An Expansion of Technology

Last night my uncle sent me a video about technology because he works for Microsoft, and I felt that it really connected to what we have been discussing about Thoreau and societal advances. The video talks about all the global issues right now, and how intelligence is on the rise. 25% of India's population with the highest IQs is greater than the total population of the United States. That is incredible in of itself. China, Japan and India are catching up to the United States, and the competition in those countries is rigorous. Then it goes on to talk about jobs and how the top ten jobs in 2010 DIDN'T EXIST in 2004. Now, people are going to school to learn for potential jobs that don't exist yet. The advancements in our society today are great, and it was truthfully really refreshing to see a positve outlook on things rather than the typical bad economy, America is going down perspective. 1 in 5 couples have met online, over 200 million people are registered on MySpace, and if MySpace were a country it would be the 5th largest in the world! This also ties back to our reliance on technology, which is a negative aspect of it. We constantly look to our computers and cell phones for what we need, and think that it is not possible to survive without it. Think about it: the fifth largest country in the world could be MySpace. Do you think there's any personal interaction through a computer? Would Thoreau or Emerson approve?

The first text message was sent in 1992. Today, the number of text messages sent and received every day exceeds the total population of the planet. Thats mind blowing. We constantly depend on communication that is efficient, but loses thought and interaction. The number of google searches went from 2.7 billion to 31 billion in the last two years. We are a nation that is rapidly expanding our technology and curiosity. Are these things necessities, though? One would argue not, but come on, you have to be a little intrigued at the fact that our advancements have grown so immensely. 

There are 540,000 words in the English language, which is five times as many as during when Shakespeare lived. Thats gotta count for something, doesn't it? Our language is expanding, and using a wider variety of words will allow our minds to grow. However, with our use of technology, will these new words be put to good use? Because we are in an era of "instant gratification" and simplifying answers, why would these new words be important? You could suppose that these words are simplified versions of Shakespeares prose. Maybe, maybe not. I could just be thinking negatively. Either way, our language has become more complex and intricate and that is undoubtedly progress.

A week's worth of the New York Times has more information than a person was likely to come across in a lifetime in the 18th century. The fact that information can be spread that quickly and efficiently is incredible. We are more informed as citizens because of it. Society is able to stay current with actions by our government and what is happening in America and internationally.

By 2049, a $1000 computer will exceed the computational capabilities of the entire human species. I don't need to break down this one, thats progress. Do we NEED all these advances? I wouldn't say we do, but progress is progress. It doesn't do much for simplifying your life, however. Thoreau would say these are "hinderances to mankind." For his argument that makes sense. I personally think it would be odd to not say that these things are progress, but from a transcendentalist point of view, none of it is necessary.

Michelle Obama...the symbol of a modern woman

So many magazines, editorials and newspapers have been talking about how Michelle Obama represents a woman in the 21st century; hard-working, educated, and determined for change. This message is so true because not even a hundred years ago women were suppressed and thought to only work in the house with no education. They just didn't have the "mind capacity" to "handle" the male world. They were pitied. Now that we have a black president elect who represents a younger generation of hope and change, we can look to the first lady as an icon of female progress in the past generation. The media is making it known that she is a strong black women in current society whereas in previous presidencies, the first lady was not know for this. Typically, and this isn't to stereotype, but the first lady does alot with charity organizations and aiding others. This is of course a wonderful thing and i don't want to belittle that, but Michelle Obama represents something extra-strength and an ability to change things on her own. She is in no way, shape or form a typical "housewife". She is an active political icon whose decisions are in many ways respected. She came from the south side of Chicago and rose to be an ivy-league educated lawyer. She is an example of The American Dream we as Americans hold so dear to our hearts. She helped Barrack Obama win the election. Though Zinn's article focuses on Indian Removal, he starts the chapter with a reference to women. As we learned in class, the market revolution allowed women to be in the workforce in factories instead of solely at home. However, this didn't do much for their rights. Women have been oppressed for so much of history up until the last thirty to forty years, and Michelle Obama is a political figure who will help shape what women really are-equal and determined to prove themselves.

Link to Michelle Obama Article

The Boy in the Striped Pajamas

Over the weekend I went to see a movie called The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, a story of an 8-year-old's perspective of the Holocaust. Bruno's father is a Nazi soldier, and his family ends up moving to a building not far from a concentration camp so that Bruno's father can continue his work. Bruno ends up exploring the grounds, and he befriends a boy in the camp through a barbed wire fence. He is told by his father that the camp is a farm for workers. I don't want to ruin the ending so I wont say how it continued, but by the end I was balling my eyes out, and it really made me start thinking about Emerson's History Essay and how history always repeats itself. Is that really possible in this situation? Could the absolutely horrific nature of that time period be repeated? I honestly couldn't fathom it or imagine it ever happening. I still don't understand how some people in Germany don't believe it ever happened. That's just ignorance in my opinion. 

If society is like a wave that never advances or retreats as Emerson put it, will we really learn from the mistakes in our past? Is that not our duty as citizens of the world? We talk about these utopian communities in class, and really, thats what the Germans were trying to do. The question that needs to be asked is, where do we draw the line between creating perfection and creating a genocide? The Germans killed millions of innocent people to "cleanse" their country, and how did that help anything? How did that make matters better? Sure, there was propaganda, but like hell if thats an excuse. Utopia's aren't created by wiping out all races. Utopia's aren't even possible, there will always be issues in a society.

As we always say in class, we can never really, truly learn history unless we immerse ourselves in it, and relate it to ourselves and live in it. When I watched The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, I felt like I was living the hatred, suppression and cruel behavior that occured during every scene. I will never understand the hardship the Jews went through, but in seeing this movie, I at least got a taste, and that's better than nothing. Check out the movie though, its really amazing!

Victory for the Gay Community

Gay marriage has now been legalized in Conneticut, which, for many gays living in Conneticut, is a tremendous feat. Personally, I think that gay marriage is something that should be granted indefinitely everywhere, because based on what we have been talking about in class, everyone has a right to, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." If this is supposedly true, don't gays have the right to be happy? And to have liberty? My paper for the Constitution is about how the ideals of the Declaration of Independence were not fulfilled, and this is yet another example of how they weren't. Who knows if gays even existed in 1776, but right now it is a prevalent issue that deserves attention. In 1996, the Marriage Defense Act was passed, and it ruled that marriage was limited to a man and woman union for the purpose of federal law. This excluded gays entirely, obviously, and it angered them deeply. However, the act does not require states to abide by their rules, they can make their own on gay marriage if they choose. California declared banning gay marriage unconstitutional, making it legal. Vermont, New Jersey and New Hampshire have laws to acknowledge the relationship between gays and they have the rights that opposite sex marriages possess, but they are not called marriages. There are still twenty six states that do not allow gay marriage, and to me, this is really surprising. The Constitution is about equality, and this is not represented in the ban on gay marriage. It's actually quite disappointing, because America has the government that every foreign country looks up to, and for gay rights to be unattainable in some states is not a true reflection on what our country prides itself on.

Gay marriage in Conneticut Article

Gay marriage rights information 

White Supremacy? Really?

Recently on the news and in the newspaper I have seen allegations for two men being convicted of plotting to kill now President-elect Barrack Obama. To me, this really just makes me sick. In class we have been talking about the Constitution and how slavery was "put off" for twenty years, from 1776 to 1808, in the document to avoid issues with the South. Since then, slavery has been abolished and blacks have gained rights equal to white men. The African American society has come so far from where they were before, and I really feel like this happening was a major step back from the progress made because this biggot-like behavior, believe it or not, is still occuring. The fact that our new president is black is a major achievement in black history, and for this conviction of two white supremacists to happen just amazes me. I really didn't think there were people like that anymore. People I have discussed our new African American president with have said that some of their extended family did not want Obama to become president simply because he is black. This showed me that it wasn't so long ago that blacks were severely discriminated against. Our grandparents witnessed the protests and speeches of Martin Luther King...this wasn't something that happened a million years ago. On the news when Obama was elected president they talked about how teens around my age and young adults in their twenties don't see Obama as a "black man," they see him as a symbol for change and an incredibly smart, enthusiastic person. Our grandparents and even some of our parents, however, still have that identification of him. This shows progress for our country as a whole, and how prejudice is being minimized. But the allegations toward the two White Supremacists, among all this evidence of progress, had a really big impact on me. 

Oh, heres the article if you're interested

Declare Yourself

VOTE

I found the Youtube clip of this commercial after seeing it because I thought it had an incredibly interesting approach to voting and getting people vote. The entire commercial is around five minutes long and includes several celebrities who are known for their humor, talent and confidence. It starts out with a ton of little clips of each person telling the public NOT to vote, using a reverse effect to get people to listen. This is pathos and ethos at the same time. The actors talk about how healthcare, abortion, taxes, the war and so many other things "don't matter" and that they really have no effect on the world. Obviously these things aren't true, and thats the point they are trying to get across. Then the commercial goes into issues that if the public cares about, they probably should vote. The conversational attitude towards the whole thing makes it most appealing and allows the issue of voting to be brought up on a more personal level. The excerpt ends with the celebrities persuading people to vote, talking about how easy it is and using a ton of jokes to make it seem casual and personal. This method of getting people to vote makes the public think about their constitutional right to vote and the fact that they have natural-born rights to begin with. Our country has come a long way with voting qualifications, and now any American citizen has that right. Exercising the right to vote is something that all Americans should take advantage of and be proud that they can contribute to the leadership of our country. I think that in these times of peril with the economy, we could all use a little patriotic flare. This commercial was especially important because of how huge this election is, and what it means for our country for who will be the next leader of the United States.

New Trier

When talking and discussing in class today, I couldn't help but think about my academic career and what I would have done differently if GPA rewards weren't a factor. I really enjoy four level classes because I learn more about why and how things happen rather than busy work with readings and worksheets that re-copy what you just read. This would affect my decision if weighted GPA weren't a factor, but I can't say I wouldn't have an inclination to drop down a level for an easier work load because really, underneath it all, i would ask myself, "what's the point?" If my friends are going to get A's while I get B's while doing harder work and I'll have nothing to show for it, why would I bother? In the end, however, I don't think that I would change my leveling if the GPA system changed because I love history, english and french but I struggle with physics and math. My leveling is based off of interest and my ability to succeed, and I enjoy my four level classes for the extended learning and more independent regime. In math and physics, I need more help and thus an independent approach wouldn't fare too well for me. I take my four level classes because the discussion, essays and everyday work are more developed and I can form my own opinions about things and how and why they came to be. Because of this, though I enjoy being rewarded for taking the class, my course selection wouldn't change if that were to alter. I do believe the message New Trier sends kids is that if you take a higher class, you will be rewarded, and that kids motivation is through what they can get in return for their hard work. But every kid is different, and yes, if the rules were to change kids would slack, but the same amount of kids would take the class they think they'll get the most out of. Class rank was done away with, which in my opinion was a good choice because there is so much competition at our school and so many bright kids, that that should not be the center of education.

I researched the topic of just having no grades at all in a school and how that would affect kids, and I came across an article about a school named Clearwater that has no grades, no assignments, and really no responsibilities. Kids learn what they want and choose how to spend their time. There are 63 kids who attend the school, or what they call a "democratic institution", and if kids want to play video games instead of reading about the Ming Dynasty, then so be it. There were many criticisms about this method of learning, and I personally agree with one critic who says that though standardized tests and rigorous testing of knowledge is not quite the right route to take, kids cannot be simply left alone with no guidance as to what they "need to know." But what exactly is it that a student "needs to know?" Sure, there are curriculum descriptions of what kids "should" know, but wheres the line drawn that says just how necessary each course or unit is? I don't really know, but I do know that our society is heavily based on competition and pressure to  be better and that definitely detracts from the learning itself.  

oh, and heres the article

Negative Attention

The article I found online talks about how the presidential candidates are negatively discussing one another's actions to get ahead in the election. This ties back to discussions we have had about times of peril and blaming others for things that occur or will occur in the future. The article says that Obama and McCain will take negativity to a whole new level because of the current economic crisis we're in and how unstable society is. Each presidential candidate is placing a form of blame on the other, saying that they are incapable of running the United States and their policies wont work. The article states that, "The Obama campaign on monday released a documentary that tries to draw a parallel between McCain's involvement in the "Keating Five"scandal and the current economic crisis." McCain tries something similar, "raising questions about Obama's ties with Bill Ayers, a founding member of the radical Weather Underground." Both Obama and McCain are attempting to win over the independent voters by talking negatively about one another. It is a last-ditch effort to win over the hearts of those who don't identify with a party. Because of the economy right now and the recession that has plagued America, independent voters as well as both parties are looking for a strong leader to tell them that their strategy will work and, obviously, the other sides wont. People want answers to healthcare, taxes, global warming and every other issue in society and they want the peril to end. The presidential candidates want their strategy implemented, and for right now, they will go to great lengths to win and get this country out of peril the way they think will be effective.

In the presidential debate on october 15, the candidates were asked to address how negative advertising has effected their runnings and what has happened in terms of consequences to the negative words. Obama and McCain both admitted that come of their campaign advertisements have been negative, but both tried to point the finger as to which was worse and who defended who when allegations were made against one another. McCain was a bit more adimit about the fact that he refuted negative comments toward Obama and that when the situation came for Obama to do the same he did not. Either way, negative and sometimes false comments in advertisements and speeches toward each candidate has affected this election immensly and many Americans are looking to see which candidate will get the job done, even if that means factoring in the "cons" of each presidential candidate.

Realist Vs. Idealist: Our unit 3 topic

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-06/2008-06-13-voa21.cfm?CFID=52835255&CFTOKEN=63811867

In this article, McCain is documented to have said that he is a "realistic idealist"on U.S. Foreign Policy goals. Because he was a POW he thinks that national security is the most important thing. "We cannot wish the world to be a better place than it is. We have enemies for whom no attack is too cruel, and no innocent life safe and who would, if they could, strike us with the world's most terrible weapons." This realist comment, however he also says that he wants there to be positive change and hopes that can happen. Connecting to the negative comment post, I think that McCain is a realist in that he can point out flaws in the opposition and actively speak negatively. He knows wartime and being in the army, and this gives him a realistic approach of whats going on in Iraq right now. However, he could be an idealist in that he wants to keep troops in Iraq. This is idealistic because it shows that McCain has hope that if we keep troops in, we will win the war on terror. I havent fully educated myself on this presidential debate, though I have seen all the televised debates, and this statement that McCain proclaimed himself a "realistic idealist" connects very well to what our new unit is all about. It is also interesting to attempt to weigh pragmatic and idealistic points and claims that Obama and McCain make. Trying to see which is more a certain way is a good way to take in all points each is trying to make. To be president, you have to be be able to think logically and realistically while still having hope for the future, and McCain wanted to prove he was both.

Global Warming: Seeing May Cause Believing

As I was browsing through CNN.com i came across a slideshow and article involving global warming and its effects on the planet. We've all seen and heard about global warming, and it is no new news that it is a very current and debatable issue in society today, but this article caught my eye. It begins with a slideshow of pictures and quotes from a man named Gary Braasch. He talks about the impact of glacier melting especially in Antarctica and how 160,000 glaciers are currently melting. He discusses his experiences with exploring Antarctica and what adventures had come about when taking in all this information. After reading Everythings an Argument, I understood that this was pathos because it connected to me on a personal level through Braasch's experiences. The visual appeal and array of pictures dealing with pollution control and glaciers give you the "shock factor" they want you to feel so that the issue resonates with you. He also uses ethos with various types of evidence because he talks about how the climate change might not effect our lives currently , but in reality we are experiencing change with where we can grow plants, how much water we have and weather patterns. Braasch explains that the first fifteen years we knew about global warming no one did anything because there was no evidence in pictures to back it up. Logos was a factor in this news brief because there was logical evidence of the snow caps and glaciers melting. Now that people can see for themselves, it is necessary to raise awareness as much as possible to prevent this type of rapid, drastic climate change.

Quick Quips

The comic in The New York Times by Gary Markstein is of a woman and a man sitting at home watching the presidential debate and the man says, "Are you scoring the candidates on their responses?" The woman responds, "Yep. Best quip, zinger, sound bite and who's more likeable..."(pg. 2 Times). The argument being made here is that many Americans who watch the debate look more at flaws and criticisms than at what the candidates are trying to say. The comic really appeals to any American because it is portrayed as funny, and its purpose is to show how some people aren't truly as informed as others on the candidates views, just on their comebacks and mess-ups. The way this comic persuades others is that it appeals to everyone and people know that this is a common situation that isn't necessarily said out loud. It is an unspoken truth, and that grabs people's attention. Maybe this will persuade others to become more educated on the matters at hand with these candidates. The issue that is ignored is: what about the people who really are informed? Are they the only ones entitled to a legitimate opinion? Because this is America and anyone over 18 has the right to vote, anyone can. This argument is successful because it catches the attention of it's viewers and has the possibility to get people more educated on the election, or at least be less quick to judge without knowledge. I do realize that I was supposed to select an essay of sorts, but this Sunday's paper had this comic and I thought it presented a compelling argument on the common American. 

The Economy and Perilous Times

When watching the news this week, I came across an article that struck me as an interesting correlation to the Perilous Times we are talking about in class. Our economy is incredibly bad right now, and the stock market is not doing well. In times of economic despair, society turns to place blame on others or look to authority figures, as we talked about in class, to “fix” problems. In this current presidential election, our society, I think, is looking towards Obama and McCain to do what needs to be done to get out of this economic failure. What we talked about in class is true; presidents tend to have the blame put on them for financial problems, when in reality it’s just the ebb and flow of the economy. Presidents in office either get lucky or they don’t. Now that financial issues are being more prominent, society is putting emphasis on how the presidential candidates can “fix “ this problem. I think that sure, they can impact what goes on with our money, but the ultimate change isn’t all up to them. This is a perfect example of how people look to authority figures to help in times of peril, and if they don’t end up doing anything influential they are blamed. With the Lehman Brothers filing for bankruptcy and Merrill Lynch being bought out, the economy is proving to be in a desolate time right now. 

The article suggests that in times of need, leaders show their true colors. ‘“This is a crisis, and in crisis, leadership rises to the top," said Daniel Clifton of Strategas Research Partners, a firm that analyzes Washington for Wall Street. "So both candidates have the challenge of being able to, one, be a leader in a time of crisis, but, two, fashion a response that will make the American voter feel comfortable.”’ This section of the article proves the point being made: Our society looks to powerful and influential people to lead them, and if they fail, society looks to them to blame. In Puritan society, people try to blame others and doubt them for not following the religion rigidly. The stress of wondering if they are part of The Elect makes the Puritans judgmental and afraid of their own sinful actions. They look to authority figures to seek advise on how to act and not be “prone to sin” as Hetty Shepherd said. 

Catholic School, As Viscous as Roman Rule

When we were in class talking about Father Arnold in Reservation Blues, there was a passage that we went over on page 165: 

"We told the Indians the boxes contained smallpox, and if we opened them, the disease would kill them. 

Why would you do something like that? 

It's the only was to get them to listen. And you saw how well it works. They listened to you.

But its wrong. We should teach through love. 

Don't be such a child. Religion is about fear. Fear is just another word for faith, for God."

This passage reminded me of a song I have known for quite some time, I Will Follow you into the Dark by Death Cab for Cutie. The song talks about a boys experience in Catholic School, and how the nuns would bruise their knuckles and tell them, "Son, fear is the heart of love." He ends up leaving the school because he disagrees with this tactic. The Indians were treated the same way when learning about Catholicism and transitioning into being part of the dominant white culture. In Reservation Blues, the Indians were told that they would get smallpox that was enclosed in a box if they did not succumb to the teachings of the priest. They were forced to "believe" that this religion was the correct one out of fear. Like everything else, whether it be the clothing they had to wear, the education they were forced into, and the general mistreatment, it was to change the Native Americans into what was "acceptable" for current society. To do this, their traditional rituals and customs were outlawed and essentially their entire way of life was taken away from them. Scaring people into believing something doesnt make them fully understand what they are forced to believe, and alot of times it turns them away from it, like it does in this song. Though the song is about a man loving a woman after her death,  these lyrics really relate to what we were talking about in Reservation Blues and how society can try to conform you. Luckily, the man in this song had the choice to leave the school and not believe this, while the Native Americans weren't so fortunate. For them, there was really only one option, and that was to learn the religion and believe it in fear.

Youtube video of the song:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNISOcuDOMw