The Last Metablog

            I have noticed that I usually blog about a specific issue rather than an overarching theme. Lately I have been going to the New York Times online because there are many topics featured there that have related to our class, like the post I wrote about America's credit score which reminded me of the short documentary "Detroit: The Troubled City".
        I definitely think that-that topic is worth revisiting because there are so many ways in which the recession has affected everyone in the nation, not to mention the troubles of a major city. I have also noticed that recently I have more directly related my blog topics to class rather than mention our class discussions in passing.
           I am very happy about that discovery because I feel like I have participated more and become more involved in class.  I think our class and our motto (I think of it that way) is like the picture because we jump into discussions that are taking place globally and I think that will really help in the future with being a part of a (global) voice.
          My favorite blog is Every Man For Himself! because it can be related to so many topics, not only our books/discussions in class. I have enjoyed this class and I am still amazed at the topics that we covered, the depth of our conversations, and I think we showed how intelligent and discerning highschoolers (and other young folks) can be and are, no matter what age.
          I hope to see you all next year!

Every Man for Himself!

                 In AIS we are reading a book called the Kentucky Cycle. And in this book the similarities between JT Wells and the King and Duke from Huck Finn are very close. All three characters trick and swindle people out of money and then run off. I think that is the biggest similarity. However, unlike the King and Duke, JT Wells had a sudden rush of conscience and told Mary Anne that he had tricked them (the Rowen family).
                In the Kentucky Cycle and Huck Finn JT, the King, and the Duke tell people stories that they want to hear. Like JT said to Mary Anne, "I say what people want me to say and I am whatever they want me to be" (166).
               JT got so wrapped up in his role that he turned on his own people. Just like how Michael wanted money and land so much that he killed his companion, Sam, without a second thought.
              I feel like this "every amn for himself" attitude hasn't gone away since the 1700s and 1800s. Today many people hurt others to get to the top or to obtain something. That is like how the housing crisis statred because banks wanted more money, and they let people take out mortgages when they wouldn't beable to keep-up payments later. The banks were thinking short-term and wanted instant gratification, but by doing that they made many people homeless, maybe like the movie we watched yesterday about Detroit.

New Illinois Law Passed

                    Yesterday, June 1st 2011, the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act went into effect. This Act allows same-sex partners to have a civil union and are then granted many of the same rights given to married couples. 
                    I think that  Governor Quinn is correct when he says "we look forward to individuals and businesses from across the country choosing to move to Illinois", because Illinois is now one of six other states that also allow same-sex unions. And it is sad that out of fifty states only six have changed their laws to incorporate all its citizens. Now everyone in Illinois truly has the right to freedom of expression/religion. 
                   In our Constitution Unit in AIS we explored how the government sometimes abridged civil liberties. And same-sex marriage I believe falls under the First Amendment with freedom of expression or religion, as the Act is named about/for. 
                  I think that this is progress towards a better society and more equal rights for all American citizens. I hope that other states will soon follow Illinois in authorizing same-sex civil unions.




*click HERE to view the article "Illinois Civil Unions Law Goes Into Effect Wednesday" 

America's Credit Score in Jeopardy

               On Thursday, Moody's Investors Service stated that they might downgrade the U.S.'s credit rating because of issues over the debt limit. And a debt limit is when you have a set amount of money that can be borrowed and once you reach that limit you can't borrow anymore money, which includes the issuance of bonds.
                However, in Congress there was a vote the day before Moody's warning and Congress had decided not to increase the national debt limit. However, that is dangerous because if the debt limit question is not solved soon then it might provoke another crisis. Not only that but Jackie Calmes, the author of this article*, writes that "House Republicans have said they will not agree to increase the debt limit without parallel action on spending cuts of an even greater amount".
               As we were talking about in AIS today, many people in Detroit in 2008 were forced out of their homes because they couldn't afford to live there anymore. That was right at the start of the recession and in 2011 we, the U.S., is still recovering. Another recession would be even worse the second time, especially because we are not fully recovered yet. Which would put more people out of work and make more people foreclose their homes.
              Hopefully Congress will reach a decision soon to help prevent a default of a debt payment and another crisis.


*click HERE to see the article "Fight Over Debt Ceiling Risks Credit Rating, Moody's Warns"

Like Father, Like Son

            In our current book in AIS, The Kentucky Cycle, it is interesting to see that despite Morningstar's (Michael Rowen's wife) best efforts, her son Patrick turned out to be exactly like his father. And as the book progresses the line "like father, like son" is very prevalent because from birth the Rowen family fathers ingrained in their sons a thirst for more land.
            It also seems like Rowen fathers teach their children to be just as ruthless as them because Michael, the founder of the Rowen family, killed many people without a thought, Patrick killed Michael and the man his mother actually loved along with other violent acts. The Rowen family is ruthless because of their ability to kill those in the way of their ambitious quest for more and more land.
           In a way that is still true because like Michael wanted to own the mountains, businesses want to buy put their competition and make tons of money. And that goes along with the American Dream because Michael rose from being an indentured servant to being a some-what wealthy landowner. Many of today's biggest businesses were created in that same way, by people going "from rags to riches".
           And even if they lose it all, they will somehow get it all back too, as was seen in the Kentucky Cycle. That want for money and land was passed down for generations and still holds sway in today's society.

Coming Back from War

             Some might think that going home from war would be very easy and that soldiers would be eager to get home from overseas. However, from the article that I read*, some soldiers dread coming home or find it hard to readjust to society.
            That is because the ex-soldiers were constantly vigilant and on-edge. To help them "blow off steam" they might abuse alcohol, get traffic violations, or get into other trouble. Not only that but many suffer from post-dramatic-stress-disorder as well.
            With all of these hardships about coming home in The Great Gatsby neither Nick nor Gatsby, when they were talking about their experiences in war, mentioned if it was hard to re-emerge in society. But perhaps Gatsby displays his post-war troubles as his obsession with Daisy, even though they had not seen each other for years.
            But maybe because Gatsby did not know many people before he went into the army there was no one to see if he had changed from his experience on the front line.




*click HERE to view the article "After Combat, the Unexpected Perils of Coming Home"

            
            

Class Means Money

          We have started The Great Gatsby in AIS. And along with that we are discussing in detail what social classes are and how they are defined. I think that individually the idea of social standing is very relative because everyone has their own idea of what makes someone middle, upper, or lower class.
         Not only that but many people compare their social rank to that of those around them. So if one neighbor has a mansion and so does the other neighbor while you live in a comfortable house, you might think you are "middle class".
         I also personally think that class is generally defined by wealth (net income). The more lavish a lifestyle you live the more you are put on a pedestal, whether consciously or not because others wish they could live like you. Our economy is set up to reward those make the most money, especially with the tax cuts for those who are already wealthy. More money means more of everything else (like precious commodities like gold, oil, diamonds) and perhaps more respect.
         In Richistan: A Journey Through the American Wealth Boom and the LIves of the New Rich (wow what a mouthful!) Robert Frank, the author, brings up a good point. That the truly wealthy of America seemed to have made a mini-counrty of their own in America that he calls Richistan. This tiny percent of the American population holds a huge percent of America's wealth.
         I would definitely recommend this book because it reveals very interesting facts about today's millionaires and how they effect the rest of the population. This book also helps to prove that many people think money means a higher social rank. Besides, isn't the "American Dream" a dream to get rich?

Cults in the Courts

                 Dealing with cults (new religious movements) in courts has been an ongoing problem because courts are forced to consider these groups as religions and thus they are protected by the First Amendment. In the book Cults in America: a reference handbook, it is stated that "while Congress cannot prescribe laws against what one may believe, it may legislate against actions harmful to society" (132).
                 However these decisions are based on "socially accepted, traditional notions of religious practice" (Cults in America: a reference handbook, 132). If it is society that makes the rules then how are the decisions fair? On the other hand though, if the cult is harming others in pursuit of religion and they are convicted by the court that is helpful to society. But does this restrict people's First Amendment rights?
                   

No Japan-Ease

            With the recent earthquake and consequent tsunami in Japan, then with nuclear plants exploding there has been little rest in Japan. In a CNN article on Japan it may be that a reactor core is leaking its radioactive contents. This is very worrisome not only for the Japanese but for those who import their crops. If Japanese water and food have Iodine-131 and Cesium-137 (the radioactive elements) then everything else might too. Not only that but some of the Iodine-131 and Cesium-137 has reached Colorado and Oregon but "thus far -- 'are far below levels of concern'" (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/23/colorado.oregon.radiation/index.html).
            However I think this begs the question that, if Japan is such a small island and is prone to earthquakes and tsunamis, why did they build nuclear plants? When dealing with highly radioactive material you can't take the conventional means of building a strong plant/storage unit and say "that's good enough" because something will eventually knock it down or damage it in some way. With radioactive elements good, probably isn't good enough.

New Religious Movements

                New religious movements are often called labeled cults. The media often portrays these groups in a negative light and/or publishes a story about a mass suicide. Perhaps the most famous mass suicide is the one led by Jim Jones of the People's Temple. Jones created a new "world" in the island of Guyana called Jonestown. When some members left they reported physical and mental abuse. With that, a Congressman named Lo Ryan went to Guyana and while he was leaving he and four others were shot down. After, Jones ordered the suicide.
              With Jones' charisma and his absolute power as the leader of the group, his disciples obeyed. He ordered this suicide because he was convinced American troops were coming for them because of the Congressman. 914 people were killed in the suicide. The members drank a liquid laced with cyanide but those who tried to escape were shot.
               If the media constantly portrays these religious groups negatively then that might push the decline of religion in America even faster. Really, I think the ratio between benign religious groups and fanatical ones is 2-1 because the only groups that garner mass media coverage are the fanatical religious groups. Would these fanatical groups scare people away from religion or good?


 

No fly zone

              Today in the news on the CNN channel the reporter was talking about how Qaddafi's compound was bombed. In one part of the building there are two circular holes which are speculated to be from some kind of missile. 

              America has already invaded the Libyan air space to  enforce a no fly zone. America and its allies invaded with the view that it was a strategic move protect the civilian population in Libya. Again the U.S. is taking things into their own hands in an international cause. However, in this case we don't know the far reaching consequences which could lead the U.S. to a prolonged stay in Libya or if resistance will surface from Libya or surrounding countries. 

              Invading Libya could almost be seen as a declaration of war because we have bombed military locations and the act of invading could be viewed the same way. Without knowing the consequences of our actions, this might prove to be another Iraq-like war. 

To Fight Terror With Terror

             If the U.S. has pledged itself, or at least quite a few of our presidents have sworn, to fight terrorism wherever it is then shouldn't we also focus on our home? There are few reports of home terrorism but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Not only that but to fight terrorism elsewhere the U.S. has used very brutal methods in return. Can't that be considered terrorism as well?
            Using probable cause as justification for incarcerating many people and some suspected terrorists the american government put them in Guantanamo Bay Prison. There they suffered various acts of torture by U.S. soldiers and guards. In a segment of a book I read by Noam Chomsky called Hopes and Prospects said that (I'm paraphrasing here) the torturers where supposed to find a connection between the suspected terrorists and a terrorist organization, and the less they came up with the more they needed to find that non-existent connection.
            In fact the government has tried to justify their use of torture with the Torture Memos which provide arguments for the use of torture. America has, even if not openly, committed war crimes and suppressed its own citizens with laws that restrict civil liberties such as the Patriot Act of 2006. If the United States commits itself to a war on terror ti should use different methods than those of the terrorists themselves because then what is America? Does the end justify the means?

Reconstruction Again and Again

            So first comes Reconstruction after the Civil War where they had to rebuild the country. President Andrew Johnson instituted the Black Codes which gave blacks the right to own property and legalized marriage; and the government created the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth Amendments which emancipated slaves, stated citizenship rights, and gave everyone the right to vote, respectively. But the country also had to keep up the economy, just like the present.
           Today we are only just beginning to pull out of the 2008 recession. The government is still carrying out the plans it made like the stimulus package which helped create jobs, provided bailouts to major companies, and cut payroll taxes. It also extended unemployment insurance, reduced taxes, modified mortgages to help save homes. Those weren't the only steps to revitalize the country because the Federal Reserve created historically low interest rates, emergency funds for financial institutions (like banks), and also guaranteed bank deposits.
            These "reconstructions" are very similar because the government helped pave the way to a better society. However, that does not mean that the people never had to help out. They saying "you have to spend some to make some" is really very relevant because, if you only use the money that you have it won't make much of a difference because you are already financially troubled.
            From the past we have the ability of hindsight so we can learn from mistakes made and try to correct it, such as the Reconstruction we have done in AIS. By learning what sort of ideas worked it could help all that much more in the future.

Libya's Reconstruction

            So we all know about the recent trouble in Libya. The people against the government, nothing we haven't heard of before. However, this situation is much like the Reconstruction era after the Civil War. People are fighting for their rights and they don't want to live in fear anymore. This is what the African Americans probably felt about their situation. In both cases even though violence awaited them in some form, they did not back down. The people had waited too long for something to change, and now they are making that change come from their own hands.
            "Snipers from Libya's government forces fired on mourners attending a funeral for slain protesters Saturday, killing at least 15 people" (http://www.libya-watanona.com/). Under Gaddafi's rule the people of Libya have suffered many violations of constitutional rights. Their constitution guarantees that peaceful gatherings or protests will be allowed to assemble. Yet the government open-fires on those who are attending a funeral. That doesn't sound violent enough to warrant gunfire on the mourners.
             The people of Libya, should they succeed in ousting Gaddafi from power will have to make revisions to the law and perhaps in other aspects like their constitution, etc. After the Civil War the United States certainly did.

            But hopefully the ending will be different because even though blacks were granted equality under the law, they really weren't treated equally until the civil rights movement 100 years later. I hope they resolve this conflict and reunite as a whole nation soon.

Everything in its Place

           It's funny how much people are used to labeling things immediately. I've been watching a T.V. show and even then the characters label others in various ways. Even in AIS one of our teachers showed  a sort of political scale, where radicals were on the far left and reactionaries on the far right.
           Is it really that simple? I think it's a bit more complicated because there may be people who are very radical on only one issue and that shouldn't define that person right away. People want to have a neat little cubby to tuck everything in to. But what happens when they can't?
          Humans, it seems, have always labeled, such as in the South before the Civil War when slavery was the southern way of life. There was a very clear hierarchy and for those that made money from it, that was how it was always going to be and they liked it. But, then along come the Civil War and and everyone's place in their cubbies were rearranged and thrown out.
          If people didn't label the world how would things be defined, made sense of? But immediately defining people, ideas, objects really only relates its first impression, not its whole being. The world is too complex to tuck away neatly with a nice, simple label.

Meta-Post

Over the semester as a whole, I struggled most with writing a blog post that was more interactive with the reader and audience members. Writing a blog isn't the same as writing a paper. It is much more informal but also very thoughtful. But if the purpose of our blogs to help with our writing, then I wonder when we will ever write an informal paper anytime outside of high school or even in it. It may help create and coherently plan ideas in a logical order but otherwise, what else is it doing?

However, I think blogging has become much easier this last quarter because to find good ideas I know in what kinds of places I can look that will have interesting articles or ideas that I can expand on. In addition, I believe that I have gotten better at empathy for the reader. I really explained the context of where the blog idea came from and I think that I have made the discussions interesting. 

What I could work on though is asking a few less questions to start the comments or discussion. Not only that, but finding even more interesting topics to blog about. Topics that people waver on like the discussion we had about the man who stole the drug that could possibly cure his wife. For that topic, it really seemed as though one could argue yes and no at the same time, which makes for a very interesting discussion, hearing people's reasoning behind their choices. 

*Please see my "A Question of Morality" blog by clicking HERE

A Question of Morality

      My older brother is in college and he is taking a philosophy class and they were discussing morality. His professor proposed different scenarios and asked students what they would do.
      The scenario was: there are five people tied to a train track and a train is coming. You can let the the five people die or you can pull a switch to turn the train onto another track. However, on that other track there is one person tied to it. You can let the five people die or you can pull the switch and only the one other person would die. What would you do?
      Would you sacrifice one to save five? Or would you sacrifice the five people? In the broad scheme of things, maybe for the "greater good" it would be better to save five lives than one; but in a moral viewpoint it can be quite different.
      You see, the philosophy class talked about, depending on what decision you choose, whether you are passively or actively killing someone. You might be thinking, how could I kill someone? Well, if you chose to save the five, then it could be considered as actively killing that single individual on the other track. Some might think that it's not the same thing as stabbing someone with a knife, but really it is. Just because you aren't right next to the person doesn't mean you aren't, in a sense, murdering them. You made the decision to flip the switch and kill the man.
      On the other hand, should you have chosen to let the train come straight on, it could be labeled as passively killing those five people. By letting letting the train hit those five people and not doing anything to save them, you are passively killing them. You may not think you are doing anything, but by doing exactly that, (which is nothing), you are letting people die that you had the option to save.
      Seeing these explanations, does it change your mind about what you would do? If it does, or not, why?

From Mr. Mark Twain

            So, there has been a lot of controversy about the book Adventures of Huckleberry Finn about whether n***** should be taken out of the book. Many people believe that it should be replaced, but others argue that it is a part of history and shouldn't be changed.
            My brother likened this controversy to when Pope Pious IX declared that any nudity was offensive and was banned from church art. And so any art that displayed nudity was either covered or destroyed. This drastically changed the idea of the art and its meaning.
            It is the same with Huck Finn, by substituting a different word for n*****, the meaning of the text is changed and distorted. However, a black woman I interviewed mentioned Huck Finn and said that when her children were in school and they were reading Adventures of Huckleberry Finn she said that the teachers didn't know how to teach the book and the children/students didn't know how to react to the book because of all of the n-words in the book. And every time the n-word came up all of the children in the class would turn around and look at the children of color. And that can help explain why some people are lobbying for a change in the book's language.
           Conversely,  some believe that the book because it is history it shouldn't be changed in any way. That the book should be read in the context of that time period where using the n-word was commonplace. This is a classic book and distorting it in any way is just like covering nudity in art. Recently, Alan Gribben published a version on Huck Finn that used 'slave' instead of n*****. This changes the meaning of many passages, which would then twist the tale of Huckleberry Finn.
          Hopefully, in the near future there will be a conclusion to this controversy.

Planned Citizenship

              Recently, many immigrants (mostly Chinese women) have been traveling to the United States expressly to give birth on American soil. By doing that, it ensures that their child will be an american citizen and will have all of the opportunities for education and work that their parents maybe never had.
              As written in the fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, all people born on U.S. soil are american citizens. But this was originally written to help the freed black slaves and their children, not illegal immigrants. This has become an increasing problem as an article on NPR's website shares the story of one chinese woman's story/ideas*. In the article, it also relates that there are some private entrepreneurs, or crooks, that arrange for flights there and back and places to stay while they are pregnant. One business man states the for $15,000 the stay at the hospital, the doctor, the house, and any other amenities the woman wants can easily be taken care of. This is clearly a very organized practice already, so how will it change in future years? Will it change american policy in any way?
             Should this be allowed? If no then why isn't the government taking steps to somehow counteract this? It is clear that the mothers have no intention of actually staying in the United States. They simply board a plane to America, give birth, and soon after are back home with their new-born child.
             I think it should not be allowed because they are horribly taking advantage of a country they aren't even citizens of. By increasing the amount of people trying to find a job, it is unfair for those who have lived in the United States all their life, or most of it, to have to compete with people who only came because they also want a job, and with this economy it is challenging enough to find a decent job.
            Citizenship should not be taken advantage of so easily because that makes it seem as though America is very relaxed about immigration or can be easily manipulated by other countries.

* click HERE to read the rest of NPR's article

Age

            When people (teenagers/young adults) are 18 we can legally vote and volunteer for the army. We were talking about the transition from childhood to adulthood in AIS and many of my classmates said that it was for you to decide if you felt like an adult. But really the government is telling us because really we don't have very many rights to participate in governmental workings until we are eighteen or older. 

             I agree that it is for us to decide because there may be events that force people to grow up sooner than we otherwise would have (perhaps). This could be an emotional event, going off to college or turning 21. I wonder how the government decided on 21 as the age that people were legally considered adults. Is it that by then the government officials think that people are "sufficiently mature" by then? Or is it somehow biologically determined?

             Either way I think it's curious that at eighteen we can help decide our government's officials, and fight, kill, and/or die for America in the Army. Yet they are not trusted or allowed to have a drink? Based on that I think that the drinking age should be lowered back to 18 which was only changed in 1984. That is very recent and I don't think that raising the drinking age has done very much to prevent younger people from drinking.

           In fact, many teens or anyone under 21 might think that because it is illegal to drink, that if they do it makes them cool and  rebellious. But if the drinking age was lowered maybe it wouldn't be as "cool" anymore. Which might then induce be less accidents due to drinking and driving or alcohol poisoning. If they don't have to wait so long to experience this then when they finally can it isn't as big of a deal, I would think. 

         The government should realize that it greatly influences American society which, in turn, influences us (the people). So by setting the age of 21 as becoming a legal adult, that is the age that many also say they are adults based purely on that. Age is based on surroundings and personality, not how many years you have lived (though that may be part of it). But whether you consider yourself an adult or still a child depends on you.