Chapters 1 and Two: Between Peril and Promise

In chapter one, Rochester mentions that the good and the bad news about the state of the world may be that people are "more interconnected than ever before" (Rochester, 2012, pp 3). I see this statement as very interesting. The goal I believe in most democracies is to bring the World closer together. I'm not talking about becoming one state or culture, because as mentioned in class we know that probably will not happen. I mean that democracies want all other states to become democracies and they believe this may somehow alleviate warfare within the world. So when Rochester talks about how being interconnected is good, I can see his point. I also see the point that is also bad news as well. I will use the United States for example. The US wants other states to become a democracy, when we are "interconnected" with other societies and another state tries to prevent them from becoming a democracy, the US will intervene, this makes the problem global rather than a local issue.

I like how Rochester talks about George Bush and the "New World Order of Peace and Harmony" (Rochester, 2012, pp 4). No one knows when terrorists are going to stop attacking; there have been terrorists as long as there have been people. There will probably be terrorists as long as people remain on this planet. Saying that there was an end to terrorism is like me saying that since a mob boss in New York was captured that all crime has stopped. This just is not true. There is always going to be someone else, some other group that will continue to do these acts. To declare an "end to history" is a very dim-witted thing to say.

Chapter two talks about different paradigms. He mainly talks about Realist and Idealist paradigms. Realist theory is most closely related to cynicism and Idealist theory is most closely related to utopianism (Rochester, 2012, pp 18). Rochester says that it was the failure of idealists to prevent WWII that gave rise to the realist paradigm. This may be so, but I don't feel as though anyone or any group can prevent war. War is inevitable, as long as there are people there are going to be disagreements, and global disagreements usually lead to warfare.

Realists believe whoever has the gold rules (Rochester, 2012, pp 20). I tend to agree with this statement. Money is power in today's times. You see this locally and globally. Locally you see a man wearing rags and living on the side of the street, are you more likely to listen to him or listen to a guy in a business suit living in a mansion? Most people would choose the man in the business suit, even if what the homeless man made more sense, they would think that the man I n the business suit was right just because he has money. The same thing happens with states. A state that has a lot of money is going to be more power and pull than a poorer state. I guess it is the fact that people may think people with more

...