Blog Post 9/22

According to O'Neil, ethnicity "refers to specific attributes and societal institutions that make one group of people culturally different from others... attributes include language, religion, geographical location, customs, and history, etc." Now, based on this, I suppose I would be considered a Caucasian America. I share many of my attributes with many other caucasians. However, I find I can specify my ethnicity even more and consider myself a caucasian "New Orleanian," wherein I share many attributes with caucasians as well as with other New Orleanians. New Orleans has its own state of mind - its own customs and traditions that many other people, other caucasians do not have.

National identity, says O'Neil, is "defined as an institution that binds people together through a common set of political aspirations, among which the most important is self-government. National identity is a sense of belonging to a nation." Based on this definition, I consider myself an American. I believe I belong to the nation of America. I agree with American ideas of politics and government. O'Neil continues on to say that national identity also encompasses the ideas of freedom and equality. In this case, I find myself being a feminist, which I believe is a nation within a nation. This nation of feminists believes in equal rights for women, and I, being a woman, think this is incredibly important.

Citizenship is a person's relationship to a state. Citizens "swear allegiance to that state, and that state in return is obligated to provide rights to those individuals or the members of the group." Being a citizen also comes with certain responsibilities, such as paying taxes. I consider myself an American citizen. I abide by laws set in place by the government, and when I am older and no longer a minor, I will oblige and fulfill my responsibilities (such as paying taxes) as a citizen.

Stability

When thinking about the world and determining an approach to classifying it’s many states for comparison, I decided not to look at what type of government each state has, but whether or not whatever system a state uses is working. The stability of the state is what is important to me for classification. So, I divide states into three groups: strong stability, average stability, and weak stability. To me, it is important to look at the success or failure of a state and a state’s government. States can be compared to other states in their group to see which aspects of government worked towards success (or failure) for one, and failure (or success) for another. The aspects of the states I considered when putting states into each category was the legitimacy of governments, the cooperation of the public/society, and the economic standings of the state. But still, many other aspects of the state (besides the three I just listed) can be taken into consideration when comparing states based on stability.

For example, I placed the United States and Chine in the “strong stability” group. When the United States is compared to China, it is seen that these two states have very different types of government. The US is an advanced democracy, while China is an authoritarian regime. And yet, both of these states are successful using their own methods. According to FactBook, China’s economy is a market-oriented economy that plays a major role in the global economy. China supports state-owned enterprises that are important to “economic security” and looks to foster globally competitive national champions. China had one of the strongest economies in the world. And even during the current global economic turmoil, China has pulled through and remained one of the most stable states in the world. Similarly, the United States, before these hard times, had one of the most stable economies. And just as China, the US has faired better than many states that are now struggling. Compared to each other, the US and China are both very stable, even though the ways they govern and maintain this stability are very different.

This same strategy can be applied to other countries in other groups. Details of failure and success in states can be analyzed for comparison. We can look at certain aspects of government that failed in certain states, and hypothesize whether or not other ways of governing (that may have failed in a different state) would succeed in those unstable states.

Russian Theater

Russia’s best theater productions come to St. Petersburg

http://www.russiatoday.com/Art_and_Fun/2009-09-16/russias-best-theater-productions.html

In St. Petersburg, the best performances from all across Russia will be on show at the Golden Mask festival. All of the performances showing have either been nominated or won the Golden Mask theater award. The performances will run through October 8, all crafted by either theater masters or new, young directors. The general director, Maria Revyakina, said St. Petersburg is “a very demanding city; people here always need to see new, bright productions.” Actor Evgeny Mironov believes the festival is an essential part of Russian society. All types of performance arts are going to be at the festival, such as drama, opera, ballet, musicals, and puppet theater.

Actor Evgeny Mironov said something that rather intrigued me. At first glance, it can seem that this article wouldn't be very relevant to class and our discussions. But Mironov's quote, "It is known, for example, that in America, during the Great Depression, art, and first of all theater, managed to take society away from the deadlock, having given people a new strong, courageous and successful hero. Now, good theatrical performances for us are a unique chance to escape the banality surrounding us,” made me think about the importance of theater in relation to Russia's current political climate. As seen in one of my previous articles, violence is heavy in Russia at this time. Just as Americans did during WWII, the Russians are now hold on to their culture during these hard times. But this festival can also be connected back to our conversation about semi-authoritarian governments. As Americans, we think that being a democracy is perfect, and everyone wants to be a democracy, just like us. However, if we take a careful look at the whole world, many states and their public are perfectly happy with the situation their in. Russia's transitional democracy is very corrupt. Putin fixed the elections of 2008 and put himself as Prime Minister. As Americans, we think "how can anyone be happy with such a government?" The Golden Mask festival is a perfect example of how well the Russian people actually are doing under their government. Grand events such as festivals would be difficult to organize in a state where its people were unsettled with the government. The Russian people don't know any different then the government they have. They like Putin, he makes the feel secure. And in their security, culture and society can thrive. Once stability is lost, culture may be lost with it.

Failed States

Whether or not the state has "failed" is determined by the state's stability. The states which are most exposed or at risk during times of crisis are the weakest. Weak states are at risk of collapse with just one crisis. An interesting aspect of determining a states stability is the direct correlation between parliamentary power and a state's risk of failing. The graph shows that the greater the parliamentary power, the less at risk the state is of failing. It is interesting to see that the United States, though definitely stable, is not one of the most stable. The country has the reputation of being "the best" or the "greatest." But in this graph, it seems to be just average. In fact, the map of the failed states shows that, though the US is stable, it is definitely not as strong as it could be. The weaker the nation, the greedier the leader. Many leaders of weak nations earn money in any way they can - both legally and illegally. I believe a nation will be weaker if a leader's only drive for success is greed for money. For example, North Korea's leader, Kim Jon Il is accused of counterfeiting millions of US dollars in order to keep his state's destitute economy from total failure. Many states, to compensate for failing economies, try to compensate with inflation. Though economists say that inflation can help move along economic growth, too much inflation can be trouble. As seen in the graph, states with the greatest amount of inflation are also the weakest, the ones at most risk for failure.

From this site, one could assume that the most stable states would be the ones with the most solid democracies. A solid democracy would have a strong parliament selected for the people, and by the people. It would have honorable leaders with the county's best interest in mind. Strong leaders and parliament should give the county a good, strong, well run economy, though this doesn't necessarily always correlate. However, when crisis hits hard, a solid democracy would be able to deal with it better than a government laced with corruption.

Current Event 2

Russia Power Company To Mine Uranium In Mongolia

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/business/energy-environment/26ruble.html

On Tuesday, Russia’s nuclear power company, Rosatom, won a concession to mine uranium in Mongolia. Rosatom will form a joint venture, and Russia will be able to produce a quarter of their total current uranium output from a deposit in Mongolia. Rosatom is supported heavily by the United States. The US encourages commercial availability of Russian enrichment services. Fifty percent of the fuel used to dilute weapons-grade uranium in the US’ nuclear power reactors is provided by a subsidiary of Rosatom. Because this fuel agreement between Russia and the US is due to expire in 2013, the demand for mined uranium is increasing. A further incentive to secure mining rights is the Russian fervor to maintain a market share in the US. Russia, itself, is lacking in it’s own natural uranium source, and they are on a land grab around the world to secure stakes in mines in order to continue long-term business.

According to Freedom House, Russia is classified as “not free.” Though their government is technically a democracy, the corruption of their leaders has driven the Freedom House to give them low scores of 5 and 6, instead of the ideal score of 1. This corruption of a technically “democratic” government should bare warning to the United States. The corruption this large state is surely to affect our own nation. That being said, is this relationship between Russia and the United States based on nuclear power a good, solid relationship? Or is it one that could turn out to be a possible threat? Upon reading this article, I was startled to discover the United State’s heavy reliance on Russia for nuclear fuel, and the reliance of Russia on the US’ markets. This alliance is one very different that the tones of the cold war, where the two nuclear nations were ready to bomb the other at any given moment. Also, it seems Russian’s reliance on the market for uranium and nuclear fuel is a suggestion they are encouraging, once again, nuclear warfare. In an attempt to expand their market, Rosatom is making more and more stakes in uranium mines. This reliance on uranium for economic expansion could make some people draw the conclusion that the second Cold War is on it’s way.

Section 4 Blog Post

1. The US does a fairly good job at follow the "fair and free" election condition. Everyone who is registered is encouraged to vote in elections so as to elect the person they think is best for the job, instead of someone inheriting an office of government. However, I do find some flaws in our system. I do not believe the electoral college is the most effective form of selecting leaders. Considering members of the electoral college don't have to vote for the candidate the state which they are represented voted for, it's as if the public doesn't really have to vote at all. For example, in the election of 2000 between Al Gore and George W. Bush, Al Gore won the popular vote among the public. Usually, the candidate who wins the popular vote wins the election, but the electoral college had different plans and G.W. Bush became the winner of the 2000 election. Because of the electoral college, I feel like the voting process for the public isn't really "free or fair" at all.

2. Anyone is free to organize and be a part of any political party they want in the US. However, the US isn't the ideal subject for this condition. There are two main parties - Democrats and Republicans - and others parties do not get equal attention or opportunity as these to do. Also, in our government, one of these parties is in the majority while the other is in the minority. The majority party changes everyone so often, so one party isn't always the minority. This may seem fair, however, the minority party never has as much influence as the majority party does. There is much conflict over the issue, especially when the condition states that the minority party should have adequate rights of contestation.

3. America prides itself on being the "land of the free" where "all men are created equally." According to the constitution, the US follows closely the condition of democracy that all citizens possess civil and political rights. This is generally true, but there have been many issues in the past that do not follow this condition. Women and blacks didn't have the right to vote and weren't considered "equal" until at least 200 years after the constitution was written. Still today there are people in the US who don't consider certain people their equal. Ridding the country completely of racism and prejudice would be a very tough task, but the government, over the last 200 years, has made it's effort.

4. The judiciary condition is represented very well in the US. Though things in the judiciary system are always been tweaked a changed, the overall procedures of the system are very close to the qualifications of the condition. Though some judges could be biased based on their political parties, I understand that it is hard to be complete void of some sort of bias.