Okay, honestly, I came in to this debate late, but I could catch the main drifts from it. The con side was like me, not afraid of the vindictive Mr. Tyre and believed that MacKinder's theory is about as outdated as the last rerun of the Golden Girls, and the pro side was basically putting their heart and soul into the debate because they wanted a good grade, which I'm sure Mr. Tyre gave them brownie points for.
Overall, I liked the class. I would not have taken it so soon if I had known what I was in for, but it was an okay class. I enjoy group work because I enjoy communication, however, this group work sucked: one of our group members was a grad student with a chip on her shoulder. Need I say more? She honestly ruined the group work experience for me. She was rude, snooty, stuck up, RUDE, and bossy as hell. I couldn't make it to a group meeting because I had food poisoning, and she yelled at me for not pulling my weight and threatened to remove my name from the project. She thought we were taking advantage of her because she was a grad student, when in reality that was a figment of her imagination. She talks to us like she's somebody important: you don't talk to people however you want to, you're not afforded that luxury.
Sorry, I did not mean to get in a world class pissing match about this. But overall, I liked the class, A- class, I would probably take a class with this instructor again, provided that this certain group member was not a part of the class.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
No. 9: Российская Федерация
Our country synthesis project was done on the Russian Federation (which is in the title... in Russian.. hehe), the largest country in the world. There's not too much you can say about Russia, unless you'd like me just to attach my synthesis project here. Pretty much: the Federation is fairly new, at a little over 19 years old, it's only had three Presidents, Boris Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin, and Dmitry Medvedev (I'm angered that Google Chrome hasn't entered his name into the autocorrect database yet). Anyway, if they can fight the poverty and economic disparity that seems to ravage the post-USSR Russia, I believe that Russia has the tools to one day emerge as a world power, again. I mean, they do have like 17 million square kilometers of land, and are the number one exporter and producer of crude oil (our graduate student group member did not know this... and she think's I'm a tard). Да здравствует Россия
No. 8: War
Give me a break, people. When is the last time there was a decade without some sort of war-worthy tension between two or more nations? Well, there wasn't. Depending on what type of person you are, if you're in a grocery store, and your toddler has a lollipop, and some douchebag knocks it out of the toddlers hand, causing him or her to cry hysterically, you'll probably lay down a cussing. If you wouldn't, then I suppose you will think about how proud of yourself you are for being the "bigger man" as you buy your all organic groceries and carry them out to your Prius in those reusable grocery bags that I hate so much. But for those of you who would lay down a cussing, that's generally why there's always war. That doesn't explain the war, but it shows why there can never be a world without war, unless of course we just blow the countries who are habitual line-steppers up. Without war there can't be peace. Some areas of the world are destined to be warring. Without war, playground bullies would hijack countries, and, well, attempt to take over the world. But even that wouldn't work because one playground bully/hijacker would declare war on the opposing playground bully/hijacker. It's deep stuff.
No. 7: Super Troopers of the World
This debate I almost could not hold back rage to express how much I did not want to participate in it, due to our placement as the "anti-US" con side. Pretty much we argued that the US was stingy, acted as the world police, and was just generally not being very nice. Boo-freaking-who. The pro side argued exactly what I wanted to scream at the audience, which was: The US gives more money in foreign aid than any other country in the world, and we provide support to smaller, more defenseless countries who are in need. Personally, if countries like Haiti don't want our help, then we won't. Imagine what would happen then. Go ahead and think about what the global map would look like if the US wasn't so proactive in world politics. Not so pretty now, huh?
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
No. 6: Colonialism- It's like a corporate take-over for countries
The con side argued why colonialism is, well, bad. The exact four points, more or less, were that colonialism leads to a loss of cultural identity, effects the environment negatively, is a corporately run tactic, and that it has long term effects. Yes, it's quite true that occasionally colonialism has destroyed many cultures, millions of trees, and ruined cultural identity. So here's my take on it, excuse my red, it might be showing: I'm sorry that we're trying to advance the world into the 21st century like an episode of South Park.
The Pro side of the debate countered that colonialism is good. Big surprise. Their red was showing. Their four points were that colonialism promotes the reduction of the carbon footprint, promotes economic growth, promotes tradition and culture, and promotes world thoughts and global education. They do more promoting than Nike before a basketball playoff. However, I can't hate too much, as they did the better job in my eyes, not to mention they were much less emotional about it. The rebuttal to one of their points was "People don't want other ideals forced upon them", but my in my political uncorrectness (I hope you all got that), if it's for global betterment, ask me if I give a damn.
The Pro side of the debate countered that colonialism is good. Big surprise. Their red was showing. Their four points were that colonialism promotes the reduction of the carbon footprint, promotes economic growth, promotes tradition and culture, and promotes world thoughts and global education. They do more promoting than Nike before a basketball playoff. However, I can't hate too much, as they did the better job in my eyes, not to mention they were much less emotional about it. The rebuttal to one of their points was "People don't want other ideals forced upon them", but my in my political uncorrectness (I hope you all got that), if it's for global betterment, ask me if I give a damn.
No. 5: How to Win Minnesota in Ten Days
Our hypotheses were as follows: Senatorial incumbents re-elected into office in a given year will be of the same party affiliation as the current or newly elected President and the South will consistently vote Republican for Senatorial incumbents no matter what party affiliation the current or new President holds. Our groups Electoral Synthesis project was done on the Obamarific state of Minnesota. My previous statement pretty much sums up the project, if you didn't get it; Yes, Minnesota hasn't voted Republican for a Presidential election since the 1970s, 1972 I believe. The entire state doesn't necessarily vote Democrat all the time, but seeing as 60% of Minnesota's population is located in the Twin Cities Metro Area, and they vote solidly Democratic, I say again, solidly Democratic, that pretty much sums up ole Minnesota's voting trend.
Needless to say, we decided to go with the Democratic party as our strategy, plain and simple. We'd go to the Mall of America as a major campaign stop, and make the other campaign stops in some of the more rural areas, as they usually don't receive much campaign coverage, given the immenseness of the Twin Cities.
Needless to say, we decided to go with the Democratic party as our strategy, plain and simple. We'd go to the Mall of America as a major campaign stop, and make the other campaign stops in some of the more rural areas, as they usually don't receive much campaign coverage, given the immenseness of the Twin Cities.
No. 4: Electoral College
I don't really have much to say about this debate, as I'm biased and self-degrading, due to my groups positioning as the Pro-side of the argument, and the fact that I personally ruined the better part of this debate through a rant that I devised during the Con side's opening argument. I am personally in support of the Electoral College, as it keeps third parties from ruining our two-party system, and allows the major parties to absorb the third party movements. The electoral college does allow minority voices to be heard more than if there were direct election, however, anybody listening to the debate would not know that, as I did a great job of confusing the hell out of everybody and making myself look like a fool instead of properly present that argument. Needless to say, our group "leader" made me prepare speeches for subsequent debates. On the plus side, I think I was able to leave with some of my dignity. Maybe everybody will see my size and mannerisms, assume I'm a football player, and give me a break. Maybe.
No. 3: Supranationalism
The first thing I will say about this debate is that it was a close one in my eyes; both sides presented great arguments and rebuttals, however, my conservative mind took over and chose my side about halfway through. The only Con side I really liked was the loss of sovereignty. The independent authority to rule a geographical area or territory is something many developed nations enjoy, and supranationalism, in a sense, kills that. But that is a pretty good trade off considering what could be at risk in a time of conflict, especially for smaller European countries.
My main reasons for siding with the Pro side is pretty simple: supranationalism facilitates national security and economic growth, the latter through removing trade barriers. I support supranationalism via my support for NATO. NATO has freed up trade among member nations and has allowed smaller European countries to be afforded a more secure atmosphere than in the past. Additionally, NATO has made warfare easier for member militaries through innovations, such as the Standardization Agreements, which includes the use of the 7.62mm NATO cartridge, which is the standard firearm cartridge in most NATO countries militaries.
My main reasons for siding with the Pro side is pretty simple: supranationalism facilitates national security and economic growth, the latter through removing trade barriers. I support supranationalism via my support for NATO. NATO has freed up trade among member nations and has allowed smaller European countries to be afforded a more secure atmosphere than in the past. Additionally, NATO has made warfare easier for member militaries through innovations, such as the Standardization Agreements, which includes the use of the 7.62mm NATO cartridge, which is the standard firearm cartridge in most NATO countries militaries.
Blog #2
My personal interests and goals are helped by me taking Political Geography simply because not only am I interested in the subject of geography, but this class brings me one step closer to attaining my minor in Geography. The concepts of PolyGeo really help me take on a better understanding of things I see on the news and read in the paper, specifically election results, voting patterns, and my interpretation of conflicts around the world. My mental map hasn't changed too much specifically because of the class, although it has given me an idea about where I may want to one day live and where I wouldn't. As a registered voter in Florida, I know that my vote, especially in Presidential elections, counts more here than it does in my native state of Alabama, which regularly votes Republican by a landslide, as opposed to Florida, which is often straddling the fence.
The countries I chose to write about are the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe. The five maps I chose to compare between the countries were the HIV/AIDS map (43), Gross National Product per capita (52), illiteracy rates (39), infant mortality rates (29), and the life expectancy at birth rate (33). The first map, the Adult HIV Prevalence map, is a good indicator for healthcare and the availability of pharmaceuticals (or the lack thereof both). Less than 1% of the 62 million people residing in the United Kingdom are reported to have HIV or AIDS while 16% or more of the 12.5 million population of Zimbabwe have HIV or AIDS. The gross nation product per capita is used instead of Gross Domestic Product as GNP is not a measure, necessarily, of economic strength and does not measure wealth distribution across the population, but it is good for comparative economic well-being. The UK's GNP per capita is in the top tier, at "Above $9,656", while Zimbabwe is in the lowest tier, which is "$785 or less".
For illiteracy rates, the United Kingdom is in the Top Tier, with less than 10% of the population illiterate. Zimbabwe is not too far behind, as they are in the next tier down, which is 11%-30%, which is low in Africa, but considered to be quite high in the developed world. The infant mortality rate map, once again, shows that the UK is quite developed, compared to underdeveloped Zimbabwe. The rate is 10 or less for the UK, but 31-90 for Zimbabwe. Finally, in life expectancy at birth, like most of Africa, Zimbabwe's is less than 55 years, while the UK is at 73 or more years.
The countries I chose to write about are the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe. The five maps I chose to compare between the countries were the HIV/AIDS map (43), Gross National Product per capita (52), illiteracy rates (39), infant mortality rates (29), and the life expectancy at birth rate (33). The first map, the Adult HIV Prevalence map, is a good indicator for healthcare and the availability of pharmaceuticals (or the lack thereof both). Less than 1% of the 62 million people residing in the United Kingdom are reported to have HIV or AIDS while 16% or more of the 12.5 million population of Zimbabwe have HIV or AIDS. The gross nation product per capita is used instead of Gross Domestic Product as GNP is not a measure, necessarily, of economic strength and does not measure wealth distribution across the population, but it is good for comparative economic well-being. The UK's GNP per capita is in the top tier, at "Above $9,656", while Zimbabwe is in the lowest tier, which is "$785 or less".
For illiteracy rates, the United Kingdom is in the Top Tier, with less than 10% of the population illiterate. Zimbabwe is not too far behind, as they are in the next tier down, which is 11%-30%, which is low in Africa, but considered to be quite high in the developed world. The infant mortality rate map, once again, shows that the UK is quite developed, compared to underdeveloped Zimbabwe. The rate is 10 or less for the UK, but 31-90 for Zimbabwe. Finally, in life expectancy at birth, like most of Africa, Zimbabwe's is less than 55 years, while the UK is at 73 or more years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)