Just let me say that is the funniest title I've read on here in a long, long time.

I just finished reading an article in the NYT on a similar problem in Iraq, but this one was from Sadr.

Sadr's known as one of the most radical and anti-US shi'ite clergy around. He is (according to a recent NYT report, so take it with a grain of salt because it is most certainly an outsiders opinion) the second most influential shi'ite cleric in Iraq, right behind Sistani.

To further complicate the matter, the US has recently shut down Sadr's newspaper for 60 days. While I think his attacks show a level of coordination and planning that point towards them being planned prior to shutting the newspaper down, the closing down of the newspaper gave him a very convenient excuse to begin. Then again, I'm no intel analyst, so I could very well be wrong, but that's my opinion. It's hard to mobilize that many people that quickly otherwise.

The newspaper was shut down because it was printing wild rumors and enflaming anti-US sentiments. Most commonly cited among these rumors was that an American missle and not a suicide car bomber had killed 50 Iraqi recruits waiting for training in the Iraqi army.

Sadr, in my opinion, is trying to make a grab for power. Sistani is at best luke-warm to the idea. Sadr is very young (technically, he's too young to be clergy, just a "student", but he is regarded as such by most of his followers), very radical, and very rash (obviously). Sistani can't exactly denounce the attacks, so he is instead encouraging non-violent forms of protest.

I haven't had too much time to put much thought or research into this matter, but one preliminary theory I'm working on is that the US is basically getting caught up in a power play among two leading Shi'ites. Sistani is going for a more long-term approach by working with the US as long as is necessary. Sadr would like to make a quick grab before June 30th, and the US gave him an excuse.

It's also possible that Iran (a majority Shi'ite nation, no secret) is playing a behind-the-scenes role in this.

Just a few theories from a raving lunatic ;)

As a poli sci major, do you ever get completely frustrated when trying to explain even basic politics to others who are not nearly as well informed or studied on the issue and chooses to disagree with you completely and adopt a random, frequently radical or reactionary stance?

Political Science is one of the few sciences that EVERYONE is expected to know at least something about, have an opinion on, and be active in, at least in a democracy. The problem is, of course, that there are widely varying levels of knowledge, and the majority is usually ill-informed.

My fiancée, for example, is brilliant. She's a national merit scholar (33 on the ACT), IB grad in high school, and an English writing major on a full-ride scholarship. She's an amazingly smart woman, and I do love her dearly, but when it comes to politics and political theory she... well, she just doesn't get it a lot of the time.

I'd say that most of the frequent users on this site have a better than average understanding of politics, but they aren't representative of the majority. I like Foo for that reason - it gives me the opportunity to interact with people of varying political opinions and try to learn and understand their angles. Without that sort of interaction, it becomes much more likely to simply assume the opinion of those in my geographic area without looking beyond the Wasatch Front. That's not healthy for a poli sci major, in my opinion.

Wow, that's a lot of rambling. It's a lot easier to organize your thoughts when you have your contacts in and can read the screen. Sorry about that.

It doesn't really frustrate me; more or less, it perplexes me how some people can refuse to learn about politics. In regards to our republic, it is a civic duty for every citizen to be informed regarding the political processes of our country. I expect at least that from everyone. However, I do recognize political science might bore some people to death. It really isn't for everyone. Supposably, politicians are diseased, power-hungry narcisists who have unresolved childhood issues ;) . At least, thats what Freud and some other theorists believe. Not everyone can be blessed with such a neurosis. :D

As for reactionary stances, I'm from Texas. :rolleyes: I'm currently in East Texas, no less. I'm used to it. I don't let it get to me, but I do try to understand that person's frame of thought. How do I cope? Well, finding a common ground and discussing politics on equal terms helps. But as far as everyone in this great state is concerned, I'm the one that's hopelessly lost and needs to be corrected. ;)

And although I get only a very limited and often conservative viewpoint here, I find that my professors and the students generally are open to discussion. I usually try to read and listen to both liberal and conservative media viewpoints to broaden my view.

Hoped that helped.

Perhaps the only state that is more conservative than Utah ;) Although Utah handed Bush his biggest win back in 2000 (no surprise here).

Salt Lake is a fairly democratic area, though. The mayor's a democrat, as are most of the reps from that area.

Now that my contacts are in and it is easier to think, I can post.

I think I share the same frustration/perplextion. Everyone in the US should have a basic understanding of the political process (as we have the civic duty to participate), but most are either disinterested out of boredom, lack of interest, or disenchantment with the process. Politicians are rarely trusted, and in spite of the fact that most have attended ivy league schools and excelled in their professional fields, most are seen as "stupid" at best by the public at large, and corrupt by those who are a bit more opinionated.

Poli Sci isn't, say, chemistry. Only a minmority of the population needs to have anything more than a basic idea of how that works to get by and still be productive members of soicety. But when it comes to politics, it's different. Most have little knowledge, short memories and even shorter attention spans when it comes to the science behind it, but all are expected to have some level of expertise. This is problematic.

I'm not suggesting an oligarchy or anything of that nature, just kind of wonderment at the lack of real importance most place on learning about the subject.

To use my lovely fiancee again, I was talking to her the other day and trying to explain to her al-Qaeda's motives in Spain. Her only real response was, "you know, fighting is stupid." Yes, it is... but there is a method to the madness. I tried to explain basic "game theory", reciprocity, historical problems with appeasement, and a few other ideas for a time. I just couldn't really get her to grasp any of the concepts in realist theory.

Of course, this invariably brings up femenist IR theory, but I digress ;)

Part of me is glad that she isn't all that interested. My career goal is to end up in the Foreign Service, and I'd prefer to be married to a brilliant woman who doesn't understand or care for too much of my work. That way, I can't bring it home with me and can focus on our relationship and family rather than what's going on in parliament wherever I'm posted.

As I write this, though, I can't help but feel a little hypocritical. I'm an international relations emphasis, and personally could care less about politics in Utah. While I can name the Prime Minister of Spain and give a fairly detailed description of recent events there, I can't tell you the mayor of Provo or the name of Utah's governor.

I guess I better pick up a local paper and get involved in what's going here and not just focusing on what's going on in another hemisphere.

Cursed self-reflection! Now I have to shell out more money for subscriptions! ;)

Ok this doesn't have anything to do witht he topic exactly but I thought it might help to point out a couple of things:

[...]even basic politics to others who are not nearly as well informed or studied on the issue[...]

While this could just be an innocent question it does sound rather like there is a lot of judgement behind it. Just because they disagree doesn't necessarily mean they don't know the basics it could be they just have a different view of those same basics.

[...]well, she just doesn't get it a lot of the time.

This is only based on your political view. Again, there is a condencending attitude based on the fact that the person doesn't agree with you. I mean if she did, then she would "get it" right?

Now dance!

This is what we call an academic discussion regarding existing political theory, not necessarily issues of the day. Simply stating "This is my opinion/philosophy" does not play much into it.

The "basics" refer to this theory. Varying types of international relations doctrines, for example (realist, liberal, constructivist, and the many subcategories) and how each one works, why it works, and what it's based on.

In the realm of domestic affairs, it's a basic understanding of the organization of congress, how interest groups influence elections, incumbent powers and advantages, Whig role vs. Stewardship role of the presidency, etc.

I'm not as familiar with comparative politics, so I'll skip that for the moment.

Those are "the basics". You won't note too many references to current events either in this post or in the previous. Political Science is about analysis of patterns and philosophies.


Then, we get this little gem from you, Rev: This is only based on your political view. Again, there is a condencending attitude based on the fact that the person doesn't agree with you. I mean if she did, then she would "get it" right?

Uh, no. You completely missed the point. This is an academic discussion between two people in the same major who happen to know at least something more than the basics on the issue. Political Science isn't what you see happening on CNN all the time, it's the STUDY of what you see happening in the world.

Many people just can't get the basic concepts, and fall into a "this guy/thing is good, this guy/thing is bad" mode and can't get out of it. While this may be great for some people, it doesn't bode well for those who are expected to participate in running a country as voters are supposedly expected to do.

Rev, as I stated before, this is an academic discussion, so if you're going to comment on it at least attempt to educate yourself first.

And again you dance.

Thanks for making my point and avoiding.

Now if you please.




Dance :eyemouth:

And not necessarily because I'm intellectually arrogant, although I certainly can be at times. :P

When I debate here on Kungfoo, I often have to explain a political concept before arguing my points based on its merits. Point in case: Deterrence theory.

Here's one of the paragraphs from my latest poli-sci paper:

Gurr identifies three classes of values to which people respond: 1) welfare values are determined by physical well-being and self-actualization; 2) power values are determined by participatory ability and security; 3) interpersonal values are determined by status, communality and ideational coherence (Gurr 26). When the value expectations of these said variables, the average future conditions which a collectivity expects, do not meet value capabilities, the present average value conditions a collectivity percieves itself as capable of maintaining, the result may be violent political action depending on the scope and intensity of the relative deprivation experienced (Gurr 27 - 30).

Now, I don't expect everyone to know what I'm talking about if I, at some point, launch into an analysis of collective action (riots and such). Is it because people are stupid? No. But what I study is not bed-time reading either. Political science is a science in every sense of the word with graphs, numbers, history, psychology, philosophy, etc. I think that is what Chepibe was referring to.

Of course, opinions may lead to different conclusions. You're right on that count. But, because of my major, I come to those conclusion in a completely different manner than most people. And when trying to explain my position, I have a hard time of accurately and simply explaining my own opinion because most people don't think on these terms.

As one of my professor often explains, he has changed my way of thinking, not necessarily my thoughts. Its not that other people don't "get" my opinion and agree with it (though that happens often enough); its that other people can't see how I reached that opinion.

I guess we can all see why you didn't do so well in college, Rev.

I can see the process now:

1) Professor explains a theory

2) Rev responds by sayiing, "duh, you're dumb and I don't agree with you"

3) Professor attempts to explain complex theory

4) Rev gets up, points, screams, "dance!", pays no attention, fails the class, complains about the "politics" in his school (perhaps if he'd only paid attention to political science,he'd understand...) and leaves.

That pretty well sum it up?

That I attempt to "dumb down" too much. Not to insult the intelligence of the people on this board as a whole, but specialists in any field have to do this all the time. Medical doctors, for example, do this as a career every time I visit ;)

All I really know about chemistry, for example, is that I shouldn't mix bleach with amonia...

But, as discussed above, politics is a special field because everyone is expected to participate in it.

I should probably spend more time setting down foundations for theory and explaining them rather than using more common language.

Then again, I'm pretty lazy sometimes ;)

That I attempt to "dumb down" too much. Not to insult the intelligence of the people on this board as a whole, but specialists in any field have to do this all the time. Medical doctors, for example, do this as a career every time I visit ;)

All I really know about chemistry, for example, is that I shouldn't mix bleach with amonia...

But, as discussed above, politics is a special field because everyone is expected to participate in it.

I should probably spend more time setting down foundations for theory and explaining them rather than using more common language.

Then again, I'm pretty lazy sometimes ;)