The Meta-Post: A Reflection

I'll be honest here, it took me about 20 minutes before I could settle on my favorite blog post. The reason? All my blog posts are too good to choose from.

But seriously, I wanted to see how well I related my writing to American themes, along with some of the topics we've talked about in class. After some mind-straining consideration, I settled on my most recent one. You can take a look here.

I think the best thing about this post is how well I was able to integrate the themes we've discussed this year. I was able to convey the significance of entering politics as a minority. I questioned the American political machine, and the way it takes advantage of people to further its grasp in the political system. And to top it off, I connected it to our discussions about token minority characters. It's pretty obvious; Mia Love - the black, female, republican, Mormon running for a congressional spot in Utah - might as well be from a TV show.

In addition, I think the overarching idea behind my post was quite inquisitive. It magnified the extent to which people in the political discourse are willing to go for empowerment. When it came to Mia Love, the republican establishment didn't hesitate to jump on something so opportunistic. Even with months to go until the elections, she was place on the top ten list of most important congressional races. And high profile members of the GOP have already gone so far as to state that she would have millions of dollars at her disposal. This reflects the nature of politics, the depravity (I would go so far as to say) that haunts politics in America. And to my great satisfaction, I'm confident I conveyed this message accurately.

Overall, I'm convinced that my writing has grown over the year. I learned to better convey messages, tie in outside sources, reflect on themes from class, and question common thought. In my opinion, my blog post about Mia Love demonstrates this improvement.

Race, Gender, and Politics

As I was sifting through the daily news stories, I encountered one that I found really tantalizing (link). The GOP political machine is endorsing a candidate for a congressional race in Utah, but not just any republican contender  - a black, female, self-proclaimed Mormon. And the more I thought about it, the more I realized how much it related to some of the themes we've discussed this year: race, gender, religion, token minority characters, etc.

It's not something that's often seen in the political arena these days. In fact, if she gets elected, Mia Love would be the first black woman to serve in the US house of representatives. That being the case, it should come as no surprise that the Mia Love is in the cross hairs of the republican establishment, being declared one of the top ten most important races in 2012. The GOP has had a long history of not welcoming minorities with open arms, and as anyone could guess this was a scarce opportunity. 

So here's the plan. Spend lavishly in the election, and create the perfect token minority character. Fool the people into believing that republicans have the same appeal to minorities as the democrats. Build the party where it matters most and construct an image of diversity, while simultaneously pandering to a crucial voting block.  And the next time some democrat utters the word "racist", you've got the perfect comeback: Mia Love.

There is no denying this. In fact, when asked about this inconvenient truth, Love replied very cryptically, and resorted to the usual political shenanigans: "It's not because of a pair of heels that I was able to go in, and cut spending" she replied, trying to maintain a smile. What does that even mean? Please answer the question, Mia Love.

In 2008, the republicans got eviscerated when it came to galvanizing key demographics. According to this breakdown, a staggering 95% of blacks voted for Obama, while 56% of women voted for Obama. So in the same way that TV shows use token minority characters for higher viewership ratings, Mia Love couldn't be a better candidate to get republican minority engagement up. Throw the people a bone to chew on. That's certainly what appears to be happening.

But really, this isn't even the real problem. The problem is that politics continues to be one cat fight after another. The problem is that the two parties are so desperate for votes that they would go to any extremes to successfully pander to the right demographic. The problem is that Americans still care about race and gender. The fact that the republican establishment cares so much about this election indicates that as much of a facade as this is, people pay attention to these attributes. Believe it or not, a black, female, Mormon standing at the forefront of the GOP could actually play an imperative role in garnering votes.

College: The Ultimate Indication of Class

I'm going to be honest here: I've been completely apathetic to the very thought of college for many years. Although my parents had been encouraging me to show the slightest bit of interest, I wouldn't budge. And to make matters worse, the meetings with my college counselor had virtually no effect on me. But finally, something clicked in my brain over the weekend. For hours, I sat at the computer surfing through website after website, looking for a college that would be right for me.

The funny thing is that I couldn't think of anything to write about for my blog post. And then it hit me. COLLEGE. After everything I had read over the weekend, I had subconsciously accepted the notion that college would act as a social marker in my life. I could be in the "elitist", upper class. Or the average, relatively mediocre middle class. Or I might not go to college at all, and find myself in the lower class. The place I go would very likely define my social class for the rest of my life. Scary thought, isn't it?

   

Consider a place like Harvard. Once you leave the university, you're all set for life. You'll have an unbelievable amount of knowledge, including a broad vocabulary base and the ability to speak very properly. You'll have to make an effort to not get a high paying job  (in fact, take a look at top tier college salaries here). You'll have friends of the same, educated, wealthy class. And you'll come out feeling better than everybody else, because, well, you went to Harvard and they didn't.

But suppose you don't go to Harvard. Sure, you'll probably have a comfortable life. But you won't have the same lucrative job offerings. Your education, although quality, won't be nearly as comprehensive. Your best friends will most likely be middle class, like you. And you won't have the same optimism in your life as someone from a top tier school. Chances are, you'll settle down in a decent, middle class neighborhood with an average salary and friends of the same social class.

Finally, consider somebody who doesn't go to college. You know what that most likely means, right? Poor salary. Small, compressed place to live. Cheap clothing. Lower class friends. Fast food. Although these aren't necessarily true, I'd say they typically are, at least to a much greater extent than in the two cases referenced above. And how would you get to the upper class? That's a mystery. Honestly, it would take a miracle to go from having no college degree to settling down in the North Shore. 

And that's why I argue that college is the greatest indicator of (future) class. In fact, that's what college is all about. Finding out where you truly belong. Should you live your life in proximity to alumni from Princeton? Or should you rent an apartment and work as the manager of the nearest Dominoes? It all starts with college. And I guess that explains why I've suddenly become so interested in the college process. Because looking forward, I want to be a part of the upper class. And to get there, I have to get engaged in the process, and (hopefully) get accepted to a top tier university. 

What do you think? Is there another indication of class that supersedes college? 

Gateways in American Society

After reading Betsy's post on the ACT, and the way in which it acts as a gateway to top notch colleges for those getting testing accommodations, I wanted to talk about my opinion on the matter. I too believe that our society is based on this gateway system. As I mentioned on Betsy's blog, I constantly see students doing social service for the sole intent of having a nice looking resume. And as I also mentioned, finding a job these days has largely become dependent on your ability to garner connections and use them for special treatment. However, I'd like to talk about where I believe this gateway system exhibits itself the most in American society.

For those of you that have read at least a few of my blog posts, I'm sure you're aware of my belief that most of our problems stem from the government. Well, this blog post will be no different. Because once again, I'd like to blame the federal government for the gateway system in which we find ourselves today.

As I have discussed in previous blog posts (based off class discussions), the military industrial complex is a huge leech on the economy. At the same time that we have businesses producing, innovating, and expanding according to the wants and needs of consumers, we have an industry that gets nearly a trillion dollars from the feds each year so that American troops can remain stationed all across the globe. Remember, this is money that was taken from the productive sector of the economy, and given to the people that were able to give the politicians the biggest donations. Talk about a gateway! That's nearly a trillion dollars down the drain every year to the most destructive sector of the economy (pun intended). Because of the government, defense contractors are able to grow richer and richer as the average American gets poorer.

In addition, consider what happened in the wake of the housing bubble. As the stock market began to tumble, the federal government almost immediately began passing one stimulus (bailout) after another. Now, you might try to tell yourself that the government actually had the people's best interests at heart. But let's take a look at the donations then-senator Obama received (here). If you look closely, you'll find that some of his biggest contributors include big banks. Morgan Stanley. Chase. Goldman Sachs. Citigroup. IBM. And the list goes on. Is it just a coincidence that many of these are the same banks that got bailed out? I think you'll notice the same pattern with corporations. Is this not a gateway? Isn't this exactly the kind of gateway system American's have gotten so increasingly sick of?

But this sort of behavior can be seen from the federal government on almost all levels. With so much money to dole out, you're always going to have people making secret deals, getting paid, and leaving rich. And not just rich. Rich with same dollars that were taxed away from the average American Joe. And this is the biggest gateway of them all. This is why I would argue we currently see a national debt of fifteen trillion dollars, with no end in sight. And this is what has spurred both the Tea Party an the Occupy movements. Although the two may appear to be complete opposites of one another, I think both movements are sick and tired of the same thing.

What do you think? Is the  US government just a massive gateway system, as I argue?

Junior Theme: A Look Back

So now that I'm essentially done with Junior Theme, I thought I'd write a blog post documenting some of the things I took away from the experience. For simplicity purposes, I'll arrange them in a list so each point can be clearly distinguishable.

1. The real challenge behind the Junior Theme isn't what most people would think it is. It has to do with the way research is incorporated, or synthesized into the paper. For me, the research process went along great - with databases like JSTOR and proquest, and a library entirely full of books, I was able to find all the information I needed to satisfy the four arguments that compose my thesis. The real challenge was incorporating them all simultaneously. With so many sources, as soon as I read one, I forgot one of the old ones. And not only that, but I had to find the exact parts from each source that worked with one another and find a way to fluidly insert them into my paper. Once I did that, the writing/editing process was significantly easier.

2. The interview is very important. What happened with me was that after I had gathered all of my sources together, I still had a few areas that were unclear to me. Sometimes, it was just a discrepancy in the information, but other times I couldn't think of the missing link that connected one point to another. This is where the interview comes in. With the interview, I was able to formulate the questions myself, meaning I was able to ask questions that would fill in the dots where I needed it. Especially if the person you are interviewing is knowledgeable, he/she can be an enormous help in giving you the missing link or just suggestions for where to go with your paper. After my interview, I began to approach my paper completely differently, because he placed more emphasis and credibility on some areas than others, which steered me in the right direction.

3. And finally, I learned that getting my ideas on paper and formulating a rough draft is incredibly important. Usually when I write essays, I take forever to write the rough draft, and then I hardly make any changes for the final draft. This is what I started out doing in my paper, and for the first 3 and a half paragraphs I must have spent 6-7 hours. Fortunately, with the rough draft deadline approaching so quickly, I was forced to sit down and finish my paper in a relatively short amount of time. Instead of focusing on the details, I focused on the big picture ideas, my arguments, and how they related back to my thesis. As I was looking over it the next day, I realized how glad I was that I had finished the hard part. In my mind, editing is easier than writing from scratch, so it was a huge relief to get to the final stages of my paper.

What do you think? Did you come across any of the same ideas that I did while writing your paper?

The Real Problem Behind Education

Thanks to Mr. O'Connor's suggestion, I was finally able to interview Peter Smagorinsky, a professor from the University of Georgia, after school today. First of all, I'd like to mention how incredibly knowledgeable he is, and although I know he really wanted to share his personal opinion on education with me, he was very kind in answering my questions head on. But in addition to praising his expertise, I realized something new today during our interview.

See, the main question I was getting at was this: why do politicians constantly express support for more federal involvement in the education system? Prior to the interview, I had considered two possible answers to this question. Here they are:

1) Politicians just go along with the party platform. As both the republicans and democrats have demonstrated, neither of them want to reduce federal influence in education. Instead of thinking for themselves, they just blindly follow the likes of John Boehner, Obama, and Harry Reid. 

2) It is politically expedient to do so. A politician could give a speech to a giant crowd and assure them that he or she would make education a federal priority to a standing ovation. "It's for your children! A vote for the other guy means a vote for crumbling schools!" 

After talking to Professor Smagorinsky however, he let me in on a little secret - the most obvious answer is usually the right one. He suggested that it's likely that politicians are just clueless. Sure, they might have good intentions, but in the end, they try to make a difference, and they just don't realize what they're doing.

This also reflects the nature of government. Isn't it interesting how people just assume that our fellow public servants in Washington know what they're doing? And what if they don't? Many of the congressman and women haven't been in a school for twenty years! What makes the American people think that they understand the problems facing schools today? What makes the people think that they understand any of the problems facing Americans today? These people are just like you and me. And we're supposed to believe that they understand the root cause of declining test scores?

Once again, I'd like to thank Mr. Smagorinsky for the comprehensive interview. And I'll let you in on a little secret - he wants to get rid of the Department of Education altogether!

Government Growth and Fear

As I was doing research for my Junior Theme, I came across some information that I found to be pretty interesting. The simple fact of the matter is, the federal government set the precedent for its involvement in education by creating a narrative based on fear. I can't say that I'm really surprised, as this is the way it's been going for decades now, but not only does it give me a good chance to discuss the history behind my topic, it provides the perfect bridge into a land I like to call, White Noise!

So after the Soviets launched Sputnik I in 1957, the American government became concerned with falling behind in science, math, and technology. Congress then passed the National Defense Education Act, which authorized the National Science Foundation to grant $500 million dollars to curriculum and teacher professional development over the next twenty years. Not only did schools receive money, but the NSA began playing a part in dictating the curriculum. Note that this was completely unprecedented - never before had the federal government made such a prolonged commitment to schools. And also note that this development occurred as soon as the fear propaganda began rolling. Boom! As soon as Americans experienced their first dose of fear, they coalesced and stood behind the consequential actions of the government.


Now, the reason I find this interesting (as I always do) is because there's is an incredibly close correlation between fear and government growth. Take the PATRIOT Act for example. Or the stimulus package. Or even the United Nations for crying out loud. They were all created out of fear, and that's the truth. It's a very clear pattern here, and there's no use denying it. Even many of the things people like today were originally started because of fear.


As I was thinking about all this I began to realize the profound role that fear played in this novel called White Noise. On page 117, shortly after the airborne toxic event had struck, the reader is told that the siren was saying four words over and over again: "toxic event, chemical cloud". If you look closely at the exact language that was used, you'll notice it was intentionally chosen to instill fear in the public. Anybody who hears the word "toxic" or "chemical" gets scared immediately. And this is a perfect example of how government operates. Granted, the situation in White Noise might be more appropriate in the midst of a disaster, but the point remains true - government uses fear to progress its agenda. The more frightening the words the better. If you ever wonder why you hear so much fear mongering coming out of Washington, this is why.


What do you think? Is it appropriate for the government to use fear to get legislation passed or take some sort of unprecedented action?