When I first began this semester I was a young, inexperienced, and scared blogger. I had never shared my thoughts or feelings on the World Wide Web before, let alone when writing about Politics or academic argument, two forums in which I had little expertise. However, I dove in and I'm pretty happy with the results.
I learned alot from blogging. I learned how to streamline my thoughts on an issue in an effort to make them flow logically. I learned about the importance of substantiating a warrant with a claim and evidence while throwing in bits and pieces of ethos, pathos, and logos along the way.
I didn't realize how basic the rubric for creating a strong argument was when I first started dozens and dozens of months ago (ok more like 3). You simply need to always define your terms, back up your arguments, make sure they make organizational sense, and are crystal clear. Ok, maybe that is a little bit easier said than done, but having that rubric out there certainly helped.
I also learned that there can be more than one answer to an argument. Just because there may appear to be two clear sides to an argument does not mean that there is only one correct answer. Often, the answer people seek is the one that is best argued. However, a strong argument is often the result of a strong writer and is not necessarily the correct option.
You could argue that George W. Bush was a great President for America. Even if that seems incredibly illogical and blatantly false, if you could piece together enough strong logos, put in a strong emotional appeal, and appear to have credibility, then even with such a seemingly false claim you could create a very strong argument.
While I may decide to pick up blogging again in the future, this is certainly my good-bye for a little while. I have enjoyed sharing my thoughts with you, my faceless audience, and hope your lives are not too devastated with my departure. With that, I'd like to say adios, it has been fun.
-Matt
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
The Future of American Race Relations
Earlier today I had my final in Sociology 102 and thought it would be interesting to discuss here something I analyzed in that class. Sociology is defined as the study of society and/or understanding how humans interact and work together throughout the social world. As a result, sociology is very interested in such topics as race, gender, and class.
One topic that was heavily discussed this semester was the impact of Barack Obama's election on race relations. I won't delve TOO deeply into the issue as I could write about it for hours, but I will go over some of the main things I learned that I think present an interesting argument about the future of race relations in America.
First, some say that the election of Obama will equal the end of racism in America. W.E.B. Dubois famously wrote about the double-consciousness that black Americans experience in their daily lives. Their two souls, one black and one American cannot fuse together to create one as black Americans are continually forced to view their lives through the eyes of their oppressors: whites. However, with the election of Obama, one could argue that Blacks are not longer at the mercy of Whites and that because of Obama everyone has an equal chance to succeed.
However, others argue that the election of Obama is very important in principle but will do nothing to change the amount of racism in the daily lives of millions of black Americans. According to political scientist Andrew Hacker and sociologist Patricia Hill Collins, daily-life racism such as discrimination in residential patterns, legal systems, and health-care will not be impacted by Obama's election. Also, there are controlling images of black Americans, meaning there are certain expectations and stereotypes about black Americans that control the way they are viewed in society that have built up over hundreds of years and will not change over night or even in four years.
In my opinion, both of these opinions are right. Yes, Obama's election is a step in the right direction for black Americans, but at the same time there are years of work left to be done for America to eliminate racism from its system, if that is even possible. For now, I think looking forward to a better future is the best thing we can do.
One topic that was heavily discussed this semester was the impact of Barack Obama's election on race relations. I won't delve TOO deeply into the issue as I could write about it for hours, but I will go over some of the main things I learned that I think present an interesting argument about the future of race relations in America.
First, some say that the election of Obama will equal the end of racism in America. W.E.B. Dubois famously wrote about the double-consciousness that black Americans experience in their daily lives. Their two souls, one black and one American cannot fuse together to create one as black Americans are continually forced to view their lives through the eyes of their oppressors: whites. However, with the election of Obama, one could argue that Blacks are not longer at the mercy of Whites and that because of Obama everyone has an equal chance to succeed.
However, others argue that the election of Obama is very important in principle but will do nothing to change the amount of racism in the daily lives of millions of black Americans. According to political scientist Andrew Hacker and sociologist Patricia Hill Collins, daily-life racism such as discrimination in residential patterns, legal systems, and health-care will not be impacted by Obama's election. Also, there are controlling images of black Americans, meaning there are certain expectations and stereotypes about black Americans that control the way they are viewed in society that have built up over hundreds of years and will not change over night or even in four years.
In my opinion, both of these opinions are right. Yes, Obama's election is a step in the right direction for black Americans, but at the same time there are years of work left to be done for America to eliminate racism from its system, if that is even possible. For now, I think looking forward to a better future is the best thing we can do.
Lincoln Would Roll Over in His Grave
Today, the exciting news of the official demise of increasingly UNpopular governor Rod Blagojevich came out bright and early. We are talking about a governor here that had unprecedentedly low approval ratings: even lower than those of universally loved President George W. Bush.
According to the Chicago Tribune, in October of 2008, " [He] suffered the lowest ratings ever recorded for an elected politician in nearly three decades of Chicago Tribune polls...The survey also showed only 13% approved of Blagojevich's performance, while 71% disapproved." (Wikipedia)
So even before his final misstep, Blagojevich was not a rock star in Illinois. However, his recent actions after the election of Barack Obama have made me really question the future of our government leadership.
According to Cnn.com, Blagojevich was arrested today along with his Chief of Staff around 7:30 A.M eastern time on one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and a count of solicitation of bribery. Apparently, these charges stemmed from Blagojevich "conspiring to sell or trade the vacant Senate seat in exchange for financial benefits for himself and his wife, Patti." (CNN)
Now, I find it sadly ironic that Blagojevich ran on a campaign of eliminating corruption. This case gives me even less faith in our political system and our political icons as it sends the message that nobody can be trusted. Who do you vote for when so many people appear to only be out to better their own cause? Unfortunately, there is no answer, we Americans simply must do our best to sort out the bad from the good, if possible, and then hope our favorite politician isn't a crook as well. If you live in Illinois, odds are you're out of luck with our recent string of corrupt governors (George Ryan before Blagojevich).
Let's just hope that Barack Obama can avoid any association with these corrupt men.
According to the Chicago Tribune, in October of 2008, " [He] suffered the lowest ratings ever recorded for an elected politician in nearly three decades of Chicago Tribune polls...The survey also showed only 13% approved of Blagojevich's performance, while 71% disapproved." (Wikipedia)
So even before his final misstep, Blagojevich was not a rock star in Illinois. However, his recent actions after the election of Barack Obama have made me really question the future of our government leadership.
According to Cnn.com, Blagojevich was arrested today along with his Chief of Staff around 7:30 A.M eastern time on one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and a count of solicitation of bribery. Apparently, these charges stemmed from Blagojevich "conspiring to sell or trade the vacant Senate seat in exchange for financial benefits for himself and his wife, Patti." (CNN)
Now, I find it sadly ironic that Blagojevich ran on a campaign of eliminating corruption. This case gives me even less faith in our political system and our political icons as it sends the message that nobody can be trusted. Who do you vote for when so many people appear to only be out to better their own cause? Unfortunately, there is no answer, we Americans simply must do our best to sort out the bad from the good, if possible, and then hope our favorite politician isn't a crook as well. If you live in Illinois, odds are you're out of luck with our recent string of corrupt governors (George Ryan before Blagojevich).
Let's just hope that Barack Obama can avoid any association with these corrupt men.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
"Get a Life"
As most people reading this blog already know, Michigan football is AWFUL this year. With our 42-7 loss to Ohio State last week, Michigan completed their worst season in their 129 year history. With a 3-9 record, there has not been much to smile about. Whether it was losing for the first time to a MAC opponent Toledo by 2 points, failing to win back to back games all season, losing by 35 to Ohio State for the first time in 40 years, losing to Michigan State at home, or losing more than 8 games for the first time ever: there was not much to smile about this year.
With that said, you also must take into account the fact that Michigan was playing this year with first-year head coach Rich Rodriguez---fresh off great success at West Virginia. As everyone knows, Michigan fans have very high expectations for their football team, and as soon as it was apparent that this was a lost season, some extreme heat started coming in--directed at RichRod.
This season, RichRod has endured an incredible amount of criticism and let's just say he hasn't dealt with it so incredibly. Last week, Rodriguez blurted out a statement to the media that in my opinion brought into question the true meaning of sport.
After hearing this, I was outraged at Rich Rodriguez. I mean really? Telling his fans to get a life and focus on the economy? I guess somewhere in his ascension to making millions of dollars a year coaching football he forgot the reason people care about sports in the first place. Americans daily lives are enveloped with the crumbling economy and the constant stress of maintaing their jobs. Their release from stress? Sport.
Rodriguez is being paid to put a good product out on the field. His job is to satisfy hundreds of thousands of fans that need Michigan Football to do well in order to take their minds off their daily struggles. How do you think those people are going to react when their coach that is clearly underachieving tells them to "get a life."
If Rich Rodriguez is ever going to be successful as a coach at Michigan, he needs to recognize and accept what his job entails. Not only does he need to put forth a good product on the field, but he also needs to tell fans what they want to hear. If the shenanigans we have all witnessed this season continue to fester deep within next year, I wouldn't be surprised if the calls for RichRod's head were coming from the Athletic Department along with those rabid Wolverine fans.
With that said, you also must take into account the fact that Michigan was playing this year with first-year head coach Rich Rodriguez---fresh off great success at West Virginia. As everyone knows, Michigan fans have very high expectations for their football team, and as soon as it was apparent that this was a lost season, some extreme heat started coming in--directed at RichRod.
This season, RichRod has endured an incredible amount of criticism and let's just say he hasn't dealt with it so incredibly. Last week, Rodriguez blurted out a statement to the media that in my opinion brought into question the true meaning of sport.
"It's amazing some of the things that people would say (on a message board) or yell at you of a personal nature," Rodriguez said Monday. "You almost want to tell them, 'Get a life'...There's a whole lot bigger problems. Look at the economy."
After hearing this, I was outraged at Rich Rodriguez. I mean really? Telling his fans to get a life and focus on the economy? I guess somewhere in his ascension to making millions of dollars a year coaching football he forgot the reason people care about sports in the first place. Americans daily lives are enveloped with the crumbling economy and the constant stress of maintaing their jobs. Their release from stress? Sport.
Rodriguez is being paid to put a good product out on the field. His job is to satisfy hundreds of thousands of fans that need Michigan Football to do well in order to take their minds off their daily struggles. How do you think those people are going to react when their coach that is clearly underachieving tells them to "get a life."
If Rich Rodriguez is ever going to be successful as a coach at Michigan, he needs to recognize and accept what his job entails. Not only does he need to put forth a good product on the field, but he also needs to tell fans what they want to hear. If the shenanigans we have all witnessed this season continue to fester deep within next year, I wouldn't be surprised if the calls for RichRod's head were coming from the Athletic Department along with those rabid Wolverine fans.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Morality and Sports
Is it cheating if nobody is watching? Most people would answer yes to that question---but if given the chance, knowing they would not be caught would cut any corner in a heartbeat. This hypothetical question got very complicated this week when professional golfer J.P Hayes took sportsmanship to a whole new level.
To play on the PGA (Professional Golf Association) tour, many competitors must pass Qualifying school. In Q-school, golfers can earn eligibility to play full-time on the PGA tour for a year. This week, during the end of Q-school, Hayes committed a blunder that disqualified him from competition. According to the Chicago Tribune, this is what happened:
"On his 12th hole of the first round at Deerwood Country Club last Wednesday in McKinney, Texas, Hayes' caddie reached into his golf bag, pulled out a ball and flipped it to Hayes. He missed the green with his tee shot, chipped on and marked his ball. It was then he realized it wasn't the same one with which he had started his round. He called an official over and was penalized two shots. Later while relaxing in his hotel room, it occurred to Hayes that the wrong ball he had played in the first round might not have been on the USGA's approved list. That led to his disqualification."
Basically, Hayes made a small blunder, one that nobody alive would have noticed had Hayes not reported it. However, Hayes realized what he had done and knew the he should have been disqualified. Rather than letting the small mistake which likely had no impact on his final score disappear, Hayes turned himself in and effectively took himself out of his guaranteed spot in the tour for 2009.
Did Hayes do the right thing? Yes, he was very honest, brutally honest, and lived up to the expectations of sport. However, he cost himself a job during a time in which jobs are scarce in America. Yes, Hayes has earned over $7 million dollars in his career according to ESPN, but a job is a job. Did Hayes do his family a disservice by telling the truth? Does that matter?
I honestly don't know what I think about Hayes's decision. I think it is incredibly honorable that he played strictly by the rule book. However, he was safely in position to qualify for the tour and the mistake he made was really more of his caddy's fault and probably had no effect on his final score. Hopefully, the karma for Hayes will be good in the future and he will not suffer from his honesty. If only men like Hayes were running the economy right now...maybe there would be a little less corruption.
To play on the PGA (Professional Golf Association) tour, many competitors must pass Qualifying school. In Q-school, golfers can earn eligibility to play full-time on the PGA tour for a year. This week, during the end of Q-school, Hayes committed a blunder that disqualified him from competition. According to the Chicago Tribune, this is what happened:
"On his 12th hole of the first round at Deerwood Country Club last Wednesday in McKinney, Texas, Hayes' caddie reached into his golf bag, pulled out a ball and flipped it to Hayes. He missed the green with his tee shot, chipped on and marked his ball. It was then he realized it wasn't the same one with which he had started his round. He called an official over and was penalized two shots. Later while relaxing in his hotel room, it occurred to Hayes that the wrong ball he had played in the first round might not have been on the USGA's approved list. That led to his disqualification."
Basically, Hayes made a small blunder, one that nobody alive would have noticed had Hayes not reported it. However, Hayes realized what he had done and knew the he should have been disqualified. Rather than letting the small mistake which likely had no impact on his final score disappear, Hayes turned himself in and effectively took himself out of his guaranteed spot in the tour for 2009.
Did Hayes do the right thing? Yes, he was very honest, brutally honest, and lived up to the expectations of sport. However, he cost himself a job during a time in which jobs are scarce in America. Yes, Hayes has earned over $7 million dollars in his career according to ESPN, but a job is a job. Did Hayes do his family a disservice by telling the truth? Does that matter?
I honestly don't know what I think about Hayes's decision. I think it is incredibly honorable that he played strictly by the rule book. However, he was safely in position to qualify for the tour and the mistake he made was really more of his caddy's fault and probably had no effect on his final score. Hopefully, the karma for Hayes will be good in the future and he will not suffer from his honesty. If only men like Hayes were running the economy right now...maybe there would be a little less corruption.
The Private Jet and The Tin Cup
On November 18, The CEO's of GM, Ford, and Chrysler flew to Washington to beg for 25 billion dollar buyout of their failing auto companies. This move was not shocking as numerous companies across America have gone done the tube during the current economic crises and the auto industry is no exception.
One would assume that these three CEO's would be on their absolute best behavior. After all, it was not a given that congress would give these automakers any money at all. One would therefore assume that these CEO's would try to show congress they were trying to be as cost-efficient as possible in their endeavors, in an attempt to sway congress to believe they truly needed help. With that in mind, read this next sentence from an article found on ABC News:
Wow...
In my opinion, these CEO's are a microcosm of what is wrong with America today. The level of corporate greed and lack of strong decision making has strongly to contributed to the downfall of our economy. How can you fly on a private jet to a meeting, spending thousands of extra dollars and fuel, in which you are begging for billions of dollars? The answer escapes me and the auto industry will likely pay the price.
Good Luck Detroit
One would assume that these three CEO's would be on their absolute best behavior. After all, it was not a given that congress would give these automakers any money at all. One would therefore assume that these CEO's would try to show congress they were trying to be as cost-efficient as possible in their endeavors, in an attempt to sway congress to believe they truly needed help. With that in mind, read this next sentence from an article found on ABC News:
All three CEOs - Rick Wagoner of GM, Alan Mulally of Ford, and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler - exercised their perks Tuesday by flying in corporate jets to DC. Wagoner flew in GM's $36 million luxury aircraft to tell members of Congress that the company is burning through cash, asking for $10-12 billion for GM alone.
Wow...
In my opinion, these CEO's are a microcosm of what is wrong with America today. The level of corporate greed and lack of strong decision making has strongly to contributed to the downfall of our economy. How can you fly on a private jet to a meeting, spending thousands of extra dollars and fuel, in which you are begging for billions of dollars? The answer escapes me and the auto industry will likely pay the price.
Good Luck Detroit
Monday, November 17, 2008
James Bond and Gender Stereotypes
Last weekend I saw the latest James Bond movie, Quantum of Solace. I have never been a huge James Bond fan but I had heard alot about the movie and when my friends wanted decided they wanted to see the movie on Saturday night I figured why not.
I won't give away any main plot points during the rest of this blog but the true integrity of James Bond will be debated. Ok, here we go.
Lately in Sociology I have been learning about Gender Stereotypes and Sex Discrimination. These two socially created, media fueled things are enforced to a near absurd level in the Quantum of Solace. In class, I learned about "controlling images" which are basically expectations or stereotypes which are placed on a certain race, class, or gender, and there are many obvious controlling images shown throughout "Solace."
As is in every Bond movie, the men are consistently superior both in strength and intellect to females. Women seduce men with their bodies, telling girls that their only way of finding success is through whoring themselves out or depending on a man. White men are expected to be superior throughout the world, as there are nearly no black men or any other race for that matter prevalent throughout the movie.
Also, there is maybe one scene in which Bond is not drinking some kind of hard alcohol. Now, this movie somehow had a pg-13 rating, so presumably children as young as 8 or 9 are seeing it. What kind of message do those kids receive when the suave, super-hero that is James Bond cannot go anywhere without having a drink or killing somebody.
I know that this is a fantasy movie in a series that has been alive for years, but the norms it perpetuates are terrible for the development of children. The impact of media cannot be understated and I think by continuing to create and reinforce these stereotypes about gender and also race, the media as a whole, in this case the makers of "Quantum of Solace" are doing the world a huge disservice.
I won't give away any main plot points during the rest of this blog but the true integrity of James Bond will be debated. Ok, here we go.
Lately in Sociology I have been learning about Gender Stereotypes and Sex Discrimination. These two socially created, media fueled things are enforced to a near absurd level in the Quantum of Solace. In class, I learned about "controlling images" which are basically expectations or stereotypes which are placed on a certain race, class, or gender, and there are many obvious controlling images shown throughout "Solace."
As is in every Bond movie, the men are consistently superior both in strength and intellect to females. Women seduce men with their bodies, telling girls that their only way of finding success is through whoring themselves out or depending on a man. White men are expected to be superior throughout the world, as there are nearly no black men or any other race for that matter prevalent throughout the movie.
Also, there is maybe one scene in which Bond is not drinking some kind of hard alcohol. Now, this movie somehow had a pg-13 rating, so presumably children as young as 8 or 9 are seeing it. What kind of message do those kids receive when the suave, super-hero that is James Bond cannot go anywhere without having a drink or killing somebody.
I know that this is a fantasy movie in a series that has been alive for years, but the norms it perpetuates are terrible for the development of children. The impact of media cannot be understated and I think by continuing to create and reinforce these stereotypes about gender and also race, the media as a whole, in this case the makers of "Quantum of Solace" are doing the world a huge disservice.
Barack Obama: Choosing the Presidency over his Best Friend?
On January 20th, 2009, when Barack Obama takes his oath of office and becomes the first African-American President in American History he will also surrender his best friend.
How is that fair? Why should the man that is bringing the greatest change this country has seen since the advent of Cellular Technology have to give up his best friend in order to preside over our great, free nation? Well, it turns out Barack Obama's best friend is not a person. His best friend has been known to wreak havoc on thumbs across the world while remaining in the pockets of its owners. Barack Obama's best friend is something that a President simply is not allowed to have: a blackberry.
Before reading these article on CNN.COM and YAHOO.COM respectively:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/11/17/obama.blackberry.ap/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081117/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_blackberry_3
I had never considered the fact that the President cannot even use e-mail or personal phones. The reasoning behind this ban is for two main reasons.
1.There are security concerns. Having a mobile device like a Blackberry would be a security hazard as it may lead to electronic tracking of the President.
2. Presidents are subject to having their records be subpoenaed by courts and are subject to public record laws, so all of their e-mails or conversations can be made public. This means that any "BBM'S" (BlackBerry Instant Mesages) or e-mails could be viewed by all of America.
So, why is this important? I believe the importance lies in the biggest forgotten implication of holding the highest profile job in America:" Life is lived in a perpetual fishbowl. For at least the next four years and then to a certain extent for the rest of his life, Obama will live without the slightest bit of privacy. Unlike other celebrity type figures, every one of Obama's actions are subject to public knowledge. Even his new home, the White House, is like a glorified hotel for the first family, with thousands of visitors and employees milling about 24/7.
Obviously, it is difficult to feel any sympathy for the man that was just elected President of America, but it is hard to imagine that by winning the election Obama won the loss of his privacy. Every President, including Obama today, essentially signs over their livelihood in order to become Commander in Chief.
Obama claims he has already brought change to America and now he will have to deal with yet another change in his life...
How is that fair? Why should the man that is bringing the greatest change this country has seen since the advent of Cellular Technology have to give up his best friend in order to preside over our great, free nation? Well, it turns out Barack Obama's best friend is not a person. His best friend has been known to wreak havoc on thumbs across the world while remaining in the pockets of its owners. Barack Obama's best friend is something that a President simply is not allowed to have: a blackberry.
Before reading these article on CNN.COM and YAHOO.COM respectively:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/11/17/obama.blackberry.ap/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081117/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_blackberry_3
I had never considered the fact that the President cannot even use e-mail or personal phones. The reasoning behind this ban is for two main reasons.
1.There are security concerns. Having a mobile device like a Blackberry would be a security hazard as it may lead to electronic tracking of the President.
2. Presidents are subject to having their records be subpoenaed by courts and are subject to public record laws, so all of their e-mails or conversations can be made public. This means that any "BBM'S" (BlackBerry Instant Mesages) or e-mails could be viewed by all of America.
So, why is this important? I believe the importance lies in the biggest forgotten implication of holding the highest profile job in America:" Life is lived in a perpetual fishbowl. For at least the next four years and then to a certain extent for the rest of his life, Obama will live without the slightest bit of privacy. Unlike other celebrity type figures, every one of Obama's actions are subject to public knowledge. Even his new home, the White House, is like a glorified hotel for the first family, with thousands of visitors and employees milling about 24/7.
Obviously, it is difficult to feel any sympathy for the man that was just elected President of America, but it is hard to imagine that by winning the election Obama won the loss of his privacy. Every President, including Obama today, essentially signs over their livelihood in order to become Commander in Chief.
Obama claims he has already brought change to America and now he will have to deal with yet another change in his life...
Sunday, November 16, 2008
CC=$$: Major League Baseball and the Recession
140 Million Dollars over 6 years: That's how much money the New York Yankees offered free agent pitcher CC Sabathia last Friday. If signed, it would become the largest deal ever given to a pitcher in Major League Baseball.
When I first read the news of this deal I couldn't believe my eyes. Over the past several months, all I have heard about is the dire state of the economy and about how companies across America have been cutting jobs at a near-record rate. Despite all of that, salaries in Major League Baseball continue to rise. How is this possible? Is Baseball recession proof? Does any of this make sense?
After I began writing this blog, I found an article on the New York Times website on this very topic:
www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/sports/baseball/17rhoden.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The article, titled "Recession is a Relative Term in Baseball" has all the answers to my various questions from this weekend.
First, according to the article, families are more likely to attend baseball games during this type of economic recession: "Baseball, to a greater extent than the N.F.L. and the N.B.A., is dependent on gate receipts. When families begin to feel the economic pinch and stay home rather than take a long trip, many choose to attend baseball games."
Also, Baseball often serves as an outlet for frustration, depression, or agony for people across the country. When things are going poorly at work or at home, many have no place else to turn except for their favorite club. As a result, the money continues to pour in as fans continue to find it impossible to give up rooting for their team. As ticket prices rise, so too does fan attendance. Even teams like the Milwaukee Brewers continue to set team records for attendance, last year breaking the 3,000,000 fan mark for the first time, despite the wavering economy: http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/brewatte.shtml
As more fans pour into bigger and bigger stadiums, teams continue to earn more and more money, despite the current crisis. While we will have to wait and see next year if attendance continues its positive trend, I would be shocked to see a deviation from the present direction of attendance.
What this means is super-star players such as CC Sabathia need not worry about the dipping stock market as they are set for paydays unseen in World History.
When I first read the news of this deal I couldn't believe my eyes. Over the past several months, all I have heard about is the dire state of the economy and about how companies across America have been cutting jobs at a near-record rate. Despite all of that, salaries in Major League Baseball continue to rise. How is this possible? Is Baseball recession proof? Does any of this make sense?
After I began writing this blog, I found an article on the New York Times website on this very topic:
www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/sports/baseball/17rhoden.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The article, titled "Recession is a Relative Term in Baseball" has all the answers to my various questions from this weekend.
First, according to the article, families are more likely to attend baseball games during this type of economic recession: "Baseball, to a greater extent than the N.F.L. and the N.B.A., is dependent on gate receipts. When families begin to feel the economic pinch and stay home rather than take a long trip, many choose to attend baseball games."
Also, Baseball often serves as an outlet for frustration, depression, or agony for people across the country. When things are going poorly at work or at home, many have no place else to turn except for their favorite club. As a result, the money continues to pour in as fans continue to find it impossible to give up rooting for their team. As ticket prices rise, so too does fan attendance. Even teams like the Milwaukee Brewers continue to set team records for attendance, last year breaking the 3,000,000 fan mark for the first time, despite the wavering economy: http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/brewatte.shtml
As more fans pour into bigger and bigger stadiums, teams continue to earn more and more money, despite the current crisis. While we will have to wait and see next year if attendance continues its positive trend, I would be shocked to see a deviation from the present direction of attendance.
What this means is super-star players such as CC Sabathia need not worry about the dipping stock market as they are set for paydays unseen in World History.
Monday, November 10, 2008
"We ain't ready, to see a black President"
Above is the music video to the song "Changes" by late rapper 2pac (Tupac Shakur). Tupac was an incredibly influential rapper during the hip/hop boom of the 1990's. Despite being murdered in September of 1996, 2pac and his music have continued to make an impact on popular culture today. 2pac has often been hailed for his sharp verses in which he addresses real life issues such as poverty, hunger, or even politics.
"Changes" was recorded sometime between 1992 and 1996 (the true date is unknown) and released after 2pac's death in 1998. In the song, a verse stating: "We ain't ready, to see a black President," is uttered. I first heard this verse several years ago and found it interesting that 2pac had assessed America as unready for leadership from a black male a mere decade ago. As a result, in the wake of a black President being elected, I have felt profoundly impacted by the prophecy of this late rapper and the feeling that America has finally overcome much of its hateful and racist past.
Obviously, racism and bigotry still exist throughout all of America but clearly something major has changed in the past decade: an evolution of equality. 2pac announced to the world in the 90's that America was still not ready for a black President, but today, by an overwhelming majority (at least electorally), America was overjoyed at the election of a black man as commander in chief.
Unfortunately, there is no black and white answer to what exactly has changed over the past decade to push America towards more racial equality. I wish I could blog here the ten step process that America underwent to reach Martin Luther King Jr.'s "dream," but I can't. Instead, I can only reflect on the unbelievable significance of this election, and I can think of no better way than by showing how far America has come in a short period of time. America's racist roots have been in existence since before America was its own country in the 1700's and were further exacerbated by slavery, Jim Crow laws, and segregation continuing until only 30-40 years ago. It is incredibly to me that somehow in the last 10 years we made the jump from viewing black people as virulent to society to now giving a black man the most power in America.
The election of Barack Obama does not mean the journey towards racial equality is over, but is certainly a huge step in the right direction. Obama's platform for his presidency was "The Change We Need" and I think it is appropriate that the title of the song stating that America wasn't ready for a black President was "Changes." At the end of "Changes," 2pac repeated one phrase over and over, "Things will never be the same...," and after Obama's election, this phrase has never been more true: Things will never be the same.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Obamamania
As I mentioned in my last post, the marathon that was the 2008 Presidential Campaign has finally come to a close and one thing is official: America has become infused with Obamamania. It was my opinion, in concurrence with millions of other Americans before the election, that America needed an Obama election to bring the country together and begin the collective healing process. Over the past eight years, America's collective psyche both domestically and internationally has taken quite a beating. Between 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the Iraq war, the collapse of the economy and housing market, and much more, I felt Americans needed a sign or glimmer of hope that sent the message all was not lost.
While this type of intangible idea of America being "united" by one man is debatable, after the collective roar of America early in the morning on November 5th, I think there is no question the healing process has begun. Millions of Americans, young and old, black and white, came together on election night (and morning) to celebrate the election of America's first black and certainly most cultured President.
You can debate whether Obama's economic policy will further destroy America. You can debate if Obama's Universal Health Care plan will do more good than bad. However, there is one thing that is absolutely, 100% clear and not debatable: There is a sense of energy and hope reverberating throughout a majority of America that has not been felt in over a decade.
To me, there is an obvious reason that Obama represents change and hope to most of America. Barack Obama's race is not the only reason America has never had a President like him before. I believe Obama, unlike most of the 43 Presidents before him truly earned his spot at the top of the American government.
His parents, Barack Sr. and Stanley Ann, certainly didn't provide him an easy path to success. Obama only saw his father once after the age of two, lived in Indonesia and Hawaii during his childhood, including years he spent with only his grandparents while his mother studied in Indonesia, before working his way from Occidental College to Columbia to Harvard. In spite of all these difficulties, Obama has always come away the victor, staring down pressure and delivering success. Unlike #43, (George W. Bush), who virtually rode his surname to success, Obama did it all on his own and America can't get enough of his success.
Now, for the first time in many of their lives, those that feel they had no hope for success have a new role model: Obama. Now Americans have someone running their country that not only earned his spot at the top, but showed that success could still come via the old fashioned formula: hard work.
WIth many of America's "elite" falling victim to their own greed in recent months, such as the CEO's at Lehman Brothers or Bear Sterns, Americans not at the top of the economic or political food chain know somebody is looking out for them. While those in the upper tax brackets may feel left out by this whole feel good story, they must continue to hope that through the revitalization of America will come a happier and safer America for them too.
Of course, this honeymoon period of good feelings with Obama will inevitably end sometime in the near future. Obama will need to step up and show that he has what it takes not only to boost America spirits but also their economy and international safety too. However, I think that in the back of Americans minds will remain this newfound sense of hope that was brought by the election of a once little boy from Hawaii: Barack Obama.
While this type of intangible idea of America being "united" by one man is debatable, after the collective roar of America early in the morning on November 5th, I think there is no question the healing process has begun. Millions of Americans, young and old, black and white, came together on election night (and morning) to celebrate the election of America's first black and certainly most cultured President.
You can debate whether Obama's economic policy will further destroy America. You can debate if Obama's Universal Health Care plan will do more good than bad. However, there is one thing that is absolutely, 100% clear and not debatable: There is a sense of energy and hope reverberating throughout a majority of America that has not been felt in over a decade.
To me, there is an obvious reason that Obama represents change and hope to most of America. Barack Obama's race is not the only reason America has never had a President like him before. I believe Obama, unlike most of the 43 Presidents before him truly earned his spot at the top of the American government.
His parents, Barack Sr. and Stanley Ann, certainly didn't provide him an easy path to success. Obama only saw his father once after the age of two, lived in Indonesia and Hawaii during his childhood, including years he spent with only his grandparents while his mother studied in Indonesia, before working his way from Occidental College to Columbia to Harvard. In spite of all these difficulties, Obama has always come away the victor, staring down pressure and delivering success. Unlike #43, (George W. Bush), who virtually rode his surname to success, Obama did it all on his own and America can't get enough of his success.
Now, for the first time in many of their lives, those that feel they had no hope for success have a new role model: Obama. Now Americans have someone running their country that not only earned his spot at the top, but showed that success could still come via the old fashioned formula: hard work.
WIth many of America's "elite" falling victim to their own greed in recent months, such as the CEO's at Lehman Brothers or Bear Sterns, Americans not at the top of the economic or political food chain know somebody is looking out for them. While those in the upper tax brackets may feel left out by this whole feel good story, they must continue to hope that through the revitalization of America will come a happier and safer America for them too.
Of course, this honeymoon period of good feelings with Obama will inevitably end sometime in the near future. Obama will need to step up and show that he has what it takes not only to boost America spirits but also their economy and international safety too. However, I think that in the back of Americans minds will remain this newfound sense of hope that was brought by the election of a once little boy from Hawaii: Barack Obama.
Politics in the Classroom
Now that America's Presidential election is over (finally), I felt like it would be interesting to look back at how the process of the election played out in my English 225 classroom. While the precense of the upcoming election was definitely felt in all of my classes, I experienced much more discussion and learning about the election and each candidate in my English class.
In my opinion, there are both great values and significant constraints to political discussion in the classroom. Let's start with what I think are the best parts of talking politics in class. Over the last two months of class my knowledge and understanding of each Presidential candidate and the entire election process probably quadrupled. My knowledge grew through a variety of different activities and assignments in class: We constantly discussed the debates and campaigns throughout the class, we needed to maintain these wonderful blogs every week, and also had to write an essay supporting the platform of both sides of an important, current event (I chose the positions of Barack Obama and John McCain on Pre-conditions before negotiating with Iran).
Through this constant immersion within the political world on a weekly basis, I learned far more about every issue than I would have had I simply researched every topic on my own. I was also given the opportunity to hear the opinions of my classmates through the papers and discussion which was a unique experience. How many other chances do you get to participate with a group of highly educated college students in discussing such a vast variety of political fodder. I was educated on our health care situation, the debate over the morality and legality of abortion, the war in Iraq, and more during my many discussions over our papers and I took that education with me to the voting booth.
However, there is of course a downside to so much learning stemming from discussion in class. Everyone brings their own personal political biases to class and this places a serious constraint on discussion. Sometimes it is hard to tell whether somebody is trying to sway you to their side of the political spectrum or is really speaking the truth.
With that in mind, others do not feel safe enough to actually speak their true feelings about a political subject. In the classroom, it feels necessary to be as politically correct as possible while not trying to offend anybody. Obviously, many political subjects are very tricky and potentially distressing for some, so saying the wrong thing could be very awkward in class. Rather than being able to have an open, comfortable conversation as you would at home with friends, discussions in class have to be very confined and straight-forward.
Overall, despite the potential biases or constraints on political discussion in the classroom, I am very happy that we took the time to delve into politics during this historic campaign period. In my opinion, there is no chance I would have been as educated or informed on every important subject before the election which may have altered my vote. I think that in the future, smallish classes like my English class (usually about 15-18 people) should definitely at least try to talk politics in the class, even if it means trying extra hard to avoid stepping on anybody's toes.
In my opinion, there are both great values and significant constraints to political discussion in the classroom. Let's start with what I think are the best parts of talking politics in class. Over the last two months of class my knowledge and understanding of each Presidential candidate and the entire election process probably quadrupled. My knowledge grew through a variety of different activities and assignments in class: We constantly discussed the debates and campaigns throughout the class, we needed to maintain these wonderful blogs every week, and also had to write an essay supporting the platform of both sides of an important, current event (I chose the positions of Barack Obama and John McCain on Pre-conditions before negotiating with Iran).
Through this constant immersion within the political world on a weekly basis, I learned far more about every issue than I would have had I simply researched every topic on my own. I was also given the opportunity to hear the opinions of my classmates through the papers and discussion which was a unique experience. How many other chances do you get to participate with a group of highly educated college students in discussing such a vast variety of political fodder. I was educated on our health care situation, the debate over the morality and legality of abortion, the war in Iraq, and more during my many discussions over our papers and I took that education with me to the voting booth.
However, there is of course a downside to so much learning stemming from discussion in class. Everyone brings their own personal political biases to class and this places a serious constraint on discussion. Sometimes it is hard to tell whether somebody is trying to sway you to their side of the political spectrum or is really speaking the truth.
With that in mind, others do not feel safe enough to actually speak their true feelings about a political subject. In the classroom, it feels necessary to be as politically correct as possible while not trying to offend anybody. Obviously, many political subjects are very tricky and potentially distressing for some, so saying the wrong thing could be very awkward in class. Rather than being able to have an open, comfortable conversation as you would at home with friends, discussions in class have to be very confined and straight-forward.
Overall, despite the potential biases or constraints on political discussion in the classroom, I am very happy that we took the time to delve into politics during this historic campaign period. In my opinion, there is no chance I would have been as educated or informed on every important subject before the election which may have altered my vote. I think that in the future, smallish classes like my English class (usually about 15-18 people) should definitely at least try to talk politics in the class, even if it means trying extra hard to avoid stepping on anybody's toes.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
225 Blogging: An Interactive Experience
In my last of many, many blogging assignments for class this week (3 to be exact) I'm going to lead you, my reader, on an interactive experience through the blogs of my peers in class in an attempt to create a dialogue about the different ways my peers and I engage the rhetorical situation of blogging.
While that last sentence is certainly a mouthful, maybe coming close to rivaling Martin Luther King Jr.'s one page long sentence in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," (ok maybe not), I think you will soon understand what I mean by an interactive experience. In this blog I'm going to be taking a look at my classmates blogs to see how our blogging styles or techniques are similar or different and how we utilize ethos, pathos, logos, claims, warrants, evidence, etc...
To do this interactive dialogue, I'm going to use the blog of my classmate that writes under the alias mpro;). Mpro's blog is probably the blog I read most frequently amongst my classmates and there is a reason for this. I feel like his blog always invites the reader in with a serious, but informal tone. I always feel welcome to read and comment on his blogs, possibly influenced by his inclusion of a little smiley face at the end of the blog and a friendly sign-off, such as Happy Election Day eve or Sleep Tight.
This blog also seems to always include an exciting title which grabs the readers attention, such as Palin is too "rogue" for McCain. After deciding to devote my attention to his blogs I almost always notice the ethos of Mpro. Most of his blogs are based on an article or other source, which shows that he has educated himself on whatever he is writing about before he shares his thoughts with the world. Using outside articles also tends to aid Mpro, as he can use strong evidence from the articles to support his claim and warrant.
If I had one suggestion for Mpro, it would be breaking up his blogs into shorter paragraphs. This way, instead of having several large paragraphs which can sometimes make a reader feel like he has more to read than he or she actually does, each blog may flow more smoothly. Overall though, I definitely would recommend reading Mpro's blog: http://mpro2133.blogspot.com/
I am also going to look at the blog of my classmate that writes under the alias Chanchri. This blog is certainly one of the more open, informal, and exciting blogs in the class. With titles such as Welcome to Earth all you newborns....World War III has arrived, this blog knows how to bring in readers and then win them over using Pathos. By reading one or two of Chanchri's blogs, you can tell that she is always not only speaking her mind, but putting all of her emotion into each blog. This is often done quite effectively, as her emotional appeals rub off on the reader, making him or her feel as though they cannot oppose such a passionate and honest writer.
This blog also often includes an outside source or two which is posted in the blog. As I said earlier when looking at Mpro's blog, including sources in blogs like this often boosts the writer's ethos and logos. I feel more inclined to trust Chanchri, as I know her blogs are based in outside sources, which also include evidence to support her claims. Chancri's blog can be found here for those interested:
http://mblog.lib.umich.edu/~chanchri/
In the end, I have enjoyed scouring the blogs of my peers. I tried to be fair when critiquing or observing my peers blogs, but I felt that it wasn't hard to shower them in praise, as I feel like most of the blogs in the class are well written and include most of the main pillars of a strong argument: ethos, pathos, and logos
While that last sentence is certainly a mouthful, maybe coming close to rivaling Martin Luther King Jr.'s one page long sentence in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," (ok maybe not), I think you will soon understand what I mean by an interactive experience. In this blog I'm going to be taking a look at my classmates blogs to see how our blogging styles or techniques are similar or different and how we utilize ethos, pathos, logos, claims, warrants, evidence, etc...
To do this interactive dialogue, I'm going to use the blog of my classmate that writes under the alias mpro;). Mpro's blog is probably the blog I read most frequently amongst my classmates and there is a reason for this. I feel like his blog always invites the reader in with a serious, but informal tone. I always feel welcome to read and comment on his blogs, possibly influenced by his inclusion of a little smiley face at the end of the blog and a friendly sign-off, such as Happy Election Day eve or Sleep Tight.
This blog also seems to always include an exciting title which grabs the readers attention, such as Palin is too "rogue" for McCain. After deciding to devote my attention to his blogs I almost always notice the ethos of Mpro. Most of his blogs are based on an article or other source, which shows that he has educated himself on whatever he is writing about before he shares his thoughts with the world. Using outside articles also tends to aid Mpro, as he can use strong evidence from the articles to support his claim and warrant.
If I had one suggestion for Mpro, it would be breaking up his blogs into shorter paragraphs. This way, instead of having several large paragraphs which can sometimes make a reader feel like he has more to read than he or she actually does, each blog may flow more smoothly. Overall though, I definitely would recommend reading Mpro's blog: http://mpro2133.blogspot.com/
I am also going to look at the blog of my classmate that writes under the alias Chanchri. This blog is certainly one of the more open, informal, and exciting blogs in the class. With titles such as Welcome to Earth all you newborns....World War III has arrived, this blog knows how to bring in readers and then win them over using Pathos. By reading one or two of Chanchri's blogs, you can tell that she is always not only speaking her mind, but putting all of her emotion into each blog. This is often done quite effectively, as her emotional appeals rub off on the reader, making him or her feel as though they cannot oppose such a passionate and honest writer.
This blog also often includes an outside source or two which is posted in the blog. As I said earlier when looking at Mpro's blog, including sources in blogs like this often boosts the writer's ethos and logos. I feel more inclined to trust Chanchri, as I know her blogs are based in outside sources, which also include evidence to support her claims. Chancri's blog can be found here for those interested:
http://mblog.lib.umich.edu/~chanchri/
In the end, I have enjoyed scouring the blogs of my peers. I tried to be fair when critiquing or observing my peers blogs, but I felt that it wasn't hard to shower them in praise, as I feel like most of the blogs in the class are well written and include most of the main pillars of a strong argument: ethos, pathos, and logos
Vote Yes on Prop 2
http://www.mlive.com/annarbornews/opinion/index.ssf/2008/10/election_letter_ignore_propaga.html
This week, as an assignment for class, I am supposed to find a local editoral (see above) and critique the ethos, pathos, and logos of the article while including an analysis of the claim, warrant, and evidence of the article. I was pretty happy with this specific assignment, because I had just read a short, but powerful editorial about Michigan's proposal 2 (which is being voted on today).
First, let me give you some background information on what exactly ethos, pathos, and logos mean. The three words find their native roots in the Greek language, and can be translated to mean ethic, pathetic, and logic. Ethos is connected to the moral character of the writer or rhetor. A strong argument will also have strong ethos, meaning the argument is morally sound and trustworthy. Pathos is an appeal to the reader's emotion. In a strong argument, you want to have the ability to sway the emotions of whoever is receiving your argument, as this way you have a better chance of swaying them to your side of any issue, as they can connect to you. Logos is the third of Aristotle's three modes of persuasion and focuses on using logic, or scientific or mathematical proof in an argument. Generally, this type of data may be more difficult to dispute than an emotional appeal, so you also want to find logos in your arguments.
Also, a claim is generally interpreted as your argument, the warrants are the reasons for your argument, and your evidence is how you support your argument.
Now, on to proposal 2. The proposal involves the treatment of stem cells and research pertaining to stem cells---for more information follow this link here:
http://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/michigan-ballot-for-2008-proposal-2-stem-cell-research/
The editorial I am focusing on urges its readers to "Ignore Propaganda" because Proposal 2 "saves lives." Now, right off the bat, it is clear that the claim is to vote yes on proposal two and that the warrant for this action is because it saves lives. This title also involves pathos, as it is plays to the emotions of the reader. Would you want to vote against saving a life?
The first half of the editorial brings the late-Christopher Reeve into the discussion. I think this is the writer's attempt to involved ethos and pathos, as saying Reeve would support Prop 2 gives him not only a moral backing but also an aura of reliability as Reeve was both a likable and trustworthy man. It also plays to the reader's emotions, as does one really want to oppose Reeve? He was a hero to many Americans and was certainly one that Americans would not want to double-cross.
The second half of the editorial refutes many of the claims made by those that oppose Prop 2 saying: "Proposal 2 doesn't throw open the doors to unethical research, it doesn't increase taxes and it continues Michigan's prohibition on cloning." He then finishes with a last emotional appeal, saying that Prop 2 can save lives, meaning that if you vote no you are against saving lives. The main problem I have with this part of the editorial is the writer's lack of evidence. How do I know it doesn't increase taxes? How do I know it doesn't throw open the doors to unethical research? I need to see some logos or clear evidence to sway me here. While the writer is strong on pathos, he is definitely lacking in both ethos, and logos/evidence.
I enjoyed the editorial, but if it was written as an assignment for English 225 with Ms. Griffiths, I would have given it around a 75. Sorry Daniel A. Heumann.
This week, as an assignment for class, I am supposed to find a local editoral (see above) and critique the ethos, pathos, and logos of the article while including an analysis of the claim, warrant, and evidence of the article. I was pretty happy with this specific assignment, because I had just read a short, but powerful editorial about Michigan's proposal 2 (which is being voted on today).
First, let me give you some background information on what exactly ethos, pathos, and logos mean. The three words find their native roots in the Greek language, and can be translated to mean ethic, pathetic, and logic. Ethos is connected to the moral character of the writer or rhetor. A strong argument will also have strong ethos, meaning the argument is morally sound and trustworthy. Pathos is an appeal to the reader's emotion. In a strong argument, you want to have the ability to sway the emotions of whoever is receiving your argument, as this way you have a better chance of swaying them to your side of any issue, as they can connect to you. Logos is the third of Aristotle's three modes of persuasion and focuses on using logic, or scientific or mathematical proof in an argument. Generally, this type of data may be more difficult to dispute than an emotional appeal, so you also want to find logos in your arguments.
Also, a claim is generally interpreted as your argument, the warrants are the reasons for your argument, and your evidence is how you support your argument.
Now, on to proposal 2. The proposal involves the treatment of stem cells and research pertaining to stem cells---for more information follow this link here:
http://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/michigan-ballot-for-2008-proposal-2-stem-cell-research/
The editorial I am focusing on urges its readers to "Ignore Propaganda" because Proposal 2 "saves lives." Now, right off the bat, it is clear that the claim is to vote yes on proposal two and that the warrant for this action is because it saves lives. This title also involves pathos, as it is plays to the emotions of the reader. Would you want to vote against saving a life?
The first half of the editorial brings the late-Christopher Reeve into the discussion. I think this is the writer's attempt to involved ethos and pathos, as saying Reeve would support Prop 2 gives him not only a moral backing but also an aura of reliability as Reeve was both a likable and trustworthy man. It also plays to the reader's emotions, as does one really want to oppose Reeve? He was a hero to many Americans and was certainly one that Americans would not want to double-cross.
The second half of the editorial refutes many of the claims made by those that oppose Prop 2 saying: "Proposal 2 doesn't throw open the doors to unethical research, it doesn't increase taxes and it continues Michigan's prohibition on cloning." He then finishes with a last emotional appeal, saying that Prop 2 can save lives, meaning that if you vote no you are against saving lives. The main problem I have with this part of the editorial is the writer's lack of evidence. How do I know it doesn't increase taxes? How do I know it doesn't throw open the doors to unethical research? I need to see some logos or clear evidence to sway me here. While the writer is strong on pathos, he is definitely lacking in both ethos, and logos/evidence.
I enjoyed the editorial, but if it was written as an assignment for English 225 with Ms. Griffiths, I would have given it around a 75. Sorry Daniel A. Heumann.
Monday, November 3, 2008
To Blog or not To Blog
As my countless number of supporters (estimated in the tens of thousands) already know, I have been maintaining this "blog" for the past two months for my English 225 class at the University of Michigan. Since I began this epic journey towards a greater understanding of human existence through blogging, much has changed in the world, including: gas prices (down in Michigan to around 2 dollars), the stock market, and also my definitions for writing and argument.
That last paragraph is a perfect example of the unique freedom of afforded by blogging. I can essentially say anything I want as long as it can be backed with sufficient evidence or a solid motive. I can be satirical, as I tried to be in my last pargraph, I can be serious, as I am in many of my blogs, or I can just share my opinion on any old topic of my choosing (as long as it pertains to the class curriculum). In an essay, especially one for a class like English 225, I often feel constrained to speaking in third person, and keeping any personal biases or opinions out of the paper. Basically, I feel like I have to be as objective and fair as possible. While this should also be a top priority in blogging, I feel like it is my job to speak my own mind on every subject I address. Obviously, claims and warrants without evidence are still useless, but I think a little more subjectively is definitely appropriate.
However, there are definitely also constraints on blogging. Sometimes, it is hard not to feel a little self-conscious during posts. I feel the need to constantly ask myself whether the reader has any interest in what I am saying. When I am writing a paper for class, there is an obvious reason for my work's creation, but here it feels different. While my blogging is "assigned," it feels like a very freelance and individual operation, so it is really my word and opinion that is on the line. Also, a blog is often not the greatest space to develop the type of argument I was taught to make. This type of argument is best created through the typcial 4-8 page paper, where there is plenty time and space to carefully and neatly lay out different evidences and support for my different claims throughout the paper. In my blogs, I have to make my arguments in a much shorter and informal space, which is uncomfortable at times. I think this opportunity can be fun, but is definitely pretty challenging at times.
I would for sure say that blogging has opened myself up to a more broad definition of writing and argument. As opposed to before, when my definition of argument and writing was more generic, meaning I did not think there were that many ways to creatively or originally write or propose an argument, I now feel aware of the adaptability of argument. A strong, succinct argument can be made not only in a newspaper article or 5 page university essay but also in a 2 paragraph blog. An argument could be made in one sentence, as long as there is a warrant, claim, and evidence provided. An argument could even be made in a photograph, even though that is not really relevant to what I learned from blogging, so I'll leave that discussion for another day.
To wrap this up, I won't shed too many tears the day I hang up my figurative writing cleats when this class is over, but I will definitely keep in mind the interesting lessons that blogging has taught me.
5 minutes until Election day...
That last paragraph is a perfect example of the unique freedom of afforded by blogging. I can essentially say anything I want as long as it can be backed with sufficient evidence or a solid motive. I can be satirical, as I tried to be in my last pargraph, I can be serious, as I am in many of my blogs, or I can just share my opinion on any old topic of my choosing (as long as it pertains to the class curriculum). In an essay, especially one for a class like English 225, I often feel constrained to speaking in third person, and keeping any personal biases or opinions out of the paper. Basically, I feel like I have to be as objective and fair as possible. While this should also be a top priority in blogging, I feel like it is my job to speak my own mind on every subject I address. Obviously, claims and warrants without evidence are still useless, but I think a little more subjectively is definitely appropriate.
However, there are definitely also constraints on blogging. Sometimes, it is hard not to feel a little self-conscious during posts. I feel the need to constantly ask myself whether the reader has any interest in what I am saying. When I am writing a paper for class, there is an obvious reason for my work's creation, but here it feels different. While my blogging is "assigned," it feels like a very freelance and individual operation, so it is really my word and opinion that is on the line. Also, a blog is often not the greatest space to develop the type of argument I was taught to make. This type of argument is best created through the typcial 4-8 page paper, where there is plenty time and space to carefully and neatly lay out different evidences and support for my different claims throughout the paper. In my blogs, I have to make my arguments in a much shorter and informal space, which is uncomfortable at times. I think this opportunity can be fun, but is definitely pretty challenging at times.
I would for sure say that blogging has opened myself up to a more broad definition of writing and argument. As opposed to before, when my definition of argument and writing was more generic, meaning I did not think there were that many ways to creatively or originally write or propose an argument, I now feel aware of the adaptability of argument. A strong, succinct argument can be made not only in a newspaper article or 5 page university essay but also in a 2 paragraph blog. An argument could be made in one sentence, as long as there is a warrant, claim, and evidence provided. An argument could even be made in a photograph, even though that is not really relevant to what I learned from blogging, so I'll leave that discussion for another day.
To wrap this up, I won't shed too many tears the day I hang up my figurative writing cleats when this class is over, but I will definitely keep in mind the interesting lessons that blogging has taught me.
5 minutes until Election day...
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
America's Hidden Curriculum: Palin Part II
Since I wrote my blog about Sarah Palin yesterday, a number of new columns debating her impact on McCain's ticket and her status as a "diva" have sprouted up. The one I found most interesting was by CNN writer Campbell Brown, who basically accuses the Republican party and entire media of sexual bias against Palin. (The link to the article is below)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/27/campbell.brown.palin.diva/index.html
I find this article by Brown very interesting. She is arguing that the whole idea of Palin being a diva is only being discussed because she is a woman. Brown cites a McCain adviser that said, "Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom," clearly a gender biased claim. Could you imagine this type of thing being said about say Bill Clinton or John F. Kennedy. Whenever there is drama surrounding a woman, she suddenly becomes a "diva" and this is certainly unfair.
I do not like Palin or her policies but I do believe that she is often unfairly judged or portrayed by the media. Because she is a woman, she is expected to fall in line with everything McCain and her party say and do, and if she goes off script she is suddenly a rogue diva.
Joe Biden recently snapped at a reporter, calling her reaction "silly," so where are the calls for Biden's status as a diva? After all, do we think that the Obama aides wanted Biden snapping at a reporter? However, the reports on Biden's behavior fall to the second page, as every one of the unprecedented Palin's actions land in the headlines. How can America change this hidden curriculum?
I am currently reading a book titled "Schoolgirls" for my Psych 353 class on developmental psychology. This book focuses on gender bias against women, and I believe it adds insight to our Palin dilemma. According to "Schoolgirls," girls treated unfairly in school beginning from the earliest grades. Girls are expected to be "deferential," "polite," and "passive," and their actions are viewed as "containable" as opposed to the "inevitable" actions of males.
These biases against women clearly do not change between kindergarten and the race for the White House. Maybe Biden's outbursts are viewed as inevitable, as everyone knows he has a short fuse. However, Palin's actions should be contained. McCain's aides think that they should be able to stop Palin from acting out of script. If Palin is not polite or passive, she is not seen as a "good woman," she is just a rogue diva that has fallen off course.
I could not agree more with Campbell Brown when she says that the attacks of McCain's aides are "beyond ridiculous." While, again, I do not agree with Palin's policies and in no way support her, I think she at least deserves respect as a person. Just because she is a woman does not mean she is not human or equal to men.
I am certainly not a feminist, and before several days ago I never even considered the effects or implications of America's so called hidden curriculum against women. However, I know think that many, including myself, across America have unintentionally judged Palin because we have been taught our whole lives that women need to fit a certain role in order to be acceptable.
Unfortunately, I do not think there is any question that this bias has irrevocably affected the election, but hopefully, maybe, something can be done to one day eliminate this gender bias so everyone can have an equal opportunity to succeed in America.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/27/campbell.brown.palin.diva/index.html
I find this article by Brown very interesting. She is arguing that the whole idea of Palin being a diva is only being discussed because she is a woman. Brown cites a McCain adviser that said, "Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom," clearly a gender biased claim. Could you imagine this type of thing being said about say Bill Clinton or John F. Kennedy. Whenever there is drama surrounding a woman, she suddenly becomes a "diva" and this is certainly unfair.
I do not like Palin or her policies but I do believe that she is often unfairly judged or portrayed by the media. Because she is a woman, she is expected to fall in line with everything McCain and her party say and do, and if she goes off script she is suddenly a rogue diva.
Joe Biden recently snapped at a reporter, calling her reaction "silly," so where are the calls for Biden's status as a diva? After all, do we think that the Obama aides wanted Biden snapping at a reporter? However, the reports on Biden's behavior fall to the second page, as every one of the unprecedented Palin's actions land in the headlines. How can America change this hidden curriculum?
I am currently reading a book titled "Schoolgirls" for my Psych 353 class on developmental psychology. This book focuses on gender bias against women, and I believe it adds insight to our Palin dilemma. According to "Schoolgirls," girls treated unfairly in school beginning from the earliest grades. Girls are expected to be "deferential," "polite," and "passive," and their actions are viewed as "containable" as opposed to the "inevitable" actions of males.
These biases against women clearly do not change between kindergarten and the race for the White House. Maybe Biden's outbursts are viewed as inevitable, as everyone knows he has a short fuse. However, Palin's actions should be contained. McCain's aides think that they should be able to stop Palin from acting out of script. If Palin is not polite or passive, she is not seen as a "good woman," she is just a rogue diva that has fallen off course.
I could not agree more with Campbell Brown when she says that the attacks of McCain's aides are "beyond ridiculous." While, again, I do not agree with Palin's policies and in no way support her, I think she at least deserves respect as a person. Just because she is a woman does not mean she is not human or equal to men.
I am certainly not a feminist, and before several days ago I never even considered the effects or implications of America's so called hidden curriculum against women. However, I know think that many, including myself, across America have unintentionally judged Palin because we have been taught our whole lives that women need to fit a certain role in order to be acceptable.
Unfortunately, I do not think there is any question that this bias has irrevocably affected the election, but hopefully, maybe, something can be done to one day eliminate this gender bias so everyone can have an equal opportunity to succeed in America.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Palin the VP or Diva?
With Election Day nearing closer and closer, now only 8 days away, the scrutiny on Barack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden, and Sarah Palin has never been higher. Because of this, you would hope that your party's two candidates would be functioning better than ever together, convincing the country that their tandem would be most likely to bring success to America.
Taking that information into account, the Republican party must feel like they are on a roller coaster trying to follow the relationship between Senator McCain and Governor Palin's camps. Despite McCain and Palin's public denials of any problems, the news coming from behind the scenes begs to differ. The more news I read, the more I hear about Palin's "mavericky" behavior turning into "rogue" behavior. One McCain aide recently said stated this about Palin, "She is a Diva. She takes no advice from anyone."
If you broach this subject with any staunch supporter of McCain-Palin, they will connect these reports with media bias against Palin. However, I not only think these reports are true, but that they are a very scary omen of what may happen if McCain and Palin are elected. Keeping policies aside, I think it would be terribly destructive for America if the Vice-President had a completely different agenda than the President. If Palin truly has no relationships or trust with McCain's aides, can we really expect them to team together to help save America?
I struggle to envision McCain and Palin bringing the stability that America desperately needs in our current economic disaster. It feels as though in recent weeks all the attention on McCain and Palin has focused on their parties inability to get along, Palin's supposed excessive spending on clothes and trips from Alaska for her children, and McCain's negative campaigning, as opposed to the different policies he supports.
Playing the what-if game is always difficult, but what if McCain had not selected Palin, would his party be better off now? Would America be focusing on his merits as a Presidential candidate instead of his relationship with Palin? Could the selection of Palin over other candidates end up costing McCain the presidency? We will learn the answers to some of these questions one week from tomorrow, but until then America will be left to ponder if our two highest profile "mavericks" can co-exist.
Taking that information into account, the Republican party must feel like they are on a roller coaster trying to follow the relationship between Senator McCain and Governor Palin's camps. Despite McCain and Palin's public denials of any problems, the news coming from behind the scenes begs to differ. The more news I read, the more I hear about Palin's "mavericky" behavior turning into "rogue" behavior. One McCain aide recently said stated this about Palin, "She is a Diva. She takes no advice from anyone."
If you broach this subject with any staunch supporter of McCain-Palin, they will connect these reports with media bias against Palin. However, I not only think these reports are true, but that they are a very scary omen of what may happen if McCain and Palin are elected. Keeping policies aside, I think it would be terribly destructive for America if the Vice-President had a completely different agenda than the President. If Palin truly has no relationships or trust with McCain's aides, can we really expect them to team together to help save America?
I struggle to envision McCain and Palin bringing the stability that America desperately needs in our current economic disaster. It feels as though in recent weeks all the attention on McCain and Palin has focused on their parties inability to get along, Palin's supposed excessive spending on clothes and trips from Alaska for her children, and McCain's negative campaigning, as opposed to the different policies he supports.
Playing the what-if game is always difficult, but what if McCain had not selected Palin, would his party be better off now? Would America be focusing on his merits as a Presidential candidate instead of his relationship with Palin? Could the selection of Palin over other candidates end up costing McCain the presidency? We will learn the answers to some of these questions one week from tomorrow, but until then America will be left to ponder if our two highest profile "mavericks" can co-exist.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Rapping Vice-President
Last Saturday, on SNL, I was intrigued by Amy Poehler's rousing rap. For those of you who have not yet seen this clip, here it is,
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-palin-rap/773781/.
Now, I think there is a lot of meaning that can be taken away from this seemingly innocuous rap on SNL. First, Sarah Palin's willingness to play along with the constant SNL, left-wing bashing of her persona. I can't decide if this should be a credit to her resume, showing her willingness to make fun of herself and play along with the joke, or if she truly hates these charades and will do anything it takes to win the vice-presidency. Not everybody could play along with a show that bashes one's own personal life every week, so overcoming that can certainly be credited to Palin. However, I simply do not like it when there are talks of this type of appearance making an impact on the election itself.
Yes, Palin showed the willingness to make fun of herself, but did nothing to make me think that she should not be made fun of. She simply went on SNL, said two or three lines, and bobbed her head when Poehler made a complete mockery of her Alaskan roots. Yes, not everyone could take this kind of comedic beating, which is a credit to Palin, but I do not think she should be rewarded for coming on the show, as in receiving more votes or positive publicity. You could say that this type of appearance shines positively on Palin's temperament or personality, but I do not think that this one minute appearance is a strong enough sample size to make this sort of conjecture.
I think we need to instead focus on Palin's policies and views on America, for these are what truly matter in the race for the White House. We can laugh at Palin every Saturday night, but come November 4th, I hope the main variables affecting the voting are how Palin views Abortion, Education, and other major issues.
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-palin-rap/773781/.
Now, I think there is a lot of meaning that can be taken away from this seemingly innocuous rap on SNL. First, Sarah Palin's willingness to play along with the constant SNL, left-wing bashing of her persona. I can't decide if this should be a credit to her resume, showing her willingness to make fun of herself and play along with the joke, or if she truly hates these charades and will do anything it takes to win the vice-presidency. Not everybody could play along with a show that bashes one's own personal life every week, so overcoming that can certainly be credited to Palin. However, I simply do not like it when there are talks of this type of appearance making an impact on the election itself.
Yes, Palin showed the willingness to make fun of herself, but did nothing to make me think that she should not be made fun of. She simply went on SNL, said two or three lines, and bobbed her head when Poehler made a complete mockery of her Alaskan roots. Yes, not everyone could take this kind of comedic beating, which is a credit to Palin, but I do not think she should be rewarded for coming on the show, as in receiving more votes or positive publicity. You could say that this type of appearance shines positively on Palin's temperament or personality, but I do not think that this one minute appearance is a strong enough sample size to make this sort of conjecture.
I think we need to instead focus on Palin's policies and views on America, for these are what truly matter in the race for the White House. We can laugh at Palin every Saturday night, but come November 4th, I hope the main variables affecting the voting are how Palin views Abortion, Education, and other major issues.
Colin Powell: A Vote for Change?
Yesterday morning, ex-Bush Administration Secretary of State, Colin Powell, endorsed presidential candidate Barack Obama. This move has sent shockwaves throughout the Political world and has new voters like myself curiously scratching our brows. How often does an event like such happen, with an ex-Republican leader endorsing a Democratic leader in such tumultuous times?
The answer: almost never. A tenured Republican like Powell endorsing an "inexperienced" democratic Obama just doesn't happen very often, if ever. This is a sign of just how tumultuous the Republican party is right now, with such high profile people jumping ship merely days before the election. Powell is essentially endorsing that another four years of an administration he was an integral part of is just not the right answer.
I personally cannot decide whether this is more of a boost for Obama or detractor for McCain. I guess this cannot come as a shock for McCain, as the self-proclaimed Maverick certainly does not seek to please his fellow Republicans at all times, and Powell has already publicly announced his support for Obama's foreign policy plans with Iran as opposed to McCain's. This endorsement by Powell also begins the exciting last few weeks before the election, which I would call the endorsement period. Every day now major politicians, newspapers, and even celebrities can be found on the television and internet letting America know who they think should become the next President. This is obviously of great importance, because if Matt Damon is voting for Obama, shouldn't I be voting for him too?
While that last line was clearly a joke, I worry that many voters may be swayed by their favorite celebrity's opinion. While I think America is great for allowing everyone to voice their opinion, I think this is a bit of a problem. Americans need to focus on the candidates and their issues and opinions rather than their favorite celebrity's opinion on the candidate's opinion. I believe it is times like these when major public figures need to encourage Americans, young and old, to get out and vote, as opposed to letting us all know their voting preferences. While it certainly can be interesting to know who Paris Hilton supports, I think we can all wait to hear her opinion after November 4th.
The answer: almost never. A tenured Republican like Powell endorsing an "inexperienced" democratic Obama just doesn't happen very often, if ever. This is a sign of just how tumultuous the Republican party is right now, with such high profile people jumping ship merely days before the election. Powell is essentially endorsing that another four years of an administration he was an integral part of is just not the right answer.
I personally cannot decide whether this is more of a boost for Obama or detractor for McCain. I guess this cannot come as a shock for McCain, as the self-proclaimed Maverick certainly does not seek to please his fellow Republicans at all times, and Powell has already publicly announced his support for Obama's foreign policy plans with Iran as opposed to McCain's. This endorsement by Powell also begins the exciting last few weeks before the election, which I would call the endorsement period. Every day now major politicians, newspapers, and even celebrities can be found on the television and internet letting America know who they think should become the next President. This is obviously of great importance, because if Matt Damon is voting for Obama, shouldn't I be voting for him too?
While that last line was clearly a joke, I worry that many voters may be swayed by their favorite celebrity's opinion. While I think America is great for allowing everyone to voice their opinion, I think this is a bit of a problem. Americans need to focus on the candidates and their issues and opinions rather than their favorite celebrity's opinion on the candidate's opinion. I believe it is times like these when major public figures need to encourage Americans, young and old, to get out and vote, as opposed to letting us all know their voting preferences. While it certainly can be interesting to know who Paris Hilton supports, I think we can all wait to hear her opinion after November 4th.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Campaign Ads or Food Banks?
As you all know, one of the most anticipated Presidential Elections in history is fast approaching us. With November 4th only 16 days away, both candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain are kicking their campaigns into full gear. Both campaigns this year have raised record funds, with Obama raising $150 million in September alone, and are expected to spend about $30 million a week from now until the election. However, with the economy in a flux as it is now, and many across America struggling to pay their mortgages and put food on their dinner tables, this question must be asked: Is this kind of spending on advertisements, most of which have been negative, sensible?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/16/campbell.brown.negative.ads/index.html?iref=newssearch
I read an interesting article by Cnn's Campbell Brown on this issue last week. (The Link is directly above) In her article, Brown poses this same question to the reader of the sensibility and morality of these campaigns. Do these candidates truly care about their fellow Americans, if they are willing to spend unprecedented amounts of money on negative advertisement, Brown asks.
She proposes that the candidates, "Give the money to that homeless shelter in Grand Forks [North Dakota] or any of the hundreds of charities around this country that are trying to help desperate people get through these difficult times," she adds, "If you really care about hurting Americans, put your money where your mouth is and spare us three more weeks of negative ads."
While I certainly understand Brown's argument, I do not think agree with it. While I do not agree with the amount of negative advertisements by our presidential candidates, I understand their need to spend unprecedented amounts of money in this unprecedented election.
It is not like they are stealing the money from people across the country. Those that truly care about these candidates and their campaigns are the ones that are feeding this fire. They are not giving their money to Obama's campaign or McCain's campaign so it can be given to charity. While I would advocate giving it to charity in the first place, instead of these campaigns, it is the duty of these candidates to do the most with the resources they are given by their countrymen. I do not believe they are doing their best with these negative ads, but using the money donated to their causes is the right thing to do.
Sorry, Ms. Brown, but the fault is not in the candidates, it is in us, the American's that are willing to donate these unprecedented amounts of money, despite our economic downturn.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/16/campbell.brown.negative.ads/index.html?iref=newssearch
I read an interesting article by Cnn's Campbell Brown on this issue last week. (The Link is directly above) In her article, Brown poses this same question to the reader of the sensibility and morality of these campaigns. Do these candidates truly care about their fellow Americans, if they are willing to spend unprecedented amounts of money on negative advertisement, Brown asks.
She proposes that the candidates, "Give the money to that homeless shelter in Grand Forks [North Dakota] or any of the hundreds of charities around this country that are trying to help desperate people get through these difficult times," she adds, "If you really care about hurting Americans, put your money where your mouth is and spare us three more weeks of negative ads."
While I certainly understand Brown's argument, I do not think agree with it. While I do not agree with the amount of negative advertisements by our presidential candidates, I understand their need to spend unprecedented amounts of money in this unprecedented election.
It is not like they are stealing the money from people across the country. Those that truly care about these candidates and their campaigns are the ones that are feeding this fire. They are not giving their money to Obama's campaign or McCain's campaign so it can be given to charity. While I would advocate giving it to charity in the first place, instead of these campaigns, it is the duty of these candidates to do the most with the resources they are given by their countrymen. I do not believe they are doing their best with these negative ads, but using the money donated to their causes is the right thing to do.
Sorry, Ms. Brown, but the fault is not in the candidates, it is in us, the American's that are willing to donate these unprecedented amounts of money, despite our economic downturn.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Town-Hall Snoozer
Last Tuesday night, the second of three presidential debates was held between Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain. Many, including myself, were eagerly anticipating this political showdown in Nashville, Tennessee, as both campaigns had recently significantly upped their personal attacks on the other candidate. However, the 98 minutes passed, and one letter came screaming out of nearly every American that had watched the debates: ZZZZZZZZZZZ.......
Despite all of the hype and potential for this debate, almost nothing was actually accomplished by either side, other than reiterating the fact that both candidates lack any real concern for the debate guidelines, as they strayed from taking questions from the town-hall, talked over their allotted times, and did not directly answer many of the questions.
For me, one main question truly bothers me following this second debate: Are the increasingly boring debates a result of the growing need for each candidate to appeal to every potential voter, leading to more generic and non-controversial responses, or are they a result of each candidates lack of the ability to take control of America's problems and reach out and touch America?
Unfortunately, we may not get this answer before the election in less than a month. In fact, we may not get this answer until over 4 years from now, when McCain or Obama is nearing the end of his first term. I completely understand the growing problem with the debates and campaigns as a whole, that they need to appeal to such a broad audience in the growing and culturally evolving America that any statement that can be contrived as controversial or offensive in a debate could lead to a public outrage, but are these candidates really just not the right answer?
It would be great to know the answer to this question, as America, with our unbelievable economic problems, with fluctuations unseen since the Great Depression, could certainly use a leader that could fix our problems or boost America's collective ego. Maybe, maybe neither of these candidates are the answer. Or maybe we will simply have to wait and see if the elected candidate can turn things around. The one thing I do know, is that you cannot have your voice be heard, or, in my opinion, have the right to voice your opinion, unless you vote in the general election on November 4. Vote.
Despite all of the hype and potential for this debate, almost nothing was actually accomplished by either side, other than reiterating the fact that both candidates lack any real concern for the debate guidelines, as they strayed from taking questions from the town-hall, talked over their allotted times, and did not directly answer many of the questions.
For me, one main question truly bothers me following this second debate: Are the increasingly boring debates a result of the growing need for each candidate to appeal to every potential voter, leading to more generic and non-controversial responses, or are they a result of each candidates lack of the ability to take control of America's problems and reach out and touch America?
Unfortunately, we may not get this answer before the election in less than a month. In fact, we may not get this answer until over 4 years from now, when McCain or Obama is nearing the end of his first term. I completely understand the growing problem with the debates and campaigns as a whole, that they need to appeal to such a broad audience in the growing and culturally evolving America that any statement that can be contrived as controversial or offensive in a debate could lead to a public outrage, but are these candidates really just not the right answer?
It would be great to know the answer to this question, as America, with our unbelievable economic problems, with fluctuations unseen since the Great Depression, could certainly use a leader that could fix our problems or boost America's collective ego. Maybe, maybe neither of these candidates are the answer. Or maybe we will simply have to wait and see if the elected candidate can turn things around. The one thing I do know, is that you cannot have your voice be heard, or, in my opinion, have the right to voice your opinion, unless you vote in the general election on November 4. Vote.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Obama the Terrorist?
How much more of this can America take?
“Who is the real Barack Obama?”
Today's latest attack on Presidential candidate Barack Obama by Senator John McCain focused on this question posed to the American public. Who is the real Barack Obama? Is he a terrorist supporter with no idea what American politics are or entail that if elected would certainly spell the further demise of the American people? If you ask John McCain then the answer to all these questions is yes.
In reality, these questions seem preposterous. Even if you do not support Obama or his politics, do you really believe that he is that mysterious and terrible a person?
A New York Times story today focused on how the Campaigns were "shifting to attack mode" on the eve of the second presidential debate. Despite the fact that both candidates denied their interest in these petty, childish attacks on each others characters over the summer, BOTH find themselves within a mudslinging war.
Several weeks ago, I wrote about how presidential ads were reaching a new low, turning off young voters like myself. I'd rather hear about these candidates views on important policies rather than listen to them attack each other mercilessly. I don't want my President to be a gutless man with no respect for his fellow American.
Campbell Brown of CNN explained the situation well, saying, "Here's a purely practical reason: The negativity you are spewing now will only make your job harder after Election Day. Bipartisanship is really tough to achieve when everyone on both sides is left with a bad bad taste in their mouths...Don't you want to be able to walk into the White House with your dignity intact and your head held high?" (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/06/campbell.brown.campaign/index.html?iref=mpstoryview)
I hope that the candidates will somehow find it within themselves to focus on their own political strengths and weaknesses over the final 4 weeks before the election rather than trying to make the other look like an anti-American hooligan. I doubt this will happen, but it sure would be nice. Right?
“Who is the real Barack Obama?”
Today's latest attack on Presidential candidate Barack Obama by Senator John McCain focused on this question posed to the American public. Who is the real Barack Obama? Is he a terrorist supporter with no idea what American politics are or entail that if elected would certainly spell the further demise of the American people? If you ask John McCain then the answer to all these questions is yes.
In reality, these questions seem preposterous. Even if you do not support Obama or his politics, do you really believe that he is that mysterious and terrible a person?
A New York Times story today focused on how the Campaigns were "shifting to attack mode" on the eve of the second presidential debate. Despite the fact that both candidates denied their interest in these petty, childish attacks on each others characters over the summer, BOTH find themselves within a mudslinging war.
Several weeks ago, I wrote about how presidential ads were reaching a new low, turning off young voters like myself. I'd rather hear about these candidates views on important policies rather than listen to them attack each other mercilessly. I don't want my President to be a gutless man with no respect for his fellow American.
Campbell Brown of CNN explained the situation well, saying, "Here's a purely practical reason: The negativity you are spewing now will only make your job harder after Election Day. Bipartisanship is really tough to achieve when everyone on both sides is left with a bad bad taste in their mouths...Don't you want to be able to walk into the White House with your dignity intact and your head held high?" (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/06/campbell.brown.campaign/index.html?iref=mpstoryview)
I hope that the candidates will somehow find it within themselves to focus on their own political strengths and weaknesses over the final 4 weeks before the election rather than trying to make the other look like an anti-American hooligan. I doubt this will happen, but it sure would be nice. Right?
The American Nightmare: Why Can't America Stop Drinking the Juice
Orenthal James (O.J) Simpson might finally be going away for good. 61 years after his birth in San Francisco, 40 years after he won the prestigious Heisman trophy, 35 years after being the NFL MVP, 23 years after marrying Nicole Brown, 14 years after Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were found dead outside Brown's condo, and 13 years after being found not guilty of murder, we may have just seen the last free chapter of O.J Simpson's unbelievable life come to a close around midnight on October fourth as he was found guilty on all 12 twelve charges including armed robbery and kidnapping. After years in America's spotlight, we may have seen the last of O.J.
Why does this matter? Why does America care so much about a sociopathic, ex-star athlete that has not contributed positively to American society in any way in around 35 years?
Sadly, we care because O.J has come to symbolize America in far too many ways. He was symbolic of "the American Dream," but has now come to represent racial tension, greed, and lost hope. In many ways, O.J has become a scapegoat for American society and its growing problems. Who cares about the economy, at least we aren't in O.J's shoes (or gloves). It is as though America needs to constantly be a part of his situation and even before the murder he constantly needed to be in our spotlight.
Regardless of if he was innocent or guilty of murder in 1994, the day he led those California cops along the Orange Country freeway in his White, Ford Bronco, O.J became more than a person, he became a sign of change and loss of innocence in American society. As America watched O.J drive away from authority, losing his fortune and livelihood right before our eyes along the way, we could no longer hold onto the blind faith and trust connected with American superstar athletes. Never before had one's demise been so public, and in a weird way it feels as if O.J never left his Bronco, but has continued to drive for the past 14 years through American hearts and minds. Millions of American's can't stand the though of O.J, yet they can't seem to stop thinking about him.
Even if O.J's lawyers appeal this case, it is hard to imagine O.J not spending the rest of his life in jail. And in many ways, jail may be the most fitting end to O.J's life-long saga, as he has gone from embodying the American Dream to the American Nightmare.
Why does this matter? Why does America care so much about a sociopathic, ex-star athlete that has not contributed positively to American society in any way in around 35 years?
Sadly, we care because O.J has come to symbolize America in far too many ways. He was symbolic of "the American Dream," but has now come to represent racial tension, greed, and lost hope. In many ways, O.J has become a scapegoat for American society and its growing problems. Who cares about the economy, at least we aren't in O.J's shoes (or gloves). It is as though America needs to constantly be a part of his situation and even before the murder he constantly needed to be in our spotlight.
Regardless of if he was innocent or guilty of murder in 1994, the day he led those California cops along the Orange Country freeway in his White, Ford Bronco, O.J became more than a person, he became a sign of change and loss of innocence in American society. As America watched O.J drive away from authority, losing his fortune and livelihood right before our eyes along the way, we could no longer hold onto the blind faith and trust connected with American superstar athletes. Never before had one's demise been so public, and in a weird way it feels as if O.J never left his Bronco, but has continued to drive for the past 14 years through American hearts and minds. Millions of American's can't stand the though of O.J, yet they can't seem to stop thinking about him.
Even if O.J's lawyers appeal this case, it is hard to imagine O.J not spending the rest of his life in jail. And in many ways, jail may be the most fitting end to O.J's life-long saga, as he has gone from embodying the American Dream to the American Nightmare.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
K-Rod
K-Rod will blow this game tonight. 11:36 p.m. Bottom 10th 1 out
It's now 11:45. Ortiz walked and Youkilis singled. Two on, 1 out. Kiss 62 goodbye K-Rod.
Biiiiig out. 11:48. K. Two Out.
3-2 2 out.....walk
Bases loaded...regardless of the end result K-Rod is no Paplebon or Mariano
11:54 2-1 count bases loaded...hmmmmm
11:55....heading to the 11th. A 19 minute bottom of the 10th. Let's see how this ends.
11:59: Paplebon starts the top of the 11th. Let's see who the real closer is
12:01: 1 out. K for Paplebon. K-rod sucks
12:08: Two on. Two out. Bear down
12:11: Second Paplebon K of the inning. Inning over. 12 minutes after it started as opposed to K-Rod's 20 minute plus mess in the 10th. Game over in bottom of the 11th? I hope so.
12:14: Bottom 11 and Jered Weaver, not K-Rod is in. I guess he is not good for two. But no, I'd definetely pay him $75 over 5...There is just no way the Angels win this game. Is there?
12:16: 1 on. 1 out.
12:22: It looks like we are in for a looong night. We head to the top of the 12th. If the Angels are going to win they are going to probably need a home run. They havent gotten a big clutch hit in hours, but they do have hits. 13 hits but only 4 runs. They need to punch one over the green monster and come back tomorrow for more.
12:27: Paplebon is out. Who has the deeper pen?
12:32: What do I know. Single-Sac bunt-Bloop=1 run lead for the Angels. Just hope I don't root for your team because I have the baseball kiss of death.
12:37: We head to the bottom of the 12th with the Angels up 5-4 and 3 outs away from erasing their Cub-like losing streak in the postseason.
12:40: Bottom 12th and Weaver is back on the mound pitching to Big Papi...do the Red Sox miss Manny now??? Yes.
12:41: Weaver walks Ortiz, the leadoff man, this will be a fun half-inning
12:44: Full count and Youkillis flies out to deep center. A great at-bat that despite the end result shows the importance of patience and a good eye in a professional batter.
12:46: Jason Bay strikes out looking. Who needs Manny. 1 out away from an unbelivably improbable and gutsy win for the angels. Why couldnt the Cubs do this.
12:47: Unreal dig by Chone Figgins at 3rd base. The Streak is Over. I clearly cannot predict baseball games. An incredible performance by catcher Mike Napoli and starter turned reliever Jered Weaver lead to Game 4 on Monday at Fenway. Goodnight
It's now 11:45. Ortiz walked and Youkilis singled. Two on, 1 out. Kiss 62 goodbye K-Rod.
Biiiiig out. 11:48. K. Two Out.
3-2 2 out.....walk
Bases loaded...regardless of the end result K-Rod is no Paplebon or Mariano
11:54 2-1 count bases loaded...hmmmmm
11:55....heading to the 11th. A 19 minute bottom of the 10th. Let's see how this ends.
11:59: Paplebon starts the top of the 11th. Let's see who the real closer is
12:01: 1 out. K for Paplebon. K-rod sucks
12:08: Two on. Two out. Bear down
12:11: Second Paplebon K of the inning. Inning over. 12 minutes after it started as opposed to K-Rod's 20 minute plus mess in the 10th. Game over in bottom of the 11th? I hope so.
12:14: Bottom 11 and Jered Weaver, not K-Rod is in. I guess he is not good for two. But no, I'd definetely pay him $75 over 5...There is just no way the Angels win this game. Is there?
12:16: 1 on. 1 out.
12:22: It looks like we are in for a looong night. We head to the top of the 12th. If the Angels are going to win they are going to probably need a home run. They havent gotten a big clutch hit in hours, but they do have hits. 13 hits but only 4 runs. They need to punch one over the green monster and come back tomorrow for more.
12:27: Paplebon is out. Who has the deeper pen?
12:32: What do I know. Single-Sac bunt-Bloop=1 run lead for the Angels. Just hope I don't root for your team because I have the baseball kiss of death.
12:37: We head to the bottom of the 12th with the Angels up 5-4 and 3 outs away from erasing their Cub-like losing streak in the postseason.
12:40: Bottom 12th and Weaver is back on the mound pitching to Big Papi...do the Red Sox miss Manny now??? Yes.
12:41: Weaver walks Ortiz, the leadoff man, this will be a fun half-inning
12:44: Full count and Youkillis flies out to deep center. A great at-bat that despite the end result shows the importance of patience and a good eye in a professional batter.
12:46: Jason Bay strikes out looking. Who needs Manny. 1 out away from an unbelivably improbable and gutsy win for the angels. Why couldnt the Cubs do this.
12:47: Unreal dig by Chone Figgins at 3rd base. The Streak is Over. I clearly cannot predict baseball games. An incredible performance by catcher Mike Napoli and starter turned reliever Jered Weaver lead to Game 4 on Monday at Fenway. Goodnight
Poor Addie Polk
Last Friday Afternoon I was sitting in my room reading various articles online. I perused over to cnn.com, where I like to find much of my political or world news and was pretty startled by one of the stories I found. This story was related to America's housing crisis, which has been at the forefront of American minds over the past several weeks. However, unlike most of the articles on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or the $700 billion dollar buyout, this one included a 90 year-old woman from Akron named Addie Polk and a long-barreled handgun.
"Addie Polk, 90, of Akron, Ohio, became a symbol of the nation's home mortgage crisis when she was hospitalized after shooting herself at least twice in the upper body Wednesday afternoon."
That's right. We now have 90 year-old women shooting themselves rather than getting evicted from their homes. Now, there is clearly much more to this story than that simple summary, but I think to see the true absurdness of this story you need to step back and view the surface. Somehow, in 2008, the only solution this poor woman could find to her housing problem was an attempted suicide (she did not die despite sustaining two upper-body wounds from the gunshots).
Who is to blame here? Is it the bank that first gave her the $45,620 loan in 2004 for her home that she had inhabited since 1970? Are the deputies that supposedly tried to evict Addie 30 times before Wednesday but left everytime she did not answer the door? Is America as a whole responsible for letting women like Addie fall into precarious situations like this without providing help? Or is Addie herself at fault, for not paying her rent or finding a payment plan or solution to her housing crisis outside of a handgun.
I think that everyone is at fault here for the escalation of this crisis. I obviously do not personally know Addie so I cannot comment on her actions outside of the fact that they seem pretty extreme and intense, but I have no personal knowledge of her life or her side of the story. It just seems absurd to me that something like this could happen to a very old woman that had lived in her house for twice as long as I've been alive. Could no other solution have been found? Really?
Now, Fannie Mae has announced that they have "halted" their action against Addie and that they were giving the house to her "outright." Great. Now, the bullet-ridden, 90 year-old Addie can return to her house of 38 years soon (90 year-olds recover quickly from bullet wounds right?) and we can all just move on. This doesn't send the message at all that attempting suicide to get out of your own personal housing situation is the right answer. Oh wait, it does.
This story of a old Addie Polk and her handgun epitomizes the absurdity of America's economy and the housing crisis today, and in some ways I fear the truly unbelievable stories that are sure to come in the future.
By the way, the Cubs may have come away losers last night for the 100th consecutive year, but one day we will come away champions...and hopefully Addie Polk will still be around to see it. Sadly enough, she just missed our last championship by 10 years (even though I doubt she cares about the Cubs right now).
"Addie Polk, 90, of Akron, Ohio, became a symbol of the nation's home mortgage crisis when she was hospitalized after shooting herself at least twice in the upper body Wednesday afternoon."
That's right. We now have 90 year-old women shooting themselves rather than getting evicted from their homes. Now, there is clearly much more to this story than that simple summary, but I think to see the true absurdness of this story you need to step back and view the surface. Somehow, in 2008, the only solution this poor woman could find to her housing problem was an attempted suicide (she did not die despite sustaining two upper-body wounds from the gunshots).
Who is to blame here? Is it the bank that first gave her the $45,620 loan in 2004 for her home that she had inhabited since 1970? Are the deputies that supposedly tried to evict Addie 30 times before Wednesday but left everytime she did not answer the door? Is America as a whole responsible for letting women like Addie fall into precarious situations like this without providing help? Or is Addie herself at fault, for not paying her rent or finding a payment plan or solution to her housing crisis outside of a handgun.
I think that everyone is at fault here for the escalation of this crisis. I obviously do not personally know Addie so I cannot comment on her actions outside of the fact that they seem pretty extreme and intense, but I have no personal knowledge of her life or her side of the story. It just seems absurd to me that something like this could happen to a very old woman that had lived in her house for twice as long as I've been alive. Could no other solution have been found? Really?
Now, Fannie Mae has announced that they have "halted" their action against Addie and that they were giving the house to her "outright." Great. Now, the bullet-ridden, 90 year-old Addie can return to her house of 38 years soon (90 year-olds recover quickly from bullet wounds right?) and we can all just move on. This doesn't send the message at all that attempting suicide to get out of your own personal housing situation is the right answer. Oh wait, it does.
This story of a old Addie Polk and her handgun epitomizes the absurdity of America's economy and the housing crisis today, and in some ways I fear the truly unbelievable stories that are sure to come in the future.
By the way, the Cubs may have come away losers last night for the 100th consecutive year, but one day we will come away champions...and hopefully Addie Polk will still be around to see it. Sadly enough, she just missed our last championship by 10 years (even though I doubt she cares about the Cubs right now).
Monday, September 29, 2008
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
Fresh off my blog ripping on President Bush, I am ready to discuss an even more upsetting topic: fetal alcohol syndrome. I recently finished reading the award-winning novel, The Broken Cord by Michael Dorris. The novel is an autobiographical account of Dorris's experience as a single father of three adopted children, one of whom, "Adam" (Reynold Abel in real life) that suffers from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Throughout the novel, we learn about the horrors associated with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, which is " a disorder of permanent birth defects that occurs in the offspring of women who drink alcohol during pregnancy." (Wikipedia) I grew attached to Michael and his son Adam throughout the novel and was incredibly saddened to learn about the additional tragedies that besieged the Dorris's following the publication of this eye-opening book. Adam was killed one year after publication by a hit-and-run car accident at the age of 23 after he forgot to look both ways when crossing the street and Michael committed suicide in 1997 after separating from his wife of 16 years Louise and facing sexual assault allegations at the hands of his daughters.
But why do I bring up this novel in my blog? After learning about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, I feel as though more people need to be made aware of its repercussions. It has been proven that having any alcohol during pregnancy puts the unborn child in danger. With this as publicly accepted and documented information, why do some women continue to drink and put their children in harms way during their pregnancy? Can some people really not understand the consequences of their actions and if so should these people be able to have children?
Drinking while pregnant is the same if not worse than child abuse, so why aren't these women jailed? Unfortunately, unless a there are no laws against drinking while pregnant. I don't agree with this. While enforcing any laws would obviously be difficult, I don't think it is fair to that unborn child or society to permanently put him or her at a significant disadvantage in life. Everyone should be given an equal shot at success and happiness in life, and if one is afflicted with FAS that option is just not there.
While the discussion about FAS could go on for years (read The Broken Chord and you will see what I mean), I think the most important thing to take away is the importance of protecting the fragile fetus and giving it a chance to live. Drinking while pregnant just doesn't work. Ever.
But why do I bring up this novel in my blog? After learning about Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, I feel as though more people need to be made aware of its repercussions. It has been proven that having any alcohol during pregnancy puts the unborn child in danger. With this as publicly accepted and documented information, why do some women continue to drink and put their children in harms way during their pregnancy? Can some people really not understand the consequences of their actions and if so should these people be able to have children?
Drinking while pregnant is the same if not worse than child abuse, so why aren't these women jailed? Unfortunately, unless a there are no laws against drinking while pregnant. I don't agree with this. While enforcing any laws would obviously be difficult, I don't think it is fair to that unborn child or society to permanently put him or her at a significant disadvantage in life. Everyone should be given an equal shot at success and happiness in life, and if one is afflicted with FAS that option is just not there.
While the discussion about FAS could go on for years (read The Broken Chord and you will see what I mean), I think the most important thing to take away is the importance of protecting the fragile fetus and giving it a chance to live. Drinking while pregnant just doesn't work. Ever.
Where is our Leadership?
Hello again world. I have an announcement. I am upset. Why? I'll tell you.
I have spent most of the last two weeks of my life analyzing the concept of leadership for my first English essay of the semester. After this great time of contemplation and concept seaching, it is hard not to marvel at the sad state of American political leadership today. Where is it?
Unless you have been living under a rock for the past couple weeks, you know that the state of Wall Street and our market is unimaginably terrible. Lehman Brothers has filed for bankruptcy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bought out by the government, and more. America NEEDS a leader now, somebody to step up and take America out of this muck with a clear economic plan and a good dose of confidence. Naturally, you would look to the President of the United States for that leadership, as he is the man elected to lead America under these circumstances. However, that leadership is absent, as it has been for the most part over the past eight years. Bush tried to take action. He announced how dire a situation we were in and how urgent action was. He proposed a $700 billion dollar bailout plan, easily the largest in American history.
You're thinking. Wait? He acted quickly and solved America's problems. Right? Wrong!
Today, the House of Representatives rejected the bailout plan and America is back to square one. Again, Bush and his cabinet are unable to step up for America. Clearly, their plan was not strong enough or convincing enough to win over the House. America desperately needs a leader, someone to take charge of our economy, and that leader just isn't here now. That upsets me and scares me to an extent. What if another attack were to happen? What if the markets drop even further? Who is going to be America's savior? Obama? McCain? I don't know the answer to that question, but hopefully it will be answered itself in the near future. Happy investing...
I have spent most of the last two weeks of my life analyzing the concept of leadership for my first English essay of the semester. After this great time of contemplation and concept seaching, it is hard not to marvel at the sad state of American political leadership today. Where is it?
Unless you have been living under a rock for the past couple weeks, you know that the state of Wall Street and our market is unimaginably terrible. Lehman Brothers has filed for bankruptcy, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bought out by the government, and more. America NEEDS a leader now, somebody to step up and take America out of this muck with a clear economic plan and a good dose of confidence. Naturally, you would look to the President of the United States for that leadership, as he is the man elected to lead America under these circumstances. However, that leadership is absent, as it has been for the most part over the past eight years. Bush tried to take action. He announced how dire a situation we were in and how urgent action was. He proposed a $700 billion dollar bailout plan, easily the largest in American history.
You're thinking. Wait? He acted quickly and solved America's problems. Right? Wrong!
Today, the House of Representatives rejected the bailout plan and America is back to square one. Again, Bush and his cabinet are unable to step up for America. Clearly, their plan was not strong enough or convincing enough to win over the House. America desperately needs a leader, someone to take charge of our economy, and that leader just isn't here now. That upsets me and scares me to an extent. What if another attack were to happen? What if the markets drop even further? Who is going to be America's savior? Obama? McCain? I don't know the answer to that question, but hopefully it will be answered itself in the near future. Happy investing...
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Dumbing Down the Debates
The debate last Friday between John McCain and Barack Obama was hyped so highly in the days preceding that I felt the debate was going to not only determine the next President but also help end poverty, find a cure for cancer, and eliminate America's 12 trillion dollar debt. Unfortunately, the 98 minutes of debate past and all of these issues were left unsettled. While this ending was truthfully not that unpredictable, I think there is a larger issue surrounding the debate that NEEDS to be settled both before the election in November and in the forseeable future.
First, I was very confused by much of what went on in the debate. While that fact can pretty easily be dismissed as I really do not know that much about politics and my attention was not in full gear late on a Friday night after a long week. However, the problem is, how much am I representative of a normal American in that sense? How much of America truly understands the issues that the Presidential candidates are debating? Even if 65 million Americans watched the debates, many of those millions likely lost focus or did not understand much of the debate? That leaves around 250 million Americans without the necessary information needed to form an opinion on their potential presidents. I know not all of America votes, but how much of that is a result of a lack of education and lack of an ability to understand the confusing and tricky political process.
America needs to find a way to convey the gigantic importance of these debates and eventually the presidential election. It is our duty in the democracy we live in to vote. Unfortunately, this message often falls on deaf ears in America. If each campaign somehow found a way to "dumb down" the debates or their campaigns for less politically educated or knowledable Americans, maybe this problem could be remedied to an extent. Maybe instead of consistently ripping on the opposing party as a means of gaining votes, Obama and McCain could explain their goals and promises to America in more simple terms. Wouldn't this show that the candidates truly wanted to reach out to blue-collar Americans as opposed to letting people know that Palin hunts Moose? Think about that before this Thursday's vice-presidential debate, which I'm sure will turn into Palin-fest.
Go Cubs!!! Game 1-Wednesday
First, I was very confused by much of what went on in the debate. While that fact can pretty easily be dismissed as I really do not know that much about politics and my attention was not in full gear late on a Friday night after a long week. However, the problem is, how much am I representative of a normal American in that sense? How much of America truly understands the issues that the Presidential candidates are debating? Even if 65 million Americans watched the debates, many of those millions likely lost focus or did not understand much of the debate? That leaves around 250 million Americans without the necessary information needed to form an opinion on their potential presidents. I know not all of America votes, but how much of that is a result of a lack of education and lack of an ability to understand the confusing and tricky political process.
America needs to find a way to convey the gigantic importance of these debates and eventually the presidential election. It is our duty in the democracy we live in to vote. Unfortunately, this message often falls on deaf ears in America. If each campaign somehow found a way to "dumb down" the debates or their campaigns for less politically educated or knowledable Americans, maybe this problem could be remedied to an extent. Maybe instead of consistently ripping on the opposing party as a means of gaining votes, Obama and McCain could explain their goals and promises to America in more simple terms. Wouldn't this show that the candidates truly wanted to reach out to blue-collar Americans as opposed to letting people know that Palin hunts Moose? Think about that before this Thursday's vice-presidential debate, which I'm sure will turn into Palin-fest.
Go Cubs!!! Game 1-Wednesday
Sunday, September 21, 2008
The Importance of Philanthropy
This week America's richest had their yearly moment in the sun as the annual Forbes 400 was published. The main storylines included Bill Gates's reembergance at the top of the net worth pedastal and the unbelivable price of admission to the 400 club: 1.3 BILLION. However, there was another chart that I found within the magazine that I think is more important than anything else in this magazine: the Philanthropy chart or "Club Generosity." This chart created by the magazine examined the most generous billionaires along with the most miserly, and those that fell in between. To me, this list is of great importance, because these select billionaires have the ability to truly make a difference with the large size of their pocketbooks. I think that looking at these incredibly successful people's donated wealth is a unique chance to look at their personalities. Is raising one's own net worth more important than helping a charity? To some, sadly, the answer is yes.
At the bottom of this generosity chart is actually one of the most recognizable names: Steve Jobs. Now it is possible that Jobs may donate money to a fund or foundation that Forbes is unaware of, but assuming he doesnt, giving away 0% if his $5.7 billion dollar net worth is unimaginable. The example this sets for the rest of the world, especially those that look up to him as apple users, is a poor one. Now I am not a huge believer in karma, but Jobs has battled serious illness lately, and you always wonder if there is a mystical correlation between lack of philanthropy and phyiscal illness or mishappenings.
Meanwhile, on the complete other side of the spectrum from Jobs is well known Microsoft founder William (Bill) Gates III. Gates, unlike Jobs, sets an incredible example for people young and old across the world, as he has proven to be incredibly generous with his fortune. Of his philanthropy adjusted $92 billion dollar net worth, Gates has donated about $35 billion of that, or 38% of his fortune. Now, I understand it is hard to imagine knowing what to do with that much money, but that does not make giving away $35 billion dollars easy. Gates has been one of the most successful men in American history, and he sets an A+ example of how to deal with monetary success.
Remembering to give to Philanthropic causes and help those less fortunate than onesself is sometimes hard to do in this, the me-first 21st century. However, it has never been more important to be charitable and donate time and money to foundations or organizations that need help. You don't need to give $35 billion dollars to make a difference, any amount of time or money is accepted, but it is important to know that a little generosity can go a long way in life.
At the bottom of this generosity chart is actually one of the most recognizable names: Steve Jobs. Now it is possible that Jobs may donate money to a fund or foundation that Forbes is unaware of, but assuming he doesnt, giving away 0% if his $5.7 billion dollar net worth is unimaginable. The example this sets for the rest of the world, especially those that look up to him as apple users, is a poor one. Now I am not a huge believer in karma, but Jobs has battled serious illness lately, and you always wonder if there is a mystical correlation between lack of philanthropy and phyiscal illness or mishappenings.
Meanwhile, on the complete other side of the spectrum from Jobs is well known Microsoft founder William (Bill) Gates III. Gates, unlike Jobs, sets an incredible example for people young and old across the world, as he has proven to be incredibly generous with his fortune. Of his philanthropy adjusted $92 billion dollar net worth, Gates has donated about $35 billion of that, or 38% of his fortune. Now, I understand it is hard to imagine knowing what to do with that much money, but that does not make giving away $35 billion dollars easy. Gates has been one of the most successful men in American history, and he sets an A+ example of how to deal with monetary success.
Remembering to give to Philanthropic causes and help those less fortunate than onesself is sometimes hard to do in this, the me-first 21st century. However, it has never been more important to be charitable and donate time and money to foundations or organizations that need help. You don't need to give $35 billion dollars to make a difference, any amount of time or money is accepted, but it is important to know that a little generosity can go a long way in life.
Is This Magic?
To what lengths would you go to get some attention? The answer to this question with every passing day seems to be greater than every previously imaginable. Since the turn of the century, it seems that people, especially Americans, have been willing to give literally anything for their own 15 minutes (more like 15 seconds these days) of fame. With the increase in "reality" television shows, everybody feels as though tomorrow is their day to shine.
However, where do you draw the line? Is attention worth physical injury? For me, that answer is a resounding no. But for Magician Extraordinaire, David Blaine, I'm not so sure what that answer is. You may remember Blaine for his previous magical (publicity stunts) such as his week-long water extravaganza.
Now, Blaine somehow survived that stunt, even though he failed to set the World Record for holding his breath as he had hoped. But now, I believe Blaine may be going too far. In his next death defying act of "magic," Blaine will be hanging upside down in Central Park, New York for 60 hours next week. Doctors fear that Blaine risks going blind and cramps/swelling in his internal organs. Blaine has done crazy things like this before, such as burying himself alive, but is this really worth it? If risking your life in a stunt that will garner great attention but nobody will remember after a couple hours is important to you than the answer is yes.
Clearly, the adrenaline rush Blaine receives from these giant, death-defying publicity stunts drives him in life. But there is no guarantee that Blaine will continue to walk away from each of these stunts unscathed as he continues to up his own ante. Will it be worth it if he does lose sight after this next stunt? Think about that when you see footage of Blaine's stunt for yourself next week, because I am sure every major news outlet will give Blaine the 15 seconds he craves.
The Great Debate
In one of my earlier blog posts, I wrote about the importance of not "judging a book by its cover." Unfortunately, while many people, including myself, know this is wrong, this judging an entity based on appearance happens more than we can imagine. The kairos for this cliche will reach its peak on Friday night, as presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama will debate each other, for the first time, on live television.
Since the first presidential debate between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in 1858, presidential debates have often been crucial in determining a candidates political fate. This was most evident in 1960, when presidential hopefuls John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon took part in the first televised debate. Nixon, suffering from the flu and a knee injury never recovered in the 1960 election after this fateful debate, "...Nixon looked pale and sweaty--an image that stuck with viewers far longer than his words did." (Time Magazine) Basically, Nixon looked physically unfit before America while Kennedy looked strong. The debate swayed the public away from the uninspiring Nixon, perhaps beginning America's obsession with appearance over substance.
After that debate, candidates feared the fatal live debate, as neither candidate wanted to lose their chances in a few minutes on national television. McCain and Obama have both campaigned hard over the past several months and years, but both know that a strong or poor showing this Friday could make or break their campaign. They also know that their physical appearances, perhaps above their actual opinions, could sway thousands to millions of voters.
Does this make sense for America, to have their future leader potentially be determined on his appearance? I think that debate is a great way to see each candidate perform under stress in front of a live audience, but I also think more attention should be paid to each candidate's actual opinions and potential future policies. What does this say about America that many of our citizen's care more about brawn than brains? Think about this over the next week, because it will all come into play live, on Friday night.
Go Cubs!!!! Congrats on the divison
Monday, September 15, 2008
Ronald Reagan: A Rhetor for the Ages
Before reading any further in this, the most recent installment in maize and blog: watch this clip.
Unfortunately, I was not alive for any of Ronald Reagan's presidency, so I was not able to personally witness any of his spectacular skills as an orator. However, by simply watching several clips of speeches from his time in politics, I am struck by his unique ability to captivate and motivate an audience. Now, it is no coincidence that Reagan was a professional actor in his life before presidency, leading to his understanding of how to speak in public and win support from an audience. This understanding of superb rhetoric helped catapult Reagan into the Presidency and a figurative throne (in the eyes of many) in American history.
I think Reagan serves as a great example of the influence of showmanship and theatre in rhetorical argument. It is difficult to sustain a successful public argument without the ability to gain the crowd's attention and affection before outlining one's own argument. In the case of this now famous clip from 1980, Reagan uses an expression from a 1940's movie (also the time Reagan was an active actor) to shock the crowd. By doing so, he won their respect and affection for standing up for himself. It was this ability that Reagan showed throughout his reign in office that helped keep American hopes high, even as the Cold War dragged on.
Now, I do believe there are some key similarities between written rhetorical argument and verbal rhetorical argument. While their forums are different, the message is the same behind both kinds of rhetorical argument: gain the reader or viewer's trust, attention, and affection through proper usage of ethos (credibility), pathos (emotion) , and logos (data/facts). Often, strong rhetorical arguments are heavily based include a heavy dosage of pathos, because logically, appealing arguments are not centered on facts. Rather, those facts should be almost tucked into a larger, overarching argument which appeals to the reader/viewers emotions.
Being able to present a strong rhetorically argument, whether it be written or verbal, is a necessary skill to succeed in the real world. Whether that argument centers on the American Health Care situation or why you should be hired to drive a school bus, being able to speak convincingly for a specific cause is undeniably crucial. With that said, go practice your own personal rhetorical skills before it is too late...
Go Cubs and congrats Big Z!
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Fear
About one month ago I was watching my favorite television program, Sportscenter, and saw an interesting feature. The feature was on the legendary NFL quarterback Brett Favre. Favre owns nearly every meaningful NFL record for quarterbacks, including an unthinkable iron-man streak, in which he has started every game for his teams (the Green Bay Packers and now the New York Jets) since 1992 (254 games). The Sportscenter feature on Favre was chronicling his transition to the New York Jets after 16 years with the Packers, and highlighted something interesting that has driven Favre for his career: fear. According to Favre, fear of failure
has driven him throughout his hall-of-fame career.
"What drives me is fear of failure...That goes for each season and each game. As much success as I've had in my career, I've never gone into the next game or the next season and say, 'Whew. I've been playing well. That will continue.'" (Brett Favre)
I found this statement to be fascinating, as generally fear is associated with "wimps" or "sissies," and not the toughest quarterback in NFL history. However, this made me start thinking about the connection between fear and life in general. In reality, fear, whether it be fear of failure, loss, embarassment, injury, or anything else, drives every individual throughout daily life. Now, I am not saying all humans live in constant fear and hold no other motivation for life's daily chores, but I have no doubt that fear plays at least some role in everyone's daily life.
Why do some do their homework? Fear of a bad grade or not learning the material.
Why do some people brush their teeth? Fear of bad teeth or bad breath.
Why do some people diet? Fear of health problems or poor appearance.
Why do some not speed? Fear of a ticket or accident.
I recognize that this argument does not apply to everyone in every circumstance. Some people do their homework because they enjoy it or want to learn. Some brush their teeth because they enjoy the feeling of being clean. Some diet because they enjoy nutrition and health, or do not like unhealthful foods anyway. However, if you think about your own life, how often does fear drive your actions? I believe if you are truthful in your introspection, you will be able to find many fear-driven actions within your life.
Fear also plays a strong role in the shaping of our political system, specifically the presidential race. If you watch any presidential advertisement on television, the main message behind the advertisement is often not what that candidate can bring to the American people. Rather, the candidates, in this case McCain and Obama, engage themselves in a high-stakes game of fear mongering. Who can do the better job of scaring the American public out of voting for the opposing candidate. Unfortunately, this fear mongering has become the main focus of both the Democratic and Republican campaigns.
McCain Political Ad: Obama=Celebrity or Leader?
Meanwhile, John McCain portrays Obama as an inexperienced, celebrity running for President. In his estimation, Americans still reeling from the devastation of 9/11 and the Iraq war want a President with foreign policy experience, like himself, as opposed to a young, inexperienced President like Obama. He tries to make Americans fear Obama's youth and popularity with the media, making Americans fear that worse times will strike with Obama in charge.
I understand why political campaigns focus so strongly on fear mongering tactics today, especially since 9/11, as they are effective in achieving their goals. However I believe this is a cowardly tactic. I view this tactic as presidential candidates further reinforcing the presence of fear in America's daily life. However, unlike some fear, like Brett Favre's fear of failure, which I view to be good as it leads to positive results or change: this fear is unnecessary fear. Why make Americans fear the future when we have more resources and tools to succeed than any other country in the world? Instead of focusing their campaigns on the negatives of their opponents, I would love to see politicians instead focus their advertisements on their own strengths and potential to lead America to a better tomorrow.
The day of peaceful political campaigns will likely never arrive, but you can certainly count on the presence of fear in campaigns and the rest of daily life, forever.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Barack Obama meets....Machiavelli??
"A wise ruler, therefore, cannot and should not keep his word when such an observance of faith would be to his disadvantage and when the reasons which made him promise are removed. And if men were all good, this rule would not be good; but since men are a sorry lot and will not keep their promises to you, you likewise need not keep yours to them." (Machiavelli: The Qualities of the Prince)
Now, what if I were to tell you that this quote were from Barack Obama and not Niccolo Machiavelli? While imagining these controversial words coming from a 2008 politician as opposed to one from the 15th century is odd and difficult, I believe it is an important exercise. Why? Because imagining Obama saying these words today helps show just how much times and politics have changed in the last several hundred years.
Both Obama and Machiavelli will be remembered as important and influential political leaders of their respective times, however, both have faced very different challenges and obstacles in their rises to the top of their professions. With due respect to Machiavelli, I believe that finding success in politics in the media-driven 21st century is more difficult than the challenges he faced in the 15th century.
Unlike Machiavelli, Obama lacks the ability to speak freely and truly about his views on America. With every speech he delivers, Barack must fear that he will slip or utter a politically incorrect phrase leading to his own political defrocking via the media. This is why imagining Obama preaching that men are a sorry lot and will not keep their promises is so difficult. While Machiavelli is hailed by many for his startling and still relevant (at least some parts) analysis of what a Prince (leader) needed to thrive and survive, Obama would be destroyed in the media for his controversial views and negative opinion of man. This is essentially a punishment for truthful insight.
Instead, Obama needs to focus nearly all of his attention on a different principle outlined by Machiavelli, the ability to appear to have all qualities {all mercy, all faithfulness, all integrity, all kindness and all religion} that the common man desires in his leader. Machiavelli was centuries ahead of his time when accurately describing the shallowness of most men, explaining how men in general "...judge more by their eyes than their hands." (Machiavelli: The Qualities of the Prince)
What this means is people want their leader to appear to be perfect, regardless of his or her true qualities or beliefs. Politicans today, much more so than hundreds of years ago, need to spend unfathomable amounts of time grooming their public images, as the prescense of 24/7 media over the past several decades has completely altered necessary campaign approaches by political hopefuls. As a result, instead of spending valuable time displaying his true beliefs and rhetoric to the American public, Obama needs to spend time explaining shaky or non-politically correct issues from his past.
The message I want you, my reader, to take away from this is that political times have changed, drastically since 1478. If Machiavelli led his country to prosperity, his past did not matter regardless of actions he had undertaken, even if that included murder. Now, some are unsure of Obama as a leader because he may have used an illegal substance decades before taking public office, or because his ex-pastor is crazy. While I understand how you can draw conclusions about Obama's character through his past, I think judging him on his political decisions and opinions are much more relevant and important than what he did in college 30 years prior.
In the end, there is little doubt in my mind that gaining and maintaining political power, the main topic of Machiavelli's magnum opus, is much more difficult in this challenged time than ever before in world history. One cannot simply take political power in America through brute force or numbers. Rather, they need strong rhetoric, political cunning, and a lot of luck. Think about this when you judge our current presidential candidates. I ask you not to focus on their minor flaws or irrelevancies (such as the number of homes McCain owns). Instead, focus on their strengths and potential. What can they do for America? All you can do for America right now is ponder this very question and vote on November 4.
Go Blue!!!
Monday, September 8, 2008
Don't Judge a Book by its Cover...
After a great Sunday filled with my Chicago Bears actually winning a football game, I am excited to examine the old opinion-as-identity standing in the way of rhetorical change question. First, what does the statement, "opinion-as-identity stands in the way of rhetorical change," from Sharon Crowley and Debra Hawhee (the authors of my surprisingly interesting Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students textbook) mean? While their wording is intimidating at first, their message is very simple: too often individuals are labeled and judged based on their opinions, preventing any successful or productive argument from taking place. If you can't allow yourself to open your mind and listen to somebody else's viewpoint, even if you have a conflicting viewpoint, you are "...undermining the principles on which our democratic community is based." (Crowley 6)
I agree with Crowley that America needs internal argument and debate to sustain itself as a world super power and a democratic society. Why? Because these arguments bring necessary discussion and open new doors to potential solutions to problems. Just because a majority of people may agree on something does not mean that they are correct.
Unfortunately, it is often difficult not to connect opinion as identity. People, myself included, are quick to judge others at the first opportunity given. This practice goes against the cliche, don't judge a book by its cover, but is hard to avoid. Far too often this form of stereotyping occurs and in many places leads to violence or hatred.
I think in this case the word opinion is ambiguous, standing not only for an individual's thoughts or beliefs, but also one's appearance. Judging another based on their beliefs is deeper than judging based on appearance, but is based on the same principle. In both cases, the guilty party is bypassing the opportunity to allow another individual to showcase his or her own unique traits or abilities, instead, stereotyping that individual based on a single opinion or physical feature.
Take for example the KKK or Nazis, who took opinion-as-identity to an extreme and murdered those that had different beliefs, despite the fact that they never knew any of their true identities.
We see the opinion-as-identity crisis occur in politics all the time. The media is constantly creating portrayals of prominent figures based on their opinions or even appearances. This results in an inability for American's to truly debate these politician's merits at times, because that individual's political entity in the public's eye is based solely on one opinion. Yes, avoiding this can be difficult in politics, as the general public does not have much chance to get to know their political candidates and leaders on a personal level, but I think it's important not to judge any one candidate too strongly based on their own personal beliefs. It is fair to not like that person as a candidate for political office, but it does not mean that candidate is a "bad" or "evil" person. For example, you may not agree with the anti-choice beliefs of Sarah Palin, but just because she is opposed to abortion does not mean she is a horrible person. She simply has views that contradict some Americans and coincides with others.
To wrap up this, my second blog, I can't see an end to instant judging based on opinion anytime soon, but just being aware of the issue is a step in the right direction...in my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
