I just needed to point out how interesting all these developments around Wikileaks are. First the website was seen as this great source providing evidence of misuse of power. However, this latest round of leaks has set off a thunderstorm. Amazon and Paypal have stopped providing the website their services as a host and as a provider of funds respectively (see source 2). Its as if their saying, "Publishing secret documents showing exceptional misuse of power: Good. Publishing secret documents showing day-to-day misuse of power: Bad." It could also be attached to the issue that these latest leaks actually hurts government efforts. At the same time, Clinton has to scramble around the globe now to apologize for cables insulting various state leaders even though it can be assumed that every government says similar things about every other government (see source 1).
1) Clinton's Mission: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/world/05diplo.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
2) Corporate Buisness: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101204/ap_on_hi_te/wikileaks
I also recommend everyone reading Kate's excellent blog about the issue and the subsequent comments at : http://worldpolitics-birthofanotion.blogspot.com/2010/11/wikilinkss-and-free-speech.html?
Showing posts with label Jesse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jesse. Show all posts
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Sovereignty and Difference
Under the current social institutions, sovereignty does protect difference. As long as people identify the Self in terms of the Other, minority groups of people will require a degree of sovereignty in order to achieve security. Identity politics have come to define our world. The general theory is that if everyone pursues what they want at the expense of the other, then a natural balance will form distributing resources somewhat fairly. Therefore, in order to effectively pursue their self-interest, minority groups require a degree of sovereignty. The degree to which those with sovereignty perceive them as different and the relative size of the minority group dictates how sovereign they have to be to be secure.
A perfect example of this issue can be seen in the State of Israel. As much as one can be angered by how the state was formed, the sociopolitical environment after World War II and the event preceding it merited the creation of a sovereign Jewish state. We all know the story of the MS St. Louis and there’s no need to delve into the result of its failure, but what it illustrates is that in order to achieve security the Jews required a state to advocate and work towards their safety.
The story of the Native Americans provides a less clear-cut scenario. When the white settlers arrived the tribes processed this sovereignty. However, over two hundred years these settlers systematically colonized their land and destroyed their power structures. In the current US, while their sovereignty allowed them to make treaties with the American government it did not stop this government from subsequently ignoring them. However, following the terrorization of Native Americans by settlers, the US acknowledged that sovereignty protects difference by creating the reservation system.
Currently, reservations do posses a degree of juridical and political sovereignty. As a result, different tribes are able to structure society according to their ideals and not come into conflict with the US. For example, the Acoma Pueblo hold certain rocks to be sacred. Because of their sovereignty they were able to pass a law making climbing on certain rock formations be punishable with 20 years in jail. Recently two white college students were arrested and sentenced to 10 years in jail and the US respected the tribe’s sovereignty by letting this sentence stand. No matter one’s views on the morality of locking away people from other cultures simply for ignorance, one must admit that this shows that this tribe’s sovereignty protected their cultural differences.
This can also be seen near where I live where Hupa tribe members are able to practice unsustainable and environmentally unfriendly hunting and fishing methods because they are on tribal land. What is interesting about this example is that the hegemonic majority had to grant the tribes their independence in order for them to respect their sovereignty.
As long as the current sociopolitical institutions exist identity groups will require sovereignty to protect difference. However, if the institutions were shifted so that people linked the wellbeing of the Self with the well being of the Other I could imagine this dichotomy becoming irrelevant. Under this new institution, differences between peoples could perhaps be accepted as natural. At the same time, identity groups would feel less need to preserve inhumane cultural practices in order to protect their sovereignty.
A perfect example of this issue can be seen in the State of Israel. As much as one can be angered by how the state was formed, the sociopolitical environment after World War II and the event preceding it merited the creation of a sovereign Jewish state. We all know the story of the MS St. Louis and there’s no need to delve into the result of its failure, but what it illustrates is that in order to achieve security the Jews required a state to advocate and work towards their safety.
The story of the Native Americans provides a less clear-cut scenario. When the white settlers arrived the tribes processed this sovereignty. However, over two hundred years these settlers systematically colonized their land and destroyed their power structures. In the current US, while their sovereignty allowed them to make treaties with the American government it did not stop this government from subsequently ignoring them. However, following the terrorization of Native Americans by settlers, the US acknowledged that sovereignty protects difference by creating the reservation system.
Currently, reservations do posses a degree of juridical and political sovereignty. As a result, different tribes are able to structure society according to their ideals and not come into conflict with the US. For example, the Acoma Pueblo hold certain rocks to be sacred. Because of their sovereignty they were able to pass a law making climbing on certain rock formations be punishable with 20 years in jail. Recently two white college students were arrested and sentenced to 10 years in jail and the US respected the tribe’s sovereignty by letting this sentence stand. No matter one’s views on the morality of locking away people from other cultures simply for ignorance, one must admit that this shows that this tribe’s sovereignty protected their cultural differences.
This can also be seen near where I live where Hupa tribe members are able to practice unsustainable and environmentally unfriendly hunting and fishing methods because they are on tribal land. What is interesting about this example is that the hegemonic majority had to grant the tribes their independence in order for them to respect their sovereignty.
As long as the current sociopolitical institutions exist identity groups will require sovereignty to protect difference. However, if the institutions were shifted so that people linked the wellbeing of the Self with the well being of the Other I could imagine this dichotomy becoming irrelevant. Under this new institution, differences between peoples could perhaps be accepted as natural. At the same time, identity groups would feel less need to preserve inhumane cultural practices in order to protect their sovereignty.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Horizons
Over the break I read Horizons. As a disclaimer I will just say that I generally dislike science-fiction beside the rare exception. The exceptions have always been the classics. This book was alright. Though I did notice several interesting themes within it.
First of all, and most obviously, there is the Con. I thought that all the stuff surrounding the Con was such a clear example of liberalism. Here leaders are having to deal with public opinion when deciding foreign policy strategies. Gone is the environment of Machiavelli where the leader does whatever he pleases and uses oppression and propaganda to deal with the people. In fact, the entire plot of the book surrounds the will of the people. The Giaists are trying to crash a rock into earth to scare the people enough where the World Council will have to destroy the platform.
However, the book was very constructivist as well. For example, the Terror Years effected the international environment enough where norms changed all nations were willing to give up control of their militaries to the World Council. Also, the states are not completely rational actors deciding what to do based on material gains. The Balkan States broke from their economic interests (allying themselves with the US) because of how mad they were seeing a dead Balkan looking man get killed. In fact, all things I described as liberal could also be understood using a constructivist lens.
I have a friend that reads some science-fiction who said that these books are judged based upon how cool their concepts are, not the quality of their writing. To that extent, Horizons was a great book. However, I found it quite hard to get over her writing style. I also feel that at times she spent so much time describing bad-ass things (like Ahni’s fighting) that it detracted from the story. It’s weird that I say that because I do enjoy Tom Clancy’s bad-ass moments in the books of his I’ve read. Maybe that’s because that really all the books are.
Overall though, Horizons was generally entertaining and brought up some good issues in IR.
First of all, and most obviously, there is the Con. I thought that all the stuff surrounding the Con was such a clear example of liberalism. Here leaders are having to deal with public opinion when deciding foreign policy strategies. Gone is the environment of Machiavelli where the leader does whatever he pleases and uses oppression and propaganda to deal with the people. In fact, the entire plot of the book surrounds the will of the people. The Giaists are trying to crash a rock into earth to scare the people enough where the World Council will have to destroy the platform.
However, the book was very constructivist as well. For example, the Terror Years effected the international environment enough where norms changed all nations were willing to give up control of their militaries to the World Council. Also, the states are not completely rational actors deciding what to do based on material gains. The Balkan States broke from their economic interests (allying themselves with the US) because of how mad they were seeing a dead Balkan looking man get killed. In fact, all things I described as liberal could also be understood using a constructivist lens.
I have a friend that reads some science-fiction who said that these books are judged based upon how cool their concepts are, not the quality of their writing. To that extent, Horizons was a great book. However, I found it quite hard to get over her writing style. I also feel that at times she spent so much time describing bad-ass things (like Ahni’s fighting) that it detracted from the story. It’s weird that I say that because I do enjoy Tom Clancy’s bad-ass moments in the books of his I’ve read. Maybe that’s because that really all the books are.
Overall though, Horizons was generally entertaining and brought up some good issues in IR.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
American Indian Museum
The Museum and the book were quite the compliments. I enjoyed the Museum of the American Indian. I love the section that had on the Hupa tribe. They’re from my area and they had a picture of a guy I know. That was exciting. Kind of weird to see though. Here’s this picture of a guy I know presented as if he was from some totally different world and era. That was how the entire museum felt in some ways --- as if they were presenting the tribes as some strange beasts from another land quite separate from us. It was like a cultural zoo where one could go station to station and see isolated tribe with only reference to their “natural habitat.”
Also, it was quite interesting how the only use of the word genocide was in reference to the massacres in Guatemala in the 1990’s.
I found Todorov’s portrayal of Cortez to be somewhat lopsided. He presented the man as this master planner who figured out what to do and then executed it. However, based upon “Guns, Germs, and Steel” and “The People’s History of the United States” he seemed much luckier then skilled. Now, because of his intelligence he was able to capitalize on his luck. For example, in “Gun, Germs, and Steel” Diamond wrote that he basically rode into the city not knowing exactly what o expect. Upon seeing the huge army of the Montezuma he did what any general at the time would do, send his cavalry around to set up for a flanking maneuver. When he charged to take hold of Montezuma he signaled the cavalry to charge and the Aztecs were so frightened of the horses that they did not mount an effective defense.
Overall though, I’m really enjoying the book. The linguistic spin he’s using is great. Some of the etymology he does reminds of Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil though hopefully his is a bit more accurate and researched.
Also, it was quite interesting how the only use of the word genocide was in reference to the massacres in Guatemala in the 1990’s.
I found Todorov’s portrayal of Cortez to be somewhat lopsided. He presented the man as this master planner who figured out what to do and then executed it. However, based upon “Guns, Germs, and Steel” and “The People’s History of the United States” he seemed much luckier then skilled. Now, because of his intelligence he was able to capitalize on his luck. For example, in “Gun, Germs, and Steel” Diamond wrote that he basically rode into the city not knowing exactly what o expect. Upon seeing the huge army of the Montezuma he did what any general at the time would do, send his cavalry around to set up for a flanking maneuver. When he charged to take hold of Montezuma he signaled the cavalry to charge and the Aztecs were so frightened of the horses that they did not mount an effective defense.
Overall though, I’m really enjoying the book. The linguistic spin he’s using is great. Some of the etymology he does reminds of Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil though hopefully his is a bit more accurate and researched.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Climate Change issue
In class today we discussed many things including global climate change. I got a bit frustrated during this conversation and I apologize to anyone that I may have offended with my attitude. I found some of the arguments being presented by other morally offensive and I didn’t restrain my react. In the following blog I will try to show why these arguments were off base in a more polite manner.
First off, I just want to say that it’s generally accepted among all respected scientists that human’s are contributing to climate change. The degree is debatable but the general fact is not, unless you want to discount the entire scientific field. Think about it in this way, during the Great Depression people said it was just a natural cycle of the market. Now, to some degree they were correct. However, the amount that it was a natural cycle was far outweighed by the amount that it was an exceptional economic instance. I would say the same is true about the environment today.
I would like to turn my attention to what Gabe said in class. He said that if something is a natural phenomenon then we have neither the means nor the right to stop it. In terms of the means, he may be right. So far there has not been a single real solution to the problem of climate change proposed. Based upon how quickly we are polluting and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere the only real way to save ourselves is through some sort of bioengineering project that no one has invested yet.
The second claim is quite off base however. The reason I reacted so strongly to it is because that’s the sort of claim I’ve been arguing against for years but with far-left mystic tree lovers. Since now its Gabe who made that claim I’ll use a different argument. His claim was that if something is natural phenomenon that we have no right to stop it. If we stretched that logic it would mean that all antibiotics are a violation of nature. In fact, it would mean all medicine is a violation of nature. I wonder if he really meant what he was saying.
First off, I just want to say that it’s generally accepted among all respected scientists that human’s are contributing to climate change. The degree is debatable but the general fact is not, unless you want to discount the entire scientific field. Think about it in this way, during the Great Depression people said it was just a natural cycle of the market. Now, to some degree they were correct. However, the amount that it was a natural cycle was far outweighed by the amount that it was an exceptional economic instance. I would say the same is true about the environment today.
I would like to turn my attention to what Gabe said in class. He said that if something is a natural phenomenon then we have neither the means nor the right to stop it. In terms of the means, he may be right. So far there has not been a single real solution to the problem of climate change proposed. Based upon how quickly we are polluting and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere the only real way to save ourselves is through some sort of bioengineering project that no one has invested yet.
The second claim is quite off base however. The reason I reacted so strongly to it is because that’s the sort of claim I’ve been arguing against for years but with far-left mystic tree lovers. Since now its Gabe who made that claim I’ll use a different argument. His claim was that if something is natural phenomenon that we have no right to stop it. If we stretched that logic it would mean that all antibiotics are a violation of nature. In fact, it would mean all medicine is a violation of nature. I wonder if he really meant what he was saying.
Monday, November 8, 2010
It's the economy...dumbo.
One thing that struck me as particularly interesting in this last discussion was how Toby seemed to see economics as another means of defense. He said something akin to, “In order to be secure a nation must have a strong economy to have the resources to maintain a formidable military.” A very realist concept; our economy functions as a means for military ends. However, I would take issue with this concept. I would say that one could argue that the military functions as a means for economic ends.
It is true that one of a nation’s top priorities must be the security of its citizens and maintaining the existence of the state. But while state security may seem like the goal of utmost importance, most nations can rest assured that they are not going to be taken over in the near future. Through various international institutions the age of conquest has largely come to and end. Therefore, it can be said the military has become a tool of the state to pursue its economic goals.
It seems that if one wanted to take a very utilitarian approach to the subject, they could say that the only reason to care about terrorist is because it acts as an obstacle to an functioning market. If people are so worried about their safety that they stop engaging to economic activities then the economy comes to a halt. For example, after 9/11 the airline industry took a major hit because people were afraid to fly. Many of the obvious security measures put in place acted more to restore confidence in the industry than actually provide more security.
I’m not necessarily saying that this dynamic is true in all cases. It obviously is not for an entire host of very good reasons. However, it is a dynamic in play and to see the economy as a means for military ends or security ends seems to simplify the issue.
It is true that one of a nation’s top priorities must be the security of its citizens and maintaining the existence of the state. But while state security may seem like the goal of utmost importance, most nations can rest assured that they are not going to be taken over in the near future. Through various international institutions the age of conquest has largely come to and end. Therefore, it can be said the military has become a tool of the state to pursue its economic goals.
It seems that if one wanted to take a very utilitarian approach to the subject, they could say that the only reason to care about terrorist is because it acts as an obstacle to an functioning market. If people are so worried about their safety that they stop engaging to economic activities then the economy comes to a halt. For example, after 9/11 the airline industry took a major hit because people were afraid to fly. Many of the obvious security measures put in place acted more to restore confidence in the industry than actually provide more security.
I’m not necessarily saying that this dynamic is true in all cases. It obviously is not for an entire host of very good reasons. However, it is a dynamic in play and to see the economy as a means for military ends or security ends seems to simplify the issue.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Security and Afghanistan
As the war in Afghanistan continues to prove to be a great challenge, questions over its productivity have increased. Even if a person excludes all the questions about its legitimacy they still have to decide whether it is making them more or less secure. I believe that, in the long run, the war has made me less secure.
The war is Afghanistan acts as a recruitment tool for all terrorist cells. They are able to point to it as proof of the US’s imperialistic desires. Furthermore, anytime we destroy someone’s home, spoil someone’s harvest, or kill someone’s family member we foster the growth of anger; both anger of the individual effected and general societal anger. The societal anger lays a foundation upon which presupposes individuals to turn anger into action when directly effected by the US negatively. The number of terrorist cells has grown exponentially since our “War on Terror.” I suppose that when Bush declared it he forgot that in war both side increase recruitment.
By failing to effectively establish a functioning state in Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban the war has highlighted the weaknesses in the US military. Before the two wars began after 9/11, the US military was held in awe by the world. The war Bosnia and the First Gulf War demonstrated the ability of the US to project power made any attack upon it seem like a daunting proposition. However, the wars in Iraq an Afghanistan have proved to be challenges beyond the reckoning of most people in the early 2000’s. As a result, the world is now intimately aware of the US military’s limitations.
Furthermore, the war in Afghanistan has made us less able to react to additional security threats. If the Bush administrations only goal in Afghanistan was to protect the American people, we would have been much better off with a much more limited approach. Special Forces operations and Predator strikes would have been sufficient resources to limit Al Qaeda’s capabilities to acceptable levels.
Above all, we must realize that fighting the Taliban does not make us more secure. The Taliban’s immediate goals do not extend beyond the Afghan borders. In the Frontline documentary called, “Behind Taliban Lines” they talk to many Taliban fighters about what their motivation is for joining. Across the board they say that the only reason they are fighting is to get foreigners to leave their land. They see the American occupation their as an assault to their dignity. Therefore, while those who truly wish to bring harm to the US homeland have left the country for safer territory, we continue to fight those who want sovereignty. As counterevidence to this point some may point to the more extreme braches of the Taliban in Pakistan who do wish to attack us within our borders. However, these people have been radicalized because of the war and even if the existed before it, they would have been contained without a full-scale invasion.
In Afghanistan, we snatching at flies but the real security threat are the far smaller number of yellow jackets. And while there are several yellow jackets in the meadow were in, the most dangerous ones have moved to safer territory. Meanwhile, these flies keep on biting us and yellow jackets in other places can plan their attacks in leisure. The war in Afghanistan has not made us more secure¬ ⎯ in fact it has created a far larger number of enemies and has hampered our ability to fight the original enemies. If someone wants to justify the war for other reasons (human rights, democracy promotion, etc.) that is up to them, but rationalizing the invasion in terms of security simply does not work.
The war is Afghanistan acts as a recruitment tool for all terrorist cells. They are able to point to it as proof of the US’s imperialistic desires. Furthermore, anytime we destroy someone’s home, spoil someone’s harvest, or kill someone’s family member we foster the growth of anger; both anger of the individual effected and general societal anger. The societal anger lays a foundation upon which presupposes individuals to turn anger into action when directly effected by the US negatively. The number of terrorist cells has grown exponentially since our “War on Terror.” I suppose that when Bush declared it he forgot that in war both side increase recruitment.
By failing to effectively establish a functioning state in Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban the war has highlighted the weaknesses in the US military. Before the two wars began after 9/11, the US military was held in awe by the world. The war Bosnia and the First Gulf War demonstrated the ability of the US to project power made any attack upon it seem like a daunting proposition. However, the wars in Iraq an Afghanistan have proved to be challenges beyond the reckoning of most people in the early 2000’s. As a result, the world is now intimately aware of the US military’s limitations.
Furthermore, the war in Afghanistan has made us less able to react to additional security threats. If the Bush administrations only goal in Afghanistan was to protect the American people, we would have been much better off with a much more limited approach. Special Forces operations and Predator strikes would have been sufficient resources to limit Al Qaeda’s capabilities to acceptable levels.
Above all, we must realize that fighting the Taliban does not make us more secure. The Taliban’s immediate goals do not extend beyond the Afghan borders. In the Frontline documentary called, “Behind Taliban Lines” they talk to many Taliban fighters about what their motivation is for joining. Across the board they say that the only reason they are fighting is to get foreigners to leave their land. They see the American occupation their as an assault to their dignity. Therefore, while those who truly wish to bring harm to the US homeland have left the country for safer territory, we continue to fight those who want sovereignty. As counterevidence to this point some may point to the more extreme braches of the Taliban in Pakistan who do wish to attack us within our borders. However, these people have been radicalized because of the war and even if the existed before it, they would have been contained without a full-scale invasion.
In Afghanistan, we snatching at flies but the real security threat are the far smaller number of yellow jackets. And while there are several yellow jackets in the meadow were in, the most dangerous ones have moved to safer territory. Meanwhile, these flies keep on biting us and yellow jackets in other places can plan their attacks in leisure. The war in Afghanistan has not made us more secure¬ ⎯ in fact it has created a far larger number of enemies and has hampered our ability to fight the original enemies. If someone wants to justify the war for other reasons (human rights, democracy promotion, etc.) that is up to them, but rationalizing the invasion in terms of security simply does not work.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Halloween in DC
Nothing much to say for this week. The rally was awesome. Yousef and Ozzy on the same stage, who would have imagined. I almost screamed my head off.
Something I did notice however: the Korean cultural center went all out. They were trying to get some free trade bill to get passed. They had a huge amount of Korean candy and there was a massive line to get some. The line went right by this little kiosk where some representative gave us pamphlets about the bill. There was also some movie playing in the other room about Korean-US partnerships.
I wondered why they were doing this. Did they really think that some people would get inspired by the panphlets and write to their congressmen? Then I realized that we’re in DC; the congressmen may be the ones getting the pamphlets. I can just imagine it. The fiscally responsible representative from Iowa’s 2nd district walks in with his kid. He’s giving the information and a seed is planted. Two months later when deciding what to do on the issue that seed may just tip the scale.
Reason’s why I love DC.
Something I did notice however: the Korean cultural center went all out. They were trying to get some free trade bill to get passed. They had a huge amount of Korean candy and there was a massive line to get some. The line went right by this little kiosk where some representative gave us pamphlets about the bill. There was also some movie playing in the other room about Korean-US partnerships.
I wondered why they were doing this. Did they really think that some people would get inspired by the panphlets and write to their congressmen? Then I realized that we’re in DC; the congressmen may be the ones getting the pamphlets. I can just imagine it. The fiscally responsible representative from Iowa’s 2nd district walks in with his kid. He’s giving the information and a seed is planted. Two months later when deciding what to do on the issue that seed may just tip the scale.
Reason’s why I love DC.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
National Security
To decide where the boundaries to security are one first has to define it. In the process of defining something one is always forced to omit several details that are not useful for the definition. The same is true of security. It would be easy to include almost every component of society as contributing to its security, but if one did that one would have to ask if “security,” was still a useful term.
In NSC-68 security is defined primarily in terms of foreign nations, specifically the Soviet Union. As such, real power capabilities compose their concept of security. More broadly, in the document it is seen in terms of ideologies; as a battle between our values and theirs. IN Arnold Wolfers’ article he outlines Walter Lippmann view that, “a nation is secure to the extent to which it is not in danger of having to sacrifice core values, if it wishes to avoid war, and is able, if challenged, to maintain them by victory in such a war” (Wolfers, 488). NSC-68 fits in quite well with this definition. The authors seek to protect America’s core values from external corruption through espionage and propaganda while protecting America (and therefore its values) safe from Soviet conquest.
The 2010 National Security Strategy defines security more broadly. It sees economic issue in the mix. It would be hard to deny that the strength of our economy plays a large role in our overall security. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chief’s of Staff, recently came out saying that the biggest threat to our national security is our national debt. Whether this claim is true not doesn’t matter particularly, what matter is that it highlights the economies impact on security.
The Nation Security Strategy goes further however. It incorporates technology, education, and immigration into its assessment of our national security. Furthermore, a group of retired generals have claimed that obesity is a national security threat. What can be seen from this document and these claims is that security is an extremely extensive issue. However, the question remains: does this expansive definition help our understanding?
I believe it does. Security must be understood in a comprehensive way that allows for a holistic approach to the subject. Looking at security simply in terms of power limits a country’s understanding and may blind them from the greater issues at stake. National safety would be a better term for this more narrow definition. Anything that would force a nation to “sacrifice core values” or cause it to lose at war should be included in its security policy.
In NSC-68 security is defined primarily in terms of foreign nations, specifically the Soviet Union. As such, real power capabilities compose their concept of security. More broadly, in the document it is seen in terms of ideologies; as a battle between our values and theirs. IN Arnold Wolfers’ article he outlines Walter Lippmann view that, “a nation is secure to the extent to which it is not in danger of having to sacrifice core values, if it wishes to avoid war, and is able, if challenged, to maintain them by victory in such a war” (Wolfers, 488). NSC-68 fits in quite well with this definition. The authors seek to protect America’s core values from external corruption through espionage and propaganda while protecting America (and therefore its values) safe from Soviet conquest.
The 2010 National Security Strategy defines security more broadly. It sees economic issue in the mix. It would be hard to deny that the strength of our economy plays a large role in our overall security. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chief’s of Staff, recently came out saying that the biggest threat to our national security is our national debt. Whether this claim is true not doesn’t matter particularly, what matter is that it highlights the economies impact on security.
The Nation Security Strategy goes further however. It incorporates technology, education, and immigration into its assessment of our national security. Furthermore, a group of retired generals have claimed that obesity is a national security threat. What can be seen from this document and these claims is that security is an extremely extensive issue. However, the question remains: does this expansive definition help our understanding?
I believe it does. Security must be understood in a comprehensive way that allows for a holistic approach to the subject. Looking at security simply in terms of power limits a country’s understanding and may blind them from the greater issues at stake. National safety would be a better term for this more narrow definition. Anything that would force a nation to “sacrifice core values” or cause it to lose at war should be included in its security policy.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Reflection on Risk
If the game of Risk taught me one thing it taught me to appease the Gods. The Greeks had it right everyone no matter what one might say about Thermopolis. Gabe and I had a certain capacity that allowed us to disregard some of the annoyances of governance. And if one is able to do something convenient, it’s awfully hard to restrain oneself from doing it.
Listen, I’m all about liberal democracy but why not spice things up a bit every now and then. In a democracy the leaders have to spend a lot of time dealing with the masses. In fact, much of their policy is geared towards garnering public opinion. A dictator doesn’t have to worry about that as much. If the people start acting up then he can just send in the troops. With the Special Ability to stay in power that Gabe was given, we were given a pre-made operational oppressive police force. It was positively wonderful! Can you really blame us for not wanting to use them? It’s kind of like in the Battle of Kursk where Hitler held back his attack because he wanted to test out the new Tiger Tank Division. Sometimes you just got to experiment. Now, one could point out that the Germans lost the Battle of Kursk but that would be missing the crucial issue. The really important point in the story is that while, yes, the Germans did lose, the Tiger Tanks performed brilliantly.
Listen, I’m all about liberal democracy but why not spice things up a bit every now and then. In a democracy the leaders have to spend a lot of time dealing with the masses. In fact, much of their policy is geared towards garnering public opinion. A dictator doesn’t have to worry about that as much. If the people start acting up then he can just send in the troops. With the Special Ability to stay in power that Gabe was given, we were given a pre-made operational oppressive police force. It was positively wonderful! Can you really blame us for not wanting to use them? It’s kind of like in the Battle of Kursk where Hitler held back his attack because he wanted to test out the new Tiger Tank Division. Sometimes you just got to experiment. Now, one could point out that the Germans lost the Battle of Kursk but that would be missing the crucial issue. The really important point in the story is that while, yes, the Germans did lose, the Tiger Tanks performed brilliantly.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Diplomatic Risk
The Diplomatic Risk game was quite a nice spin on the usual game. The limited objectives made the game especially dynamic. In real life no state realistically is trying to conquer the entire world. Instead the seek their less grand national interests through both diplomatic and military means; much like in the game.
The game was incredibly fast paced. You had practically no time to send try to get a feel of what other countries were doing. Furthermore, we had no prior knowledge about what the countries wanted. In world politics the US can be sure that India isn’t trying to take over Puerto Rico but in the game the possibilities are endless. A team has to try to figure it out based solely on the team’s actions. However, because our group went second we all figured out each other’s objectives based on talking to the group before us. So, one could say that we based our ideas of their objective based on a shared history, much like in life.
The game was still completely centered around the military. Even the diplomacy was just a way to pursue military goals. The economy wasn’t involved at all. National identity was also removed from the game. None of us thought of the places where we started off as our homelands. Therefore, giving up a piece of land that didn’t matter militarily was a small price to pay for consolidating your forces. Additionally, the rules of war got thrown out the window. There was no such thing as citizens; therefore there was no collateral damage. Land ownership hinged completely on military occupation; therefore all attacks were legitimate. It was like all the rules, norms, institutions, and international laws of today’s world politics disappeared and we went back to a system of international relations similar to 16th century Europe.
While I didn’t personally see what happened at the end I find it quite interesting that three teams agreed to a tie. It sounded like the liberal poster child ending: achieved selfish goals through cooperation. And because there were no indigenous nationalist populations wiping our other countries didn’t matter. Cynthia Enloe certainly wouldn’t approve.
Overall, the game of Diplomatic Risk was a fun way to escape the intensive theoretical studies of the past few weeks and see how these theories could be used.
The game was incredibly fast paced. You had practically no time to send try to get a feel of what other countries were doing. Furthermore, we had no prior knowledge about what the countries wanted. In world politics the US can be sure that India isn’t trying to take over Puerto Rico but in the game the possibilities are endless. A team has to try to figure it out based solely on the team’s actions. However, because our group went second we all figured out each other’s objectives based on talking to the group before us. So, one could say that we based our ideas of their objective based on a shared history, much like in life.
The game was still completely centered around the military. Even the diplomacy was just a way to pursue military goals. The economy wasn’t involved at all. National identity was also removed from the game. None of us thought of the places where we started off as our homelands. Therefore, giving up a piece of land that didn’t matter militarily was a small price to pay for consolidating your forces. Additionally, the rules of war got thrown out the window. There was no such thing as citizens; therefore there was no collateral damage. Land ownership hinged completely on military occupation; therefore all attacks were legitimate. It was like all the rules, norms, institutions, and international laws of today’s world politics disappeared and we went back to a system of international relations similar to 16th century Europe.
While I didn’t personally see what happened at the end I find it quite interesting that three teams agreed to a tie. It sounded like the liberal poster child ending: achieved selfish goals through cooperation. And because there were no indigenous nationalist populations wiping our other countries didn’t matter. Cynthia Enloe certainly wouldn’t approve.
Overall, the game of Diplomatic Risk was a fun way to escape the intensive theoretical studies of the past few weeks and see how these theories could be used.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Sam Raimi and Salome walk into a bar...
Once we were divided up we all took a look around the room ⎯ sizing each other up. The men and women we saw we had lived with, dined with, laughed with, struggled with; but now we were pitted against each other ⎯ it was wonderful!
I love how many different ways there are to achieve your objective in this game of Diplomatic Risk. Each team can approach it from so many different angles and theories. On top of it all, since we’ve all gotten to know each other, there’s the added element of reading the person your talking with. However, you don’t know if what they are portraying is their true thoughts or simply a guise.
I think my favorite part of the first day of the game was when Jaime and Kate got into their little scrap. Kate is pursuing a very obvious means of achieving her team’s objective. I’m not sure how it will play out now. Her attempt to get us all to sign treaties may just be a façade but I doubt it. And Jaime is far more incredulous then I. He was ruthless in calling her peacemaking efforts out. I can’t speak more about the game until it’s over for security reasons.
On another note, Salome was amazing. They captured the humor so incredibly well. When Salome was trying to get Johanna to kiss her I was about to roll from my chair. Yet, at the same time, the grotesque tragedy remained at center stage. It reminded me of a Sam Raimi film in some ways. The tension was built up through suspense and use of the taboo until the audience required some sort of catharsis. Then, humor was used to release this tension and keep the audience alert.
The music was also marvelous. I didn’t know that composers were experimenting with Opera in that way at that time. The music was very sophisticated. Instruments were used in very surprising ways to elicit very unique feelings. I personally love the use of the tuba. As the strings were twiddling how some major modal center the tubas would find a very different minor modal center to create a completely different and dissonant layer. That sort of texturing in the music was incredibly impressive.
I love how many different ways there are to achieve your objective in this game of Diplomatic Risk. Each team can approach it from so many different angles and theories. On top of it all, since we’ve all gotten to know each other, there’s the added element of reading the person your talking with. However, you don’t know if what they are portraying is their true thoughts or simply a guise.
I think my favorite part of the first day of the game was when Jaime and Kate got into their little scrap. Kate is pursuing a very obvious means of achieving her team’s objective. I’m not sure how it will play out now. Her attempt to get us all to sign treaties may just be a façade but I doubt it. And Jaime is far more incredulous then I. He was ruthless in calling her peacemaking efforts out. I can’t speak more about the game until it’s over for security reasons.
On another note, Salome was amazing. They captured the humor so incredibly well. When Salome was trying to get Johanna to kiss her I was about to roll from my chair. Yet, at the same time, the grotesque tragedy remained at center stage. It reminded me of a Sam Raimi film in some ways. The tension was built up through suspense and use of the taboo until the audience required some sort of catharsis. Then, humor was used to release this tension and keep the audience alert.
The music was also marvelous. I didn’t know that composers were experimenting with Opera in that way at that time. The music was very sophisticated. Instruments were used in very surprising ways to elicit very unique feelings. I personally love the use of the tuba. As the strings were twiddling how some major modal center the tubas would find a very different minor modal center to create a completely different and dissonant layer. That sort of texturing in the music was incredibly impressive.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Simulated Emotion
The minor simulation proved to be quite the stimulating experience. It led us down paths of thoughts hitherto unexplored. New ground was charted and our skills as mind cartographers were heightened. However, I feel what impacted me the most was how appealing to emotion was far more effective than using reason to prove our point.The video my group (The Sierra Club) put forward several firmly grounded and solid arguments. While we did use hyperbole to stretch the horrible effects repealing the tariff would provoke, our video was basically just one long argument. However, I found that the groups that used music and incredibly tropic video to support their case to be far more persuasive. The Foreign Auto Manufacturers particularly impressed me with their video. It expressed several arguments that had merit on the surface but would never stand up to a decent rebuttal. For example, they talked at length how they are bringing jobs into the US, and because removing the tariffs would save them money, they could therefore bring in more jobs. However, they failed to recognize that the only they are bringing jobs to the US is because of the tariffs. But it didn’t matter. That was the beauty of it. Due to how wonderfully edited and put together their video was the arguments in it seemed to express some sort of metaphysical depth that transcended all logic. How could one argue against such banal, tropic, yet heartwarming music placed over such recycled video of hard working and ironically all-American folks? It was impossible. Thankfully they spoke afterwards which helped to dispel the charms they had clocked us with. As a side note, I found it amazing that no one in the other group for the tariffs brought up the point that removing them would violate NAFTA.>That seems like a somewhat essential point and I wish that I had stressed it more.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Constructing Theoretical Institutions
The other day we looked at how the three various theories we’ve learned interacted. While in class the three points of view contradicted, this conflict is not inevitable. The three ideologies can be used and combined to create a comprehensive worldview.
One of the first things we learned about constructivism is that it does not tell a state what to do. Rather, constructivism can be used to explain the world. It makes very few (if any) normative claims in and of itself. Therefore, anything can be looked at through a constructivist perspective, even if the person is a realist or liberal. However, a few of the basic tenets of the ideologies would have to be tampered with. For example, realism holds that international relations boils down to a battle between self-interested states within an anarchic system. Using constructivism, one would say that this institution of self-interest is not the only possible one. Rather, it is the institution that we are currently in and therefore we can understand other states objectives using realism even as we attempt to construct another one.
Conceivably, a person could try to connect realism and liberalism. One could say that on economic matters we live in a liberal world while in military matters we live in a realist one. However, the contradictions and equivocation that would be involved would be hard to deal with. A better solution would be to combine these two ideologies through constructivism.
Once a person recognizes that the norms, rules, and institutions in the international society are malleable one can make a great number of reasonably leaps. Under constructivism, realism and liberalism can coexist perfectly well because different states may hold different ideologies. If two states use realism to construct their identity then they will interact in self-interested ways. However, if these two states are constructed as liberal, then they will choose actions along a liberal path. Therefore, a state can seek to create whatever kind of international environment they want to; including (but not limited to), liberal institutions, realist institutions, and institutions combining elements from both of them.
One of the first things we learned about constructivism is that it does not tell a state what to do. Rather, constructivism can be used to explain the world. It makes very few (if any) normative claims in and of itself. Therefore, anything can be looked at through a constructivist perspective, even if the person is a realist or liberal. However, a few of the basic tenets of the ideologies would have to be tampered with. For example, realism holds that international relations boils down to a battle between self-interested states within an anarchic system. Using constructivism, one would say that this institution of self-interest is not the only possible one. Rather, it is the institution that we are currently in and therefore we can understand other states objectives using realism even as we attempt to construct another one.
Conceivably, a person could try to connect realism and liberalism. One could say that on economic matters we live in a liberal world while in military matters we live in a realist one. However, the contradictions and equivocation that would be involved would be hard to deal with. A better solution would be to combine these two ideologies through constructivism.
Once a person recognizes that the norms, rules, and institutions in the international society are malleable one can make a great number of reasonably leaps. Under constructivism, realism and liberalism can coexist perfectly well because different states may hold different ideologies. If two states use realism to construct their identity then they will interact in self-interested ways. However, if these two states are constructed as liberal, then they will choose actions along a liberal path. Therefore, a state can seek to create whatever kind of international environment they want to; including (but not limited to), liberal institutions, realist institutions, and institutions combining elements from both of them.
What would Rousseau say?
The French Ambassador’s hair particularly stood out. It looked as if it should have been a wig. If there was a God it would have been a wig. But, alas, that slicked backed mop was firmly implanted in his scalp. That seemed to set the tone for out talk. His argument was that according to scholars the burqa isn’t a religious symbol and was therefore only a repressive and arcane cultural practice. This argument has several flaws. According to Enlightenment ideals, in every person there is a place of sacredness that does not belong to anyone other then that individual. How that person chooses to express that place of sacredness is up to them. Therefore, any state mandate that interferes with the full expression of it is a violation of that person’s rights. According to this belief, religion is not an institution it is a personal choice. The state does not have the right to say what is or is not part of a religion.
The feeling I got from the French diplomat was one of cultural imperialism. All his rhetoric of integration seemed to hold beneath it a belief that to become French one had to not only speak French but conform to French culture. He seemed to imply that one could not fully maintain a foreign culture while still being French. Its interested to compare this stance with the “Welcome to the USA” video wherein diversity was only shown in isolated sections. The message being that while there is diversity in the larger community there is little in individual communities. With both these countries the question hangs in the air: is it possible to maintain ones culture while integrating onto another one, and if not which parts of ones culture should be kept?
The feeling I got from the French diplomat was one of cultural imperialism. All his rhetoric of integration seemed to hold beneath it a belief that to become French one had to not only speak French but conform to French culture. He seemed to imply that one could not fully maintain a foreign culture while still being French. Its interested to compare this stance with the “Welcome to the USA” video wherein diversity was only shown in isolated sections. The message being that while there is diversity in the larger community there is little in individual communities. With both these countries the question hangs in the air: is it possible to maintain ones culture while integrating onto another one, and if not which parts of ones culture should be kept?
Friday, September 24, 2010
What can states do?
Are there certain actions that states can’t do given social norms? The first distinction that should be made is between what a state is capable of doing and what it should do given the consequences. A state like the US is capable of invading Mexico, stealing its gold reserves, and then leaving; however, given the probable consequences this action would not be wise. However, more essentially, the US cannot invade Mexico out of obvious self-interest unless it is ready to completely redefine itself and become a very different US. I believe the question is whether a state can carry out certain actions given its identity?I believe that without a dramatic change of identity there are some things a state can’t do. A state the gets so used to ways of being and functioning will become so indisposed to carry out certain actions that for all practical purposes we can say it “can’t” do it even if they have the capacity.
For example, the UK has the capacity to invade and occupy Ireland. However, because of the socio-political attitude that exists in the UK we may say that they can’t do it. Excuse me for the Wendt and PTJ regurgitation but I truly do believe that by acting in a certain way a nation becomes defined by those actions. Furthermore, if the UK were to carry out this action, it would be accompanied by such an extreme change in identity that they could be defined as a different UK.
To draw a perfectly stereotypical and tropic literary example, I would make a parallel to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. While both individuals occupied the same physical space and were even part of the same psyche, they were given separate names because they constitute separate identities given the differences between their world views, reasoning, and actions. In much the same way, if a state were to completely change the institutions that it adhered to one could call it a different state. For this reason I believe there are certain actions that a state cannot do while remaining the same state.
For example, the UK has the capacity to invade and occupy Ireland. However, because of the socio-political attitude that exists in the UK we may say that they can’t do it. Excuse me for the Wendt and PTJ regurgitation but I truly do believe that by acting in a certain way a nation becomes defined by those actions. Furthermore, if the UK were to carry out this action, it would be accompanied by such an extreme change in identity that they could be defined as a different UK.
To draw a perfectly stereotypical and tropic literary example, I would make a parallel to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. While both individuals occupied the same physical space and were even part of the same psyche, they were given separate names because they constitute separate identities given the differences between their world views, reasoning, and actions. In much the same way, if a state were to completely change the institutions that it adhered to one could call it a different state. For this reason I believe there are certain actions that a state cannot do while remaining the same state.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Constructing Liberalism
I found our conversation on liberalism to be quite interesting. Liberalism offers an effective way of looking at how nations relate, and particularly how they cooperate. However, other parts of it seem nothing less than silly.
In the modern world it would be ridiculous to claim that nations do not depend on other nations to survive. Through the law of comparative advantage production has become (and continues to become) increasingly specialized. Even if we look at the one power that could conceivably challenge the US in the near future, China, we see a relationship of mutual dependence. This situation contradicts any realist predictions that may be made about the rise of China. Of course, the realist would point to the fact that both countries are trying to make themselves more independent (China but dumping US debt and the US by diversifying its trade) but until either country is willing to take a major economic hit for their independence, it doesn’t seem close at hand.
However, I can’t help but think that the rise of liberalism as a theory and the interconnectedness of the world are merely correlated. The primary reason for the interdependence of the world is the free market. With the rise of capitalism and now with globalization no country can hope to exist in isolation and hope to be a world power.
As we learned, before capitalism the European governments ran their economies based on a theory of Mercantilism. In it states sought to gain as much bullion as possible in order to ensure their security. It is not coincidental that realism was the primary theory of international relations at the time. Furthermore, while I have no proof, I believe that by states subscribing to a theory of liberalism and allowing free trade, liberalism become a self-fulfilling prophecy just as much as realism was.
Our reality is not stagnant. Every action we make in life constructs our social reality and every purchase we make shapes the world economy. Every individual citizens actions come together to create a single performance of state. I personally see a lot to be learned from the theory of constructivism and look forward to our discussion today.
In the modern world it would be ridiculous to claim that nations do not depend on other nations to survive. Through the law of comparative advantage production has become (and continues to become) increasingly specialized. Even if we look at the one power that could conceivably challenge the US in the near future, China, we see a relationship of mutual dependence. This situation contradicts any realist predictions that may be made about the rise of China. Of course, the realist would point to the fact that both countries are trying to make themselves more independent (China but dumping US debt and the US by diversifying its trade) but until either country is willing to take a major economic hit for their independence, it doesn’t seem close at hand.
However, I can’t help but think that the rise of liberalism as a theory and the interconnectedness of the world are merely correlated. The primary reason for the interdependence of the world is the free market. With the rise of capitalism and now with globalization no country can hope to exist in isolation and hope to be a world power.
As we learned, before capitalism the European governments ran their economies based on a theory of Mercantilism. In it states sought to gain as much bullion as possible in order to ensure their security. It is not coincidental that realism was the primary theory of international relations at the time. Furthermore, while I have no proof, I believe that by states subscribing to a theory of liberalism and allowing free trade, liberalism become a self-fulfilling prophecy just as much as realism was.
Our reality is not stagnant. Every action we make in life constructs our social reality and every purchase we make shapes the world economy. Every individual citizens actions come together to create a single performance of state. I personally see a lot to be learned from the theory of constructivism and look forward to our discussion today.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
This sort of question make me think J.S. Mill was rite about edukated voting
Is an uninformed vote better than no vote?
There is absolutely no purpose in voting if you really have no clue about the issues surrounding the vote. Anyone who randomly fills out a ballot or fills one out based on a triviality (I just love his name!!!) distorts the electoral process. These people should stay home. However, if you extends the term “uninformed” to include those people that know very little about the election than you begin to get into some tricky territory.
In an ideal world we would all have the time and motivation to vigorously research every issue and every candidate so that we could make our own rational choices. The truth, however, is that for the majority of things a person votes on they are relying on another’s opinion. When I voted for Betty T. Yee for Board of Equalization I knew very little about her positions or even what she would do if elected. However, I did know that my beloved representative Mike Thompson supported her and that if he said she would be good, she would probably be good. I see very little wrong with this guidance by endorsement when the election is small positions like First District Representative on the Board of Equalization. I don’t understand what people on this board do and to make an informed vote would take hours of time. I would much prefer to let the trusted expert make that judgment for me. We rely on experts to guide us for so much else that not allowing them to influence us in such situations seems ridiculous.
However, I do believe that a person needs to take a lot of time when figuring out who they can trust. I do not trust his endorsement because of his looks and a few tag lines. I base my trust in Rep. Thompson on a close examination of his views, his character, and from his actions as a congressperson. A democracy is reliant upon this sort of educated vote.
That brings us to the issue of education. The philosophers who’s ideas the US founded itself upon did not stress the need for state run education because they believed that only the landowners should be given the right to vote and landowners could be trusted to educate their children. However, now that suffrage has been extended to all citizens and parents no longer have the ability to educate their children due to the modern work schedule the government has been given this responsibility. The problem now is that the US is failing in that responsibility. And while going to college is not necessary for an education it certainly helps. My opinion is that until we dramatically reform the educational system to enable those with even the lowest of incomes to receive quality schooling and a college degree our democracy will suffer. There will always be ignorant people that will vote in ridiculous ways, they will have to be tolerated for the sake of equality. But the least we can do is make sure that anyone who is able to form rational opinions is given the opportunity to refine them.
There is absolutely no purpose in voting if you really have no clue about the issues surrounding the vote. Anyone who randomly fills out a ballot or fills one out based on a triviality (I just love his name!!!) distorts the electoral process. These people should stay home. However, if you extends the term “uninformed” to include those people that know very little about the election than you begin to get into some tricky territory.
In an ideal world we would all have the time and motivation to vigorously research every issue and every candidate so that we could make our own rational choices. The truth, however, is that for the majority of things a person votes on they are relying on another’s opinion. When I voted for Betty T. Yee for Board of Equalization I knew very little about her positions or even what she would do if elected. However, I did know that my beloved representative Mike Thompson supported her and that if he said she would be good, she would probably be good. I see very little wrong with this guidance by endorsement when the election is small positions like First District Representative on the Board of Equalization. I don’t understand what people on this board do and to make an informed vote would take hours of time. I would much prefer to let the trusted expert make that judgment for me. We rely on experts to guide us for so much else that not allowing them to influence us in such situations seems ridiculous.
However, I do believe that a person needs to take a lot of time when figuring out who they can trust. I do not trust his endorsement because of his looks and a few tag lines. I base my trust in Rep. Thompson on a close examination of his views, his character, and from his actions as a congressperson. A democracy is reliant upon this sort of educated vote.
That brings us to the issue of education. The philosophers who’s ideas the US founded itself upon did not stress the need for state run education because they believed that only the landowners should be given the right to vote and landowners could be trusted to educate their children. However, now that suffrage has been extended to all citizens and parents no longer have the ability to educate their children due to the modern work schedule the government has been given this responsibility. The problem now is that the US is failing in that responsibility. And while going to college is not necessary for an education it certainly helps. My opinion is that until we dramatically reform the educational system to enable those with even the lowest of incomes to receive quality schooling and a college degree our democracy will suffer. There will always be ignorant people that will vote in ridiculous ways, they will have to be tolerated for the sake of equality. But the least we can do is make sure that anyone who is able to form rational opinions is given the opportunity to refine them.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Spy Stuff
I found the Spy Museum lacking. Furthermore, I felt that they did not give their trade enough credit. I feel that the true value in espionage is not as a “force multiplier” in the case of war but rather as a means to prevent war. Though the opening video did show how the CIA’s intelligence network helped prevent nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the museum did not stress this aspect of spying. Rather, they geared the museum towards cool gadgets that may have been used in the field once and have had very little impact upon actual events. The one station that gave an idea of what a job at the CIA is like was the photo analysis booth. Probably not the best advertising, however, to show that aspect of spy work:
ATTENTION: Seeking analyst to sit at a desk every day looking at photos from unnamed location in an attempt to find weapons that aren’t there 90% of the time. Do you want long hours, minimal pay, and few career advancement opportunities? If so, this may be the job for you.
I did find the last section to cyber terrorism to be especially poignant. In the Sep/Oct. 2010 edition of Foreign Affairs magazine William J. Lynn III talks about how vulnerable the US is to cyber attacks (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66552/william-j-lynn-iii/defending-a-new-domain?page=show). One of the largest problems is simply the way the Internet is structured. As it is, the offense always has the upper hand. Innovation in cyber defense is always one or two steps behind innovation in hacking. This fact alone puts the Pentagon in a weaker position than any twenty-year-old hacking savant living in his mom’s basement much less a profession hacking organization.
Another problem is that, as of now, the US Cyber Command has no clear rules of engagement. As a result, they are acting largely outside of any legal framework. Finally, as Lynn points out, it takes the Pentagon an average of 81 months to make a computer system operational. That means by the time a computer system begins to work it is already obsolete. The Pentagon needs to become far more flexible to keep up with the rate of innovation.This threat of cyber terrorism and cyber war is bound to become one the largest security issue of our generation. I’m glad the Spy Museum is bringing it to the public eye.
ATTENTION: Seeking analyst to sit at a desk every day looking at photos from unnamed location in an attempt to find weapons that aren’t there 90% of the time. Do you want long hours, minimal pay, and few career advancement opportunities? If so, this may be the job for you.
I did find the last section to cyber terrorism to be especially poignant. In the Sep/Oct. 2010 edition of Foreign Affairs magazine William J. Lynn III talks about how vulnerable the US is to cyber attacks (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66552/william-j-lynn-iii/defending-a-new-domain?page=show). One of the largest problems is simply the way the Internet is structured. As it is, the offense always has the upper hand. Innovation in cyber defense is always one or two steps behind innovation in hacking. This fact alone puts the Pentagon in a weaker position than any twenty-year-old hacking savant living in his mom’s basement much less a profession hacking organization.
Another problem is that, as of now, the US Cyber Command has no clear rules of engagement. As a result, they are acting largely outside of any legal framework. Finally, as Lynn points out, it takes the Pentagon an average of 81 months to make a computer system operational. That means by the time a computer system begins to work it is already obsolete. The Pentagon needs to become far more flexible to keep up with the rate of innovation.This threat of cyber terrorism and cyber war is bound to become one the largest security issue of our generation. I’m glad the Spy Museum is bringing it to the public eye.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
DC United
Sitting down at the DC United game the first thing I noticed was the contingent of fans dressed in the blue and white of several Latin American countries.There was a flag from Argentina, one from Honduras, and perhaps one from Uruguay though it was obscured by the other banners. There seemed to be nothing wrong with using another countries flag to support the DC team. In fact, they were some of the most fervent supports in that section of the stadium.
Once we crossed the stadium a different sentiment had taken over. The blue and white supporters of individual players had transformed into a red and black mob of team fans. Their spirit was infectious. And if you did not catch their bug then you better try to fake it. Within minutes of immersing ourselves into the crowd a fight almost broke out when one of the groups leaders didn’t think one person was singing loud enough.
“If you’re not going to sing get the fuck out!” he yelled, beer in hand. I began to sing louder.The songs in English were easy enough to pick up, however, every other song had at least a few lines in Spanish:
Vamos, Vamos United
Esta Noche
A Ringo make a czar
The last line is a guess. The supporters sang in far too much of a drunken slur to make out anything remotely complicated. What I found amazing was that all the supporters whether they were white, black, or Latin American knew and sang every song. The crowd was composed of a diverse cross section of DC. Behind us there were three white males that complained about their jobs at the Hill during lulls in the game. Next to us were a group of Latin Americas who seemed connected to one particular player on the team. Whenever that player would get the ball they would begin to cheer. A few rows back there was a 50’s-ish white male that reminisced about the good ol’ days in DC United history. After talking to him for awhile he turned out to be a technological engineer for some ubiquitously named company. In front of us stood the leaders. The captain appeared to be the large African-American man standing on the seats and referring to the stands as “his section.” He empowered us all. There was no way I wanted to be on his bad side, I wanted to make him proud in the process screaming myself horse trying to keep up with his level of singing.
The stadium was not filled to any extent but the people who were there seemed to have created close-knit communities. They were not the violent hooligans of Red Star or the Rangers but anger was prevalent. However, the anger focused on the individuals on the other team rather then any ethnicity or nationality. The game never seemed to be a reflection of a battle between DC and Columbus, Ohio. It always remained a soccer game. I think this is a reflection of the state of America. There are very few regional rivalries. The battles are ideological. Perhaps if the game had been between the 10th Amendment Vikings and the Federalist Pioneers or the Socialist Sickles and the Capitalist Patriots more passion would have been created. As it was, the passion stemmed primarily from past loses and the bottles of beer constantly been consumed.
Once we crossed the stadium a different sentiment had taken over. The blue and white supporters of individual players had transformed into a red and black mob of team fans. Their spirit was infectious. And if you did not catch their bug then you better try to fake it. Within minutes of immersing ourselves into the crowd a fight almost broke out when one of the groups leaders didn’t think one person was singing loud enough.
“If you’re not going to sing get the fuck out!” he yelled, beer in hand. I began to sing louder.The songs in English were easy enough to pick up, however, every other song had at least a few lines in Spanish:
Vamos, Vamos United
Esta Noche
A Ringo make a czar
The last line is a guess. The supporters sang in far too much of a drunken slur to make out anything remotely complicated. What I found amazing was that all the supporters whether they were white, black, or Latin American knew and sang every song. The crowd was composed of a diverse cross section of DC. Behind us there were three white males that complained about their jobs at the Hill during lulls in the game. Next to us were a group of Latin Americas who seemed connected to one particular player on the team. Whenever that player would get the ball they would begin to cheer. A few rows back there was a 50’s-ish white male that reminisced about the good ol’ days in DC United history. After talking to him for awhile he turned out to be a technological engineer for some ubiquitously named company. In front of us stood the leaders. The captain appeared to be the large African-American man standing on the seats and referring to the stands as “his section.” He empowered us all. There was no way I wanted to be on his bad side, I wanted to make him proud in the process screaming myself horse trying to keep up with his level of singing.
The stadium was not filled to any extent but the people who were there seemed to have created close-knit communities. They were not the violent hooligans of Red Star or the Rangers but anger was prevalent. However, the anger focused on the individuals on the other team rather then any ethnicity or nationality. The game never seemed to be a reflection of a battle between DC and Columbus, Ohio. It always remained a soccer game. I think this is a reflection of the state of America. There are very few regional rivalries. The battles are ideological. Perhaps if the game had been between the 10th Amendment Vikings and the Federalist Pioneers or the Socialist Sickles and the Capitalist Patriots more passion would have been created. As it was, the passion stemmed primarily from past loses and the bottles of beer constantly been consumed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)