. Really you would think Washington DC of all places would have a politically correct football team name, than the Redskins. Most (not all I know) mascots are animals, so one could argue that by using the Indian as a mascot they are comparing the Native American to an animal, once again degrading the Native American race yet again. Is there really anything good that the Washington Redskins representation of the American Indian proves?

So in the end my decision is that the Museum of the American Indian does a more acceptable job at portraying the “Indian” than the Washington Redskins. Even though the museum may be inaccurate in some ways, at least it is able to tell a little about the history and times of the American Indian, more than the Redskins do that’s for sure… (But I am sure one of you can argue this the other way)

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!!! (Safe travels home! J)

Reflective Post 13

This week for our lab we went to the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian. This was my first time going to the museum, so it was a new experience for me. Upon arriving at the museum, the first thing that struck me was the architecture of the building. It was the most unique exterior of a Smithsonian I have seen yet, and I was impressed. I could tell that Katzen was based off of the design because they resembled each other a little. The limestone exterior made the museum look one with nature, in addition the plentiful plant life and wetlands outside, gave the museum a serene feel. When we entered we went straight up to the fourth floor, to the Our Universes exhibit, which presented upon Native American beliefs. One question that Professor Jackson had asked us beforehand was whether we thought the 4^th floor exhibit resembled more of a history or an art museum. I personally, believe it to be more of a history museum, although that is arguable. Art is in the eye of the beholder. I do believe some of the pieces featured in this exhibit could be considered art. But art is a part of culture, which encompasses beliefs, so overall the entire exhibit does make sense as a history museum type exhibit.

Speaking of art exhibits, my favorite part of the museum (other than the gift store) was definitely the W. Richard West, Jr. Contemporary Arts Gallery. This eclectic mix of paintings and sculpture done by Native American artists was very intriguing and well-done. I have always been an art museum fanatic, so I am biased by saying this was my favorite. My second favorite exhibit was the Window on Collections exhibitions on the 3^rd and 4^th floors which featured various beadwork, Native made dolls and other artifacts that are affiliated with Native Americans. This exhibit also featured cool touch screens that taught you new facts and fun stories about Native American culture. My favorite sculpture was definitely the Always Becoming sculpture located outside the Independence Ave. entrance. It was the five hand-built clay sculptures by the artist Nora Naranjo-Morse. The sculptures looked very natural and I could tell they were made out of all natural materials.

Overall, I rather enjoyed the museum. It taught me new facts and stories about the Native American culture I had not previously known. I bought a clay pig from the gift store that was supposed to bring me luck, and as I was walking to the metro stop I found a dream catcher on the ground (I was previously ranting about how I had wanted one). It the pig was indeed lucky. Seeing as that was our last lab (off-campus), it was a good time. I will miss our weekly field trips, they were always a good time.

Source used: General Information Pamphlet received inside the museum

Reflective Post Week 12

This week I thought that both of our World Politics classes were very interesting, and some great points arose from our discussions. On Monday, we talked mainly about education in America, and if the system is fair or unfair. I personally am torn with this question. I think if I had to pick an answer it would be unfair, but I know in some cases the system is fair to some individuals. There was an interesting point that arose in class talking about whether or not college admissions in particular were fair. As I noted before, in some cases yes, but in other cases no.

I used to be a student admissions officer at my old school, which had a similar admissions program as to that of a college. So in order to go through the applicants and decide who the best of the best was, the system we used ranked potential students on a number scale, with the top admitted, the middle waitlisted, and the bottom declined. This system I found was a good scale to measure people on. For different factors were considered while ranking such as recommendations, transcripts, SSAT scores, essays, extra circulars, and interviews. Most people got ranked and admitted accordingly, but as it is in most colleges too there are exceptions. For example if a school has an orchestra and they need more violinists, playing the violin would weigh heavier on an application versus a student who plays the flute. They may be equal in every other aspect, and be just as good as one another on their respective instruments, but if the school wants violinists they will accept the violinist. This can be applied to many fields, such as sport recruitment, and having a diverse class. This then leads in to arguments such as affirmative action etc.

Is this system unfair? To some yes, while others would say no. Those accepted because they had some sort of “advantage” would just say that it was fair because that is the special thing that they knew colleges would appreciate. While those unaffected would probably note how this process is unfair, just because they don’t have that extra special quality, they are not accepted, even if they are similar to other students in all other aspects. This is an interesting dilemma that will probably not be solved anytime soon. This argument tied well into World Politics. Is the global economic system fair? Some would say yes, others no. it would depend on who is telling the story. To those who benefit, yes and probably to those who do not benefit, no.

Blog Post 11

Inayatullah's argument that states having a right to wealth is based upon the claim that states are unequally prepared for global economic competition. This week we are asked if the economic success or failure under such circumstances is a fair one. My belief is that economic success could be either fair or unfair whichever way you look at it; I mean it’s just life. But is life fair or is it unfair? Life is an unfair thing. Some people and countries have certain advantages and resources that other countries and people do not have access to. Can we do anything about it? A lot of times we cannot, but some countries do prove this statement wrong. I think that it is fair to say that some countries are more prepared for the global competition than others. But just because countries are not as well suited does not mean they can work hard and overcome this obstacle.

The United States is plentiful with natural resources such as coal and timber. With its ample amounts of natural resources, the United States is able to use that to its advantage in its economy. Is it fair that the United States has so many resources compared to other countries? No, it’s not, but life is unfair. The United States is able to benefit due to the fact we are naturally better off than some other countries. You just have to deal with what you’re given and make the best out of it. This is on contrast to other countries, like Japan have very little natural resources. They cannot use natural resources to add to their economy because they don’t have a lot. Since Japan is not very abundant in natural resources they had to focus on a different route towards economic success. The government instead chose to focus on industries that they thought would benefit Japan. As stated in a website called Japan: Post War Economic Recovery, the author writes, “The focus of development was on chemicals, iron and steel, shipbuilding and transistor radios during the 1960s, on automobiles and electronics during the 1970s, and on computers, computer chips and other high-technology industries during the 1980s.” Since Japan is not abundant is natural resources, and therefore were not naturally set out to be prepared in this global economic position, they were still able to work hard and overcome this obstacle. Today they have the third highest economy in the World, following both the United States and China.

So overall I believe that Inayatullah’s argument that states have a right to wealth based on the claim that states are unequally prepared for global economic competition true. Economic success under these circumstances is fair. Countries are given what they have to work with, and they have to make the most out of it. But even if countries are not as naturally well off as others they still have the potential to have as strong of an economy as other countries.

Source used: “Japan Economy Profile 2010.” IndexMundi. CIA World Factbook, n.d. Web. 7 Sept. 2010. .

Reflective Post Week 11

What is wealth? Am I wealthy? Is wealth security? These were all questions that arose in Thursday’s World Politics class. A very interesting and controversial topic, the idea of personal wealth is usually not an everyday conversation one tends to have with people. All throughout my life, wealth was seen as a personal issue. (One not discussed with people besides their family) No one really discussed their wealth. Growing up, my friends and I were all in the same “class”. So wealth was not really something we needed to discuss. We could all usually afford the same things, so no one ever felt left out because of their family’s income. So we never really had to discuss the idea of wealth.

Wealth defined for me is probably around the same definition we talked about in class. So wealth basically having able to choose what you want to spend your money on, as opposed to being forced into one option. I really liked the idea Aubrey brought up in class. That one idea around wealth is being able to choose your future career. If you get out of college in debt, of course you would take the highest paying job in order to pay off those debts, no matter what it was. But if you little to no debt you can take a job at an NGO that you really want to do, and not feel bad for making less money as long as you are pursuing your passion.

One idea in the realm of wealth that has always puzzled me has been the idea of “class”. Whenever the idea of social classes arises in conversation, 9 times out of 10 the person I am talking to will say that their in the “middle class”. Even people I know that are obviously in the upper class, still tend to say that they are only in the upper middle class. So why are Americans so discomforted by talking about the idea of their economic wealth? I guess wealth is a personal issue. I mean today, truthfully I cannot tell if someone is upper class, middle class or lower class. Since some people choose to spend all their money towards their appearances sometimes I assume their upper class, but in reality they are middle to lower class, they just choose to spend their money on their appearance versus their housing, food etc.

Wealth is a very touchy subject in the United States. But I do believe that it is sometimes good for us to discuss it. I enjoyed Thursday’s class a lot. J

Joke of the day: "It's clear" said the teacher, "That you haven't studied your geography. What's your excuse ?"
"Well, my dad says the world is changing every day . So I decided to wait until it settles down !"

Reflective Post Week 10

This Saturday I attended the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear at the National Mall. It was definitely an experience to remember. We (Anna, Andrew, Elle, Garry, Kate and I) woke up and were ready to leave at 5:30am. Where we then walked to Tenley campus and waited for an hour for the Metro to open. At 7am we all entered Tenleystation and got on the first train towards the Smithsonian stop. We finally arrived at the Smithsonian stop, and we walked over towards where the Rally was taking place (around 8:30am). We ended up getting pretty good seats, so when we found a place on the grass we set up our blankets and prepared ourselves for the wait. While waiting we mostly slept and tried to stay warm. It wasn’t until around 10:30am when the Rally began to show parts of Colbert’s and Stewart’s shows on all the massive jumbo-trons located around the National Mall.

I personally loved the entire rally. It was an eclectic mix of music, skits, and speeches. It was not a very political rally, which was interesting in contrast to Glenn Beck’s rally. Speaking of Glenn Beck’s rally when comparing the demographics of both rallies, we see that Beck’s rally was full of white and Christian people, while yesterday’s rally was filled with a variety of faiths, and races, and ages. Overall, I thought the rally sent a good message to us. I believe that the message stated was we are all Americans, no matter what race, religious affiliation, social class, etc we are. It was a very good time overall, and I had a lot more fun there versus Beck’s Rally. I especially enjoyed Jon Stewart's speech at the end. I thought he sent out a great message to American. I liked the fact that many people could relate to this Rally and enjoy it!

Oh on a side note, HAPPY HALLOWEEN!! Fun fact, today Linnea and I entered a Jack-O-Lantern carving contest and came in first place! (We won a gift certificate) Today was a successful day.

Blog Post 8

I believe that the greatest threat to global security is global warming and climate change. Global warming is affecting everyone everywhere in this world at all times. Global warming is something as bad, if not worse than terrorism. When asked to define what the greatest security threat is, few would ever think of global warming as a “threat” to our nation’s safety, but if you look at the facts you can tell it is.

The effects of long scale global warming would affect most people in this world. While perusing the internet I came across this quote, “The IPCC also predicted that carbon dioxide levels could double by the year 2100, causing temperatures to increase from 2 to 10.4 degrees F. Such a temperature change would likely bring a greater incidence of floods, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, hurricanes, and other forms of extreme weather—which in turn could cause an increase in storm-related deaths, infectious diseases, and economic crises, analysts warned” (http://www.enotes.com/global-warming-threat-article). Global warming effects would cause dramatic impacts in the conflicts between countries. For example, flooding (as seen in our leadership gateway simulation) would cause conflicts to arise between countries due to the consequences of refugees (from lost land), disease, death, scarce resources and much more. And with scarce resources, conflicts may arise between countries over resources and not having enough to support their citizens.

For example, today we see the water conflicts in Africa. The effects of there not being enough water proves the point that scarce water resources can lead to tensions in countries which ultimately lead to conflict. Since we all need access to natural resources, when they get limited, countries will begin to fight, and wars will erupt over natural resources.

Bill Clinton agrees with me saying, “"The most profound security threat we face today is global warming,". We need to address the issue of global warming as soon as possible. (http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Clinton_Says_Climate_Change_Greatest_Threat.html)

Reflective Post Week 9

This week we wrapped up our game of Risk. The hegemon group blue ended up winning, which we all knew was a strong possibility from the beginning. It was not an original version of the game; for Professor Jackson modified it a bit in order to relate back to our class. I really enjoyed playing Risk over the past week and a half. It really allowed us to look at the 2 International Relations theories- realism, constructivism, and liberalism, more in-depth. The game allowed us to apply the IR theories to the “real” world- or at least as close to the real world as we can get. Being a part of the black team, our objective was to get at least 20 alliances on the board, or have no one at war with one another. We got close to winning once but not close enough. This game was a very nice break to mid terms!

Also as a note to PTJ and Gunperi (if you read this): I had a potential student shadow our World Politics class last week during our second day of Risk and she absolutely loved it. She thought the class was awesome, and as a result decided to apply to American due to our World Politics class. She also noted how everyone was very warm and welcoming to her in the class and she wanted me to thank all of you. Good job everyone! We convinced someone to apply to American. Hurrah!

Now a fun Halloween joke: What did the boy ghost say to the girl ghost?

You are the most booooooooo-tiful thing I have ever seen!

Reflective Post Week 8

This week was the UC Common Event. The UC Common event was a showing of the opera Salome at the Kennedy Center. On Sunday we had a pre-Opera talk, which I personally did not enjoy. I mean it was interesting, and the lunch was good. But I did not enjoy that we were told the plot. It took away all the surprise from the Opera and I was frustrated that I knew what was going to happen. I ended up trying to block out what the UC theatre kids were saying so that I wouldn't be forced to hear the ending of the opera. But I guess it helped inform me about the background of Salome, and it helped me learn about actual opera in general. So that was nice at least.

I really enjoyed going to the Kennedy Center though. It was nice seeing everyone dressed up and going to a somewhat formal event. Salome was definitely an experience. I’ve never gone to an opera before, so this was my first. My friends have always told me about the operas they had been to, but this was definitely not like any opera they have told me about. Salome was quite the character, and her web of love connections was quite extensive. The ending freaked me out. I mean did she really have to dance for her step-father and then order for the guy she is on love with to have his head chopped off? And then take the head and talk to it because she wanted to kiss it? It was a very, very odd plotline. But it was entertaining at the same time. The only problem I had with opera was the set up. It was annoying that the subtitles were at the top because if one spent the entire time reading the subtitles you would miss what was actually happening in the play. I have a background of German so I was able to pick up the occasional phrase so that I was not forced to stare at the subtitles the whole time. But not being fluent, it was annoying to have to miss what was actually happening to read about what was going on. But overall I enjoyed the UC Common Event! I wish we could do things like this more often, even if it were just our UC World Politics group. It was a good time, and I am sure many would agree.

Reflective Post Week 7

This week was a pretty stressful week personally. In addition to all of my mid terms, this week we had the minor simulation for World Politics. I was in the United Auto Workers group. Overall, I thought the simulation was fun. But it was not my favorite thing we have done this semester. Personally, when I first read the question my opinion was that I would encourage the President to remove the tax. But by being placed with UAW I was forced to think outside of the box and come up with reasons why we should keep the tax. By doing so this opened my eyes to a whole new world.

The preparation for the simulation was at times demanding and at other times quite fun. There were times when my group was stressed and worried that we were not going to get this project done, but in the end everything came together and it all worked out. I thoroughly enjoyed making the video, because iMovie is one of my favorite programs to work with. When our presentation was made I was quite happy with our main points and I thought we had a solid argument to present to class. The simulation ran pretty well, technical difficulties aside. Except I know people were mad we didn’t get our 10 minute time before the rebuttal, and the fact that the “President” had to leave before the rebuttal. Everyone gave a solid argument and in the end the votes were tied, 3 for the tax, and 3 against the tax.

Overall, I thought that this simulation was a fun activity for the class. I now sit here and am about to write our midterm paper for this class. I am excited. I bet you all are too. Good luck everyone with the paper writing, and have a good weekend!

Reflective Post Week 6

This week in World Politics we focused a lot on the basic 3 IR theories: liberalism, constructivism, and realism. I was very relieved to do this since I have never really truly understood the IR theories and by going back and reviewing them it helped. I personally really enjoyed taking another look at these areas, especially in PTJ’s last podcast because it helped me to understand these concepts more. I also quite enjoyed reading peoples blog posts about whether or not we should elect an ambassador to the aliens. By applying this concept to this sci-fi idea helped me understand the meaning behind the IR theories better. I now know that in liberalism conflict and cooperation are both possible, and rational bargaining is key. In constructivism identity is central, and that you should think about the whole before yourself. And in realism power struggle is emphasized between states and that national security is key. By having a better understanding of the definitions of the IR theories I felt better prepared for class on Monday.

In class on Monday we defined each of these 3 IR terms in how they would fit in with the economy. I really liked this exercise and enjoyed how we had to come up with our own definitions and then we able to collaborate with our fellow classmates and were able to come up with even better definitions.

I also enjoyed learning there is no such thing as liberalist. It’s just liberal.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/13/ir_theory_for_lovers_a_valentines_guide

Read that, it’s fun.

Blog Post 6

The United States should definitely elect an ambassador in case of an alien encounter. It in general would be a good idea from my point of view. Because really, if aliens were to land and they wanted to speak with someone who would we send? Not the President, because what if the aliens are here to harm humans? We wouldn’t want to kill off our President. But then again why would we just want to send someone possibly to their death. We would need to elect an ambassador who would risk their life, and be smart and someone well respected so that the aliens do not get offended that we sent some no one to be their peace negotiator. This alien would act as a diplomat linking the United States and their world together. Having encounters with aliens would be a great thing or a bad thing. For example if the aliens were like the Asgards from Stargate SG-1, it would be good to have an alliance with them because they would be friendly and would be able to help our country out.

Well putting my own personal view aside, we can look at how the different IR theories will look at the question: should we elect an ambassador in case of an alien encounter? From a realist point of view they wouldn’t want an alien ambassador. Realists would not mind the aliens but if the aliens were here to ask for help I highly doubt that they would help. Realists are all about power, and putting their own country before anyone else. The only way they would like the aliens were if they were to help them in someway, ie give them advanced technology etc.

Constructivists would like the alien ambassador. Constructivists would put the entire universe before their own country in order to maintain a good reputation in the public's eyes. They put the whole before their part. Constructivists would want to have a positive image to other countries that they support the future aspect of aliens coming.

Reflective Post Week 5

On Tuesday in class we spoke about clothing and how it defines ones style and personality. I found that this was a very interesting topic to speak about in class. Often, we associate people and their personalities based upon how they dress. This is many times a true statement because people usually do judge someone the first time they meet by the way they dress. Many people believe that first impressions matter a great deal upon the way they see someone. For example the first time we saw Professor Jackson he was in a suit. We all know that suits normally represent someone of business or an authority figure, so even if we had never seen PTJ before the first class, we would have known he was the professor by the way he was dressed. Had Professor Jackson shown up in shorts and a tee shirt I am assuming most of us wouldn’t have known he was the professor, I would have just assumed he was there for no reason, just another TA or something.

So why does clothing make such a big impact on ones image? So many people judge others from the outside that often times it may affect how one sees themselves from the inside. For example if one chooses to dress a certain way, but everyone makes fun of them, they may change the way they dress in order to get others approval and positive looks.

This reflects back to states and the blog post topic of what a Lady Gaga state would look like. States are often judged upon their external image. Every state wants their image to be perceived well both internally and externally. And often times if a state is judged externally and is viewed in a bad way, the state will try to fix its image in order to make itself look better. All states like to be seen in a good way, just like how individuals like to be seen in a good way. Then again why should a state change in order to impress another state? Often times other states judge a state when they have no basis to do so. States and people are similar, they judge and base their opinions on the way they look from the outside.

Blog Post 5

If Lady Gaga were a state then it would by far be the wildest state the world has ever seen. Lady Gaga has created an image of herself like no other. She doesn’t care what people think of her and will do anything and say anything she wants. Her state would be called Gagaopolis. It would be a democracy. Lady Gaga would be the President, with most of the power being in her hands. Her citizens would be deemed the Little Monsters. And the Senate would be called the Haus of Gaga. She would enforce the rules, with the Haus of Gaga making the rules. This state would be a very open minded, politically liberal state. Gagaopolis would be the leading state in change and new ideas. The Little Monsters would be like no citizens of any other country. They would be the epitome of new. As in new image, ideas etcetera. Walking around the street seeing a bubble dress or half naked woman would be the norm. There would be no need for conservatively dressed politicians, for the wilder they are dressed the more like the President they will be.

Anyone who wants a chance to be heard should move to Gagaopolis. This is a state where the Little Monsters are listened to, and change is welcome. But that has been the only problem with Gagaopolis lately, change. President Gaga and the Haus of Gaga LOVE change, and as a result new changes are brought to this society almost every week. The Little Monsters minds change about an idea, so being the radically politically liberal state it is Lady Gaga makes sure the law gets changed. As a result the government is very unstable. By enforcing so many new laws so often, citizens rarely know what is legal and what it illegal. But somehow the Little Monsters have been figuring everything out, and quite enjoy how everything is run. With a 95% voter turnout, the government sure is important to everyone. There are rarely complaints about the government system in the media.

But of course not many nations would like Gagaopolis. Because of its instability and constant change, it would never be a safe country to ally with. Many countries would be completely opposed to the base of Gagaopolis government. And with Gagaopolis's awful military system, no one wants to responsible if anything were to happen to it.

But Gagaopolis doesn't mind. They love to live in the moment, and for them whatever happens, happens.

Reflective Post Week 4

kAfter this week’s class I felt like the general feel was that elections are a good thing for this country. The voting system is a good fit for our country right now. We concluded in class that elections are good for some countries and not the greatest idea for other countries. In class we argued the pros and the con ideas behind the election. Both sides had a valid argument, for the pro side had points such as stability, representation and happiness of the public good; while the con side had points such as tradition, efficiency, and it not being necessary in some cases. So all in all, countries with elections and countries without elections are both fine if it works with how the people live in a specific area.

The one thought that has been bothering me this week (as also mentioned in my previous blog post) is definitely the argument about low voting rates in the United States. We have a substantial amount of people who do not vote in elections. And it has always bothered me why people choose not to vote in elections. I know a ton of people who choose not to vote, including many friends and family members. Even when it comes to Presidential elections they all look the other way and do not go to the polling booths. Why are so many Americans ignoring the voting system? Some then raise the argument, should people vote just to vote? By that I mean, should we prefer more people voting but having less people know what they are voting for? (i.e. stances on different issues by politicians)

This problem will always be in the back of my head because I know that it probably will not be solved anytime soon. But how can the US improve its voting system to encourage more people to vote come Election Day?

http://i.ehow.com/images/a04/b3/6o/get-young-people-vote-elections-200X200.jpg

Blog Post 4

I definitely believe that we should live in a society with governmental elections. Elections give us, the citizens a chance to be heard. With elections we are able to have some kind of input into our government. And for me personally, some kind of input is better than no input at all. Why would one want to live in a government where they have no power in choosing the leaders? Yes, I know that this type of society does exist and that these societies have been successful in some cases. But personally I like having the ability to participate in my country’s political world. It helps me feel connected to the World. And I feel that I have a chance to change something if I don’t like it. In class, Aubrey brought up the point that people always complain about what’s going on in the government, yet half the time they did not even vote in the election. We have the ability to make a change, so why don’t we do it? It is so bothersome when people act like they have no authority when it comes to our government. Everyone has a voice; they just need to speak up!

I know that there are many arguments against elections. Arguments such as not many Americans even care about the voting system so why should we have one? I have had a ton of experience with people who choose not to vote. Whenever I ask someone why they don’t vote, I always get the same responses. Responses such as I just don’t have time, and one vote does not make a difference are always the most popular. I do understand the first response. A lot of people cannot make it out to the voting booths in time, and I do feel we should fix the voting process in that perspective. But when I look at the other response that one vote doesn’t matter, that is not true. Every vote matters because if everyone had that ideology then we would live in a society where no one votes. Which would be like a society without governmental elections.

Reflective Post Week 3

I found this week’s reading quite interesting. The reading The Unipolar Illusion Revisited by Christopher Layne taught me a lot about the United States. I had never heard of hegemony before this class so this idea was completely new to me. So in order to understand the concept of hegemony, I decided to turn the idea into something that I already know pretty well, the world of Pokémon. One may think how do these two things go together? Let me explain.

So first we have to establish the hegemon. We all know this is the United States. But in the Pokeworld this is Charizard. One may argue Charizard is not as supreme as I make it out to be, but this is my version of hegemony, so just listen for a bit. Charizard is the most powerful Pokémon. He can pretty much defeat any Pokémon in a single blow. The exception is Blastoise, for he is a water Pokémon. Blastoise can defeat Charizard, since he is a fire Pokémon. This analogy is not saying that the any one country can defeat the US. I am just using this example to show that the US in not indestructible, and that maybe in a few decades a new hegemony may arise and take over the United State’s spot.

Charizard is both economically powerful and powerful when it comes to the military. Just like how the US is both powerful in the economy and military. For example, a holographic mass produced Charizard is one of the most valuable Pokémon cards out there (besides the Illustrator Pikachu card). Therefore Charizard is an economically powerful Pokémon due to its card status. Charizard is militaristically powerful because that is how it was raised to be. Charizards normally attend the Charizard training camp in the Charizific Valley where they are trained the reach their potential and become stronger. This way they will have the most powerful military regime of all the Pokémon.

Charizard is benevolent, like the USA. He comes across as a compassionate and generous Pokémon. He would do anything for his trainer Ash. The US can also be considered benevolent, like Charizard because we give aid to other countries and try our best to combat terrorism. Charizard would be willing to help any Pokémon or person out, including Pikachu, and Team Rocket. No one feels threatened by Charizard so therefore no one decides to pick a fight with him.

My last note is that no one worries about Charizard because he is a flying Pokémon and is usually in the sky. There are not many flying Pokémon, and of those Pokémon none of them really messes with Charizard. None of the land Pokémon are worried about Charizard since he is in the sky and not on the land. The land Pokémon only worry about other land Pokémon. This is similar to the US because our bordering countries are not worried about us, so they don’t bother us. The only threatening countries to the US are across the ocean, but they are usually fighting more amongst themselves so they do not bother with the US. We can also think of Ash as being the UN, since Charizard (or the USA) belongs to him. And Gary Oak to be the rest of the World not in the UN.

http://nintendoguy78.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/charizard.gif

Blog 3 (Kaitlyn)

Chapter 25 of The Prince emphasizes an idea that really makes a person think about how one should rule a country. Should a ruler rely on fortune to control everything, or should he also listen to his own free will? Machiavelli writes, “I think it may be true that fortune determines one half of our actions, but that, even so, she leaves us to control the other half” (74). Machiavelli wants rulers to use that half of free will that they posses. In this chapter of The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli states that a fortune favors a ruler that is bold and that it is always better to take initiative in political life and political struggle. If a ruler is bold and uses his free will wisely, he be become a better ruler. A ruler should not just rely on chance and the idea that everything will work out eventually. As Machiavelli states, “A ruler who depends entirely on his good fortune will be destroyed when his luck changes” (75). If a ruler does not think for himself, or about the context of the situation, and irrationally makes decisions, then he obviously will not become a greater ruler than he is. I personally think the idea of acting bold is a good idea to an extent. Sometimes it is a good idea to do things on a whim, but when it comes to making great decisions (like about a country), then I feel like he should not act boldly, but rationally.

Also in this chapter Machiavelli compares fortune to be a lady. He then says, “If you want to master her, to beat and strike her. And one sees she more often submits to those who act boldly than those who proceed in a calculating fashion” (77). I just found this quote to be interesting. This quote obviously shows the difference in time periods, for one would never say something like this now. But this quote also relays the idea that a ruler must act boldly in order to become a better ruler.

And to end with a joke:

WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD?

So that its subjects will view it with admiration, as a chicken which has the daring and courage to boldly cross the road, but also with fear, for whom among them has the strength to contend with such a paragon of avian virtue?  In such a manner is the princely chicken's dominion maintained.
(http://philosophy.eserver.org/chicken.txt)