Simplify Things and Enjoy the Ride

I just happened to come across an article about a man who, since his marriage had ended, and his kids had gone off to college, wanted to live life a little, and chill out for a while. The result; a 16 foot wagon built at home, and 4 horses to pull it around the country. Apparently, life just got a little bit too crazy for the man, Bob Skelding, so he decided to cut some things out of it. "I got to the point where I could take the things I really don't like, like taxes and bills and a regular job, and shelved them," Skelding said. "(I) took the stuff I like in life, which is travel and meeting people and horses, and I rolled that all into a big pile and made the wagon."
I couldn't help but immediately think of Emerson and Thoreau while i was reading this article. Many of their writings concerned cutting out all the things in life that you don't need or want, and how you will be much happier with a simpler life. While many may not have the option of dropping everything and taking a trip around America just for fun, it just lets people know that there is more to life than hard work and paying taxes. Intrigued to find out what Skelding's view on life was, i went to his website, and found a page he wrote about his philosophy. He listed his ten most important things in life, the first three being, friends, family and the well-being of his fellow man, and the last being money. It's nice to see people recognize that money isn't everything, and that you can still be happy without much of it.

Civil Disobedience In Greece

Because we had been talking about Civil Disobedience in class, i wanted to to find a current example of it and see if it followed Emerson's ideas. While looking through the Chicago Tribune online, i found an article explaining protests and riots going on in Greece. A little over a week ago, Alexandros Grigoropoulos, a 15-year-old, was killed in a police shooting incident, which triggered the outrage of thousands. Though the riots/protests began regarding distrust towards the police, it expanded to be a protest of the entire state of Greece. The protests are about the economy being bad, politicians being corrupt, and the general decay of their society. It is hard to know what Emerson would have thought about these riots, for while they are protesting a failure on the part of their leaders, they are also injuring innocent people, causing millions of dollars worth of damage, and not pausing to offer a solution to the problem. I think that Emerson would have disapproved because this is not civil disobedience in the effort of creating a greater good, it is just a display of anger by an unhappy populace. Though the country will undoubtedly rethink how they are operating, i don't think that angry riots are the best way to accomplish anything, peacefull protests should be done instead.

Carlin on Progress

I was really in the mood to watch something funny last night, so i went down to blockbuster and grabbed, a George Carlin DVD. I had never seen any of his stuff before, but i picked it because i remembered that he had died recently, and was intrigued to find out what this comedians work was like.
The DVD was great, but even while Carlin had my crying in my seat i was laughing so hard, he actually had a rather profound message to tell his audience. Like what we've been reading in Emerson and Thoreau, he talked a great deal about our modern society and how in many ways we havn't progressed at all. After talking about how the modern parent "abuses" their child through heavy scheduling, and how really the rights that our government gives us are just privileges, he goes into saying how Americans never question the ways of our society. He said "We don’t question things because everyone is fat and happy. Everyone has a cell phone that’ll make pancakes, so they don’t want to rock the boat. We went for gizmos, toys and gadgets. All we want is to have as many things as the guy across the street". After this i couldn't help but think of Emerson and Thoreau because it touches on many of their ideas. It brings up the danger of material wealth, of conformity, and of the unwavering complacency of many people in dire situations. I think i agree with Carlin here, for i do worry about the material obsessions that our society has on a whole, and i do believe that it really is something that hinders our progress as a community. I think that conformity slows down our ability to progress, because as Carlin says, "nobody wants to rock the boat", and try to change things at all. Different ideas and questions are essential to progress.

Does technology really make our lives better?

While it is no question that technology has progressed an incredible amount over the last century, i think that whether or not that technology has had a positive or negative effect on the "human experience" is more debatable. Myself and all of us in the class were all born into the age of computers, never having to have dealt with the inconvenience of typewriters, or dependent on large reference books for information. While many may look at this and say that the lives of my generation are better and easier because of the technology, i disagree. I think that the use of the new technologies presented leads us to be dependent on them, useless without them, and lead us to more stressful, more isolated lives.
With the availability of the internet as a resource, with its vast databases of information, the information that you want does take less time to find. However, i think that as technology increases the rate at which we get information, the curriculum that we are taught adapts itself to encompass that resource to the fullest. By this i mean that because we can access information more easily, we are expected to know more of it in a shorter period of time. The overall effect is that the computers and the internet speed up our lives as a whole, making them more chaotic, not easier.
Advances like cell phones and ipods also have a detrimental effect on our lives. While i love my ipod, i can't help but notice when i see a group of friends sitting around each other, all listening to their music individually, texting other people on their cell phones. Human interaction is replaced by technology, little screens and small letters.
In general, i think that the way technology has progressed has damaged the way that we interact with each other. Isolation is promoted rather than communication, but while i'm not going to throw my various gadgets and gizmos away, i do recognize their effect on me. It is interesting to look at how our society progresses alongside our technology. I would rather have a society based more on human interaction than high speed information and individually based entertainment.

The Future of Guantanamo Bay

With the election done, and Barack Obama the victor, plans for the next presidency have begun. Seeing as many of us have recently written papers pondering the morality of the prison known as "Gitmo", it is interesting to see how our next president plans to deal with it. While he has been urged by the American Civil Liberties Union to do away with the prison the first day he gets into office, Obama seems to have a more reasonable approach. Instead of just getting rid of it, he has said that his adminitration and himself will close it "as quickly as we can do prudently." While ideally he would like to get rid of it immediately, the reality is that you can't simply close a facility housing 255 known terrorists. Obama has expressed the possibility of trying some of the inmates in federal courts, not the military courts that president Bush had used to try several leading terrorists. A fear of corruption and political interferance with these courts has led to this idea.
Regardless of the means of its closure, it is clear that Obama and his administration plan on closing it, believing its use unneccesary and unconstitutional. While it is often hard to see the good that "Gitmo" has brought the United States, it is easy to notice the stain that it has left on the way that we are seen as a nation. While the Constitution pledges a fair and speedy trial to all, and the banning of "cruel and unusual punishments", Guantanamo bay openly disregards it and claims that as a base in Cuba, it is not under the rule of the Constitution. As in many of the papers that we have written in our class, Obama and his administration have decided that the workings of Guantanamo Bay are immoral and an abuse of power.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/10/obama.transition.guantanamo/index.html

Early Voting: Troubles and Accomplisments

Seeing as we were talking about the good and bad sides to early voting last week, i thought i would look up how the early voting was going in this election. When i did, i was really surprised to find out that even in early voting lines, people have had waits of over 6 hours.
I would not have expected such a turnout to early voting, but i think that this just shows us how necessary it is for the election. Just think about what would happen if all these people waited until the day of the election to vote, while there have been voting problems in the past, this greatly increased interest suggests that the availability of voting time and locations needs to be increased. I'm sure that in having such long lines, many people are either disinclined to vote, or simply can't do it because they have other things to do. Because of this i think that they should either have the polls open for a longer period of time during the day, or just have more polls to go to. Something about the system needs to be changed because it is not capable of supporting this turnout. I know that the rules of the election give the candidates a deadline of election day to prove their point, but think that the availability of early voting is more of a positive effect rather than negative. While few people are likely to change their minds over the course of the last couple weeks, the early voting gives many a chance to vote when otherwise they could not have.
Regardless of the problems with lines and waiting, the turnout for the voting is encouraging. It really appears that people now are far more interested in the outcome of the election and are willing to go out of their way to have their vote counted. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/02/early.voting/index.html

A School Without Teachers or Classes?

After our conversation in class today about the grading system at New Trier and how it is apparently contrary to the mission statement, i was intrigued to find out if there were any schools that had a drastically different approach to education which does help the students become intrinsically motivated to learn. After a quick search, i found an article about New Country School in Henderson, Minnesota that has no classes, no walls, and no teachers. The basic idea of the school is that the students work on projects that are designed to fulfill state requirements for education, but other than a deadline, there is almost no input from teachers. The students will work how they want, some on their own, some in groups, but all with the freedom to do as they will. If they get tired of working on one project, they can switch to math, or reading whenever they want. These projects will eventually be presented to the rest of the school and staff when they are due. According to the article, the students enjoy the relaxed environment, and even though they don't have teachers breathing down their necks to make sure they work, the school performs well above the state average on standardized tests, and 90% of the students go on to college when they are done.
This system would hardly work for New Trier, seeing as New Country has 124 students, and New Trier is closer to 5,000, but it is an interesting approach to education. This way, all the students get to study what they are interested in and want to study, while still meeting state requirements. While New Trier couldn't do this to the same scale, i think that we could definately look at this school and take some of their ideas.

Presidential Race: Idealism vs. Pragmatism

Because we are learning about the history of American government and its relation to idealism and pragmatism, i wanted to see how the two candidates in the presidential race fit into the two mindsets and how the American people reacted to it. I wonder, do the American people want to see a display of idealism, or do they want a specific (pragmatic) approach to the future? While politicians are famous for displaying their lofty ideas to the public, dictating appealing solutions without really backing them up, i think that the public has become wary of this tactic and is looking more closely into the politicians plans. This election has recorded the highest public interest rate in history, and those following it have been wary of the various political techniques. The biggest example that i can think of showing idealism vs. pragmatism is when the candidates were asked what they thought they would have to cancel from their plans as president because of the recent economic downturn. Immediately, Obama began listing things that he may not be able to do, but McCain simply said he would find a way to do everything. With McCain's notably idealist approach to his campaign, and Obama's hint towards pragmatism, it is interesting that Obama has been considered to have won all three of the presidential debates, and McCain has been struggling in the polls. Maybe the time has come when the public will no longer fall victim to idealist claims and promises, looking instead for realistic plans.

What happens when what you fear is the only option?

In the process of learning about the origins of the Constitution of the United States, I looked back at the governments bailout of the banking system and realized how contrary it was to everything that the founding fathers worked for. The constitution that they wrote had the primary objective of outlining a government that would be ruled by the people, for the people, not interfering with their privacy, property, or the economy. With a profound fear of oppressive governments, this document was supposed to be a solution. Despite relatively few amendments, the country has followed the constitution word for word for hundreds of years, taking pride in upholding the sense of individuality that it protects. This bailout is different. By implementing hundreds of billions of dollars into the banks, the government has effectively bought their way into the economy, regulating it to try and save it from this downturn. The very thing that the founding fathers worked to remove from their government has come back. So what happens when perilous times force that which you fear to be the only perceivable solution? Maybe it's when idealism steps aside to allow pragmatism to take over. The American people fear changes in the constitution, they fear socialism, they fear government power, but when it comes down to it, the constitution was written in a different time, and the ideals of founding fathers may not be enough to keep the country in order. Whether a change in the Constitution is needed or not, i don't know, but the current situation in America definitely leads one to ask.

Will The Bailout Work?

In light of studying the Great Depression of the 1920's, i was looking for more articles on the current economic situation that we are in. The primary issue at the moment is that the credit system around the country is frozen, because too many people have taken out loans that they cannot afford. To this point, much of what is going on seems to parallel America of the 1920's except that now the government is attempting to do something about the problem. With the now passed $700 million bailout plan, the government is planning on buying up all the banks bad loans and debts, and as a result, freeing the credit industry once again. This all sounds very nice, but it seems to me that it can't be that easy, that more is going to have to happen in order for the economy to right it's ways. Thinking of this, i found an article on CNN in which they explore why the bailout won't work. The author says that the bailout is just a temporary fix, and that people's confidence in the market wont increase, and nobody is going to buy more after it is enacted. The author also says that the banks won't want to give out any loans still because they don't believe that the bailout will be effective. As far as he's concerned, the bailout is just $700 million gone to slow down the decline of the U.S. economy.
To me this makes sense. The way i see it is that it must be the system itself that is flawed. If Americans before took out loans that they couldn't pay for, whats going to stop them from doing now, or later on. I don't see how the bailout will stop the problem from happening again because it is just putting money into a system that is failing. While i am not presenting a better solution, i just can't see how this is going to help, not to mention the fact that my children and grandchildren are going to have to pay for all of this. I guess there is nothing to do but wait at this point and see what happens to the market. http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/04/news/economy/will_it_work/index.htm?postversion=2008100408

$700 Billion Bail-out Plan, Pelosi Argument

The federal government have been working on passing a bill that would possibly give a $700 billion bail-out for the banks and credit companies that have been struggling due to the countries economic recession. Of course, the taxpayers are worried, so the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi wants to make sure that the they don't look at the payout the wrong way. "People have to know that this isn't about a bailout of Wall Street. It's a buy-in so we can turn our economy around," she says. Her argument is mostly based off of pathos, for she is trying to convince the taxpayers that they should not fear the fact that they may have to pay more money. She is trying to convince them that even though they will have to pay more taxes, the money will be returned to them in the form of economic improvement for the entire country. Of course, Pelosi stresses the fact that the economy of the country will improve, skirting around the fact that taxes will increase and saying that in the future, we will be better off. She uses ethos by using her position as the leader of congress to have people listen to her. As long as she can convince a majority of congress to vote for the bill, her job is accomplished. I think that she has a good argument, for her emotional appeal for the future security of the taxpayers money is addressing the primary concern of many people. http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/28/news/economy/Sunday_talks_bailout/index.htm?cnn=yes

Who Do You Turn To?

Our unit on perilous times has made me look at the dire economic and war related struggles of our country and ask, who does the public turn to in a period of trouble? Do they always look to their current leader, or do they toss him/her away? Our current president has seen his fair share of perilous times, but it is interesting to look at the different reactions of the public depending on the type of situation.

Right after the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Centers president Bush's approval ratings had gone through the roof. The country looked to their leader and followed his very word, condemning those responsible for the attacks and following the president to war. The same war that many people supported then is still going on, but now the outlook has changed. The country has fallen into an economic slump, and the general consensus is that we are on the wrong track. The same leader that was supported so fervently back in 2001 is now looked upon with distrust and anger by significant percentage of the population. Why is it that in certain times of peril, a country will support its leader, and in others, they will push him away?

I think that the answer lies in the question of responsibility. When the cause of the trouble at hand comes from an outside factor, the country pools together and fights it. They turn to their leader to direct them into the unknown and deal with those who are responsible for the trouble that was caused. On the other hand, when the problem is internal, and the country feels like it is an internal factor that is causing the problem, they will turn on each other and their leader, causing a split instead of a union. While both perilous times, the two situations either unite or divide a group.

In the 2004 presidential elections, President Bush, who led us into the Iraq war was reinstated to finish the job. In the course of American history, no President that started a war was voted out of their second term. This goes back to the idea that external factors will create a tendency for Americans to look to their president for help. Now, however, few people are looking to Bush to help them with our economic slump, they don't rally together to solve the situation for they know that the troubles have less to do with factors outside the country as their own leadership.
At one time, he is seen as a valiant leader in a time of war, and another he is looked upon with contempt. One cannot say that in perilous times a country will always look to it's leader because it is completely dependent on the situation. If the leader is at all blamed for the trouble at hand, as opposed to an enemy unseen by the public, he is not given the chance to right his wrongs. The public will look for someone else to take his place.

Lipstick on a pig?

Political uproar broke out last week when the Democratic presidential nomination Barack Obama used the expression, "you can put lipstick on a pig, its still a pig" in reference to the McCain/Palin claim that they will bring change to Washington. Within hours McCain had accused Obama of slamming his vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. This immediately reminded me of the unit in class where we discussed how historians will choose to take certain pieces of evidence and omit others to distort the original message. While it is true that he said, "you can put lipstick on a pig, its still a pig", and that on its own it could seem that it is in fact a slam, but it is important to look at the context. He wasn't talking about Sarah Palin, he was talking about the so called change that McCain wants to bring. The passage actually went like this

"That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink after eight years. We've had enough of the same old thing."

It is a prime example of information being manipulated to convince your audience what you want them to think. The most ironic part of the situation is that last year, in reference to Hilary Clinton's plan for a new healthcare system, McCain used roughly the same line. He said "I think they put some lipstick on the pig, but it's still a pig.". Why is it ok for McCain to say it, but it is a political slam when Obama says it? It isn't. The politician has the same responsibilities as a historian not to distort the truth. Regardless of the moral responsibilities, is it constitutionally legal to use this type of campaigning, with advertisements distorting images of the other candidates, and taking their speeches and comments out of context?

First Post

Hey, this is the first post for my blog