You keep saying that word...

Environmental justice.  Nope, doesn't mean what you think...

Trust me.

Begin rant.

I'm taking a semester long class on this subject.  I thought it would talk about the rules and regulations that govern the environment, the EPA, the world.

NOPE. NOPE NOPE NOPE.

It's all about making white people feel bad.  I have no problem with this.  Really.  White people need to be reminded on a regular basis that they've seriously screwed up the world and, therefore, have some responsibility for cleaning it up.  You make a mess, you clean it up.  Universal truth.

But a whole semester? REALLY? Additionally, this class is just preaching to the choir.  It's full of environmentally minded people, who think the USA needs to step up and help out with climate change, etc.  We agree that climate change sucks.  Now can we pretty please with sugar on top do something about it?

Overall, the past semester was an interesting dichotomy between pessimism and optimism.

Political science taught me pessimism but in the best way possible.  I promise it's not as bad as it sounds.

Okay, I lied, but I told you I did that.  Didn't I?  I think I did.  Now I've told you.  I lie.  Frequently.  Especially in my blog posts.  Kidding, kidding!

Or am I?

Anyway, my political science professor spoke a lot about the importance of realizing the consequences of actions.  This surfaced in our study of many different times, but I'll focus on the Interwar period, which is the period of time in the 19th century before WWI during which there were no systemic wars.  Systemic war here means global conflict, where global refers to the main states in power at the time.  State means country.  Have I confused you yet?

Here's where I'll generalize a bit.  More than I usually do, that is.

Liberals say the interwar period gives us an example of interstate cooperation, where norms of society crossed the boundaries of states and gave us lasting peace.  Realists say that peace was a rational decision by the leaders of the states.  Not cooperation, but rational choice to avoid death/pain/destruction and the dangerous ideals that Napoleon had spread throughout the Napoleonic wars (1799-1815, I believe).  Creative name for the war, huh?  Historians couldn't come up with something cool like the War of the Roses or the War to End All Wars.  Nope.  The Napoleonic Wars.  Gee, wonder who fought in that.  Hitler?

Oh boy, ladies and gentlemen!  My blog's first (and now second) Hitler reference.  How exciting.

Realists frequently focus on RATIONAL choice.  Since the international system is anarchic, states have no opportunity for cooperation.  Instead, rational choices dictate the actions of states.  The goal of a state is to be more powerful and more secure than any of the surrounding states.  Liberal theory focuses on shared norms and the power of ideas (Dr. Pletcher, please don't kill me for these generalizations.  I know there's a lot more detail that goes into each of these)  This plays out in politics as liberal talk and realist thinking (An article by John Mearsheimer of a similar name can be found here).  That is, people say they believe in cooperation but act as though everyone is out to get them.  Perfect example?  The U.S. spy drone found in Iran.

Again, people.  These are generalizations.  I could debate specifics, but this is an easy example to exploit.

Obama asks for the drone back, implying that Iran and the U.S. will cooperate because of international norms that say, "If someone drops something in your territory, be nice and give it back."  However, this ignores the fact that IT'S A SPY DRONE.  Yes, the U.S. is spying on Iran.  Big surprise.  We're watching Iran to see when they become nuclear capable (gasp).  Despite the U.S. proclaimed belief that we work towards peace, we anticipate war and work to be more powerful than Iran in case of it.

Political science, thus, made me focus on the realist aspects of politics and international relations as a liberal perspective can often be short-sighted and leave states flat-footed (AC -5 for you DnD nerds) when war does happen.

In contrast, environmental justice stressed the need for cooperation.  Mainly, the U.S.'s cooperation with the rest of the world.  Color me not surprised in the slightest.  Everyone in the environmental justice course stressed how cooperation was possible, progress could be made with compromise, and lots of other flowery kumbaya goodness.

I felt really bad when I constantly played devil's advocate, stressing the environmental changes needed to be realistic and somehow benefit or compensate the U.S. instead of trusting in American kindness and goodness.

Am I a bad person?

Possibly, but not for that reason.

End rant.

Maybe my next post will be less rage filled.

Unlikely.  I will try to add in some more jokes though.

Toodles, peeps!