Net Neutrality Article Is Ready for Reading

My article on net neutrality has finally been published on the website. It discusses the current political controversy surrounding net neutrality, the policy that all traffic on the Internet should be treated equally.

I hope you all enjoy it.

First Article Ready to Go

I finally got my first article out for the Globalization101.org Project with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. This article is on the 2006 World Cup and how it relates to globalization. Enjoy it here on the website.

(Comments Warmly Appreciated)

Shameless Plug

I've gotten an internship at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace where I am writing articles for their website on globalization.

I have few articles in the works and the first one should be on the website soon. It is on the World Cup. My next one should be on net neutrality.

The Iraqi and Me

On Friday, May 5th the most amazing thing happened to me. I got off the metro in Dupont Circle to wait for Jackie to meet me. While waiting, a man in a brown shirt came up to me asking where Pentagon City was. I told him it was on the yellow line. It was clear the man, who looked to be in his early 30's, was a foreigner, I just couldn't say from where.

He sheepishly told me that he didn't understand the metro system. Having lived abroad I sympathized with him. It's tough not knowing the language or what connects to where.

As it turned out though he was from Iraq! I was shocked. Even more suprising is the fact that this guy is on the city council in Baghdad. Apparently, the Department of State is bringing Iraqis to the US in order to learn about democracy.

He told me he had only been in the US for a month and that this was his first time on a subway. I couldn't get over it. I've heard and read about this stuff in the news but never in my life did I ever imagine I would meet someone who dealt with the situation in Iraq on a daily basis. Everyday Bush is talking about the war, bombs are going off, soldiers are dying, Iraqis are dying, and it seems like everything is a mess. Yet, here this guy was in the flesh who had to deal with this stuff everyday. It was strange being so close to a conflict that at times seems so detached and far away. Maybe McInnes is right about war turning into a Spectator Sport

I asked him how life was and he said it was hard. He had been elected twice now to the city council. He joked (I think) that he wanted someone to beat him the third time around. He said the security situation is very bad and that he worries about the the safety of his family and himself. He personally has hired several bodyguards but it looked like he didn't think it was enough. He told me he had trouble sleeping at night he was so worried.

According to him, the electricity doesn't work and the economy sucks but even with the hardship he said things were better than before. I didn't ask him whether he thought the US should stay or go but if I had to infer I would say that he thinks the US should stay.

The man then asked my girlfriend and I thought whether Americans knew that Iraqis lived normal lives. Whether they knew they went to school, had fun, got married, go to work etc...and aren't just people who are caught up in violence and war. I didn't know how to answer that one but Jackie, always the pessimist, said probably not. Although she did stress that we at American are an enlightened bunch who realize that they are regular people. Of course, WE understand.

I think the most worrisome thing to me was the way he talked about our troops. He said he liked them a lot but it was clear that the soldiers there were scared of the Iraqis. I don't know if scared is the right word but, according to the man, the American soldiers in Iraq seem distrustful of all Iraqis. They don't know who to trust and its hard for them to see who is bad and who is good. How could they tell the difference between those who would harm them and those who won't? I could only imagine how difficult it must be for them.

Finally, the man said he was suprised how Americans in the US were so very different from Americans in Iraq. I felt kind of the same, only about Iraqis.

In the end, I left the guy at L'Enfant Plaza and sent him in the right direction. My only regret is that I didn't get any of the guy's contact info or give him mine. It would have been interesting to keep in touch with him. I realize of course that this is only one person's view and obviously he wouldn't be in the government if he didn't support what the US was doing there to some degree. However, what made this so interesting was that it was so genuine. After talking with him I felt like I understood what was going on in Iraq a lot moew.

One last thing, in my Negotiation class we talked about cross-cultural communication. One thing that came up was touching. Until I talked to this guy I didn't realize how much we don't touch in the US. This guy was all over me (not in a bad way) and while I talked with him I realized that North Americans must really seem frigid to the rest of the world. I don't think a minute went by when he didn't have an arm on me or something. It was quite an experience.

Wherever that guy is I wish him well.

Note to Contributors

Dear all,

When you click on the link to the left that has all of your blog posts only one post may show up. This is fine. Either click on the link that reads "More results from Debating IR" or click on the link that says Atom 100 results or RSS 100 results towards the bottom. All of your posts should be there.

Jonathan

If nothing else, I've learned that Machiavelli is still my favorite theorist.

As Jackson said, it really was appropriate that the class ended on a chaotic note. (The Marxists made my day with their hostile takeover.) Although I've evolved from a realist into a poststructuralist, I have to say... realism wins everything all the time.

Referring back to John's post after the second debate, I read: "You claim to have invited us into dialogue but this was simply not the case. What you call dialogue creation, I call a mob." And if I remember the second debate correctly, that's a pretty fair assessment. Everybody wants to say that they favor dialogue, but I think it's more likely that everyone wants to win - whether we're talking about having the last word in a discussion, getting your pet policy adopted, or persuading another nation to take your preferred particular course of action. Everybody remembers historical materialism, right? Countries might put on the cloak of respect for democracy and human rights, but Tears for Fears was right. Everybody wants to rule the world.

So what does this mean for IR? No matter how much we talk about cooperation and dialogue, it's in human nature to pursue one's own agenda, particularly if you answer to the person above you (let's say, the President) and that President wants to get reelected. Sure, you'll throw in some rhetoric promoting human rights and working together and equal partnerships, but if, at the end of the day, there's someone who doesn't agree with you, you're going to either (a) do all you can to secure their support by any means necessary, (b) judge that any further attempts could come back to hurt you later, and decide to put up a veneer of respecting their decision while renaming everything in your culture that bears their influence (freedom fries!). Either way, you're not going to pause, tap your chin contemplatively, and say, "You know, you're right... I'm going to listen to you because we're in a dialogue and I want to give you the opportunity to convince me" (unless you think that saying this has a chance of getting them to see how cooperative and rational you are and then agree with you).

In this class, we've been engaging in debates as realist constructivists, poststructuralists, feminists, etc., and adopting the language of the theory we're assigned. But our central goal is the same no matter what Professor Jackson tells us to support. We all want that point. We all want our language in the resolution. And we're definitely willing to cooperate (read: form an alliance) with other members, but not because we value cooperation -- because we think that's the best way to achieve our goals.

I'm not saying this is bad, because, on the contrary, I think it's fun; more to the point, I think it's realistic, and that it helps us to understand the dynamics behind international relations in a way that listening to podcasts or reading articles can't. All in all, it's been a good class.

Jonathan Berman Responds to Criticism

Dear Phuong,

I wasn't talking about morality in my piece, Jonathan Berman Fought the Law and the Law Won. What I'm saying is that Butler is trying to tell us that the US is doing something illegal when its not.

When I say law and justice shouldn't be confused I mean that when we hear something is law we shouldn't automatically assume it is just. There are many laws that are injust in the world. We're just lucky because we live in the US, not that we're immune and laws are created by the will of the people.

However, the US has had its share of unfair laws, like the Jim Crow laws. Here you had one group of individuals, whites, use the law to oppress blacks. I don't think anyone believes that what the whites did was injust but you can't deny it was the law.

To accuse the Bush Administration of being immoral is one thing but to accuse them of breaking the law is another. If the President broke the law its as if he's defying the very authority of the US that gives it the power to make the law. If Bush did that he might as well be saying he's overthrowing the government.

On the other hand, if Bush is using his authority legitimately to do immoral things that's a whole other story. Why does Congress sit idly by Gitmo embarrases the US on a daily basis? All they have to do is pass a bill and the situation could be remedied, however, they choose not to. As a result, Bush is within his right until the law is changed hopefully when the Supreme Court rules on Hamdan in a few months that will be the case.

If the law changes I believe that would constrain Bush's actions because he certainly doesn't want to usurp the authority of the Constitution. Yet, according to Butler's mistaken analysis of the law that is exactly what she is accusing Bush of doing.

Can Fiction Tell Us Something About Reality?

I've started to read To Seek Out New Worlds: Exploring Links between Science Fiction and World Politics which is edited by Jutta Weldes. It's a fun book to read because each chapter talks about popular works of science fiction and how they relate to international relations. Thus, the writers got to watch hours upon hours of Star Trek and other assorted works of science fiction for "research purposes" (Isn't academia great?).

The question hangs in the air though whether this type of analysis can be useful. What can fiction tell us about the 'real world'? As Neumann writes in the chapter, To Know Him Was To Love Him, "Star Trek representations ...which are American representations, tell us something about American practices of representation" (47). I think this holds true because people cannot be seperated from their societies, especially fiction writers (at least the good ones). Probably the best works of fiction are the ones that say something about the world in which we live. That's why the best works of fiction like "To Kill a Mockingbird" or "Huckleberry Finn" all deal with subjects that readers know about and have to deal with on a daily basis.

I don't think science fiction is any different. Looking beyond the flashy, computer animated graphics, and weird creatures, science fiction is a representation about how we deal with the unknown and change. In the science fiction genre every movie or book has to introduce readers and viewers to something new and different. However, it can only do this by using shared meaning and common knowledge, otherwise no one could understand what the author was getting at. In this way, we learn about ourselves by engaging the unknown. Thus, every work of science fiction challenges readers to deal with change (e.g. new technology) or the unknown (e.g. aliens) at the same time it uses ideas already known by the viewer or reader.

What's interesting is that no author can reach a total seperation from society. Therefore, how authors deal with the new and unknown through the tools given to them by the society in which they are a part is often a reflection on how the society in which the author is a part deals with these concepts. Thus, science fiction in the 50's and 60's is quite different than the science fiction of today because the middle of the 20th century the US was dealing with the communist threat while today we are dealing with an open, globalized world.

In the future, I would like to read an article or book comparing the US's science fiction to other country's science fiction. I think this would say a lot about how different countries deal with the "new" and the "unknown" and highlight differences in how people see the world in which we live.