The Meta Post: Reflections

Looking back at the blog posts I've done this semester, nothing jumps out more than my obvious fascination with politics and significant events going on in the world. Of my 15 blog posts, the vast majority consisted of content pertaining to the presidential race, American foreign policy, and the economy, on top of other current events. It's clear that I take a deep interest in these issues, and as I worked my way into the first semster, my posts went through a general trend of becoming more focused, more open-ended, and more pertinant to the issues facing America today.

Consider my very first blog post, which can be viewed here. Although at the time I had been proud of my work and the effort I put into explaining my opinion on economics, it's clear that I got way too technical, especially for a blog starter. And after finishing the blog post, it would seem that the reader would not be left thinking. Although I posed a question at the bottom, asking, "Would an economy really benefit if we had people digging holes in the ground just for the sake of employment?", it was way too directed, and the reader would most likely walk away more or less empty-minded. Instead, a broader, more open ended question would have done the trick, such as, "Is the amount of employment an accurate measurement for the state of an economy?" A question like this would have offered the reader more room to think. But as a whole, my first attempt wasn't in vain, and I continued to progress during the year.

A few weeks later, I wrote another blog post, which can be viewed here. In this post, I made an attempt at avoiding political issues, and instead sticking to a clear, American topic that would leave the reader thinking. I think my mission was accomplished; I anylized the American tradition of hard work and left the reader with what I consider to be a reletively thoughtful and provacative question: "Have Americans become too preoccupied with succeeding that we have forgotten the ultimate goal of happiness?" In comparison with my first post, I took on a more American related theme, and in the process I even found myself doubting the necessity of this work-aholic American tradition.

But finally, my blog posts progressed to a point where I was able write about issues that interested me without shoving it down the throat of the reader. Consider the blog post in which I addressed Mr. O'Conner's claim that poor people live under a form of slavery. Even though I took an opposing stance, I did so much more respectively, leaving room for the reader to arrive at his/her own conclusions even after hearing my stance. Unlike my very first blog post about the economy (mentioned above), I guided the reader through my reasoning, instead of just telling him/her the way it is. I did this by breaking up my points into three main parts, and following a train of thought which kept the reader fascinated (I hope) but not overwhelmed. The final question was also a powerful one, where I asked the reader to consider the ultimate question: are poor people essentially slaves?

In retrospect of my work, I'm pleasantly surprised at what I've been able to accomplish. I was able to stick to the issues that interested me while at the same time keeping my questions open ended and leaving room for disagreement with the reader. Although I'm often tempted to ram my opinions down people's throats, I found a way to lay down my opinions while being respectful and acknowledging the possibility of disagreement. These changes have allowed my writing to become less provocative, while holding on to my values and maintaining my convictions. I still haven't been able to do this perfectly, but I hope my general trend of improvement will continue throughout the year and my writing will continue to become more concise, pertinent, and above all, thoughtful.,              

Sensible Media Reporting - Can We Actually Get Some?

A few days ago Mr. Bolos and Mr. O'Connor led a particularly interesting discussion about the media, and its role during the election process. Maybe I don't have a life but I've been following the election process quite closely, rooting for somebody I won't mention in this post. But what struck me as odd was the indecisiveness of the American people in choosing the republican nominee, and even more so the hysterical reaction by the media that accompanied this indecisiveness.

First it began with Michele Bachmann. After she won the Iowa Straw Poll and did well in a certain debate, she seemed unstoppable. To everyone's surprise, her poll numbers skyrocketed and the media hysteria began, with headlines about the unstoppable Bachmann surge all over the place. Then, Rick Perry entered the field with very high poll numbers, only to come crashing down once people realized his debating skills were a little below average, to say the least. Once again, this incident was accompanied with media hysteria left and right - one second proclaiming the election already essentially over and the next pronouncing Perry's campaign, well, dead.

Then came Herman Cain, who must have said the number 9 more than anybody else alive in that time period. In fact, to the questions where he couldn't think of a proper response, he resorted to the one answer he could always count on: 999. The media dubbed his serge in the polls and his overall support as the "Cain-Train", and everybody knew that if you didn't support the black guy saying 999 over and over again you were living on the moon. Following the "Cain-Train", came Newt Gingrich, who the media was sure would be the final nominee. But to everyone's "surprise", Gingrich fell just like everybody else, even though people in the media had once again been labeling Gingrich as the unstoppable force in the race. 

Finally came the surge of Rick Santorum - but don't even get me started on him.

So what does this tell us? Are people really that unsure of their political views that they hopped around from candidate to candidate, coincidentally at the same time? Or was there an unnoticed media force propelling one candidate to the front of the pack after another? Take a look at an article (here) written at the start of Santorum's "surge". As soon as he barely hit third place, the media started beating on its drums and telling everybody that Santorum was somehow making an enormous move (even though it wan't even that big). The article wrote that Santorum had "leapfrogged", and described his campaign as "surging". To nobody's surprise, Santorum picked up another 9% in the time leading up to the Iowa caucuses, with everybody under the impression that he was somehow the true conservative that they had been looking for all along.

In my opinion, these surges happen only because of the media. True, polls do change, and some candidates pick up steam every once in a while. But without the media telling people what to think and why they should jump on the bandwagon, I think poll number would change much more subtly. What do you think?

Are Poor People Slaves?

Last week, if I remember correctly, Mr. O'Connor said in class that poor people are essentially slaves. He pointed out that since poor people have to work so hard and still struggle to get by, they are practically enslaved. I disagree with this assessment for three main reasons.

For one, I believe that people are entitled to their life, liberty, and property, and unless somebody takes those things away, you should be considered free. As the Founding Fathers said, there are things such as Natural Rights - or rights that every man, woman, and child is automatically born with. Life, liberty, and property are Natural Rights, and I believe that nobody should be entitled to anything more. Just because people are making a voluntary decision to work and support themselves financially doesn't mean that they are entitled to anything else. To do that would be to take away somebody else's rights, by taking money from them (perhaps through taxation).

Also, I feel like Mr. O'Connor is overlooking the fact that although poor people may seem to be struggling, rich people only a century ago could only have dreamed of such luxuries that are considered common today. Many of the things that we take for granted these days - like TV's, phones, an computers - were beyond people's imagination back then. I would say that poor people have a higher standard of living than rich people from the past. So with this train of logic, were kings and queens many years ago slaves too? What about the hunter gatherers from thousands of years ago?

And thirdly, if we are to consider poor people to be slaves, can't anyone be considered a slave? Shouldn't students at New Trier be considered slaves, since they are confined in a building for over seven hours a day and spend much of their remaining free time doing homework? And students don't even get paid. In fact, I would argue that what many young people are forced to go through could be considered slavery, to a certain extent. I mean, most of the people at school don't have a choice whether or not to go to school, and many of the students in level 4 classes are practically forced to take them because of pressure from home. In a sense, I'm required to work for a minimum of seven hours a day, and I think some of my Natural Rights have been taken away. But my point is that billions of people live very tough lives, and are we really to see them all as slaves?

What do you think? Are poor people essentially slaves, or am I right in arguing otherwise?

Celebrity Headlines - Give Me a Break!

In my search for interesting news articles on Yahoo, I realized I was bumping into the same celebrity headlines over and over again, whether it be Katy Perry debuts dramatic new hairstyle or Stars' posh kitchens match their styles or Stars step out in the same minidress. What really got to me was that for every three or four articles I saw on celebrities, sports games, and other useless and irrelevant information, I saw about one article on important issues, such as the article titled U.S. agents helped launder drug money and another one with the headline: Iran brings down U.S. drone.

Now maybe it's just me, but I couldn't care less about Katy Perry's new hairstyle. Who cares if she dyed her hair pink? So what? And who would even bother read an article about two celebrities wearing the same dress? Does it matter? Does it at all pertain to the serious issues facing America today? How can people find these things interesting? I've worn the same shirt as somebody else numerous times, and nobody writes a front page article on me. Why are celebrities so special? How is it not an outrage that as the world's financial system hangs on a thread and a war with a Iran seems imminent, people go online and read articles about celebrities and their "posh kitchens"?

I hope this isn't perceived as a rant, but I can't seem to comprehend the nonsensical interests of so many Americans. I mean, how is it that only about 37% of the eligible population voted in the 2010 elections? And yet Americans (and people all over the globe) seem so intent on finding out the latest hairstyle of a celebrity that the media hires hundreds of reporters to find these things out and write about them.

I found an interesting article that can be read here about people's obsession with celebrities. It does a fantastic job going over celebrities and how people tend to treat them. First, we build them up and get interested in their personal lives. We follow their every move and begin idolizing them, painting them as gods of some sort. In the end, some scandal tears them down, and we realize they were human all along, only to jump to the next celebrity. Apparently, this is the sort of cycle that appeals to Americans. In my opinion, it's an outrage, and when I hear people talking about this stuff, I fear for humanity.

What do you think? Am I overreacting or is this obsession really as ridiculous as I put it out to be?

The Drug War - Where has it taken us?

In my hunt for interesting news articles today, I came across one that really got me outraged. It was a story of a marine who was shot at 71 times by a SWAT team because he was suspected of being involved in the drug trade, even though he wasn't. It can be read here, and the 54 second clip of the incident (don't worry, it's blood free) can be seen here on YouTube.

The story is of a marine (Jose Guerena) who was woken up by his wife in the morning and told that she saw a man with a gun outside through the window. Being a marine, Jose had a gun in the house, and he grabbed it in order to protect his family. His wife and son hid in the closet, and as the SWAT team busted the door in and saw him holding a gun (which was on safety by the way), they shot at him 71 times, and hit him 22 times. Jose's wife and four year old son saw him get killed through the closet with their very own eyes.

Now I know that legalizing drugs is a big no-no politically in today's society, but I don't understand how people can be so blind to the amount of damage it's caused for America and Mexico. Tens of thousands of people have been murdered by the drug cartels in Mexico, and as if that weren't bad enough, our civil liberties here have been at great threat. Now, busting into people's homes like this is common, and people are just expected to shut up about it and do whatever the police says. Unfortunately, Jose didn't even know it was the police at the door, and he was killed for trying to defend his family.

People might think I'm endorsing the use of drugs. This couldn't be further from the truth. I think drug use is a serious medical problem, and the consequences are absolutely abhorrent. However, wasn't this country build on the principles of freedom and liberty? Wasn't it intended for the people to make their own decisions, whether or not they are the right ones? The truth is, the drug war has been catastrophic to the cause of freedom, and the fact that a marine, who served his country honorably, was shot 22 times should raise questions in everyone's minds.

What do you think? Has the drug war been worth it? Does the prospect of making drugs go away make this incident OK?

America's Role in the World

This week, Obama announced an increased military presence in Australia. Now, for those of us who are educated in the past century of America's involvement over the world, something like this should come as no surprise. But especially now, at a time when the American government is over 15 trillion dollars in debt and counting, we must question ourselves: What is America's role in the world?

I came across an interesting article that puts the American involvement in Australia into perspective. The article can be viewed here. It really shows how the United States military maneuvers are viewed with suspicion all over the world, and although some people might stand with the U.S. military, there are always some that don't.

I think many people in America have gotten paranoid over possible threats from other countries. Many, especially on the right side of the political spectrum, use this as an excuse to invade and station our troops in more and more countries over the world. Currently, we have bases in over 120 countries over the world for a total of approximately seven or eight hundred bases. Is this a proper role of the U.S. military? Has the military become more of a tool for invasions and securing special interests than actually protecting American lives?

At a time when the "super committee" in congress is expected to come out with the information that they were unable to come up with the sufficient amount of cuts, it seems incredible to me that Obama ignores the debt and continues to station troops all around the world. I mean, do we really need to spend more on the military than all the other countries in the world combined?

What are your thoughts? You can address any of the questions raised above.

So, Um, Where Should I Be Looking Right Now?

As I was walking my dog a short while ago, I once again found myself in a few very uncomfortable situations. People were walking past me, and I was unsure of what my proper reaction should be. Should I say anything to them? Or when, if ever, should I be looking in their direction? Considering the fact that I was listening to music, the encounters became even more unclear and troublesome.

My parents lived in Ukraine for most of their lives. From what they've told me, in comparison with America, people were much less social as they walked past each other in the streets. After leaving Ukraine, they found themselves dealing with the same dilemma I'm dealing with right now. In America, it's much more common for strangers to acknowledge each other in the streets. But at least for me, the questions are numerous. Should we say anything, or just manage a small nod? And where is the right place to look as people go from being two hundred feet in front of you to right in front of your face?

Being somebody who still associates himself with Russian culture (to an extent, obviously), situations like these can be quite puzzling. It seems as if these interactions are most common in America, and although I can definitely see the upsides to such a friendly and social society, it definitely causes for some very awkward situations. Had you been on my walk, you'd understand.

What do you think? As somebody passes by you in the street, where should you look? And lastly, are these interactions unique to Americans?