Essay Two. Freedom son

Macintyre’s moral framework emphasizing the importance of community fails to be persuasive to normative liberals because it is too descriptive, focusing too much on explaining why we behave and believe rather than how we should behave and believe. Not enough work is done to defend that niche of necessity. His core argument to justify criticizing the normative dominance of the liberal moral framework is to defend this communal moral process as a necessity of moral prosperity. I will analyze this argument and explain why its shortcomings mean Macintyre’s smaller, but quite solid argument for patriotism needs to give up just a little bit more ground and weight to the liberal to be accurate and justifiable. What I end up with are two bound, moderate ideas working together and against each other in my soul in harmony. The question being addressed is what moral obligation I have to another person. Should I have a special moral obligation to person X over person Y? Macintyre begins defining two moral frameworks: the liberal impersonal morality, and the patriotic community reality. The liberal impersonal is: made of rules any person could discover under ideal conditions, rules that constrain and render neutral competing interests; asks us to treat each person as an equal unit; requires neutrality in evaluating beliefs and independence from social relations(II). The patriotic framework says morality is what it is and there is a special character and bond linking the morality to your community. The logic goes, if understanding morality requires the context of community, and the community’s good is what justifies the morality, and because moral life is hard I can only maintain moral character being in community, then community is necessary for morality and standards. Since patriotism provides structures and standards that support morality and community good, it is a good thing (III). At its foundation, for every patriot, the national project is of upmost importance, the bedrock of your morality, and without it the narrative necessary for a person’s moral prosperity and understanding is kaput(IV). He then develops a normative argument for patriotic moral framework; mainly that it is the best option and a necessity(IV). Upon reading this argument I am immediately bothered by his argument for patriotism because he is giving up a lot of ground and knows it; shrinking from a lot of patriotic claims, compacting the idea into a little impenetrable rock of inspiration tucked in the soul. It makes it hard to critique. Macintyre concedes the patriotic moral danger that rarely, but inevitably arises from having to side with the national project over the community morality the project created or should’ve created. His response is two-fold. One, liberalism lacks the bond (the narrative, context, roots) and the necessary system (standards of allegiance) that is conducive to healthy morality, and two, that in social conflict if liberal morality fails to support reciprocity that leaves only the use of force(IV). I think a third good argument would be that ideas like cosmopolitanism, and the global project, spring from liberalism, and are equally authoritarian and dangerous for the same reasons patriotism is and maybe more. People of advanced, prospering civilizations are understandably resilient to the erosion of ideas and structures that have supported their civilization—on the surface the mindset is if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. But it is eroding. Patriotism, in Macintyre’s logical justification, seems to loop back and justify itself. The logical justification is suspect. The second point in the logic, that the community’s success, or value, or good is what justifies the community’s morality, in this case patriotism, is circular logic. The framework supports the idea, the idea supports the framework. Liberalism offers the opportunity in practice to have a special concern for certain others while offering freedom from this loop of moral justification and the opportunity to concern ourselves at all times with the moral excellence of the nation in coordination with humanity. If it can be proven that patriotism is not a necessity of moral health, than the concession of patriotic danger is condemning of the idea that owing something to particular people is moral. Liberal morality, whether is claims to need it or not, is not without a community moral foundation Macintyre asserts is imperative to moral function. The particular nature of community is being redefined. Human history, though not without significant corrections, shows a general trend away from spatially immediate moral influence. Macintyre is addressing patriotism on the state and nation scale rather than the local community. There is an established and growing cosmopolitan, globalized community. These communities have grown out of the more particular communities that existed before them rooted in the immediate space around them. Even at the local level, spheres are increasingly being reorganized by individuals. There is no specific argument made by the patriot to explain the importance of moral development from the community spatially closest to you. Technology has changed how we interact with other people, has changed which moral dilemmas are put before us, has changed our relationship with others, and our education. Some spheres are changing more than others, and the person who defends the patriotic framework would do well consider the findings of Putnam and others. And many spheres are consolidating only to reemerge anew. Wherever our current understanding of morality has come from, that was never the foundation. Old moralities are built into new moralities. The special bond remains, but the character and properties of the new morality may be very different from the old. Morality may descriptively be what it is today— the morality of social orders—but it need not and may not be tomorrow. If Macintyre cannot defend the liberal charge that patriotism and the morality that support it are a source of danger, there is no point in defending his framework’s importance in a normative moral context. It is what it is, and he should leave it at that. Macintyre’s best response to all this is a better, more accurate compromise. It would be too simple to say that the argument becomes one of which framework is more dangerous, which is just one aspect of justification. It is about striking an accurate moral tone; a beneficial balance between the liberal and the patriot. I share his concern the liberalism is a dangerous unknown and seems out of touch. I agree that Macintyre’s liberal moralist, who must be an independent moral champion who has read the stars, sat deep in thought, and found the answers, is a lonely achiever. Macintyre’s point is that is just not how it works, and application of the liberal framework gets too far ahead itself if it forgets the community. That is why proponents of the liberal impersonal morality need to be clear about what they’re promoting and show how, though in opposition, mostly normative arguments like Nussbaum’s aren’t in such direct clash with descriptive justifications like Macintyre’s. It seems possible to accept Macintyre and Nussbaum if once you’ve analyzed normative aspect of the patriotic framework, you reject that aspect, and consider patriotism and liberal morality separately— the first as descriptive, bound and valuable now; the second prescriptive and what one should seek. This perspective has value in that the ideas can exist together to check and evaluate each other. The notion of spheres put forth by Nussbaum is intuitively accurate. I certainly have a special concern and connection for those in the spheres closest to me. And I like the task, of bringing the circles closer; that I’m not charged not mostly with reinforcing the bonds I already have, but with strengthening all bonds with my fellow man. The liberal shouldn’t reject patriotism, but the normative emphasis on patriotic pride (Nussbaum). Macintyre has done a service to moral discussion advancing the attempt to carve out a niche for patriotism of appropriate moral size and strength. Patriotism understood descriptively can have normative potency, but by influence, and not with justification. Liberalism’s normative thrust will be managed and more human because it will be bound by the important, but descriptive moral function of patriotism put forth by Macintyre.

Two essays on being an American. Read it you teary-eyed foreigners

Will Griffin-CTI 409 Immigration Essay 3 Cultural Pluralism and the American Identity I am sure of two things. I want freedom, and I am not alone. This is a limited understanding of the world. I do not know much else. I think there is a God, but I don’t know. All other “good American” values and systems spring from this foundational consciousness. The positive identity claims of what America is by the civic nationalist are not rooted in the bedrock of American consciousness. The blank slate is what the roots of this blossoming nation have wrapped around. It is what anchors the nation against heavy winds and what will allow us to stand firm until the flood water recedes, absorb, and grow. The liberal pluralist is a more persuasive view to apply to the issue of the American identity simply because it makes fewer claims. I intend to argue this through the arguments and assumptions of the civic nationalist. I hold the American identity, or lack thereof, as a moral proposition representing the overwhelming importance of the national project. I will weigh this against the civic nationalists who justify their proposed identities through the paradigm of a policy maker. At the end I will address this paradigm. While describing the overall liberal worldview encompassing both the civic nationalist and the liberal pluralist, I have you down as saying, “Liberals do not believe that all people can be good.” I’m not sure precisely what you meant, so to address this, I think this means the liberal does not believe that all people will be good and do good in a world in which their needs and wants are not met, an imperfect world. No excuses, just a reflection of human nature. There is pretty good data to support that over time the world has improved and removed some worldly barriers or distractions to goodness. My notions of justice and the evaluation of the moral health of this nation are complicated by the liberal beliefs that in general, the impoverished have less time for justice, and that the famished do not have time for a good life. Other key assumptions about identity that the civic nationalist and liberal pluralist share are that identity is constructed, that individuals may shift, and that individuals might identify with multiple groups. According to Walzer, in practice, pluralism allows people to remember who they were and define who they are, whatever mess of identification that may entail. Pluralism does not make the truth claims that the civic nationalist makes. It is designed for practical maintenance and balancing of freedom and coexistence. Its inspiration and intent is to legitimate and perpetuate manyness. This means some individuals will lack cultural identity, or will be “anonymous.” And as part of the design, there is an expectation that people who choose America and choose the option of manyness will be one, or united. This is a strange concept, but for the pluralist it is the best concept. The good and true path can be found in incoherence and paradox. Our identity is a lack of identity. America is unfinished, it always has been, and it is a distinctive feature of this modern nation that we don’t feel the need to be finished. People can question themselves while they defend themselves. A singular positive claim on our identity is not un-American, but it is dangerous and we ought to be satisfied by its absence. We are simply association of free individuals who have a working but malleable framework that provides for our coexistence. We can be as much or as little as we desire. The fundamental conflict between civic nationalism and liberal pluralism when applied to the American identity is that the civic nationalist will in one way or another attempt to define and defend the value of a national identity in terms of positive claims. The liberal pluralist does not value or desire a national identity. So in short, other than descriptively, we are not Christian, anglo or anything else they might throw out there. The benefit of the way I will defend the liberal position is that I do not have to put a lot of effort into constructing or revealing what the American identity is, and therefore have less to defend. I am not going to put much effort into defending it as a policy. I will mostly rebut the claims of the civic nationalist and others, because my claim is that the American identity is a negative rather than positive. It is the maintenance and recognition of the tabula rasa. It is a respect for anonymity. It has a disdain for positive truth claims and does not act or believe in anything too seriously because we reject authority. This makes us a group, a group interested in making sure that our cup is never full. That’s why we work so hard to refill it, because we poked holes in the bottom of the cup. It is an expression of humility inherent in freedom. Freedom aims to create a void. It consumes identities and the idea of identity. The civic nationalist’s argument is incomplete at the most fundamental level. American identity as the civic nationalist and the pluralist describe it is being challenged by other national identities, sub-national identities, and transnational identities(Huntington I). As a pluralist, I would group these three and simply say that the American identity is being challenged for better or worse, by identities, and that the civic nationalist concept of American identity is being challenged by a fourth and overwhelming motivation—the desire not to have to over-identify. I generally agree with Huntington’s historical account of America and his description of our central values. But for some reason, he pays little attention to what he identifies as the original notion that drew people to our shores: that America was tab rasa (Huntington III). I don’t think he treats it as a component of the American identity, and also strangely leaves out freedom as an official value, because he would agree that it is anti-identity. The decline of American power and identity correlates with the expansion of freedom. Groups die when the goal is achieved, and freedom is spreading. Only honest and uncoerced assimilation spreads the American values of the time to others. The previous holders of those values lose importance. American style freedom, which we can trace back to a number of sources, is the best method thus far of achieving progress and it will only be sustained by appropriate adaptation. Tab rasa is at the core of Protestantism and individualism. This is a nation that can still be settled. At the core of the Protestantism, the Christianity without Christ that describes this nation, is not where we came from, or what we have become, but that we had the courage and God given right to move (Huntington V). An immigrant can be a settler. I agree with the distinction between immigrant and settler (Huntington III). I agree with the pluralist, it is essential that we remain a place that may be settled (Walzer’s articulation, negotiation, and incorporation). The frontier is an idea, not just a bunch of geo-historical lines. The limits of the mind seem infinite, so identification with ideas ought to also have low salience. Huntington, the civic nationalist says that we have to know who we are before we know our interests. We should fear static notions of what America is and should be. This strikes at the core of the divide between the civic nationalist and the pluralist. The pluralist, supporting the flourishing of manyness begins by recognizing the interest not to be identified, but to be free to identify with. This means we must provide some protection for groups. How much is a practical issue. The civic nationalist ought to critique my moral paradigm. What is important is that we have this highly functional society that is safe, productive, provides for its people, etc. In practice, it is important to the maintenance and strength of the philosophical project I describe that we identify with, support, and require assimilation to what I have said are excess values attached to our identity. My response is two-fold. First, to what end? We ought to be considerate of functionality, strength, and prosperity. But at some point we need moral confidence. Second, pluralism is a practical solution. Many other notions of what it meant to be American have faded in history, yet we have continued to function well. I have highlighted Protestantism as something that traces its roots back to the same foundation as America, freedom, hence it survives, because it is a claim in the negative direction. I cannot say the same of the Anglo-claim on the American identity, or some other values. Huntington says the coming danger is that we will kill each other for who we are and not for what we do. Let us be less. Excess value on the American identity is dangerous and weakens the national project and the state. Making that part of our identity, much less emphasizing it has normative implications that will burden, tire, and distract America. And the argument is self-defeating. The separation of church and state facilitated the flourishing of religion. I would argue that traditions, or languages, laws, and values that are worth having will survive in a free market of ideas. Identity crisis is a welcome outcome of prosperity and freedom. In the face of a shared society, multiculturalism, and a wave of immigrants, America should not entrench itself in historical or contemporary notions American identity as advocated by civic nationalists. Let Americans hear the argument. But keep the slate officially clean because we reject authority and at our core, it is freedom that we will die for.

More than a Feelin’!!!!! Scotland n England 2011

So this is everything I wrote while I was in Scotland and England crunched together. Enjoy.

I am sooo pumped for this trip!!! I didn’t go to sleep last night, so I might just be on an adrenaline rage, but I am so excited!
Have I told you the best part? Because I booked at separate times but didn’t want to spend too much money, the plan was to fly back to Dublin after Glasgow and then fly back into Liverpool.
EFF THAT NOISE! I’m not goin back. There is more to be seen. All my flights back get back so late the taxi fees I’ll save will cover an extra 2 nights in the UK. Thinking Edinburgh and Newcastle, but who knows. Only extra fee will be the buses to Newcastle and then to Liverpool, however, since my time is my own, and I’m not dedicated to either, I’m going to try my hand at hitchhiking. ‘Bout time. Planes were sunk costs anyway. I’m going to take advantage of this.
Life is great right now. The last couple days I have relieved huge stresses by knocking out tons of studying, and I have perfected the absolute most ballin playlist in my short life. Sitting here waiting to board looking at the sunrise, knowing I’ve got the unknown, Nessie, Anfield, Wiz, and London coming this week on the cheap, and jamming out-mmmmman! Priceless!
Bros, if you guys think you’re escaping out travels without a couple of FIJI hams hitting you in the face from the highlands, you’re mistaken.
Dig me up from under what, is cover-eheheheh-henn the better part of me.
 
First Impressions
Love train stations. Glasgow Central made me feel like I was rolling into Gringots in Harry Potter. Sat across from an awesome old coupleDublin has a diverse group of people. Glasgow has diversity across the board. The architecture here is all over the place. What themes I do see I find super interesting. Glasgow has really colonial architecture. It makes me think of India, the Jungle Book, and south Africa. But there is a lot of modern, weird artsy, and super old mixed in.
The people seem super nice. Right out of the station I was handed free Vitamin Water. Seconds later, I was trying to take a picture, and a bus driver literally stopped his bus in the middle of the road, full, to let me finish. I didn’t notice until I was already focusing, so I finished. He waved and smiled and all. I’ve also been drowsily making a nuisance of myself trying to walk and observe, and everyone has said sorry to me even though I’ve been at fault everytime. The tourist office is super convenient and helpful.
Complaint. I have no problem with the economic rise of Asia. I don’t feel threatened or anything like that. But I will start a war if Asian tourists don’t change their ways. Nothing is more annoying than a group of Asians my age. They suck, and the problem is growing-as they get wealthier they get more annoying, and more of them come over. Blah.
So Still haven’t slept. Getting worn down, but still treading on. I’m having to recharge my camera battery at the Winter Gardens/People’s Palace, which is a cool looking Victorian Greenhouse in a park. That’s why I’ve found time to write and jam out. Glasgow has several pretty good parks. The coolest thing so far is the Necropolis in connection with all the stuff around Glasgow Catherdral. I had no idea Cathedrals were that massive! I think Notre Dame etc are going to overwhelm me. The Necropolis has to be the highest point in the city, great views the camera just couldn’t capture. I took a cat nap on John Knox’s Memorial, much to the dismay of a few tourists I think, but I was soaking in the sun. Felt weird trying to nap in a cemetery. I wouldn’t do that back home. I felt more like I was sleeping on a textbook.
I had lunch in George Square with the town and the pigeons, who are nuts as I expected. I fed them well though. Don’t get to do that that often. I enjoyed throwing bread in the path of cyclists so they’d get swarmed. Hah. Do the Bartman.
Along the way I’ve run into a few people and hideaways (BlackFriars-remember that one) that have helped me figure out what to do at nights here. Man, I wish I could be here on the weekends, some topnotch fun to be had. But there is decent fun for Thursday.
Highland tour-highly recommend Timberbrush tours. Great stops and cheap. We saw everything I wanted to see other than Stirling Castel, which we did see from the road. Good times with Shelby, my pledge brother. Glencoe is amazing. The highlands in general are amazing. Loch Ness was cool too. Didn’t take the boat tour, but had a good time at a Loch side pub. Belhaven Best is a sweet brew.
Went to Edinburgh the next day by myself. Stopped off to see the Falkirk Wheel. The people of Falkirk are incredibly nice. I didn’t pay bus fare the whole way. They all were so excited to meet me and tell me their connection to America. I talked to one bus driver for a half hour in the middle of a road. He just stopped the bus and had a chat. No bother. Falkirk wheel was cool to see. I recommend this stop for sure.
Edinburgh is Ballin, absolute ballin. This is a well made town. I loved the architecture and time to put it all together. Walking around was great. Got a Celtic away Jersey. Had lunch in a superb park below the castle. The people were brilliant. Great stuff. Rocked out the city and caught the bus back to Prestwick. Decided train/bus to Newcastle then Liverpool was too costly and not worth it just to catch Wallis and Gromit and Fireworks.
 

Whoa. So I, like several others, thought the flight left at 11:45. I could’ve sworn it left at 11:45, but I guess it left at 11. I got there and the gates were unmanned. By God’s grace I caught a Ryanair man cleaning up and he found gate stamp for me. I then rushed through security and sprinted with bag like a mile to the farthest gate. Made it by 4 people in line. Whew. Idiot. Got there quick.
At the Liverpool airport I started asking around for places to stay in Liverpool. FormulaOne Hotel was recommended so I thought I’d do that and head into city center. Well, the buses had already stopped. Took me 45 minutes to figure this out. So I met these Vietnamese Liverpool fans and this girl from Lithuania studying in Majorca, Spain while waiting. I caught a cab with them after long debates. It was £23, but because they wanted to save money, it only cost me £3 to get to the city. We dropped her off in another part of town, as I decided not to ask to stay with her-she was nice and cute and had a friend she was staying with. I pushed on with the Vietnamese guys. But also, I was the only one who could talk to the taxi. This always has benefits. He realized I had no place to stay and had Irish roots like him and automatically wanted to take care of me. So I helped the Asian guys communicate with the taxi and we found our way to the Anfield Guesthouse in the ghetto.
Walked up to this anfield guesthouse with these Vietnamese guys. The taxi driver says go ahead and ask if you can stray, so I did. Brian, the manager, was obviously skeptical, but felt super bad. He said I’d certainly be mugged and not find a place otherwise. Anfield is not in the best part of town. I put on the naïve tourist face too. I just asked if he had anywhere, ANYWHERE he could put me. A closet, anything. I mean it was 1:30am by now. Anyway, got this £35 a night guest house lounge room for £10, which was all I had on me. Sweet. Well, I hung out with Phuong for an hour talking about America and his upcoming trip. I felt bad because he and his friend were paying so much. Obviously a bit of racial favoritism in play. So I told him I’d write Roy Blunt about him getting a work Visa. I will. They have brought me much needed luck amidst my stupidity.
Well, at about half two, Spanish guys have come back from city centre. They wanted to finish a new bottle of the Famous Grouse. Phuong and I obliged to help. Drunk. I love how cherry faced Asians get though. We talked crap on Christiano Ronaldo, praised Xavi, and enjoyed the cultural exchange. They tried to give me an American cultural education while mixing up Harrison Ford and Robert Redford. It was a good craic though. Me, a Vietnamese dude, and three older Spaniards. Sweet. And at the Anfield Guesthouse. Laugh it up world. I won tonight (by your Grace). Tomorrow will be Epic.
Tomorrow was epically poor. Liverpool lost 0-2. Everyone was bummed. The atmosphere was owned by Tottenham away fans for sure. After the game I rushed back to the guesthouse and grabbed my bag. I penned a hitchhiking sign “Lift to London”, and I went to the busy point near the buses. In my attempts I was mostly laughed at, or given the look of “good luck, you’re eff’d you silly idiot.” I did get to see the Liverpool humor though. Classy ;). Well these three kids who cheekily asked me if I wanted to borrow their bike came back and grabbed me and offered to help. Their intentions were good. They spent a good three hours trying to help me out, collecting money to get me to train and bus stations. Nothin worked out. Good couple of scousers though.
So I was lucky last night and randomly found a place to stay in Liverpool at 1am with 2 Vietnamese guys and a Lithuanian girl in shitsville. All free. Tonight's not working out yet. May be sleepin on the streets. Phone dead. Laptop dying. Rain. Darkness.
Yep, just slept on the streets. Got booted from two spots by security. The second pair recommened sleeping under the front of St. George’s. So I did. By 4am I was freezing. I returned to a 24/7 taxi coffee bar I’d been kicked out of earlier. I bought half a cup of coffee with some change I had found and got to see some grungy nightlife walk in. God, that lady was mean as hell. No heart. I was freezing, and she actually pours me a half cup and says since I only bought half a cup I can only stay 30 minutes. Also, my pen exploded in the pocket of my favorite pair of pants, and I’ve been toughing it and spreading it without knowing it. I’m just a mess now.
Slept for an hour in the bus stop after a nicer taxi guy told me the secret way to get in. Then Security woke me up in the morning and gave me the boot. I spent an hour walking around town while the city woke up trying to find a place to exchange euros in the early morning. Nothing til 9. Luckily when I returned to the bus stop to beg the managers were there and took pity on me and hooked up an old machine that took swipe credit cards. Finally I felt relief. I’d be out of here soon. Oxford bound.

Oxford is absolutely beautiful. So jealous of these guys. Drinking in these cozy little pubs 800 years old. Had a great meal at a Tapas bar. Mmmmmmm. And after the meal we went punting through Oxford. So amazing that they have gotten to live there all year. Met the aristocratic youth of Oxford. Strange to be walking around so many people who are just loaded. It was Grace’s birthday (Shelby and Anna’s roommate) and this random big girl showed up wearing nothing but black lingerie and gave her a couple of birthday lap dances while she sang to her. The rich English people were dropping money on everything. They’re weird though. The rich English guys that stuck around insisted on passing out to the Blair Witch project. I stayed up so I could get at some of the £90s worth of Dominos they got at 3am. Great party….
 
Got to spend some time with Alan which I enjoyed. I ended up staying the night there too and chilling to Tommy Boy. I think he lives a very nice life. His area of London was great. Diverse, relaxed, safe. Between the two main areas of London I hung beside city center, I found London to be a very desirable place to live. I know that’s not the case everywhere I might go, but Shepard’s Bush/Nottingham gate in the west and Clapham in the south were nice. And I was glad I got to see a little bit more day to day normal London. Honestly, I can’t write much about Tuesday night and seeing Wiz khalifa. Wiz is awesome, though he made us wait forever. It was worth it to see him come out and enjoy life right in front of me like only Wiz can enjoy life. London has made for a very interesting visit. The subways were so easy and efficient. Brillianty planned if you ask me. £6 for unlimited travel all day by any transport was a pretty good deal, especially in consideration of how much everything else costs in this city. Got a free day tour run by this irish fellow and I thought he was hilarious. Lots of tidbits of info I wouldn’t have gotten on my own, and there was still plenty of time to do my own thing. One good story he told with pride was of the Irish drunk who broke into Buckingham palace for a whole night and had a blast until he tried to pass out in the Queen’s room. I guess they really beefed up security after this. Big Ben and parliament were by far the coolest sites, and one of the best sites I’ve seen so far. I wish I could’ve gone inside Westminster abbey because it was incredible from the outside. Presto and I just wandered all day.
For every six hours you’re there you’re on video an average of all but 7 minutes. At Shepards Bush people were passed out drunk in the park, all sorts of illicit stuff was going down, and it wasn’t a bad area either. It was pretty nice.
Met this Scottish guy at Presto’s hostel and these Australian girls. That Scottish guy was hilarious and generous and kept popping in and out of our night at the most convenient times. We lost track of him before the concert and were walking around afterwards and were talking about him and obnoxiously I said, “duuuuuude” and I hear in my right ear “duuuuuuuuuuuuude” and there he was dominating a noodle box in a nook. Haha, the chances. Magic man he was.
There was something just awesome about Wiz stepping out, looking high as hell, grin across his face and that amazed look in his eye taking the crowd in and just doing his Wiz laugh. The Wiz concert was dark. One thing about London that made me think was the tons of black people and how untraditionally black they seemed. It was weird to think that the history of blacks in England, and current population is different than from the US. It’s just not the same as seeing a black guy walking around KC.
Lots of immigrants, big African presence, but it was a thoughtful area. Like Mos Def might’ve come from. Had an absolute nut come up an read us his crackhead newspaper in broken English about a man-bird living on the east side. Half mockingbird, half man. I thought it was genius schizoid-metaphor by the end. He thought it was hilarious. I thought he was distracting us so his buddies could rob us, but no. Just a friendly nut. Others came by and accused him of trying to become a preacher. He just laughed and we continued to sit uncomfortably. The little park outside the venue had a dog park, a playground, and it all seemed like while it wasn’t spectacularly nice, it was a very important and cared for space by the community around it and the people there, though I’d say most Londoners in are probably very independent, routine, and generally walked about aloof. This is Ipod nation by the way.
I thought London was dirty and very clean at the same time. Not like some areas were cleaner than others, though that’s true, I guess I was just kind of impressed by how clean it was. The parks were nice, trash was around, but not in heaps and I had the feeling it was only temporary trash that would be cleaned up with great detail before the next morning. The city seems very well run for its size. I really appreciate its management.
All in all for England I have had a really good experience. I think I’ve gotten a really good view of the UK for having only spent 6 days there. Touristy, chilled with many different classes of people and a wide variety of settings, good friends, some crazy nights. I really did all this by mistake. It worked though.
Got to finish with a special shout out to everyone who went out of their way to help me on this trip. Phuong, Scott, and Luke. Liverpool is kinda a crap hole without you guys. Also my middle name. George helped me out this weekend I think.

Happy Mother's Day! -this post has nothing to do with that though...

Alright guys, I'll be in Oxford either late sunday night or early monday morning depending how wasted I get in Liverpool. I suppose also there is a substantive risk Nessie might eat me, or I might flow off on her back into outer space. An unusual number of people have dreamed of me lately and found the dreams noteworthy enough to tell me. something big is about to go down....

for this summer, we have no idea where we're going. options abound, only barcelona is certain. obviously if we could we'd hit all the cities we could. we may end up skipping italy entirely though and save it for another time far far away. sell me. i've basically been compiling my dreams on paper so tim and mitchel can read them and add to it, and then we can all choose.

Ireland was great, and will be when I return from England. Up until a few weeks ago it was almost pure joy, but i've had to hit the books significantly harder since mid april. april's weather was amazing, so not like i can complain about sitting outside and reading in the grass on beautiful days. i did accumulate a lot of grass in my sheets from taking my comforter outside though.

this week it has rained pretty much all the time. good to focus me and get my rest while friends are away i guess. kinda miserable though. highlight of my day is a raging coffee induced night run in the sprinkles. i feel like I'm in a gatorade commercial each time.

my hair is now officially the longest its ever been (still not rediculously long). I'm never sure what to do with it. been rocking a dirty comb over....it gives me power, and when mixed with the beard, absolute arrogance in the midfield. I've been playing center mid for the grad saturday team (B team) and excelling (though there is this assistant coach who coaches sometimes and won't play me at all. douscher Ireland first guy-no one cares man).

this friday was a magical evening for our game. rain cleared, great park and turf near the harbor, classic blue collar opponents, primo sunset, ferris wheel and church steeples rising above the trees, flower pedals floating through the air, children playing, a community watching, spliff scent in the air mixing with spring. tremendous feeling! heaven. thats whats nice about ireland. those moments you can have anywhere when you just feel great are that much more incredible, fable like.

i cannot wait to get to scotland and england this week.

killin dat skewl

Well and Alive

Can't party. Attempting to critically evaluate hip hop and globalization for my final essay. Bit off more than I can chew. Guess I have to listen to Lupe, Wiz, Roots Manuva, Weezy, etc all by myself. Power me through this 110% effort.

What do you guys think? Does Globalization=Americanization? As answer it, think about the contention and how you formulate a response. How is your thinking guided? Does this change the way you think about it? If not, take a bulldozer to my Ivory Stump.


One more thing to complain about. Having to fight my way through bull guidelines of three different overly-bureaucratic organizations: Jewell, DCU, and IES. Coordinating between 3 groups in 4 different locations in the world- is this what the business world is like? Is this law? What is this crap? It needs to go, or I need more clout.

GOT MY LIVERPOOL V TOTTENHAM TICKETS!!! Huge match, teams are 5th and 6th respectively, fighting for the last Europa League Spot at 5th!!

Lucky

This April was the sunniest on record and 3 degrees above normal on average. Darn straight.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0503/breaking30.html

If anyone cares to read essay negating Euro collapse....not bad for my first IPE class...

My Euro is on the Euro.

The euro is the most recent and significant advance in European unification. It’s no wonder that in the face of crisis the question arises: will the euro collapse? The euro can and will avoid collapse. The Eurozone has the financial ability, flexibility, and interest to maintain the euro, so the question is of politics. Politically an integrated Europe is a well grounded aspiration because the EU, and the euro have been so many years in the making. Their maintenance is essential to the European project, so leaders in the EU will cooperate and find the necessary political support to survive this and future crises.

The people of the EU are certainly less convinced than some of its project-minded leaders that the EU should be as integrated as it is. Integration necessarily gives up sovereignty. It is a cost, so the benefits need to be reiterated clearly, be they economic or security. The fall of the Soviets relaxed one reason for integration (Rosato 2011). With Europe under significant economic stress, the peoples of the EU are understandably pessimistic and protective of their own. In order to keep the EMU together during this and future crises, individual nations will have to sacrifice for others whether bailing out, accepting potentially suffocating fiscal terms, or enduring unfavorable monetary policy. Whatever series of events occurs in support of the euro, it is a consequence of a loss of sovereignty and, “…sovereignty is inextricably linked to nationalism, an especially powerful political ideology…” (Rosato 2011).

Portugal has just started negotiating what is the Eurozone’s third bail-out. Germans are noisily against additional lending, as are the Finnish, and the caution is manifesting in local elections. The Greeks are discontent protesting and preparing for massive strikes in May. PIG debt may need widespread restructuring. The situation resembles other debt crises. The social mood in Europe has deteriorated under the continued pressure of an ominous and burdensome future of bailouts and recessions, representing the tension of a divergent economic future within supposedly one union. Europe is still not used to this level of solidarity. Even Europe’s strongest leaders may not be able to convince their people to bail-out Spain, an expensive task financially and politically. However, the debate is being framed as costly on both sides: pay up and shape up, or the EU fails (The Economist 2011).

This framing is politically useful in supporting the project to the public, and begins to spell out the clear benefits necessary for euro survival. Importantly, however, I think the situation is the other way around. If the EU fails, the euro will fail. The question is of politics, not of economics. Europe is either intent to converge on cooperative economics to achieve the single market or it is not. The stresses have been weighed, the strength has been measured and the euro can survive if Europe is united. There is considerable evidence that it is sufficiently united.

In a flattened world with so much to gain, there is so much to lose if countries do not work together, and it is clear that the countries of the Eurozone are aware of this. This test of unification has been met with distiniguished levels of international cooperation and assistance. Although domestic support is far from 100% behind them, both French and German leaders have repeatedly said they will not let the euro fail. European countries have not just talked the talk, but they have been walking the walk, each being thorough negotiators for its populous, but also taking on domestic political risk. Risky bailouts have been met with a firm commitment to the euro and this is reflected in the ForEx markets where the euro is solid (if not too strong for exporters). This commitment has not only been shown by sacrifice, but by intense cooperation to explore many ways of improving the EMU system (Rücker 2011). A strong defense of the euro is rational action in the interest of self preservation for these supporting countries. The banks of these supporting countries have large existing exposures to the banks and governments of those in need, and so it is a worthwhile bet to prop up struggling neighbors (The Economist 2011).

If these euro zone nations are united enough to compromise on fair adjustments, they can avoid collapse, and they are. An example of the willingness to adjust was seen in Greece’s very integration into the EU. Many macro problems of Greece were identified prior to acceptance into the EMU. Tough reforms were made and the group still united and took on the risk, and it was a popular move (BBC 2001). The politics that will govern how much nations negotiate still have strong lingering beliefs that EU integration leads to economic prosperity, among other powerful interests. The single market hinges on the euro’s existence. There is an overwhelmingly larger political force in play (Rücker 2011). In such a closely related democratic system, the balances of political power are always shifting, but toward overall stabilization.

First, ability and motivation are enough for the euro survive the current crisis, and the early problems of monetary union. The political situation in Europe is far different now than it has ever been in modern times. There is a new history, with a goal and steady achievements towards that goal stretching across generations. A united Europe, one that has moved beyond cooperation to significant integration, is still a prototype, an artificial, but real experiment reflecting the interests and values of most Europeans. The EU, at 27 member states and 17 in the Eurozone, is growing. Growth reflects the popularity and optimism of better times and envisioned times when losses of sovereignty matter less. The system may not be perfect, but the will exists to fix these problems and crises in the interest of a more prosperous and peaceful Europe. Integration is intended to bring a prosperous equilibrium to a group diverse in economic history, fiscal policy, and strength (Jacques 2001). Unification is important in its own symbiotic right, but also breaks down the dooming North/South political roots of major debt crises of the past which the Eurozone resembles. The integration of European countries will force a common ground and care that has not been found in other crises and negotiations like the IMF and Argentina (Oatley 343-344). The future is distinguishable from past failures in the political regard. Populist anger will die down as prospering economies continue to grow and suffering economies receive negotiated stabilization packages.

The monetary union is proving of significant advantage in the crisis even as it shows its weaknesses, and this shakes a calming uncertainty into a scattered, but loud populous revolt. The introduction of the euro, and several treaties in the monetary union, give implicit guarantees of bail-outs even in the face of the explicit Maastricht Treaty. The bailouts are happening, and regardless, risk is reduced because the implicit guarantee exists, making a solution more viable. The debt crisis is stabilizing, and although the economic structure of the Eurozone allowed the situation to get worse before it got better, economic scrutiny and politics caught the situation before it was beyond repair (Bagus 2011). The economic advantages of the most recent steps in economic integration like the existence of the European Central Bank and the creation and adoption of the euro, while being challenged by the crisis, have been realized. Right now, the Eurozone economy is growing at a promising pace, and Spain doesn’t seem to be following any trend of the moral hazard (Winning 2011). In addition no one is in serious danger of dropping the euro and causing panic. There are no other good options, there is no plan B other than the euro. Even if one came about, the logistical hurdles would be immense (Welfens 2011).

The euro is argued to have irreconcilable structural problems, a single central bank financing multiple independent states (part of a tragedy of the commons), and loopholes (Bagus 2011). It is easy to get caught up in a debate over whether these issues if left untouched mean eventual collapse. If any of these issues is identified as a true problem, the problems will be addressed and the Eurozone will change, or break rules from time to time, but not collapse. No doubt these structural properties of the EMU that supposedly contributed to the crisis, or have hindered recovery will go through a new round on intensive evaluation, and this will take time. But there will be time before a collapse (Bagus 2011). In fact the existence of a single currency, the central bank etc, is just the current result of many decades of steadily increasing integration (Rosata 2011). It is a step in evolution, just a degree of change, and arguments against the structures ought to be weighed against over half a century of successful, orderly adaptation.

I am not having my cake and eating it too. Advances in integration have been small enough to say the system is careful, flexible, stable overtime. And at the same time, they have been large enough to each state, and attracted enough support, to show the larger goal of integration is an overwhelming political force. Even if the claim that European nations have increasingly pursued self interested economic policies over those of the community recently were true, it does not mean that when the life of the euro and EU are said to be on the line, cooperation wouldn’t occur. It is notable that stable euro countries are accepting responsibility for pursuing loopholes in structural arrangements even unrelated to the crisis (Rücker 2011). In politics and economics, the idea that European integration and cooperation leads to prosperity and equilibrium has a stronger record and representation in policy than disintegration or collapse due to the long term similarities of European states (Jacquet 2001).

It is wrong or at least inadequate to measure Eurozone integration against traditional political economy theories or approaches for multiple states, or a single state. The envisioned form of this economic union is in constant development, yet undefined. One constant remains: integration. The system is unique for example, because states technically have no control over monetary or exchange rates from one perspective, but by being a part of the Eurozone, realistically have sway on both, and have free capital flow. It’s a unique take on the triad. The independence of the ECB creates political harmony and eliminates leverage, but spurs conflict and difference in a quest for influence. There are many similar paradoxes within the EU economic system representing incompletion and flexibility (Oatley 2009, 214-305). In such an undefined environment a strong political conviction, like that of the project, will prosper and dominate the details of solutions.

For millennia, the unification of Europe has been the project of emperors, madmen, idealists, and in the vein of the latter, most common folk. The first half of the twentieth century served as the tragic and climactic reminder that this project has never enjoyed lasting success. The current economic crisis is the first major test of decades of careful, democratically executed political and economic integration. Though populous politics are making for tense negotiations, the euro and European project have an overwhelming and reasonable political undercurrent. Political strength creates economic strength. Because the eurozone has the means, motivation and flexibility to deal with the crisis and structural problems, the EU and the Eurozone will emerge from this crisis stronger. My euro is on the euro.



 
References
Bagus, P. The Tragedy of the Euro. The Independent Review, Vol. 15, No. 4, Spring 2011. Business Source Premier. Dublin City University on 18/04/2011.
BBC News. Greece Joins Eurozone. January 1, 2001. . 15/04/11.
Jacquet, P. and Pisani-Ferr, J. Economic Policy Co-ordination in the Eurozone: what has been achieved? What should be done? Sussex European Institute Brighton, UK. January 2001. . 15/04/11.
Oately, T. International Political Economy. 4th ed. New York: Longman, 2009.
Rosato, S. Europe’s Troubles. International Security, Spring 2011, Vol. 35, No. 4. ProjectMuse. http://muse.jhu.edu. William Jewell College on 04/21/11.
Rücker, J. 2011. Shaping Europe’s Economic Future with Solidarity and Responsibility. 2/22/2011. Stockholm School of Economics.
Welfens, P. From the Transatlantic Banking Crisis to the Euro Crisis. 3/30/2011. Springer. Business Source Premier. Dublin City University on 18/04/2011.
Winning, N. Euro-Zone Economy Expands. Wall Street Journal. 4/20/2011. p. A11