Representing America - American Literature AP - Blog

Stolen Valor Act

In one of my classes last week, we discussed ethics and how it affects people in our society. This specific situation deals with a man who claims he had gotten medal of honor in award for his duties in the military, and because he lied they accused him of  violating the "Stolen Valor Act."

 

He pleaded that this was a violation of the 1st ammendment (which I agree). The stolen valor act, to me, is quite controversial because this act is attempting to make speech, like satire and parody potentially a crime just because they arent truthful (4:50-5:05). Is this act justified under this certain situation? It doesnt seem realistic considering tv shows like Tosh.0, Daily Show, Colbert Report are fueled off this type of humor.

Violence Against Women Act

In 1994, The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was created. It is the first U.S. federal legislation acknowledging domestic violence and sexual assault as crimes. Since 1994, much progress has been achieved toward women's rights. Obama recently signed to expand the act, targeting expansions to address the needs of vulnerable populations, and help prevent problems in upcoming generations.

I agree with his actions on this newly expanded act, considering the statistic that 1 in 5 women are raped in their lifetime compared to 1 in 71 men who are raped in their lifetime. This shows women are more vulnerable to abuse, rape, stalking etc. and can use these acts to help them and keep safe.

I do believe that these acts are a great idea to help women be aware of their rights and not be afraid. They can speak out about domestic abuse and feel safe, but it is ridiculous and petty that we have to enforce these acts to protect the women of our society. I believe the reason men (and rarely women) rape is due to how they've grown up being abused, and they simply repeat the abuse they've been through. The acts help to stop  this vicous rape/abuse cycle. Also i believe the way women are depicted in advertisements/ music videos/ movies helps give women a vulnerable image to men with harsh intentions.

Obama is giving women a greater oppurtunity to use these acts as a lifeline and protection like he says in this speech. Obama also uses the technique we talked about in class, starting off his speech through humor for a serious situation, pretty cool

Obama's speech VAWA

Horses and Bayonets

The final debate before the election was held, and in my opinion Obama takes the win again. It seemed to me he was as aggressive as the second time and he knew how to get his facts and points across. On the other hand, it seemed to me as if Mitt Romney had not put in his best effort, and handed this one over to Obama. For example when Romney congradulated Obama in the killing of Osama Bin Laden he said you cannot however solve all the problems by killing people. He then contradicted himself my saying his plan was to find the bad people and kill them. Romney did not seem as aggressive, or his usual outspoken self. He even told Obama that the debate was not about attacking him. Although, as usual, he still based his arguments on attacking the president.

    Even thought the topic of this debate was foreign affairs, everything seemed to lead back to the problems of the economy. For example, Romney mentioned how since Obama has been president the amount of people on food stamps has increased. I think that the president and governor were trying to get their last words in, and win over the last undecided voters before theh election coming up. It is undeniably evident that both these canidates are well educated men. But I think Obama would make the better president because he knows where he stands and is true to his words. I feel as if Romney always changes his position on certain topics as Obama has called him out for. In the third debate, Romney even agreed with Obama on Iraq, and said Obama brought us back from the brink. Also, Romney is always to busy bashing Obama to tell his plans to make the country better. All in all, Obama was the clear winner for round three and Americas best choice as president.

Ipad Parody

There are parodies of almost everything in pop culture now but I liked this specific one because it also gives a small hints of sarcasm as well. This parody grasps the attention of most people and is humorous because it highly simplifies something extremely technologically advanced.

 

 

This video completely makes fun of how technologically savvy this device really is while stating what the device can "technically" do. The guy using the "Ipad" is also focusing towards the use of lots of understatement in the video by "making movies" or playing "3D games." The parody also uses sarcasm when it describes the price of the "Ipad" along with the "Ipen" when making the prices extremely high for pencil and a piece of paper.

At first glace this video just seems to be a parody but after watching it 3 or 4 times, I was still catching little pieces of satire in the writing and labeling of some of the objects in the background. It's amazing to think about how just a one minute video can capture almost 4 uses of satire.

Create Jobs, Save the Children, Save Small Businesses, Save America

When President Obama starts his speech to promote the new American Jobs Act bill, he gets right to the point of his speech. The exigence is that theres an economic crisis that has left people jobless and a political crisis that is keeping it from being fixed. The President claims the bill will save the education of american children and put people back in the workplace. He talks about keeping America ahead of other countries and appeals to the Congressmen to keep our country from falling into ruin.

The President goes out of his way to connect with the citizens watching. He went out of his way to tell the congressmen straight up, that the American people, don't care about the politics of it, they just want jobs. 

He then spoke about how people used to view america as a place where anyone could succeed. Obama uses pathos to make the congressmen feel guilty that they would be depriving people of the things that could make them successful and taking away the things that made this country great.

He tries to win support from both sides of the argument by looking at it from everyone's perspective. Obama repeatedly reminds the assembled group of people, of the benefits this bill would bring to this country.

The President uses logos to provide statistics about the savings in taxes fro small business owners and the amounts of money that America will save by cutting down on government spending.

He also compares the United States to China and the Koreas, giving off a kind of competitive spirit. This is pathos to appeal to the congressmen to strive to be better than other countries. 

He also uses pathos to make congressmen feel guilty about the state of American schools. Obama spoke about how some buildings are literally falling apart, and that Americans deserve to grow up in good schools. Schools that the government has the ability to provide. 

Finally toward the end of the speech, Obama adresses the idea that some people have regarding another way to cut spending. Others want to cut out a large portion of governement regulations. Obama agrees and then uses pathos to make them feel guilty about the idea of cutting some of the regulations. He does not want to "make americans choose between safety and money." The President points out that while some regulations are unnecessary, others keep the American people safe.

Finally, Obama pulls in the Pledge of Allegiance to really give it an American feeling.

This speech was aimed at crossing party lines to make a difference in America. Obama repeatedly shows how both republicans and democrats have supported similar bills and ideas, and that they need to give up some of theyre political ideas for the benefit of the American people.

Breathe In, Dead Soldier. Breathe Out.

First off, I really really like this book. My favorite book of the year hands down.

I mean, yes, my squeamishness comes out in full force during many stories in this book (Ted Lavender, anyone? Curt Lemon? BABY BUFFALO?) but still. I can feel this book.

And I don't mean "feel it" like "Hey man, I totally feel you", but more as if there is a tangible presence to this book, and it's taken up residence in my lungs.

Breathe in, Vietnam. Sunshine demise and baby buffalo and blood in my mouth.

Breathe out, Tim O'Brian. 43 years old, a writer who still breathes in as a soldier and out as a father who tells his nine-year-old daughter that of course he didn't kill anyone.

Breathe out breath out breathe out.

And alright, yes, I admit I might have read ahead. A little. Or a lot, maybe: I finished the book.

And I can only think "Well damn."

Because what about all the soldiers we're still sending out?

Are they pulling their brothers out of trees, peeling them off the dusty, explosion-riddled road, digging them out of a sloppy, mushy shitfield in the pouring rain?

Probably.

Are there men out there like Tim O'Brian, who don't really want to fight but they do it anyway, because they'd feel like they were betraying everyone they know but themselves if they didn't?

Absolutely. 

I've been reading a lot of war stories lately, and I gotta tell you, I cry. At all of them. Sob my eyes out like there is no longer any rainbows or unicorns or happiness in the world. None.

I cry like a five year old who has just been informed that Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny have all been heartlessly massacred.

And I wonder what would happen if the head honchos, the men and women who start the war but send others to end it, would they feel like a different decision is in order if they read one of these books?

Do you think maybe, that if people who felt like war was necessary to solve whatever problem they have, do you think if someone made them read these war novels, this book, The Things They Carried, would we maybe get somewhere towards convincing the world just what a stupid idea it is to go out and shoot at people, and get shot at, and die, and watch your friends die, ( "Four guys go down a trail. A grenade sails out. One guy jumps on it and takes the blast, but it's a killer grenade and everybody dies anyway. Before they die, though, one of the dead guys says, "The fuck you do that for?" and the jumper says, "Story of my life, man," and the other guy starts to smile but he's dead.")...

Will anyone care at all? Will anyone try their damndest to make a dead soldier breathe again?

 

Will anyone listen to the breathing of a dead soldier? 

Not cool, Catherine Hardwicke.

 

I recently saw Red Riding Hood, a new movie adaptation of the classic children’s story Little Red Riding Hood. I was actually interested to this film. The trailer that played in theaters before the latest Harry Potter movie got me pretty excited. It seemed like it was going to be an interesting reincarnation of an old story, bringing to it a new look and style and some notable actors, including Amanda Seyfried and Gary Oldman. Leonardo DiCaprio was involved in the movie as well, as a producer. But walking out of the theater, I was utterly appalled and disgusted. Then I started to think about how this film was marketed and I realized, unfortunately, that this movie was begging for a feminist critique.

The film’s plot sounds reasonable enough on paper: Red Riding Hood a.k.a. Valerie, a beautiful maiden with a quite wild streak, is about to run off with poor woodsman Peter after discovering her mom and dad have arranged her marriage to Henry, brooding son of the village’s reigning plutocrat. But Valerie and Peter’s elopement gets the kibosh when they discover the Wolf—who has kept an uneasy peace with this forest hamlet for generation thanks to regular pig sacrifices—has viciously murdered Valerie’s young sister. Eventually famed werewolf hunter Father Solomon is enlisted to battle the beast. Bodies pile up while Red finds her heartstrings plucked by the two young men, either of who would gladly take her hand in marriage. Or more to the point, owing to the fact that every character is potentially a werewolf in Father Solomon’s view, either suitor could as easily bite Valerie’s hand off in the glare of the full moon. But Red Riding Hood ends up providing a showcase for no small number of troubling scenes, strange filmmaking choices, and puzzling characterizations (MINOR SPOILER ALERT).

Throughout Red Riding Hood, the camera is constantly creeping up on Amanda Seyfried’s unsuspecting character, lurking behind rockpiles, sneaking surreptitious glimpses of her from around corners, peering down from rooftops and through cracks in buildings–call it the wolf’s eye view. In a movie intended for young women, the trope seems to implicitly enforce thinking that women are more often than not the objects of a heterosexual man’s “gaze” in movies–with a female point of view seldom represented—because most films are directed by and for men. But, ahem, this film was directed by a woman. More specifically by Catherine Hardwicke, the most successful female director ever due to her work with the Twilight franchise.

Perhaps the movie’s most egregious trespass may be how Red Riding Hood brainwashes teenage girls by sexualizing certain childhood awakenings. In a scene towards the end of the film, Valerie wakes up in her grandmother’s bed and goes through the whole familiar “what big eyes you have” routine with granny building up to the story’s classic “all the better to eat you with!” reveal. This wolf in clothing set-up is meant in the story to underscore certain timeless themes and enduring truths–the loss of innocence, that familiar faces can conceal hidden agendas. But where the fairytale stealthily incepts certain big ideas into everyday consciousness, the movie manages to merge such childhood wisdom with bizarre carnal connotations. When the werewolf implores Valerie to “come away” with him lest he destroy her family’s home, the specter of sexual assault comes to mind whether you want it to or not.

So all this in a film marketed for adolescents and teens? Yes, and it is quite disturbing. The movie was shamelessly presented as a romantic thriller in the Twilight vein, but where Catherine Hardwicke leavened Twilight’s more fantastical vampire elements with pangs of teen yearning, there’s not a plausible motive for anything anyone does in Red Riding Hood. This film is ultimately a great betrayal of its teen girl constituency, pillaging a beloved bed-time story and turning it into a sexually sinister exploitation movie. Not cool, Catherine Harkwicke, not cool.

 

 

"Bunnies in a Blender"

If you've been paying attention to the news, you know that there's a "War on Women" going on: the GOP is attempting to change many laws that affect women, primarily abortion laws and funding of abortion clinics. Now, it's okay to have your own political views, don't me wrong. But Maya from Feministing shows us that the GOP has taken it a little too far this time, and they don't have the facts straight.

The GOP is using an ad titled "Bunnies in a Blender" to convince the general audience that Planned Parenthood funding is wrong because abortion is immoral. In the ad, a doctor from an abortion clinic takes a bunny, puts it in a blender, and turns it on. The commercial proceeds to compare this process to human abortions.

I'm not going to say that abortion isn't murder, because that is a very controversial subject. But, as Maya points out, you cannot compare abortion to blending bunnies.

The GOP is also not telling the whole truth - the commercial asks us to stop taxpayer funding of abortions. But currently, taxpayer money doesn't actually go towards abortions. So what are they arguing?

In addition, Planned Parenthood provides many health services for women, not just abortion.

I think it's safe to say that there's something wrong with this message.

Check out Maya's post to see more about interesting and crazy pro-life tactics. Here's the "Bunnies in a Blender" commercial that Maya refers to:

 

Sexism Amongst Us

On the website thefbomb.org I read an article entitled "The Link Between Beauty, Privilege and the Media". I agree completely with everything this article says because they talk about how our views on women have been influenced by the media, our parents and even our religion. Many religions look down upon women and feel that women come no where near the level that men are at, saying this, your parents might raise you according to the bible and ever since you were young you have been taught that women do not deserve respect. I’m not saying that your parents purposely raised you to look down on women but that is the way that they could have been raised and raised you without knowing that they were looking down upon women. I believe the media has a heavy effect on the way people see women, from the ways that they portray these women to the way that they are talked about. Women are constantly seen as objects of women and being controlled by men as well. The media is also constantly making these women feel that they need to be sexual in order to get attention from men. Celebrities are also the ones showing all these young women that they need to look a certain way or be a certain weight in order to be "sexy". Believe it or not but these three things that are constantly in our life influence greatly because without them or views on women would be completely different.

With women knowing how they are portrayed in the media and how they will be portrayed throughout their whole life it seems like they feel they can get rid of it, but it will always be around no matter how hard the feminist try. In order for our views upon women to change the media needs to start showing every day pretty normal women instead of showing these models who are extremely skinny and have had plastic surgery. Starting from the media will help trickle down to all the other categories since media controls almost everything.

http://thefbomb.org/2011/02/the-link-between-beauty-privilege-and-the-media/

Louder Than an F-Bomb

It is impossible to persuade someone who already agrees with you.  Persuading the disbelievers is the only way to advance your ideas.

With respect to the F-Bomb blog, the female writers have fascinating thoughts but they speak to the wrong people.  I am sure that men read this blog, and maybe, on occasion, some chauvinist stumbles upon the website.  I do believe, however, that the majority of people visiting the F-Bomb already support the feminist movement.  

Women need to progress their ideas through the internet, but creating a website that women read, women write on, and women support, does not make enough noise.  Women clearly want equality for women and men.  The only problem is that many men don't.  Therefore, now that women are on board the modern feminist movement, the movement cannot remain exclusively female.  

Rather than post a blog entry on the F-Bomb (which can still be somewhat useful), why not craft and submit a column to The New York Times?  In this morning's paper, The New York Times  featured an article entitled "Girls and Boys Together".  Women should shoot for publishing articles like this.  Millions of people could read about the feminist movement every day if women moved from the blog to the mainstream media.

While sharing ideas on a blog provides a great way to generate thoughts, women need to take a step towards expanding their audience to the people they actually need to convince.

Slavery in the 21st Century

Slavery was abolished in 1865, with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendement to the United States Constitution. Though racial prejudice lingered for quite some time, even into present day, slavery was largely extinct.

Or so say the history books.

In truth, slavery is at an all time high. There are more slaves today than were seized from Africa in four centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the approximate number being between 12 and 27 million. Most are debt slaves, largely in South Asia, who are under debt bondage incurred by lenders, sometimes even for generations. Human trafficking is primarily for prostituting women and children into sex industries. It is the fastest growing criminal industry and is predicted to eventually outgrow drug trafficking. 

Think about what this means- there are people all over the world, here in America too, who are still slaves. There are people who live as Frederick Douglass and other black slaves lived, subsisting in squalid conditions, living with despairingly low expectations. To think that people somewhere, everywhere, are living lives like those we have read of...

What do you feel?

That One Place

With the recent fiasco with the Chilean miners ebing stuck in their mine for nearly seventy days, it made me think, if I could be stuck in one place for seventy days where would it be? I couldn't decide on a place, and quite honestly I can't say there would ever be a place where I could stay trapped in for such a long time.

I don't know how all the miners managed to stay sane during their situation because the place they were trapped in wasn't nice at all. There was no sunlight, no utilities, and no outside world period. I probably would have gone clinically insane if I were trapped in a place like that.

Governor Pat Quinn's Campaign Ads are Full of Logical Fallacies

In a recent campaign ad, Governor Pat Quinn accused his opponent in the gubernatorial race, Bill Brady, of not paying his income taxes. Quinn was telling the truth. Bill Brady hadn't payed any income taxes in 2008 and 2009, but this was because Bill Brady's business had suffered heavy losses in 2008 and 2009.  U.S. tax code allows business losses to be offset against your income taxes.  In this ad, Pat Quinn is trying to make Bill Brady sound like a crook because he didn't pay his taxes.  Quinn's campaign ad used the logical fallacy of slanting.  It's true that Bill Brady didn't pay income taxes in 2008 and 2009, but quinn's ad fails to mention that what Brady was doing was perfectly legal and in line with U.S. tax code.  However, many people don't know that what Bill Brady was doing was perfectly legal.  Therefore, Quinn's campaign ad is somewhat effective.  However, to those who know Bill Brady did everything legally, it just makes Pat Quinn sound like more of an idiot.  Click here to see Quinn's ad attacking Bill Brady for not paying income taxes

Another one of Pat Quinn's recent campaign ads uses the ad hominem logical fallacy to attack Bill Brady.  Ad hominem means "against the man."  An ad hominem logical fallacy is when a claim, argument, or position is rejected based on an irrelevant fact about the person making the claim.  The ad says, "Millionaire Senator Bill Brady wants to cut the minimum wage... And this from someone that drives a Porsche and owns a Florida condo?"  Quinn's ad doesn't identify any faults in Brady's actual plan to cut the minimum wage, or any faults in his economic polcies.  Rather, the ad is attacking Brady for being rich, and implying that he is out of touch with "hard working people in times in like these."  The ad gives no facts to support the claim that Bill Brady is out of touch, it is a personal attack, although a bad one at that.  The last time I checked, a lot of people strive to be millionaire's, drive nice cars, and own vacation homes.  Click here to see this ad

The Trip from Citibank to Palm Springs

While looking through the newspaper, I came across an interesting advertisement for Citibank. It was a picture of a couple in a pool laughing and enjoying their time, and underneath them, it says, “$400 in rewards turned two days in Palm Springs into four.” Therefore, the advertisers are trying to explain to viewers that if you open a checking account in Citibank, you will automatically be awarded money for traveling. Then, you will inevitably go on an amazing trip with this money that you are “given” from the bank, and you will have an amazing time away from home. All of this enjoyment began when a Citibank checking account was opened.

However, there is no guarantee that you will receive these awards. Furthermore, there are a list of guidelines and rules at the bottom of the advertisement that explain the long and difficult process of receiving these benefits of opening a checking account. In addition, just because you are given an amount of money for travel doesn’t mean you will be able to go on a trip for an extended amount of time, nor does ensure you will definitely enjoy your time on the trip.

Consequently, in order for the advertisement agency to make this Citibank advertisement effective and appealing towards consumers, they slide a slippery slope fallacy into the ad, making it seem as if you will absolutely have a great trip if you open a checking account at Citibank; in reality, there are a few missing details that need to be acknowledged before jumping to the advertisement’s conclusion of having a remarkable and memorable vacation.

Immigrants headed down a slippery slope

In this video, Limbaugh attacks the new immigration law now enforced in across the Arizona border. He claims that because Arizona passed the law to keep illegal immigrants out, and it happens to be a republican state, the democratic party is going mad. Limabugh says that the democrats would be all for the new law if they were the ones to think of it first. At one point in his video, he claims that democrats would set up snipers to take down illegal immigrants. By arguing this, Limbaugh exaggerates the extreme measures one political party would go to in order to keep out illegal immigrants. He also fails to present any other "barriers" put in place to keep out individuals without documents. His extreme exaggeration may lead one to believe that illegal immigration is the end of all immigrants coming to America because of the "dangerous" journey.

 

 

Cookie Monster Provokes Nuclear War

In recent day, a report has arisen about the Sesame Street character Cookie Monster. He is currently out of chocolate chip cookies, and he is going through a withdrawal. He has been getting headaches, and he is downfalling into a serious depression. The Cookie Monster currently has nuclear weapons pointed at Russia. If he launches those weapons, the world will start a catastrophic nuclear war that may, in turn, blow up the world.

 

The only solution that will solve his problem other than cookies, is if he has a clean new haircut and shave. He hasn't been maintaining his hair since he has been out of cookies and is depressed. Hopefully, he will not become too impatient before a kind hearted gentleman steps forward to offer him a haircut. Otherwise, he may launch the nuclear weapons to ease his pain.

Baby Beards

Recently the number of the percentage of black Japanese residents who are unable to grow beards is on the rise. At the same time, the number of Japanese babies gone missing has spiked incredibly. Studies show that in 2008, only 12 Japanese babies went missing, while the running total of abducted children in 2010 is a whopping 3,270*.There is only one explanation for this: the babies have been abducted to create artificial beards.

One man has been taken into custody to date. The defendant, who wishes to remain unnamed, admits that, "I like the softness of the babies' hair. It's perfect for making beards!"

If babies continue to go missing, the Japanese government will have to take drastic measures, and it will not hesitate if it must resort to violence.

*All statistics made up on the spot.

Creepy Jailbirds

Men who dress in old lady clothes, and creep around little children now have a jailbird stamped on their foreheads. Many of the juvenile delinquents today are charged with drug possession, rape, and murder. This happens for a number of reasons. One, many of the inmates come from troubled backgrounds. This includes broken families, poor financial status, and violent communities. Unfortunately, these are extremely difficult problems to to fix. However, the reason many of the juvenile delinquents become intertwined in gangs is because they do not stay in school. Instead of going to school and getting involved in after school activities, they will join gangs due to peer pressure. By staying in high school, kids have a higher chance to go to college and begin a new life. More importantly, they can leave the violent neighborhoods, and hopefully try to reform them, and stay out of jail.

Infants' Tobacco Use

Children these days have developed an epidemic of bad breath because of the rise in infants' use of tobacco. However, despite the fact that these infants are being exposed to tobacco and advertising for tobacco, they still spend some of their precious time watching the Muppets. Therefore, in order to promote good health for these these infants, the Muppets should use mouthwash, which will decrease the amount of bad breath and promote mouthwash instead of tobacco as an infant's morning snack.

I've Got Dreams

Do you have dreams? I do. I dream of going to college and after graduating, getting myself a real fine job, one that pays well!!! After a couple of years, I might start a family and buy a nice big house, maybe in the suburbs or near the city. Maybe take a few vacations and after working 25-35 years, I'll retire with a good pension. When I'm retired I'll play some golf and them become a grandfather and be able to see my children's children. This is a pretty general idea of today's American Dream. Many people just care about getting a nice job, regardless of whether they like it or not. Don't forget a family and a nice pension. So you may ask, "What is the current state of the American Dream?" I believe that the state of the American Dream depends on the three following conditions: 1. The individual. 2. The generation in which the person grew-up in. 3. The environment in which the individual is surrounded by. These three ideas play a key concept in determining the American Dream.

It really depends on the person, and what they considered to be successful. It depends on the person's wants and desires. For example, a person who comes from a family who's never graduated from high school, would set that up to be his/her main goal, they're dream. On the other hand, a person may come from a very wealthy family and may have dreams to graduate from medical school(4 more years of education after college) and become a doctor and may want to own a private firm one day. These dreams as you can tell, are very different. Yet, society would regard the second choice as a more fulfilling American Dream. Why? Well almost everyone today is expected to graduate from high school, and the majority are expected to go to college as well. However, in the end, it is the person that determines the American Dream.

In addition to, the environment in which the individual is surrounded by also plays a substantial role in depicting the American Dream. For instance, in Oak Park and River Forest, people are expected to graduate from high school and college as well. 90% of all OPRFHS seniors go on to college(oprfhs website). We believe that education is important to become successful in life, which it is. Particularly, in the poorer countries around the world, many children would kill to go to school because they know that it offers them a future. Yet not all communities value education as much as we do. As Mr. Heidkamp has said in class before, 70-75% of Americans only have a Associate's degree(2 years). It is the lowest in the hierarchy of postsecondary academic degrees. We were all shocked by this because we expect everyone else to behave in the same manner as we do. The environment is just as important if not more than the individual in determining the American Dream.

Last but not least, the generation in which the person grew-up in plays a key role. For example, the American Dream has never been the same, after WWII, many people wanted a house with a white picketed fence and a job at a factory. It really wasn't too much about money or education. Many of the people only had high school diplomas. Yet as our economy got better, we started to consume more, wanting more. This lead us to our current state of our American Dream in which, everyone wants to be a billionaire and have beautiful wives and tons of sport cars. In conclusion, there is really no official American Dream. It depends on many factors and thus keeps changing.

An Affordable Salvation

In his “An Affordable Salvation” Paul Krugman of the New York Times discusses the economic impact of cap-and-trade regulations designed to limit greenhouse gas emissions that are being discussed in Congress.  He argues against the claims that limiting emissions will be devastating to the economy, calling such predictions “junk economics.” He discusses the minimal costs that a gradually implemented cap-and-trade system would produce for the economy. He also describes the possible technological innovations that will result from the need for more efficient and renewable ways to use energy.

Speaking as a “card-carrying” economist, Krugman appeals to logos throughout his argument. He cites several reliable sources for research about the actual economic impact of limits on emissions, including the Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis Group at M.I.T. He also makes a logical economic argument concerning new business investments on technological innovation that would be brought about by a plan to limit emissions. 

Krugman later establishes exigence while simultaneously appealing to pathos when he states that “the important thing is that the planet is in danger, and the longer we wait the worse it gets.” Here, he expresses the dire need for the limits on emissions to save the planet. He also appeals to the fear of further endangering the planet that most human beings feel.

I detected several logical fallacies in Krugman’s article. His use of ad hominem is particularly obvious when he states:

Needless to say, people like Newt Gingrich, who says that the cap-and-trade would "punish the American people," aren’t thinking that way. They’re just thinking "capitalism good, government bad."

In this quote, Krugman is obviously attacking what he believes to be the inferior intelligence of people like Newt Gingrich who do not share his opinions by comparing them to Frankenstein’s monster.

The Public Option Should Be An Option

     Throughout the primary and presidential elections, my family and I campaigned for Obama. One of the main reasons we hoped for his victory was his support of the public option, which would enable people to buy into a government insurance plan. There has, however, been strong opposition to the proposal in Congress.

    Many opponents of the public option argue that it favors "big government," which is bad under all circumstances. They want as little government control as possible. However, the public option is not an invasion of privacy or a required mandate; no one is forced to choose the plan.

    The public option could make a difference in the coverage and prices of private health insurance companies by providing more competition in the market. In order to keep themselves in business, private insurers would have to lower their prices to match those of the government. The government would be able to lower prices more than private insurers because it would not need a profit margin.

    Government coverage and cost may also be better than that of private companies because the government, as such a large entity, could negotiate with drug companies to lower prices on prescriptions. Because Canada has a national health care plan, its prescription drugs cost less, and each year Americans spend $1 billion in Canadian pharmacies because of the better prices. The drug Lipitor, for example, costs $361.99 at CVS in the United States and $215.46 at CanadianOnlineRx.com, an online Canadian pharmacy.

    I do not understand opposition to the public option because it is just that: an option. Those who oppose the plan for whatever reason are not required to participate, but it could lead to a higher percentage of well-insured Americans because of cheaper and better coverage.

The Trial of 9/11

    Steven Simon's November 17 article for the New York Times, "Why We Should Put Jihad on Trial," argued that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, one of the terrorists responsible for planning the 9/11 attacks, should be tried in a court. The other options he presented were indefinite imprisonment without a trial or execution in a closed military tribunal.

    I agree with Simon, and he used logos in some of his evidence. For example, he said that his opponents implied that Obama was soft on terrorism. However, many of Obama's terrorism experts are the same people who served under Bush. He also argued that there is practically no chance of Mohammed's acquittal because no terrorists have ever been released in New York, and he has confessed to the crime.

    He also uses pathos when he states that the trial will remind the world of the horrors of 9/11 and may further influence the trend of decreasing Muslim extremism. For me, however, his most convincing argument was probably also the most basic; no matter what the crime, everyone deserves a fair trial.  Denying this right may aggravate Muslim extremists and propagate anti-American feeling. They may feel that they are being discriminated against and could respond with terrorist actions. Simon believes, as do I, that granting Mohammed a trial is not only fair for him personally but also may decrease Muslim extremism and thus terrorism.

Operation: Last Chance

Operation: Last Chance is a campaign that offers financial rewards for information on Nazi war criminals that haven't served their time for the atrocities that they committed. It was created by Efraim Zuroff in 2002, and has since found several Nazi fugitives that now are in jail serving for their crimes. Although, there has been some speculation about whether or not to continue with the campaign because they say that the crimes were enacted decades ago and therefore should be left in the past.

I believe that they should pay for their crimes and it should not matter whether it happened thirty years ago or sixty; what's the point of having a justice system if it isn't enforced fairly? Yes, horrible things happen in war and yes, people are forced to do things that they wouldn't normally do, but people make choices and should therefore suffer the consequences of those choices as well. However, even though the campaign gives financial rewards for the mistreatment of jews and other victims of similar crimes, no amount of money can ever replace a person. I know it may sound like a cliche', but we all have choices in life and with every one made, one has to suffer both the benefits and the consequences of it.

Operation:Last Chance pays off in Hungary

More Than Just A Time-Out: Punishing Adultery

On September 14, 2009 the BBC reported that the Aech province of Indonesia had passed a law making adultery punishable by death. This law was based on the Sharia, the Muslim law code, and states that a married person committing adultery can be stoned to death and an unmarried person sentenced to 100 lashes.¹

This law may seem a little extreme to some, however,  to the 90% of the population of Indonesia that are practicing Muslims, this law is like many others that enforce their religious beliefs. The Quran, the Torah and the Bible all take strong positions on adultery, therefore it is not strange for a government based in religion to make strong laws against adultery. Indonesia is not the only country with laws against adultery.

At one time or another in many Middle Eastern countries, punishment for adultery has included the death penalty, and many times "stoning" to death. However, legally adultery is hard to prove in these countries,  because they require the accuser to present 4 eye witnesses to the actual act, and these witnesses have to have a reputation of truthfulness.

Although they are not always rigorously enforced, the following legal actions punishing adultery in the U.S. still exist:

Michigan: Life Sentence
Maryland: fine of $10
Wisconsin: Class 1 Felony
U.S. Military: considered a court-martial offense.²

It is clear that in worldwide culture, adultery is one of the most sinful things a person can do. Why is this? Why is it that in some countries the punishment for murder is not much harsher, if at all harsher, than the punishment for adultery? Is sleeping with someone who is not your husband akin to murdering someone?

Whether or not you believe this to be true, I think the fact that it is such an awful and sinful thing in the world tells a lot about our culture.

Much of the language in laws that prosecute adultery use language referencing the woman as the property of the male. It seems like part of the reason adultery seems so horrible to us is that as part of the marriage contract there is a possession that gets established. In most cases, this means the man after the marriage ceremony, for all intents and purposes, "owns" the woman. When this woman asserts her individuality, perhaps by sleeping with someone else, he feels his possession is threatened. And then she, and the other man are killed. This enforces the masculinity of the husband, by showing his ultimate possession of her. He owns her enough that he decides when she lives and when she dies. 

Whether or not adultery is right, there is a clear gendered reason for the punishment of it.

References:

1.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8254631.stm

2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery

Burn the Witch!!!

In Arthur Miller's novel, The Crucible, people were wrongly accused of being witches and a good majority of them were put to death. The setting of this novel takes place in Salem Mass., in 1692, yet these types of things occur today all around the world, which leads me to ask, have we really learned anything? The answer is no; one example of people being accused on false pretenses include the McCarthy era. McCarthy was a state senator in the 1950's during a time of social unrest. People were afraid of the Communists taking over(The Red Scare) and during this time, McCarthy used the Communists as an excuse to get rid of people he didn't like and to gain power by blacklisting them. Although the blacklist isn't really an official type of list, people got the idea not to hire them if their name appeared on the list because they were "Communists." People's lives were ruined because of this, just like people's lives were ruined and/or destroyed in Salem, hundreds of years before.

So how come we haven't learned anything, after all school teaches us to hear different points of view and decide for ourselves. You can't win a case in court without evidence. How can you charged people with murder and even sentenced them to death without evidence? I know that during the Salem witch trials, they used God as a way to prove their innocence; not evidence but God. Unfortunately things like this in the world will always exist no matter how much we develop, which is why we must ask questions and maybe even be skeptical on certain issues. As a note from a fortune cookie once told me, "Skepticism is the first step towards truth." Maybe the people in Salem just needed a fortune cookie to realize that.

For Real?

How do you know what makes a war story true? Are there certain rules for one? In Tim O'Brien's book, The Things They Carried, it talks about how to tell a true war story. Certain stories are supposed to show a moral or make you think and get emotional. Would a true war story have these things included? War stories are an oral tradition, told to people, not written. In this article I will be comparing two war stories, Three Kings, and The Things They Carried.

The first war story is the movie, Three Kings, directed by David O. Russell, is an interesting one. The story is basically about four soldiers, who find a map that may lead to some of Saddam's hidden gold. Eventually, they find it, but change their minds and decide to help the Iraqi prisoners being held captive. They risk their lives and decide that they would rather help the refugees, instead of just taking the gold and leaving. Now if someone were to look at this story from a skeptical point of view, one would not say that this is a  true war story because it sounds to fake, too good to be true. In real life, if the soldiers found the gold, they would have immediately left and could have cared less about the prisoners especially, if the Persian Gulf War just ended(for America). The ending was of course too good to be true, they were able to save the people and were even arrested for it, but they did the right thing.

If it was real, they would have had nightmares that would haunt them for the rest of their lives. Some would have lost body parts and lives. But not too much of that though, just a happy story with a happy ending. Which leaves me asking the question, how can any true war story be happy, its war isn't it?

With The Things They Carried on the other hand, now that's a true war story. How? Well, the chapter, "In the Field", provides us with imagery of chaos and what we would usually expect in a war story, something that the Three Kings didn't grasp well.

The field just exploded. Rain and slop and shrapnel, it all mixed together, and the field seemed to boil. He would explain this to Kiowa's father. Carefully, not covering up his own guilt, he would tell how the mortar rounds made craters in the slush, spraying up great showers of filth, and how the craters then collapsed on themselves and filled up with mud and water, sucking things down, swallowing things, weapons and entrenching tools and belts of ammunition, and how in this way his son Kiowa had been combined with the waste and the war.(169)

When you read this, you cannot help but to feel ill inside, and that is what true war stories are designed to do, to make you not feel right.

9

During the weekend, I went to see the new film called 9. The story was basically about machines taking over the world and a few puppets, (I guess you could call them) are trying to destroy them. After the movie, I began thinking and soon asked myself, what if technology gets out of hand? I mean think about, more wars, more destruction, just country fighting country with machines(and that's the scary part)! Machines and technology are more capable of destruction more than people. Here's an example about how scary our world can be in just a few years:

A couple months ago, I was watching the history channel and it had to do with the subject of magic and how to trick the naked eye. One part talked about how in 2007, the British army was conducting a camouflage experiment with their tanks. Witnesses said that the tanks literally disappeared from sight! Now imagine that, whole armies marching through cities easily and undetected. This type of technology could possibly be the reason how WW-III is going to occur. It is not only scary, but think about the invasion of privacy!(ha) We soon need to ask ourselves and say just because we can create something, does it mean we should?