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.