POLS170 Blog Posts

       I work for the Bucknell institute for public policy running a podcast where we discuss modern issues in politics and political news, usually we bring on a professor or other expert in the field of whatever we’re discussing. We did an episode at the beginning of this year that discussed buzzword in modern day politics and I think that when we talked about how the word “terrorism” is really more of a political one than anything else, I started drawing connetions between the two ideas. Within politics, certain language can often get skewed or molded to fit a certain meaning, or lose its meaning entirely. These words and phrases can have an extreme effect on the way people see and interpret issues in the general public. We call these words and phrases “buzzwords”. They are often used to call attention to an issue or gain a strong response, and in this sense, they can be very handy. This isn't something that has necessarily become more common, since buzzwords in po...

Simone Billera April 20th, 2022 Blog Post #4 Last week, Professor Shirk split the class into groups and instructed us to define the term “terrorism.” Each response was slightly different from the next, a pattern which I found both intriguing and vexing. As I did a bit more research, I realized that this pattern is not unique to our classroom. The definition of terrorism is ambiguous when analyzing it on an international level. It can even be obscure domestically, as many U.S. states have passed individualized statutes on the matter. As the relevance of terrorism is only increasing due to its constantly rising presence in our contemporary world, I have started to wonder if its vague definition is healthy.  On April 12th, 2022, Frank Robert James opened fire in a New York City subway. Thankfully, no one was killed; however, 29 people were left injured, 10 of them with gunshot wounds. Initially, the shooting was not being investigated as an act of terror, but Frank Robert James now fa...

  Christine Ajao Professor Shirk POLS 170 20 April 2022  Can the State of our Environment be Political? And Should it? In Francis’s article “Cities, States, and Companies vow to stick to the Paris Agreement” he discusses how although Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris agreement, the US still plans to be a part of the decision to curb climate change. Other counties and organizations plan to stick to the Paris Agreement, where the goal is to lower greenhouse emissions. Trump says he did it to save US jobs and used the phrase “He said he was leaving the pact to help the people of Pittsburgh, not Paris, despite the fact that the Steel City has successfully shifted away from heavy manufacturing to a robust economy fueled by the tech, healthcare, and higher-learning sectors” (Francis). This statement clearly highlights political sentiments toward joining an agreement that would benefit the environment. The question is ‘Can the state of our Environment be Politic...

  Remi Adefioye Blog post 4  The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjust and did not follow the Just War Theory. The bombs were effective and changed the world, but unjust nevertheless. During the war, it was clear that the Japanese were not going to surrender. They were willing to fight for longer and to the death. On the contrary, the U.S. was eager to shorten the war and potentially save American lives. The US gave the Japanese many opportunities to surrender; however, they chose not to do so. In the end, the atomic bombs achieved the US’s desired goal of surrender, but their route of doing so failed to value the principles of Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello. Jus Ad Bellum is about the process before the action. The US decisions were made by a political authority, it can easily be argued that it was a matter of self-defense for their citizens, and there was a high probability of success. However, the use of nuclear bombs was not the last resort for ending ...

  Brian Cote Professor Shirk POLS 170 20 April 2022 Blog 4 Upon our class discussion of the state of global health, it was mentioned how poorer economic states were often ignored or disadvantaged when it came to having a voice in the international community regarding medical research and discourse. I agreed with this argument, however, recently it seems as if the tide is turning in favor of a more unified and equal international medical field. The Biden Administration is now hosting a second Global COVID-19 Summit, and has invited the Caribbean community, known as CARICOM, led by Belize, the G7 group led by Germany, the African Union led by Senegal, and the G20 group led by Indonesia. While I do recognize that the summit is being led by the United States, which is a powerful first-world state, I do believe that the representation in this summit is a massive step in the right direction. Senegal, Indonesia, and Belize are all non-first-world states, and they hold a majority of the se...