Ex-Soldier Steven Green Faces Possible Death Penalty

Steven Green was convicted of the murders of the Al-Janabi family in Iraq and rape of the eldest daughter. He faces life in prison indefinitely and the death penalty is not an out of the question sentence. Green was a soldier in Iraq and had plotted this attack with three or four other soldier who knew about it and were involved in it. I find this absolutely horrifying. These are the people out there defending our country? Representing our country? Fighting for our country and the very idea of America? The article actually refers to the assault as a war atrocity, which I find extremely fitting in our war unit that just ended. This situation immediately reminded me of so many of the artifacts we read over the course of the unit. The fact that war makes things "foggy" and morality pretty much goes out the window. There is no longer a line between right and wrong because of the shock and all the awful things occuring on a regular basis. I don't think this justifies anything. Morality cannot be brushed to the side. Rape and murder is far from fighting for your country and killing in battle. This atrocity had nothing to do with the war. He deserves the harshest sentence possible. The fact that there were multiple soldiers involved also makes me uneasy. What has this war come to? Just because a person is "used to" killing soldiers, which i do not think is possible but hypothetically, that still doesn't have anything to do with rape. That has nothing to do with killing innocent civilians who did nothing wrong. Nothing justifies that. What does this say about the war? What is provoking this? What makes these soldiers think that this is justified? And that goes back to a central question in the unit: what sort of killing really is justified?

Poll Indicates 1 in 5 Americans Support Torture

I found an article today that really struck interesting regarding American citizens' views on torture. In fact, a recent poll indicated that six out of ten Americans think that the procedures and measures that the FBI is going to to get information is necessary. I think a big part of this opinion is fear. When people don't have information and there are terrorists out there, they fear for their lives and may accuse people who may be innocent. When there is fear, people act on it and it is not always the most rational action. We discussed waterboarding in class and in this article 64% of people polled did not consider it a form of torture. Does drowning someone on the brink of death NOT considered torture? What about the "suspected" terrorists who really are not involved in terrorist organizations? But then again, if we don't use different procedures to extract information, how will we ever get it? 57% of Americans do not want Bush Administration officers to be investigated for authorizing these procedures, because they feel it is a necessary means of finding out the real terrorists. But really, who says we will get truthful information that isn't tampered with and distorted? It is a very hard topic to decipher right from wrong, and which procedures are humane and which are not. The dilemma remains as to how to deal with terrorists how to get valid information. With everything going on in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran right now, the Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations need to be deciphered and understood. These alleged terrorists are one of the United States' only means of obtaining knowledge. But does that mean torture when there is not substantial evidence? Obama is working hard to aid Pakistan and Afghanistan in their path toward democracy to defeat Al Qaeda, but what are the limits? Where is the point where we become too involved? Wheres the line between humane and inhumane?

Nucs: Destructive or Defensive?

In class the other day we touched on North Korea and its role in the world, as well as decisions that the country has made that are questionable. A hot topic concerning N. Korea is their nuclear weapons, and the their nuclear program has recently been restarted. The United Nations officers were also kicked out of the country and Kim Jong-il is asserting his power forcefully. The United States is working to get them to negotiate and compromise because they are a rising danger if more nuclear weapons are made that are more advanced. But the question that comes to my mind is this: why does there need to be nuclear weapons? Do countries spend so much time and money on creating them to defend their country or with the intention if attacking another? In North Korea, unknown numbers of people have starved to death while money flowed into the country's military program. Money is being spent on bombs and not on nourishing innocent people. What does having nucs say about a country? When one country decides not to cooperate with the rest, there is discomfort and unsureness. But why can't we all just get along? There are so many factors to be taken into consideration about North Korea and their relationship with the world, but what needs to be said to make them cooperate? When we talk about war, nuclear weapons are always something that come to mind. What I don't understand is how having nuclear weapons in your country is comforting. They're nuclear weapons. No one should have them. They are disastrous in every way. In class we posed the question "what does it take to provoke a war or conflict resulting in violence?" But really, is there anything that should provoke such violence? Because North Korea isn't cooperating, does that mean some sort of war is inevitable? I feel like I'm posing so many questions, but I really don't know the answers to them. Nuclear weapons should not exist period, even if they are only for means of defending. If no one had them, no one would need them to defend. But can we trust that other countries won't lie or be secretive with their nuclear program? So much of me wants to be optimistic and say that a nuclear weapon-free world can happen, but i don't know if that's possible.

Zuckerberg "Strikes It Big"

Today I really started thinking about Facebook and its significance in society. I was down at University of Illinois with my dad and I listened to him lecture about enterprise 2.0, which, in a nutshell, is what the internet has come to be: interactive and communicative. My dad was using Facebook as a reference to how the web has morphed into a place where people can interact and meet based on common interest, and information can be relayed between individuals and groups of people. This got me thinking about the creator of Facebook; who was he? How did he think of this seemingly innovative and creative idea? Just as I had assumed from the 10,000 hour rule chapter, Mark Zuckerberg had been programming since middle school. He attended private school and the went on to Harvard, where he created Facebook. He had programmed non-stop from age 13 on. Facebook was started by him and his roommates at Harvard for fun, and from there it skyrocketed into a worldwide phenomenon. The idea of having the right balance of opportunity, ability and luck really comes into play in this scenario. Luck was definitely a big factor in Zuckerbergs story, and it appeared as if the whole thing was completely by accident. He "struck it big" right from the beginning. His background revealed that he had numerous resources and a great education and family to enforce the opportunity and ability components in this case. Luck came in with how quickly the program caught fire. So is Mark Zuckerberg considered an "expert" programmer? He definitely has ability, opportunity and luck on his side, which certainly helps. 

The American Dream Shot to Hell...Cynical or Realistic?

The major thing I wanted to discuss in this post is poverty and how much more prevalent it is becoming in our nation because of our economy and the debt we have as a country. I was watching Oprah yesterday and there was a show on a family who looked like you or I and they were recently homeless. There was three kids in the family, along with a single mom. The fact that they looked so normal really frightened me. They were a family who didn't have anywhere to go but a shelter at night, and their sense of helplessness really exemplified the state of our country. My dad has told me countless times how many emails he gets from friends he used to work with, fully capable, smart people, who recently got laid off simply because there wasn't enough revenue to pay them. He has had to lay off his employees as well. There are so many jobless men and women being led into poverty. Ms. Logan said the other day that the typical American Dream, that is, that a persons child will have a better life than them, is no longer existent in our culture. It is just not possible with the amount of debt we will be inheriting for our country. All I hear on the news regarding the market is "12-year low" and "lowest since...." because nothing has worked to help the circumstances. In a time where we are learning about privilege and poverty, it seems fitting to talk about on side of that spectrum and how it was been affecting the United States.

Legal Marijuana + Tax

Looking at the news on cnn.com and nytimes.com this week, i couldn't help but notice the lengths states are going to in order to boost the economy and be more successful. A story that caught my eye, for example, were the eliminating of the death penalty in Maryland to cut costs. The article says that to cut down criminal justice costs the repeal of the death penalty is a good idea, however, critics of this action say, "At a time when police departments are being scaled down to save money, the role of the death penalty in deterring certain crimes is more important than ever." I thought it was incredibly interesting that this method of cutting costs would be put into effect. Would eliminating the death penalty increase crime in Maryland? Would it stay the same? I guess we won't know until Maryland puts this into effect. In times of poverty and crisis such as these, people are jobless and cutting back on expenses significantly. I did not ever consider, until this article, that states would be inclined to do so as well. The other article I read talked about California considering legalizing and taxing marijuana to boost the economy and bring in money. In doing this, California as a state would have legal costs cut by almost a billion dollars a year and an approximate 1.3 billion dollars would be brought in off the tax. I found this method of improving the economy to be very "out there" and new, but in watching the news clip, I think it could work. It is so interesting what great lengths we as individual states will go to when there is so much poverty and problems. In times of crisis like this with no sight of improvement, society has to act. This sure is an action, and if California decides to enforce it, there could be good effects, but in return, possibly detrimental effects to the health of society and overuse, which is what drug policy advisors have advocated. There are so many measures and extremes, not limited to these two articles, that states and the government have attempted to regain strength. But will these relatively new ideas really help the economy and society in the end? 

The other night I was with my tutor and we got to talking about my junior theme. I mentioned I was doing it on the topic of African American identity, double consciousness and shaping identity in changing times of American history. He then got to talking about how when he lived in Mississippi the Ku Klux Klan lynched a black man in his front yard, and when they woke up the next morning his mom went out and caught sight of it. The shock stunned her and he said she was never the same. They moved the next year. Its so incredible to me how in 1958-only 50 years ago-things like this were occuring and it was not out of the ordinary. I was shocked to hear this story, and my tutor even further told me that he had witnessed beatings from a distance and essentially grew up in the environment. He is definitely not okay with it and never was, but how could he stand by? I mean, there wasn't much he could do to stop it, but NOTHING was done. And all this just 50 years ago! Racism is so recent to our country's history it is baffling.

The other thing I connected our unit to was a movie I watched last night, The Secret Life of Bees with Dakota Fanning. The movie takes place in the rural south and exemplifies so much having to do with white supremacy. The nanny of the house, an African American named Rosalene, decides that she wants to vote. When she walks down to the town to do so, she is malled by white men and shoved to the ground and spit on. Her head get busted open and she is taken to jail. Her white boss is so embaressed, he won't even come bail her out. The main character, Dakota Fanning, runs away from home for other reasons and decides to take Rosalene with her. They end up at a bee farm owned by three black women. These women put a black Virgin Mary on their honey, which Dakota Fanning, a white girl, is very surprised about. Though I haven't finished the movie, Fanning proves to be a white citizen who goes against the norm, willing to save Rosalene from jail and openly speak out against the violations of the Civil Rights Act. The movie has a really strong connection to the time period we are currently learning about, that is the time in which black men and women are freed, and trying to figure out what to do with this freedom especially because there is most definitely still prejudice.  A quote from the movie is, "It's so ironic how much white people hate us, when most of them were raised by Negro women." This statement is so true. The women who were around for their childhood, who helped them create who they were and come into their own, were black women. And this is how they are treated? 

Infomercials...Really?

If I watch or listen to one more bow-flex, ab cruncher, proactive or vegetable dicer commercial I just might call into that one eight hundred number myself and give them a talking to. Infomercials are always trying to persuade you to buy their product by giving "facts" that are not always valid. Who really knows if one will have automatic smooth, clear skin or rock solid, bulging abs if they buy a certain product. The fact is, no one certain product can magically transform a part of your body and honestly, I highly doubt the cut macho-man demonstrating the equipment ONLY used the bow-flex to create his toned biceps. The same goes for food processors and other convenient supplies for your house. Sure, many of them can make tasks more efficient, but its not like the object is going to make a persons life immensely easier. Your life won't be "complete" if you buy airwick for three easy payments of $12.99. These products are romanticized to be so much better than they really are, leaving Americans with the perception that being consumers and buying a company's product will ultimately help the buyer with what they need instantly. The reality of the effects of the products is not what it is portrayed as in these commercials. Their idealistic approach of promises that are not necessarily going to be fulfilled makes the product unreliable in a sense. Will a bow-flex make you look like a  bodybuilder? Most likely not. Will you magically have diced tomatoes the instant you press a button on a kitchen appliance? Who knows. Does proactive or a weed-wacker make everything in your life suddenly make sense and bring you instant happiness? Doubtful. The point is, infomercials are a hyped up marketing technique.

Rebellion and Civil War

When reading The Wall Street Journal today, I came across an article discussing the civil unrest in Sri Lanka and the rebellions that have taken place there since the 1970s. The country has been secularized and there has been discrimination against certain groups, mainly the Tamil, that has increased tension. Currently they are working to find the "Tiger" or Tamil group leader in the jungle and end this war that has killed tens of thousands of people. Civilians are looking to the government to exert their power over the land and end this war. The civil war in Sri Lanka connects to our agency and oppression unit because of its connection to the civil war in America. When a country becomes secularized and divided, tension and aggression rises and discrimination becomes more prominent. 

Differences in opinions of large issues causes unrest...and ultimately the dire need for a solution. America was fighting over westward expansion of slavery and the ultimate idea of slavery. The south made a statement to succeed from the Union. And now, the Tamil group in Sri Lanka is making a statement to not be discriminated against. However, the tactic behind how they choose to handle the situation is with violence, and that needs to end. The "Tigers" or the Tamil group have opened fire at hospitals, bombed territories and killed innocent civilians because of deeper anger that has lasted for over a quarter of a century. This current event really goes to show that modern day societies have the many of the same deep-rooted issues that need to be solved or war and violence will break out as what they believe is an immediate answer.

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.