Four Girls and a Guy

Welcome to our blog for our University College World Politics class!!!

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Neurosis - Raze The Stray

Falling out, crawling out, seeking out
Emerge now and see the
Returning to raze my shrine
Whole seeds no soul
Blind, shall we lay tides shallow
Wise, I stand my ground
I will not stray
Wounding the ego, get up lick your wounds
Mistrust to survive, avoid being burned alive
Biting other people with words
Searching for oblivion, small scares etc permanence
Tearing your whole life to shreds
All that was alive and spontaneous
Fading under the crests of imbalance
Gnaw your teeth into fangs, only to have them lash out at yourself
For what they forever have done to you
Numbness escapes, willing to face the pain
Your rebirth demands a part of you dead
The longing in your heart for transcendence
Something greater than what we've become

Monday, December 11, 2006

Hasta La Vista Baby

So this is it guys, no more UC World Politics :( It was overall a very enjoyable experience and I especially enjoyed the final simulation. Making and sharing the movies was fun and I "enjoyed" experiencing the frustrating bureaucracy of international cooperation first hand. And although there were some hard feelings, I really think that "kicking" McDonalds out of the simulation was entertaining and an important lesson in diplomacy. These things do happen in real life, and if any of us (and I assume many of us do) wish to be involved in international diplomacy, then these are important lessons that we have to learn. I believe that things we learned in UC about world politics and about ourselves (I discovered I am a realist, go figure!) will help us enrich our college expirence. I am going to miss our discussions and PTJ's mini lightsaber, but at least we have another semester to live and share more expriences with Dominos together. And with that, in the words of the great Edward R. Murrow, good night and good luck my fellow UCers!

Reflection on Friday's class and the major simulation

I found the major simulation very frustrating as a developing country. I felt that up until McDonald's was stripped of their vote, the other delegates were only thinking in terms of developed countries instead of developing countries. I felt that when we were discussing gender equality, the EU in particular seemed to contradict themselves. They said that they wouldn't be forcing gender equality on developing nations but wasn't that what the guidelines were supposed to be doing? Providing rules for developing nations to follow in order to become developed? I felt that the developed nations were underrepresented in this conference however, Japan managed to overlook their own interests and focus on what would be good for developing countries. All in all, it was a very good simulation but now I know what it feels like to be involved in an international conference and not be able to always say what we want.

Last Reflection

I would like to say first that I was satisfied, as was my group, Venezuela with the results of the development conference. The amendment from the EU was very important, so i'm glad that it was voted on to the proposal. Also, as much as I love McDonalds and the people who represented it, I have to say that I do think it was necessary to strip them of their vote. Since it is just a corporation, essentially, it mainly has money on its mind, even if it says it's devoted to other causes and helping people, but it's not like a country that actually has citizens to worry about and serve. Also, I would have to say that I agree somewhat with Bob and somewhat with what Jackie said in her post. I agree with Bob that there still needs to be a government for the people that will look out for the people, and I don't think that international corrporations necessarily look out for and represent the people. However, I agree with Jackie that business men are there to make money and the best way to do that is to make your workers happy, and yes, Henry Ford is a good example.
To completely change the subject and voice my opinion, I would like to say that I do not play any video games and never have the intention to do so, and I find it amazing to see how immersed and involved some people get. I think that this whole concept of the Metaverse and computer viruses like in Snow Crash, is crazy. Personally, I think it's really scary to imagine a future where people are so obsessed with computer games that they basically become real-life. I cannot believe that people spend real money and hours of their time on that game we were talking about in class, WOW or something like that. If people become so involved in these unreal worlds, then their real worlds will deteriorate and there will be no social interaction, which there is already much less of these days. I enjoyed our discussion, but I actually find it frightening to imagine how people let computers and these fake worlds take over their lives.

Good bye fairwell

Bob stated in class something to the effect of that if the private sector replaced the government the interests of the people would not be represented. That without a government for the people the people will be taken advantage off and corruption will spread. However, I believe that instead of the government looking out for the people organizations, kind of like labor unions, will emerge to look out and represent the people. The only way that corruption can lead a group is if the people allow for corruption to lead a group. Also who is to say that the new international corporations are not looking out for their people. Business men now how to make money and the best way to make money is for your workers to be happy. Look at Henry Ford, he proved over minimum wage jobs and was very successful.
Also international organizations always get a bad reputation for outsourcing. However, the reason they outsource is to find cheaper labor. In the United States population is demanding more money due to inflation. One reason for inflation in the country is due to a war that a lot of the population believes is wrong. So I must take into account what Liz said which was that governmental bodies rarely look out for he interests of the people. And I must expand and say that one can not blame outsourcing on organizations one must blame it on the government.
Last, if international organizations did take over governance then people would have to adapt. One has no idea what could happen to technology, perceptions, etc. within that time so maybe everything privatized would not be that bad at that point in time.

Thursday, December 07, 2006

He's got the whole world in his hands

Yes it probably will because, no matter what, the concept of sovereignty will exist. However, the concept will change in one hundred years as one can see it has changed in the past 50 years. Because the world is becoming smaller relationships are increasing and the need for cooperation is great. I wrote my paper about how the new form of sovereignty is to be a part of international organizations such as the EU, and if luck have it establish and run your own.
I disagree with Beka because I believe that these international organizations such as the EU are strictly there for economic means and will not form an international government. I don’t think that it will be possible for the entire world to be under one rule because our prejudices would not allow for this to happen. For example, I don’t think Israel and Palestine will solve their problems in the next 100 years and if we wanted them, how would we make them? Also is it our job to make them? I don’t believe it is our job to make them and I also don’t think that it would be good for the economy to have one state. I know it would allow means for free trade. However, by forming one country the economic state of Africa would greatly hurt the US’s economic status and frankly I don’t think any American President would want to give up power to an international government.
I think that by joining such organizations such as the EU and IMF the country will be at a greater chance of surviving and once established in the international organizations should manipulate the circumstances in their favor to prosper. This is what I think the “introduction to world politics” class will be. These tactics will be studied and by then examples will be established; maybe a few wars will have been fought over this new concept.

"Time Machine Question"

I do not think that there will be a world government in 2106. Even though the EU is creating more and more of a whole European nation, and with the World Bank and IMF, I see how one might think it is a possibility, however, there are still too many people and too many conflicting issues to have a world government. This type of government would have to take into account so many variables that it would never come to a consensus, or agreement to get things done. Also, there would be the issue of a military. Would a world government have it's own huge military to control everybody? Also, there are so many different cultures and identities in the world, that having one big government would be bland, or boring in a way, because it would be difficult to incorporate all the diverse languages, food, and activities, that make life interesting and worth while. As much as we would all like, especially liberalists, it's never going to be a completely peaceful world, and it would be so much harder and more stressful on everyone to have to deal with a conflict, which could potentially also involve war, between two cultures that are in the world. Furthermore, for example, the Roman Empire was so huge and thriving, but soon it got too big for its britches so to speak, and it wasn't able to concentrate or control all the territory it kept acquiring. It had to put people in charge of different sections, so it ended up that they were still basically their own territories because the central government was too large and far away to effectively govern. A world government would obviously be on a much larger scale, but basically, it would result that each territory, or country in this case, would need to still have its own government. Therefore, it would end up being much like it is today, and how it probably will continue to be like even 100 years from now because it's probably the only actually feasible system. There would be soverign countries all on there own, with their own government, and they would still attempt to work together on an international level.

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Question #12 (the second question #11)

I feel that in 2106, there will be no individual states. There will be one world government. I feel this because, even now the EU is seeking to create one government for all the European states and with institutions like the UN, the World Bank and the IMF, I feel that a world government is not long in coming. Of course African and some Asian countries have problems that will need to be resolved on an organizational and governmental scale before a world government can be created. With that being said, I feel that there will still be an issue of sovereignty in the future because of different groups and factions who will control different areas within the one government. It will be a lot like in Snow Crash where the Burbclaves have their own security system and constitution but a lot more based on commonalities, such as history, race, and common interests. I'm not saying that a global government would be a bad thing, I'm just saying that it could feasibly happen within the next 100 years.

Monday, December 04, 2006

Friday's Simulation

Well I really enjoyed making our video and watching the other group's videos on Friday. However, I have to agree with Becca that I was also a little confused as to what it was that we were actually presenting and what the simulation was about. It did become much clearer in class. I want to say that I and Venezuela as a whole completely agree with the EU's proposed amendment. We think that human rights is extremely important and needs to be added on. It is essential for political stability and thus economic development. Though our country is not a democracy, human rights would still be desired and beneficial.

Gandhi would say yes

What can I really say about Friday’s class, I really enjoyed making the movie. Clearly you all can see that the EU will always rule in film. I would just like to respond to the groups that said that our development policy should not have human rights as an element of the policy. First of all human rights would just be an addition to the other elements of the policy; it would not be the entire policy like some seemed to proclaim when thye stated that we should focus on something else. It is needed so that countries are able to have a stable social atmosphere and thus a prosperous economy. Also the group representing India stated that they have many different religions so they would not want conflict to arise thus they voted against this amendment. I think they should look closer to their demographics because 80% of the population is Hindu and in this religion women are looked at as helpers to man’s success. Thus, I don’t think that the country would have as much of a reaction as they expected and in turn they are rejecting an amendment that would further stimulate their economy by allowing more workers and thus greater the supply of production.

Arrested Developement

For a nation to sustain economic growth, a stable political climate is almost essential for success. The national government of any country acts as representative of that nations interests on the stage of global politics. It is now impossible for any nation to remain self-sufficent and isolated from the rest of the world. Nations like North Korea which to stand alone are still forced to trade with other governements and NGOs for weapons, food, etc. Foreign investment and trade bring wealth in the form of money, politcal partnerships, and goods which would otherwise not be available. If a developing nation has an unstable government or economic base, outside nations are hesitant to become involved. After all, if there is little chance of an equal return on an investment, why would one want to invest? Therefore a specific criterea is needed to judge the progress and stability of any developing nation, at least if a large coalition of nations were to become involved in "nation building".

Sunday, December 03, 2006

Reflection on Friday's final simulation

I really enjoyed everyone's videos for their country/company. However, I feel that the topic for the simulation was not well articulated. I was confused on what our group's video was supposed to be about. It all became clear in class what the simulation dealt with but I wish it was better worded. I enjoyed representing a country that didn't necessarily have the same ideals/values as myself or the US. I really enjoyed looking at the problem from another perspective. I felt that some groups weren't looking at the issues from their countries perspective though. As a representative of a developing nation, I feel that privatization really doesn't help developing nations but it is good for those nations that have developed and I wish that the groups looked at it from our point of view as well as their countries point of view. I felt that it was an important issue that needed to be discussed. Ah well, you can't have everything. All in all it was an enjoyable class.

Monday, November 27, 2006

Friday's Class

First I would like to say that I hope that everyone had a wonderful Turkey Day and that they eat (not as much because I know that is not possible) but a lot of food because it is back to TDR for us. Friday’s class tended to get off track and we ended up talking about different people’s beliefs and perspectives. It seemed to be the general consensus that an argument is pointless when too people agree to disagree. I don’t believe that an argument is pointless under this condition. Arguments or discussions such as the ones we have in class every Friday help stimulate that brain and by hearing other people’s perspectives one is able to grow as a person. Also by arguing one’s point one stabilizes their points of the argument. If people just conformed to each other’s opinions the world would be a very boring place and people’s minds would not be stretched or challenged. It is though discussion and argument that people learn and can learn to see other’s perspectives but don’t have to agree with them.
To address the question I think Lennea mentioned this in class but I am not really sure if it was someone else sorry but the quote is definitely written by an explorer. I justifies his desire to explore and find the unknown. Someone with a strong base in one place would definitely not agree. Plus if one looks at everything as a foreign country then one can not make connections between cultures. Every culture will be looked at as foreign and nothing will be similar. Which is unfortunate because when it comes down to it humans are really very similar.