The Audacity of Hope, Post #4

In the seventh section of Barack Obama’s book, Obama focuses on Hurricane Katrina. He discusses how the hurricane has served to illustrate an underlying problem in America. The problem is an ignorance of social problems in this country. Obama elaborates, “It was obvious that many of Katrina’s survivors had been abandoned long before the hurricane struck” (229). Many of the people left behind were poor, living on the streets originally. The slow reaction to the hurricane ignored many of these people. From my personal standpoint, this follows the trend that our country has been following for a while. We don’t help the poor, content with being ignorant to society’s deeper troubles. Obama continues, “Nearly two months after the storm, after the outrage and shame that Americans across the country had felt during the crisis, after the speeches and emails and memos and caucus meetings…it felt as if nothing had happened” (230). People say that they help, but they often don’t follow through. When Katrina occurred, media attention made a lot of people talk about helping people in New Orleans. When the spotlight dimmed, however, people lost interest. In think this shows how narrow-sighted and ignorant people can be.

Moving on to the broader issue of race, Obama talks about the continued problems in today’s world. He mentions one event with a friend in a club. They had noticed that there were no African Americans in a club whose town had a one-fourth African American population. When they asked about it, people told them that the club was private. Obama’s friend says, “It’s 2006, for God’s sake” (239). Racial prejudice is still a relevant issue in today’s world. I think that many people today ignore the fact that there is a continued sense of racism in many places across the country. Obama later says, “Under recent Republican Administrations…enforcement of civil rights has been tepid at best, and under the current Administration, it’s been essentially nonexistent”(243). There is a lot of frustration from minority groups toward politics that seem to forget their existence. Racism should be taken seriously in government, and not as some forgotten issue.

On the Waterfront, Discussion Question

In the movie, On the Waterfront, the main characters are faced with a difficult situation. There is friction when the main character, Terry, has to decide whether to tell the authorities about crime on the waterfront, or whether he should remain loyal to the people who committed those crimes. Two opposing views in the story are those of Terry and one of the young boys who had (until the end of the film) looked up to Terry. From Terry’s perspective, he was ‘ratting’ on himself by not telling the police. Innocent people were being killed, and he was allowing it all to happen. From the young boy’s perspective, there is a golden rule to never tell on your friends. He saw Terry as a traitor. He says as much when he calls Terry a pigeon after killing all the pigeons in Joey’s coop. However, Terry might not have thought any loyalty existed after the mob killed his brother, so by he was still justified (and provoked) into telling the police.

This is a tough question. In my opinion, this decision is entirely based, on well, opinion. It just depends on whose perspective you choose to look at the film through. From the mob’s perspective, killing people was business as usual. This wasn’t how Terry looks at things, however. From his ‘perspective’ there is a difference between petty crime and murder. At the point where his brother is murdered, it is hard to not expect him to speak out. In the end, the difference between a whistle blower and a rat is the magnitude of what was being done. Unfortunately, the interpretation of ‘going too far’ or ‘loyalty’ differs from person to person. Because of this open interpretation, it would be possible for a person who blabbed on someone for stealing French fries to be considered as an ethical crusader, regardless of how ridiculous it may seem for anyone else. In the end, my opinion is that the situation and magnitude of what occurs differ, and how we interpret the difference between whistle blowing and a rat should move with it.

The Audacity of Hope, Post #3

In the fifth section of Barack Obama’s book, Obama continues to talk about the structure of America, but in context with the ideals of opportunity and the American Dream. Starting off with the origins of the United States, Obama gives a summary of how this country was based on merit. He tells the reader that a main part of how this lies within the education of citizens. He talks about President Jefferson, saying, “it was based on his belief in a meritocracy, rather than a hereditary aristocracy, that Jefferson would champion the creation of a (…) university that could educate and train talent” (151). Obama’s main focus is that a key part of opportunity lies within education. I agree with Obama’s view on this subject because of how education impacts people’s lives. A better education means a better life. Later, Obama talks about education in today’s world, and how America has woefully insufficient educational programs. Obama refers to the ignorance of society in a conversation with a teacher, saying, “There is the willingness of society to find a million excuses for why ‘these kids’ can’t learn (…) ‘When I hear that term, it drives me nuts,’ the teacher told me, ‘They’re not ‘these kids’. They’re ‘our’ kids” (163). Society isn’t taking education far enough into account today. In my opinion, the whole ‘American Dream’ rests in the ability to get a good education. A lot of people think that the government shouldn't raise taxes to fund education. Obama, however, believes that the nation is responsible, and ethically required, to help future generations through education. I agree with this idea, and I also think that it shows how Obama's ethics are oriented toward helping others, not just people who want to keep possible tax dollars to themselves.

Obama makes another point later on, and that it is faith in America. Obama starts off with the idea that faith plays a large role in politics. He talks about how people have an expectation of a person based on their religion, and how politicians play into the beliefs of their constituency. Obama quotes one republican candidate, Alan Keyes, as saying, “‘Christ would not vote for Barack Obama,’ Mr. Keyes proclaimed, ‘because Barack Obama has voted in a way that is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved’” (209). Politicians try to get votes by using faith and religion, and I believe that to bring religion into politics is inviting social division. Continuing, Obama furthers his argument, saying, “religious talk has given conservatives cover to ignore questions of public morality, like poverty or corporate malfeasance” (213). I think that this is true, that religion is swung around in politics. In the end, people are justifying their vote based on a candidate’s faith rather than their policies.

AMS Question Post

In Arthur Miller’s play, All My Sons, many of the characters make choices between helping their family or society. One of the main choices of the play is Mr. Keller’s decision to ship out defective airplane parts in order to protect the family’s business. His whole idea behind doing this was that he was doing it for his son. At one point he yells, “For you, a business for you!” (Miller, 70). The most important thing to Keller was his son, and by shipping those parts out he was protecting his son’s birth right. As if to clarify why he did it, Keller tells his son that, “You lay forty years into a business and they know you out in five minutes, what could I do, let them take forty years, let them take my life away?” (Miller, 69). Keller’s life had been put into creating something for his son, and he wasn’t about to have that taken away. His son, Chris, doesn’t see things in the same light. He served in the war, and had a completely different perspective on social responsibility. In an argument with his father he says, “I was dying every day and you were killing my boys” (Miller, 70). Chris’ perspective serves as the counter-argument to Keller’s position. He saw in the war that everyone has a responsibility to one another. Throughout the play, Miller writes for both sides, and asks what is ethical in the play.

The choice of whether to benefit your family or the society in an important ethical decision. Of course, ethics is just a question of moral standards and conduct. The problem is that there is no perfect answer to all of life’s issues. In this case, you are going to hurt someone. So for this decision, a person has to ask themselves which is more important to them. They could say that the whole purpose of society is to protect groups of individuals, that people in their family are more important that the faceless unknowns who do not impact their life. In this instance, a person would opt to help their family instead. People close to them are much more important to their lives than people they’ve never met. On the other hand, someone might say that they have a social responsibility to the society. Like a social contract, they could see themselves as a part of community, and see that that it is only right that they should try to help the community they are in. Maybe they see everyone as an equal. In the end, though, it all depends at how a person looks at their relationship to family and society.

The Audacity of Hope, Part #2

I have continued to read Barack Obama’s book. In the third section that I’ve been reading, Obama moves on to discuss the balance of power within government and the United States constitution. As a first example, Obama uses the government reaction to 9/11. He talks about the overreaching power of the White House. He describes how unnaturally large this portion of government has grown by saying, “When it came to questions of national security in the post-9/11 era, for example, the White House stood fast against any suggestion that it was answerable to Congress or the courts” (77). The problem with this is that it takes away needed checks and balances in Washington. From my point of view, this is most likely a direct reason for many of the failures of the Bush administration. As a whole, the country is hurt if laws and decisions are unbalanced. Later, Obama talks about the importance of the Constitution. He refers to widespread debate about what the constitution says. He describes this by saying, “We debate whether such basic common-law rights as the right to marry or the right to maintain our bodily integrity are implicitly, if not explicitly, recognized by the Constitution, and whether these rights encompass personal decisions involving abortion, or end-of-life care, or homosexual partnership” (86). In my opinion, any law derived from Congress should be able to directly link to the Constitution. If the meaning of the Constitution is twisted to benefit a certain ideology, then the Constitution will end up having no real meaning. Because the Constitution specifically talks about a division of power, then any attempt to enlarge one group over the others would be unconstitutional.

As I read deeper into the book, I am able to pick out a fourth section to write about. Obama talks primarily about the how politics plays a role in the capital. In this instance, the topic is money. He talks a lot about how much influence a lobbyist has over Congress. In comparing lobbyists to an average voter, he says, “Their influence comes imply from having more access to those officials (in government) than the average voter, and having more staying power when it come to promoting an obscure provision in the tax code that means billions for their clients” (109). Obama follows this by talking about the need for money in politics. He says, “Still, I can’t assume that the money chase didn’t alter me in some ways” (113). A candidate needs money in order to campaign for office. This influx of wealth is a corrupting force. In my personal opinion, the need for candidates to have money is making our government in Congress a plutocracy. There needs to be stiff regulation for monetary contributions to candidates in order for Congress to be a meritocracy, where the people who should be in Congress are in Congress.

The Audacity of Hope, Post #1

My choice for outside reading this quarter was Barack Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope. In it, Obama discusses his own past as well as his opinions on the future of the United States. At first, however, Obama doesn’t talk about the immediate concerns of the country. He decides to first address his own life and how it has changed his interpretation of events. One of the first things he says in his book is how he came to be a senator from Illinois. Of course, Barack didn’t start out running for the US senate. Instead, he first ran for the Illinois state senate. He describes the lengths he went to get votes saying, “I went to block club meetings and church socials, beauty shops and barbershops. If two guys were standing on a corner, I would cross the street to hand them campaign literature” (1). Barack wasn’t some celebrity with hundreds of staffers. If he wanted the word of his candidacy to get out he would have to do it himself. I believe that kind of self-reliance is crucial to what he does in his current presidency. Luckily, he fostered enough believe in his constituency to have him elected to state senate. Later, though, he wasn’t so lucky. He failed in his first attempt at US senate. For his second attempt, Barack describes his efforts, “…I had to rely on friends or acquaintances open their houses to whoever might come, or arrange for my visit to their church, union hall, bridge group, or Rotary club. Sometimes, after several hours of driving, I would find just two or three people waiting for me around a kitchen table” (6). Obama didn’t start out with a massive following, but instead had to work for every last vote. As a result, I would say that Obama has a better understanding of the middle class because of his experiences along the campaign trail, and it was this understanding that helped him make choices in the senate.

Farther into the book, Obama expresses his interpretation of what is happening to the United States today. He starts off very quickly analyzing how party lines have split the country. Obama calls it a broken country saying, “It’s what keeps us locked in ‘either/or’ thinking: the notion that we can have only big government or no government; the assumption that we must tolerate forty-six million without health insurance or embrace ‘socialized medicine’” (40). Too many people are of the opinion that either we have a completely liberal way of thinking or have a completely conservative way. Rather than pick the most party-associated choice, the country should pick the best option for the situation. Looking at what he says, Obama’s future presidential staff will most certainly have a balance of opinions. He describes how ridiculous the stalemate that has come up between parties saying, “We paint our faces red or blue and cheer our side and boo their side, and if it takes a late hit or a cheap shot to beat the other team, so be it, for winning is all that matters” (41). All the negativity in Congress has had negative effects. The clash of liberals and conservatives, then, only helps to hurt the country. From where I stand, I have much more confidence in the politician who can make good decisions based on what is good for the country rather than an individual party.

Poem: Ozymandias

Well, I’ve decided to look toward poetry for this next post. The poem, Ozymandias, was written by Percy Bysshe Shelley. The poem itself describes a ruin in the middle of the desert, and only a few broken pillars can be seen in the sand. The only clearly visible thing to be seen is a pedestal which read, “My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair”(Verses 10-11). These words only serve to highlight the fact of how far the ruins are from their former gandeur. The poem finishes with a further elaboration on the stretches of desert extending into the horizon. Overall, the idea expressed is that nothing lasts forever, and I found that I really enjoyed this poem.

Poem found at:http://holyjoe.net/poetry/shelley.htm

Exposure Basics: Correctly Expose Your Photographs

I went looking on the internet for an appropriate article that would fit the current unit of analyzing photographs. While looking, I stubbled into a website dedicated to photography, photo.net, and found many helpful articles. The article I picked out was dedicated to photograph exposure and shutter speed. The author, Bryan F. Peterson, elaborated on how a myriad of different effects can be acheived based on the amount of light and the shutter speed used by the camera. He then moved on to talk about how a photographer can use faster shutter speeds to capture motion shots in great detail, and how the use of a low shutter speed can create interesting streaks in the photo. After talking about both ends of the spectrum, the author points out the positives and negatives of both. I found this all very interesting, and I hope people will be able to take advantage of the advice listed in the article.




http://photo.net/learn/basic-photo-tips/correct-exposure/

Death and New Life

Can China Save the Global Economy?

Earlier I read an article from my favorite liberal media source, MSNBC. Well, on their website I found this article, and what it stated was really surprising. To begin with, the article stated how it would be possible for China to create a massive bailout to the world economy. Based on the fact that the Chinese have a two trillion dollar reserve and controls many of the world’s markets, this idea is plausible. China’s economy is orientated around exports, and this is a big factor to how it rests in the world’s economy. Following this, the Chinese people have a savings rate of about thirty percent. In that they save three dollars out of ten. Compare this to zero or even negative percent rate in the US, and you can see the difference. However, China owns over a trillion dollars in US debt, and they’re not interested in buying much more.

Article: http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/09/1522548.aspx

Odyssey Question #2: Is Odysseus a Hero?

In Homer’s poem, The Odyssey, The main character Odysseus is shown as a hero for modern times. Homer really does this in a number of ways. The main aspect of Odysseus that Homer concentrates on is his guile and his ability to seek the truth in others. He does this with Penelope to see if she has been faithful to him, and tests her until he is satisfied. He decides that she is innocent and has remained loyal to him and becomes a figurehead in the poem for determining innocence; he is the judge of people. Odysseus does this again with his farter, Laertes. In his father’s orchard, Odysseus tests father to see if he has indeed remained a good man. Laertes has been good, and Odysseus has once again fulfilled his role as the judge in the story.

Looking at the other hand, Odysseus is not the soulless person shown above. No, he feels terrible when he talks to his wife in disguise, but he does so regardless because he has to find the truth. This shows a real human character behind Odysseus. Again with his father, Odysseus is broken up about disguising himself, and reveals himself when he is sure of his father’s good will. Odysseus is not perfect, but that’s what people are. Is the fact that Odysseus is able to overcome these feelings of sorrow that makes him a real modern hero.

Palin vs. Biden: Polite yet pointed -- and no gaffes

This is an article that I found on the Star Tribune Website. As you’ve seen, the Vice Presidential debates took place on Thursday evening. After the debate, I found this article which tried to put the results of the debate into simpler terms. The first main idea that the article expressed was that Sarah Palin had done better that most people thought she would, and much better that how she had done in interviews previously in the campaign. The author of the article reasoned that although she was not as good of a debater as Joe Biden, she didn’t collapse in the debate. This, he said, was a positive thing for the Republicans. Then moving to the Democratic side, the author of the article mentioned that Joe Biden tended not to address his arguments at Sarah Paliun, but instead he addressed them directly at John McCain. With that in mind, Biden went and elaborated on all the failed policies of George Bush and how McCain was not a reformer. Moving forward, Biden then made logical statements based on facts about the economy. It was here that Palin didn’t do as well as she could have. Palin tended not to respond directly to the question. No, she would change the subject, and usually turned it toward her job in Alaska or to McCain’s ability to fight a war. On the subject of the war, Biden clearly proved that the war was really in Afghanistan, and Palin was a little outmaneuvered here. All in all, the author responded to the debate well. Giving the win to Biden, he still acknowledged that Palin had done a modest job of holding her own.

Article: http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/30087889.html?elr=KArksUUUU

New York Times: Lesson Plans, Learning to Teach in a Complicated World

Here I have found a blog in the opinion section of the NY times website. In it, the author talks from his perspective of the environment in which our education system now lies. As a whole, the ideas are about student input, but also about why or why not teachers choose to teach in lower income areas. For the first point, the author uses an anecdote from his life about how kids in his school were supercharged into activity when they were given the option to help organize class plans. As for the second point, the author recounts his perspective as a teacher/principle (the article doesn't elaborate which). As he sees it, there are many teachers who are promised by political groups that teachers in the schools of the big cities will receive more pay. He says that there are teachers who want to help people in these areas, but that vice versa that there are teachers who just want to escape from these schools. Now I ask you to comment. What do you think about education, and how do you see politics playing into it?

Article: http://lessonplans.blogs.nytimes.com/?scp=6&sq=Lesson%20Plans&st=cse

Reading for All

Hello. The first and foremost purpose for this blog is the discussion of literature, and is directed toward Enriched English 10 students. I will be reading essays, magazines, and other small literary pieces, and I welcome input. You are welcome to ask me questions or post comments. With that point in mind, I encourage that you look at what I'm reading. I hope you enjoy.