The Pursuit of Happyness???

After discussing the various “self-made” people in American society, I began to look more closely at Chris Gardner, a man who lived in poverty, struggled through many challenges, but eventually became a wealthy stock broker through self-determination without the help of anyone but himself. While it seems that there is no question Chris Gardner made it on his own, and is therefore a “self-made man”, after hearing of this story, I began to question if the film inspired by Chris Gardner’s story, “The Pursuit of Happyness”, was titled appropriately. Ralph Waldo Emerson author of “Self-Reliance” states, “A political victory, a rise of rents, the recovery of your sick, or the return of your absent friend, or some other favorable event, raises your spirits, and you think good days are preparing for you. Do not believe it. Nothing can bring you peace but yourself” (Emerson 38). Emerson essentially argues that no amount of money or good event in a person’s life could ever bring them any type of happiness, and that the only way a person could become happy is through themselves. Therefore, because Chris Gardner’s story is about how he became wealthy after living in poverty, and not about his search for happiness through himself, is it possible that a title such as, “Self-made Money”, would be more fitting? While it does not sound quite as appealing as the existing title, it does seem to be a better fit to the storyline according to Emerson’s claim that money can never make a person happy.

However after watching the final scene of the film, it appears as if the emotion actor Will Smith is portraying is truly happiness. Maybe the title, “The Pursuit of Happyness”, is not referring to Chris Gardner’s fortune, but rather the happiness he found when he realized he became successful on his own without the help of anyone else. Although Emerson claims fortune can never bring someone happiness, he also emphasizes that ones self is the only thing that can. Therefore, through the pride Chris Gardner found in himself during his journey, he experienced happiness, but it was not the wealth that brought him to this emotion. If this is the true case, “The Pursuit of Happyness”, is indeed a proper title.

Is there a point in progress??

As a part of winter training for my sport, almost every day after school, I go on a run with a few of my teammates. However, after completing and discussing the transcendentalist survey in school, I decided that instead of taking my normal running route, I would run alone, with no destination in mind. I then found myself subconsciously heading for the beach, and before I knew it, I was running on the non-developed shoreline. I found this run to be far more peaceful than most, possibly because for that brief length of time, I was away from all the commotion of life and away from all the man-made, built-up towns. When I ran off the beach, and up the hill into the village, I noticed a sudden change in landscape. I had made the transition from absolutely all nature, to several blocks filled with houses, buildings, and road construction. It was in that moment when I began wondering about the two question marks that are conveniently placed after the “progress” in this particular American Studies unit. Could advanced technology, man-made roads, and buildings really be considered progress, or is it just an alternate lifestyle?
I began pondering this question, and possible answers. I found that if there were no cars, factories, or any man-made objects, the environment would most likely be in a far better condition than it currently is. If this were the case, people would be more in touch with nature, and most likely more in touch with themselves. Stress levels would probably shift from school or finances, to worrying about eating a next meal. Life would be completely different, and many people may wonder if they could ever live in those conditions. Maybe there are both pro’s and con’s to every type of “progress”, just as the class discussed both pro’s and con’s to technology advancements such as Google. However, if for every pro, there also existed a con, I have to wonder, is there a point in progress??

Vote for the Party, not the Person...

On November 4, 2008, while the rest of the country participated in the national presidential election, New Trier students participated in a mock election run by student alliance. As I stood in line, waiting to vote, two girls stood in front of me. One of the girls stepped up to the computer to cast her ballot, and voted for the president of her choice. When it came time for her to vote for the congressman, she turned to her friend and said, “Dan Seals is the democrat, right?” Her friend then told her that Dan Seals was indeed the democrat candidate, and the girl proceeded to vote for Dan Seals. As I watched this girl vote for Seals simply because he was the democratic candidate, I immediately remembered what Congressman Kirk told to the students of New Trier last week when he came to speak, “Vote for the person, not the party”. These girls who supported Dan Seals in the New Trier mock election, only supported him based on his party, and paid no attention to the fact that Mark Kirk, the republican candidate, actually has several liberal viewpoints. He is pro-choice and supports gay rights, and is endorsed by several democratic newspapers and magazines because of these viewpoints. These girls did the opposite of what Mark Kirk advised, and cast their ballots for the party, paying no attention to what the person had to say. This scenario made me wonder if people across the nation voted for president the same way these girls voted for the Congressman of Illinois.

I completed some research regarding this subject, and found a YouTube video, in which an interviewer interviewed African Americans across the country, while attributing McCain’s views to Obama. The interviewer asked these civilians if they agreed with Obama’s viewpoints, which were in actuality McCain’s. In all three examples that the video provided, the people getting interviewed said that they fully agree with Obama’s viewpoints, which were actually viewpoints that McCain fully supports, and Obama is completely against. While this video may have edited out interviews that did not work to prove the video’s point, I still find it a bit scary that people across the country may have voted for Obama even if they had no idea who or what he supports. People that did not study his viewpoints may have voted for him based on the Democratic Party he represents, because they wanted to make history, or because people want change, even if they are unaware of what change is.

Aside from voting for Obama, I am sure that a large amount of people voted for McCain that were unaware of his views are. People being unaware of what their chosen candidate supports has probably happened in several elections in the past, and will inevitably continue to happen in the future. However, I admittedly idealistically, hope that in future elections people attempt to see all sides of each issue, and vote for the candidate based on the their views, and ideas, instead of their party, race, or gender. However, for the time being, America needs to do exactly what McCain suggested in his speech after the election, serve the country, come together, and serve our newly elected president, Barack Obama.

Presedent Bush is Absent from Election

In the midst of this election, I feel that got so caught up in all the candidates, drama, and parodies; that I forgot about our current president, George W. Bush. I quickly realized that with all the media and publicity that these new candidates are receiving; President Bush has been completely overshadowed, and only briefly mentioned in the media during the campaigns. I then completed some research to see if anyone else had noticed President Bush’s absence from the current election, and this very topic happened to be on the front page of the politics section on CNN.com. In this article, the Bush Administration claims that he has been trying to avoid the election so that he does not get in the way of the two candidates running to be the president of the United States. Reporters analyzing the situation believe that Bush is avoiding the election due to his extremely low approval ratings of 28%. Reporters claim that if his approval ratings were higher, he would be helping republican candidate, John McCain, but now he feels he is only a burden.

President Bush scheduled no public events for the weekend. He has reportedly cancelled several fundraisers, and since he was not helping with the election, he reportedly went to the presidential retreat home, Camp David. Despite the fact that his time as president is coming to an end, it is not yet done. President Bush will still be president until January 20. Therefore, I believe, instead of going to Camp David on vacation, he should be at least attempting to do something to solve the country’s financial crisis. President Bush is clearly not idealistic, in that it appears he has simply given up. He saw his poor approval ratings, and he is hiding, absent from fundraisers, public events, and the election. Without even attempting to get his approval ratings up by doing his presidential duties, he has retreated to his vacation home. What does a country do without a leader, even if it is only for a few months? If something tragic happens to the United States within the next few months, I believe that Bush will attempt to help, but assuming it does not, I am curious to see how this country will continue to function while our leader is absent.