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.

Is it better to be both idealistic and pragmatic?

The Benjamin Franklin “autobiography” journal assignment for this weekend made me wonder whether there are any current events that involve both an idealistic and pragmatic approach, just as Franklin had an idealistic dream, and worked to solve it using a pragmatic method. I then thought about the election and the candidates, John McCain, and, Barack Obama. I did some research and found that McCain is primary looked upon as an idealist, and Obama is referred to as, “Obama the Pragmatist”. McCain is idealistic due to his, “Wars must be won. Country comes first…” (Rogers) attitude. While Obama is defined as a pragmatist as he seems to take a realistic approach to various things such as taxes, and the war. But because Franklin used both an idealistic and pragmatic approach to solve his conflict, I began to wonder whether both these candidates may be swaying to far to one particular side, maybe instead of defining themselves as either pragmatic, or idealistic, the candidates could settle somewhere in the middle. Because McCain is arguably overly idealistic, certain sources suggest that idealism may be hurting his campaign because the country is in a financial crisis now, and people want realistic answers. Similarly to when F.D.R. gave the people realistic answers to help attempt to solve an idealistic problem, instead of Hoover’s idealistic standpoint that suggested The Great Depression would solve itself. Obama’s pragmatic approach may also potentially hurt his campaign, as people occasionally want to hear great idealistic proposals, as opposed to always hearing something realistic. So maybe, like Franklin, who used both a pragmatic and idealistic approach to help solve the moral behavior problem, the presidential candidates could settle somewhere in the middle between the two extremes in order to be more successful. The difference between idealism and pragmatism may not always be black and white, maybe there is a gray area where the candidates can settle in order to become more successful. Benjamin Franklin had an idealistic dream and worked to solve it using pragmatic steps, it seemed to work for him, so maybe it can work for the next president of the United States of America.

There also seems to be a place and time for each view. For example, if the country was not in such a economic crisis right now, maybe McCain's method of idealism would work more effectively. However, because people do want realistic answers to their constant financial problems, Obama's pragmatic approach is becoming more successful. However, I still believe that the candidates would be more successful by taking both a pragmatic and idealistic approach to solve problems.

Airbrushed Politicians

Recently, while watching television, I came across a news segment on Fox that was discussing a magazine issue of Newsweek with Sarah Palin on the cover. One woman argued that, “This [magazine issue] is a clear slap in the face to Sarah Palin,” as Palin’s face in the up close picture showed imperfect flaws such as wrinkles, and a few light mustache hairs. The three women on the news discussed how Newsweek should have air brushed Palin’s face before publishing the photo, as her imperfect face will somehow affect voters around the country. I am not sure how or why this photo could potentially affect the election, but I was very surprised to view news anchors discussing how the vice-presidential candidate’s face should be airbrushed on a magazine. This illustrates how this country has become so entertained with looks and beauty that people cannot even see politicians for who they truly are. Air brushing photos originated as something to touch up celebrities, so the concept of touching up politicians faces seems to be surreal, as well as the idea that people would not vote for McCain because of a non-air brushed, real picture.
It seems as though this is a sign that America takes the idealistic approach in terms of beauty, in that people cannot even view a real picture of Sarah Palin without arguing that Newsweek is a liberal magazine plotting against the republicans. Ever since Sarah Palin was nominated, there has been a lot of people making fun of her by creating Palin spoofs, and more, but if McCain loses even more votes because of this, it shows how beauty obsessed America has become, a country who cannot even view a real picture of a politician. In class, we discussed how some election debate results differ if they are listened to on the radio as opposed to television due to the way a candidate may appear. Therefore, if one person looks nicer, then the country may agree that that particular person won the debate. Debates, and furthermore elections should not be won because of looks, but ideas for the nation. Politicians, or anyone for that matter, should not be airbrushed, and people should be seen for who they truly are.

Can Comedy affect The Election?

Over the weekend, while listening to the radio, I heard several advertisements for the Saturday Night Live Tina Fey skit imitating Sarah Palin. I then went home and watched the past skits of the Sarah Palin parody on the Internet. While I did think the imitation was both extremely funny, and very accurate, I could not help but think of how the vastly popular spoof may potentially hurt the McCain campaign by making fun of Palin, or benefit the McCain campaign because it brought so much attention to it. I thought about the large role the media plays in the election, and how elections should be won based on the candidates ideas, and not on the medias’ portrayal of each candidate. In class, we discussed that in viewing history; multiple perspectives of each event should be shown in order to receive an accurate representation of each event. Therefore, I think that since Tina Fey created such an accurate imitation of Sarah Palin, someone should attempt to create a great imitation of either Obama, or Biden in order the level the playing field of the election. However, this seems to be a hard task to achieve, as it is probably difficult to create another precise imitation. So it may be best to simply enjoy the comedy in this election instead of worrying about how it may affect the votes. Still, I cannot help but wonder in such a close race between candidates, McCain and Obama, if the voting results on November 4, 2008 would be different if SNL did not imitate the candidates running for the president of our country. Can comedy affect the election?

Maybe History Should Not Repeat Itself

Within the first few days of this 2008-2009 school year, our class learned, that among several other reasons, that history is taught so that people can look into the past and discover the proposed solutions that did not work to solve problems. It is essentially taught so that people will not repeat history, and so that people will attempt different solutions that may potentially work in the future. While I fully agree to learning from mistakes made in the past to try and benefit the future, it seems that this method is not widely used among the world. I feel that this year especially I have heard the term “history repeats itself” several times. With the stock Market plunging just as it did in the 1930’s, it seems as if this country is not learning from our past mistakes and making the same ones again. Essentially, in the 1920’s people bought things such as furniture and cars through cheap credit and loans. Once the people found that they could not pay off the loans they started to buy less of other products. This decreased the demand for many products, and therefore many businesses suffered as well as the people who were not receiving money for their loans. This problem, along with many others, was one of the reasons for the cause of The Great Depression. Unfortunately present day banks did not look into the past to learn from these mistakes, and history is therefore in the process of repeating itself in 2008. Banks gave out several loans to people to buy houses, people that may not necessarily be able to pay off those loans in the future. When it came time for those people to pay off those mortgage payments, they could not afford it, so they therefore purchased far less of other products just as people did in the 1920’s. Now the banks are in need of the mortgage payments, and other businesses around the country are suffering from less demand. On top of this, the stock market crashed just as it did in the 1920’s. So because the banks and others did not look into the past in an attempt to learn something from it, the United States is in the process of possibly another depression.

Along with this issue, our discussions of The Crucible also lead me to believe that people should learn more from history. Similar events to the Salem Witch Trials happened several times throughout history, with things like The Red Scare, and more. When The Crucible was translated into Chinese, people could not even believe that it was not based off of things that occurred in China’s past because the events were so similar. Arthur Miller, author of The Crucible, even writes, “…The play seems to present the same primeval structure of human sacrifice to the furies of fanaticism and paranoia that goes on repeating itself forever as though imbedded in the brain of social man.” (Miller) While touching upon the fact that this event has occurred several times in the past, Miller argues that it is because something is imbedded in the mind of humans that causes them to create the same mistake again and again. However, if people look into the past and learn that these similar methods will never work, then these things will not repeat themselves. One of the reasons history is learned is so it isn’t repeated, but it still is. I think people around the world need to look into the past, and if something does work, they should repeat that method, but if it does not, those mistakes should be learned from, and history shouldn’t repeat itself.