I visited the World War II museum this past Saturday, December 12. What seemed as a fun trip to the museum turned into an unexpected journey. In line to buy my tickets, I ran into my new soccer coach, Mrs. Tilling's father-in-law. After saying hello, and parting, my mom and I walked through the exhibits looking at the artifacts enclosed in the glass cases and reading the captions while watching the videos projected onto the white oval shape, tilted object on the floors. We wound our way up the staircases from the European front to the Pacific front gawking at how different life was then to now. My mom and I talked about, just as we did in class, how easily it is to forget that there is actually a war in Iraq and Afghanistan if you do not know any one fighting there. My mom even pretended that I was an exhibit when she made me talk about World War II to a group of older ladies who said that I was "an adorable little thing". After explaining to this group that the decision to drop the atomic bomb wasn't just to end the war (thanks ATF, you saved me), the women walked away with a better understanding. (Which I thought was odd, considering they looked old enough to have survived WWI- not saying this in a derogatory way, just stating a fact.) After walking up and then down the staircases, my mom and I decided to end our tour with the movie. Although most people started with the movie and then looked at the exhibit, we got there right as a movie was starting and decided that our time would be better spent actually doing something instead of sitting and drinking coffee. My mom dropped out of the movie as we stood in line because she decided that it would bother her eyes to watch a 4-D movie. So, as my luck would have it, I ran into my soccer coach again. He invited me to join his wife and their friends in line and said that I should sit with them throughout the movie. While standing for about 15 minutes in line, the other 7 adults and I had a conversation about WWII and how the D-day Museum did an amazing job and depicting how the war actually was instead of trying to cover it up with encouraging propaganda that hid the reality of the war. The adults were surprised that I could keep up with them and their discussions on the policies of Wilson and Teddy that led to World War II and they also were surprised to know about how the atomic bomb decision was reached. To make a long story short, we watched the movie and said good bye shortly after.
On the ride home, I came to realize one thing. World War Two was not just a 4 year war that was fought on two different sides of the world and just won by the US because we're beast like that. World War Two was a tough war that caused the US to band together, men and women, to feel around in the dark without the protection or guidelines of Washington's Farewell Address to lead them. I don't think that dropping the atomic bomb caused the US to let go of WFA (Washington's Farewell Address), I think that entering the war caused them to. Nowhere in WFA does it state what to do with an atomic bomb or how to inform the vice president after the president who kept the project in secret dies. World War Two was a test that made the US realize that women were just as good at warfare as men were and that the US was very lucky to win the war because if you compare the number of troops in Japan and Germany to the amount in the US, the opposing sides should have crushed America, but this was not the outcome. The WWII museum not only showed me how intense the war was, but it took the terms and definitions that were memorized out of the book and put them into pictures and 3-D models and even a 4D movie. Now, I just wish that everything we cover in history could have such an amazing museum to match.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Possible Essay Questions
What caused the US foreign policy to change?
How and why did the role of the US chnage in the world?
How and why did the role of the US chnage in the world?
Sunday, December 6, 2009
The Decision to Drop the Bomb
"The New Mexico test of the first atom bomb marked the successful conclusion of the Manhattan Project, the code name for one of the largest scientific and industrial efforts ever undertaken".
I think that this quote is important because it shows just how major the creation of the atomic bomb was for the US. This under cover, secret creation not only changed the world forever, but also gave the US a leg in World War II. Davidson and Lytle show through this chapter just how big of a role government played in creating this weapon and how the balance of power shifted from Roosevelt to his advisers. The reason for the power shift was because of Roosevelt's death. I found it interesting that Truman, his vice president, was even debriefed of the project until after Roosevelt's death. The most interesting thing about this was that the person to debrief him was Stimson, who had worked underneath both Truman and Roosevelt. It seemed odd to me that a vice president would not be briefed by the president, but then again, this project was on a need to know basis, so Roosevelt obviously had a reason for not telling Truman.
"For three years, American, British, and émigré scientists raced against time and what they feared was an insurmountable German lead".
I liked this quote because of the irony. The Germans, who were supposedly beating the Americans at creating this atomic bomb, had actually given up. As I put in my seminar questions, I can't help but wonder if the US would have slowed down and not made as much progress if they would have known about the Germans. I chose this quote because I thought that it showed just how driven the Americans were to win the war. They sought out the nation's best mathematicians and scientists to create this bomb that would end the war for them. The government paired up with the scientific community and the end result was the most destructible weapons on the planet.
I thought this chapter was interesting. I like how the historians applied a model theory to the chapter to explain why everything happened. Since mathematicians and scientists use theories all the time to explain why things happen or happened, I think that it was interesting that Davidson and Lytle used a model theory to explain a the events in a chapter that revolved around science so much.
I think that this quote is important because it shows just how major the creation of the atomic bomb was for the US. This under cover, secret creation not only changed the world forever, but also gave the US a leg in World War II. Davidson and Lytle show through this chapter just how big of a role government played in creating this weapon and how the balance of power shifted from Roosevelt to his advisers. The reason for the power shift was because of Roosevelt's death. I found it interesting that Truman, his vice president, was even debriefed of the project until after Roosevelt's death. The most interesting thing about this was that the person to debrief him was Stimson, who had worked underneath both Truman and Roosevelt. It seemed odd to me that a vice president would not be briefed by the president, but then again, this project was on a need to know basis, so Roosevelt obviously had a reason for not telling Truman.
"For three years, American, British, and émigré scientists raced against time and what they feared was an insurmountable German lead".
I liked this quote because of the irony. The Germans, who were supposedly beating the Americans at creating this atomic bomb, had actually given up. As I put in my seminar questions, I can't help but wonder if the US would have slowed down and not made as much progress if they would have known about the Germans. I chose this quote because I thought that it showed just how driven the Americans were to win the war. They sought out the nation's best mathematicians and scientists to create this bomb that would end the war for them. The government paired up with the scientific community and the end result was the most destructible weapons on the planet.
I thought this chapter was interesting. I like how the historians applied a model theory to the chapter to explain why everything happened. Since mathematicians and scientists use theories all the time to explain why things happen or happened, I think that it was interesting that Davidson and Lytle used a model theory to explain a the events in a chapter that revolved around science so much.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Obama's Afghanistan Plan
Last night, Obama addressed the nation saying that he would plan to withdraw all troops in late 2011, but he wants to give Afghanistan an " quick punch" before he even considers setting a more precise date of withdrawing. The public and big name officials surrounding Obama said that they do not believe that this plan will work. Although Obama said that this war will not be another Vietnam and that he will not be a clone of his predecessor, some say that he is making the same exact move.
I personally don't know a solution to what we should do in the war so I don't feel that I have an opinion. I think that there is a lot going on in Afghanistan that the public does not know about; information that the government has on a "need to know" basis. I can't help but feel bad for the families affected by the war, but at the same time I don't want another 9/11 to happen.
I personally don't know a solution to what we should do in the war so I don't feel that I have an opinion. I think that there is a lot going on in Afghanistan that the public does not know about; information that the government has on a "need to know" basis. I can't help but feel bad for the families affected by the war, but at the same time I don't want another 9/11 to happen.
Monday, November 23, 2009
New Deal 2009: Social Security
“Looting Social Security” Page 1
By: William Greider
This article says that the changes that the government is trying to pass will greatly affect social security. This article claims that, “The essential transaction would amount to misappropriating the trillions in Social Security taxes that workers have paid to finance their retirement benefits”. While the article says that Obama has been very good at keeping his constituents informed on what’s happening in Washington, it also states that Obama is messing around with the conservative advocates. The author feels that social security will be a “defining test for ‘new policies’ in the Obama era”. He says that the only way to protect social security funds from the over; greedy Wall Street investors is for the people to stand up and voice that they want their social security money. It is stated that if the people raise their voices, Congress will listen and makes changes to benefit the people. The current increase in funding for Social Security has come from higher taxes. The reason for this tax raise is because the government has already spent the money that the people had paid previously and the government needs more, so they tax the people more. Every time that the government borrowed money from the Social Security safe hold, they had a legal obligation to pay the money back, but the only way to pay it back is to earn more and the only way to “earn” more is to take it from the people. The article sums up to say that the government will not run out of social security money until 2041 if they continue on the path that they are on now. This is true, however, the article states that the government is expecting an increase in the number of people that will retire which is obviously run out the saved supply of money more fast.
I feel that this article is a very interesting viewpoint. I read the whole article but chose to only summarize the first page because I felt that it was the most relevant to the assignment. In my opinion, William Greider, isn’t really in touch with reality. Though this article was written in March, during the first two months of Obama’s administration, I still some of the points that Greider makes as odd. He claims that if the people rally up against Congress and demand that the Wall Street people cannot borrow their money, that they paid through taxes, to be used on risky investments. People, throughout history, have lobbied and spoken out against Congress on many topics, and in my personal opinion, there hasn’t been too much change. A good example would be the Bonus Army strike. The WWI veterans lobbied for their post war bonus, but the government under Hoover did not oblige and in fact used martial law to get the people out of the city. Even though the Hoover administration isn’t the best example of government at its finest, that does not subtract from the fact that just because the people rally, there will not necessarily be change.
The fact that the government would allow the safety deposits of Social Security to be tapped into is scary. The law states that whoever borrows money has a legal obligation to pay it back. The way the government pays the money back, since obviously the people who borrowed it can’t, is by taxing the people. The point of Social Security was to have people pay money to the government throughout their life so that when they retire, they would get an allowance. If the government just loans out this allowance this is an example of the government setting themselves up for failure. This is a prime example of the how the government is headed into another depression if they keep the illicit loaning up and then save themselves by taxing. Eventually, the people will not be able to pay taxes and the economy will fail. Social Security is a good idea, if the saved money could be protected.
This is a good example of how the view of social security has changed from a program that would benefit everyone who paid for it to a program that the government can just borrow money from and pay back by using the money. However, the money that they get back from the people, is higher taxes taxed to the people.
Web page address: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090302/greider
By: William Greider
This article says that the changes that the government is trying to pass will greatly affect social security. This article claims that, “The essential transaction would amount to misappropriating the trillions in Social Security taxes that workers have paid to finance their retirement benefits”. While the article says that Obama has been very good at keeping his constituents informed on what’s happening in Washington, it also states that Obama is messing around with the conservative advocates. The author feels that social security will be a “defining test for ‘new policies’ in the Obama era”. He says that the only way to protect social security funds from the over; greedy Wall Street investors is for the people to stand up and voice that they want their social security money. It is stated that if the people raise their voices, Congress will listen and makes changes to benefit the people. The current increase in funding for Social Security has come from higher taxes. The reason for this tax raise is because the government has already spent the money that the people had paid previously and the government needs more, so they tax the people more. Every time that the government borrowed money from the Social Security safe hold, they had a legal obligation to pay the money back, but the only way to pay it back is to earn more and the only way to “earn” more is to take it from the people. The article sums up to say that the government will not run out of social security money until 2041 if they continue on the path that they are on now. This is true, however, the article states that the government is expecting an increase in the number of people that will retire which is obviously run out the saved supply of money more fast.
I feel that this article is a very interesting viewpoint. I read the whole article but chose to only summarize the first page because I felt that it was the most relevant to the assignment. In my opinion, William Greider, isn’t really in touch with reality. Though this article was written in March, during the first two months of Obama’s administration, I still some of the points that Greider makes as odd. He claims that if the people rally up against Congress and demand that the Wall Street people cannot borrow their money, that they paid through taxes, to be used on risky investments. People, throughout history, have lobbied and spoken out against Congress on many topics, and in my personal opinion, there hasn’t been too much change. A good example would be the Bonus Army strike. The WWI veterans lobbied for their post war bonus, but the government under Hoover did not oblige and in fact used martial law to get the people out of the city. Even though the Hoover administration isn’t the best example of government at its finest, that does not subtract from the fact that just because the people rally, there will not necessarily be change.
The fact that the government would allow the safety deposits of Social Security to be tapped into is scary. The law states that whoever borrows money has a legal obligation to pay it back. The way the government pays the money back, since obviously the people who borrowed it can’t, is by taxing the people. The point of Social Security was to have people pay money to the government throughout their life so that when they retire, they would get an allowance. If the government just loans out this allowance this is an example of the government setting themselves up for failure. This is a prime example of the how the government is headed into another depression if they keep the illicit loaning up and then save themselves by taxing. Eventually, the people will not be able to pay taxes and the economy will fail. Social Security is a good idea, if the saved money could be protected.
This is a good example of how the view of social security has changed from a program that would benefit everyone who paid for it to a program that the government can just borrow money from and pay back by using the money. However, the money that they get back from the people, is higher taxes taxed to the people.
Web page address: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090302/greider
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
FDR's Message
. I think the message that FDR was trying to get across was that he wasn't going to be a president who just sat back, like a few before him. He wanted the people to know that he was going to do what it took to get laws passed, and make their lives better without overstepping his constitutional boundaries. In his inaugural speech, he stated that he would try and pass laws through congress and if congress did not approve of the laws, then he would rally the people to help persuade congress and also take the decision to a higher authority. He said that he would do all of this while remaining within his limits pre set by the constitution.
Some examples of his quick action were when he handled the banking crisis on March 5. He closed the bank so that the government could reorganize the weaker ones. In June, Congress created the FDC to guarantee that banks had deposits. He helped change the lives of the farmers by establishing the AAA to combat the depression in agriculture caused by the depression.
Everything that he did was to help the people of the United States deal with the depression and help to solve all of the problems they were facing. These problems not only included the threat of war, but also the money issues that every family was facing. He tried to establish safety nets to catch and then save the industries so that a depression would never happen again.
His messages was not that he would just go on a rampage and try to fix everything all at once, his message was just that he would try his best within his limits to be as productive as possible to try and help the American people better their lives as soon as they legally could.
Some examples of his quick action were when he handled the banking crisis on March 5. He closed the bank so that the government could reorganize the weaker ones. In June, Congress created the FDC to guarantee that banks had deposits. He helped change the lives of the farmers by establishing the AAA to combat the depression in agriculture caused by the depression.
Everything that he did was to help the people of the United States deal with the depression and help to solve all of the problems they were facing. These problems not only included the threat of war, but also the money issues that every family was facing. He tried to establish safety nets to catch and then save the industries so that a depression would never happen again.
His messages was not that he would just go on a rampage and try to fix everything all at once, his message was just that he would try his best within his limits to be as productive as possible to try and help the American people better their lives as soon as they legally could.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Great Depression Parallel to Job Loss
I think that looking back at the Great Depression just puts everything into a much larger context for me. As students, most of us hear the media talking about the increase of job loss and the increase of the national deficit and hear about the various reforms and etc but I find that we don't really listen. After reading Introduction and Hard Times to Hooverville, I have really come to grasp just what these numbers and statistics mean. Take the statistic 9.8% and 10.2%. If you look at it as 10 pennies out of a dollar, it doesn’t seem like that much. If you actually pay attention to what the statistic is on and realize that the "pennies" are people and not just double digits, but double digits with about 4 zeros after, the severity of these statistics is shown in and emphasized in a brighter light.
To students, we live a very easy life. We wake up, go to school, text at lunch, facebook after school, eat dinner, ichat, then go to bed and wake up and do it all over again. To parents, a day consists of making sure that your children get to school, get picked up and fed, WHILE balancing a job and a marriage (if there is one). I think that reading the Great Depression shows that the people that lose their jobs aren't just poor people who didn’t go to school and don't work hard every day and live as law abiding citizens. These are people, mothers, dads, adults fresh out of college, etc. who are trying to live their own American dream, but can't because the economy is sinking.
The Great Depression informed me that the numbers aren't numbers that people fool around with to get you to donate money to charities that you just write off on taxes. This article also makes me look around and notice what is happening in the news and not only how all aspects of life were affected then, but how life is slowly changing now. There is definitely a parallel between the events leading up to the Great Depression and events that have happened in the past half century after the Great Depression. To say that the unemployment rate is the highest since 1983 should cause concern for all Americans. The article that I read says that the only way out is through government help and regulation, but this causes one to ask if the reason we are back in this situation of a recession again is because of poorly run and monitored regulation. This article causes the reader to ask if there needs to be more regulation or just reformed regulation and I think that if we sat back and compared the past to now and looked at the outcome of the Great Depression and the problems and successes following it, we might be able to come up with a better solution because adding to the deficit without a plan to pay it back seems like a disaster waiting to happen.
To students, we live a very easy life. We wake up, go to school, text at lunch, facebook after school, eat dinner, ichat, then go to bed and wake up and do it all over again. To parents, a day consists of making sure that your children get to school, get picked up and fed, WHILE balancing a job and a marriage (if there is one). I think that reading the Great Depression shows that the people that lose their jobs aren't just poor people who didn’t go to school and don't work hard every day and live as law abiding citizens. These are people, mothers, dads, adults fresh out of college, etc. who are trying to live their own American dream, but can't because the economy is sinking.
The Great Depression informed me that the numbers aren't numbers that people fool around with to get you to donate money to charities that you just write off on taxes. This article also makes me look around and notice what is happening in the news and not only how all aspects of life were affected then, but how life is slowly changing now. There is definitely a parallel between the events leading up to the Great Depression and events that have happened in the past half century after the Great Depression. To say that the unemployment rate is the highest since 1983 should cause concern for all Americans. The article that I read says that the only way out is through government help and regulation, but this causes one to ask if the reason we are back in this situation of a recession again is because of poorly run and monitored regulation. This article causes the reader to ask if there needs to be more regulation or just reformed regulation and I think that if we sat back and compared the past to now and looked at the outcome of the Great Depression and the problems and successes following it, we might be able to come up with a better solution because adding to the deficit without a plan to pay it back seems like a disaster waiting to happen.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
20th century project
I have been looking for ideas for the project and i'm stumped between the media shift and flappers. I think flappers are interesting because of the change in entertainment and the way people now viewed women's behavior. I also like the change in media becuae there are a lot of parallels to current events today.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Sacco and Vanzetti- Innocent AFTER Proven Guilty...and killed
"Since the defense had weakend the ballistics evidnce, Katzmann based his case promarily on 'consciousness of guilt.'"
I like this quote in the sense of how great of an example the court systems form the 1920's operated. The whole idea of innocent until proven guilty, took on an entirely different meaning. Today, all people, are supposedly treated fairly through the justice system and there are restrictions set by the Constituion and Bill of Rights to ensure this. In the 1920's, even though most, not all, but most laws were in affect then, the laws were seen as merely guidelines, to help guide the courts to their decisions. Innocent until proven guilty was only the the WASP- white anglo-saxon protestant memebers of society who controlled the industries and were born in america. If immigrants were on trial, such as Sacco and Vanzetti were, their trail was strictly conducted to end with the defendants either dead or in jail. Sacco and Vanzetti were victimes of racial and ethnical profiling by the governemnt and the towns people of Dedham. I found it ironic though, that townspeople of Dedham and American born citizens only started to recognize the injustice towards the end of the trial, and by that point, nothing could be done. I found it embarassing that we, as a country, were hypocritcal towards immigrants. In times of economic boom, we welcomed them through the "gates of America", persuading them to come and make a new life for themselves (as long as the American people could benefit from it). But when times got hard, just as they did after World War I, people, like Thayer and Katzmann were eager to get rid of the "suspects of criminal activity", also known as immigrants. People who were once welcomed into the country were now watched over carefully by the goverment in fear that these immigrants might retaliate against the country that welcomed them and then stripped away their rights day by day.
When Katzmann's evidence fell through, he had only one other route to take. The ethnical/political route, in which he would show, to all members of the jury, that Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty of something: being different. Katzmann used the fact that they were anarchists against them and he used his ties with the judge to help put the two into jail. This showed how badly immigrants were treated during the 1920's.
"...historical methods to understand that history affords foar more latitude in weighing and collecting evidence that does the legal system. The law attempts to limit the flow of evidence in a trial to what can reasonably be constructed as fact".
I liked this quote because I think that it is the thesis. Historians can go back and look at past court cases that were considered to be controversial and historians can make assumptions based off of evidence. Historians differ from lawyers and other people who work in the legal system because they can make assumptions based off of evidence. In the legal system, the quote stand "innocent until proven guilty". I believe that after reading Sacco and Vanzetti, that they were not guilty of murdering Berardelli. I do believe that they deserved jail time because they avoided the draft and if they did assemble the bombs, than they deserve time for that. I think that this article was a good example of how desperate the government was to crack down on immigrants and make an example of Sacco and Vanzetti. The example that if you step out of line, the government might not be able to prove how you did, but they can get you on something and even though this isn't legitimately legal, it doesn't matter.
I liked this article becuase the historians didn't just agree with Thayer and Katzmann on the fact that Sacco and Vanzetti were automatically guilty because they were different. I liked how they examined everything from the mens' history to society and the people who influenced the outcome of the case. I would argue that this is one of the better written articles by Davidson and Lytle.
I like this quote in the sense of how great of an example the court systems form the 1920's operated. The whole idea of innocent until proven guilty, took on an entirely different meaning. Today, all people, are supposedly treated fairly through the justice system and there are restrictions set by the Constituion and Bill of Rights to ensure this. In the 1920's, even though most, not all, but most laws were in affect then, the laws were seen as merely guidelines, to help guide the courts to their decisions. Innocent until proven guilty was only the the WASP- white anglo-saxon protestant memebers of society who controlled the industries and were born in america. If immigrants were on trial, such as Sacco and Vanzetti were, their trail was strictly conducted to end with the defendants either dead or in jail. Sacco and Vanzetti were victimes of racial and ethnical profiling by the governemnt and the towns people of Dedham. I found it ironic though, that townspeople of Dedham and American born citizens only started to recognize the injustice towards the end of the trial, and by that point, nothing could be done. I found it embarassing that we, as a country, were hypocritcal towards immigrants. In times of economic boom, we welcomed them through the "gates of America", persuading them to come and make a new life for themselves (as long as the American people could benefit from it). But when times got hard, just as they did after World War I, people, like Thayer and Katzmann were eager to get rid of the "suspects of criminal activity", also known as immigrants. People who were once welcomed into the country were now watched over carefully by the goverment in fear that these immigrants might retaliate against the country that welcomed them and then stripped away their rights day by day.
When Katzmann's evidence fell through, he had only one other route to take. The ethnical/political route, in which he would show, to all members of the jury, that Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty of something: being different. Katzmann used the fact that they were anarchists against them and he used his ties with the judge to help put the two into jail. This showed how badly immigrants were treated during the 1920's.
"...historical methods to understand that history affords foar more latitude in weighing and collecting evidence that does the legal system. The law attempts to limit the flow of evidence in a trial to what can reasonably be constructed as fact".
I liked this quote because I think that it is the thesis. Historians can go back and look at past court cases that were considered to be controversial and historians can make assumptions based off of evidence. Historians differ from lawyers and other people who work in the legal system because they can make assumptions based off of evidence. In the legal system, the quote stand "innocent until proven guilty". I believe that after reading Sacco and Vanzetti, that they were not guilty of murdering Berardelli. I do believe that they deserved jail time because they avoided the draft and if they did assemble the bombs, than they deserve time for that. I think that this article was a good example of how desperate the government was to crack down on immigrants and make an example of Sacco and Vanzetti. The example that if you step out of line, the government might not be able to prove how you did, but they can get you on something and even though this isn't legitimately legal, it doesn't matter.
I liked this article becuase the historians didn't just agree with Thayer and Katzmann on the fact that Sacco and Vanzetti were automatically guilty because they were different. I liked how they examined everything from the mens' history to society and the people who influenced the outcome of the case. I would argue that this is one of the better written articles by Davidson and Lytle.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Roger Cohen's "America's Limits"
Write a thoughtful response to the editorial-aim for a solid paragraph--and post it on your blog. Do you agree or disagree with Mr. Cohen? How does this piece inform your understanding of the changing context of the 21st century and the challenges facing the US as we move into the second decade of this century?
I definitely agree with Roger Cohen. I think that America is very nervous, as a nation, to really take the big finanical risks that we took in the past. I think America can still maintain it's identity as the nation that takes the big risks and leads the herd into the new ideas, etc., but America is going to have to set some limits on how fast it goes and how much money it spends on the process. I liked the fact that Obama said that it's not just America's job to save the world. America doen't take up the whole globe, so why should we have to. I believe that it should be a cooperative effort, but then again, this is the real world- meaning: there are countries who would rather end the world, than work with us.
This piece informs my understanding by showing that America isn't necessarily considered the top dog. It shows me that there might not be a "top dog" if we dont start working together with other countries to change our ideas on the economy and how it should be run and how to handle the environment. It also, not that this is anything new to me, but the article reinforces the idea that centrally run companies by big C.E.O's aren't necessarily the way a major corporation should be run. The economic downfall showed me that we should be cautious and very judicious about our money and what we do with it, etc.
This article has made me think a lot about my future. It makes me wonder if spending 45,000 dollars a year to go to undergraduate school and then med school is even worth it, becuase when I get out of med school, will there be a competitive medical field, and if not, how I will pay off the near 300,000 dollar student loan debt that I will inevitably have to pay, job or no job. It also makes me think about foreign relations policies a lot. Should we invade other countries just because we think that we can spread democracy to them, therefore making their countries just as good as ours. Who is to say that our country is the best and that eveyrone should be like us? Granted, I do think our country is better than most, but I think that the U.S. needs to focus a little more on passing this health care reform and other major pieces of legislature sitting on the desks in Washington, just collecting dust- so that I can see how my future is going to look and what major college decisions I need to make. Now, I will most likely get criticism for saying that I only care about myself, but look at the major chiefs of Wall Street a year ago. Does anyone honestly think that they were watching out for the "little/ common people" below, when they were purchasing their 200,000 dollar vehicles and their multiple 3 million dollar mansions in Aspen, the Hamptons, and Connecticut? Of course not. The only time they paid attention to the people around them was either when they were looking for the friends in a crowd at a fancy dinner, or making sure that while occasionaly walking down 5th Avenue (because they felt guilty for their private car emissions), that their brand new loafers didn't get trodded on by the towns people walking next to them.
Back to the foreign relations...
I feel that if someone is going hit the U.S. with a nuclear weapon, they might as well take themselves out also. Since all of the prodcuts consumed by everyone go through most parts of the world before they end up in your home or on your table, so bombing part of the world would be a really ill-thought out idea.
As far as moving into the second decade of the 21st century, I welcome the future. It will definitely be interesting to see how the future plays out!
I definitely agree with Roger Cohen. I think that America is very nervous, as a nation, to really take the big finanical risks that we took in the past. I think America can still maintain it's identity as the nation that takes the big risks and leads the herd into the new ideas, etc., but America is going to have to set some limits on how fast it goes and how much money it spends on the process. I liked the fact that Obama said that it's not just America's job to save the world. America doen't take up the whole globe, so why should we have to. I believe that it should be a cooperative effort, but then again, this is the real world- meaning: there are countries who would rather end the world, than work with us.
This piece informs my understanding by showing that America isn't necessarily considered the top dog. It shows me that there might not be a "top dog" if we dont start working together with other countries to change our ideas on the economy and how it should be run and how to handle the environment. It also, not that this is anything new to me, but the article reinforces the idea that centrally run companies by big C.E.O's aren't necessarily the way a major corporation should be run. The economic downfall showed me that we should be cautious and very judicious about our money and what we do with it, etc.
This article has made me think a lot about my future. It makes me wonder if spending 45,000 dollars a year to go to undergraduate school and then med school is even worth it, becuase when I get out of med school, will there be a competitive medical field, and if not, how I will pay off the near 300,000 dollar student loan debt that I will inevitably have to pay, job or no job. It also makes me think about foreign relations policies a lot. Should we invade other countries just because we think that we can spread democracy to them, therefore making their countries just as good as ours. Who is to say that our country is the best and that eveyrone should be like us? Granted, I do think our country is better than most, but I think that the U.S. needs to focus a little more on passing this health care reform and other major pieces of legislature sitting on the desks in Washington, just collecting dust- so that I can see how my future is going to look and what major college decisions I need to make. Now, I will most likely get criticism for saying that I only care about myself, but look at the major chiefs of Wall Street a year ago. Does anyone honestly think that they were watching out for the "little/ common people" below, when they were purchasing their 200,000 dollar vehicles and their multiple 3 million dollar mansions in Aspen, the Hamptons, and Connecticut? Of course not. The only time they paid attention to the people around them was either when they were looking for the friends in a crowd at a fancy dinner, or making sure that while occasionaly walking down 5th Avenue (because they felt guilty for their private car emissions), that their brand new loafers didn't get trodded on by the towns people walking next to them.
Back to the foreign relations...
I feel that if someone is going hit the U.S. with a nuclear weapon, they might as well take themselves out also. Since all of the prodcuts consumed by everyone go through most parts of the world before they end up in your home or on your table, so bombing part of the world would be a really ill-thought out idea.
As far as moving into the second decade of the 21st century, I welcome the future. It will definitely be interesting to see how the future plays out!
Essay Outline
Thesis:
Wilson uses moral values as a facade to cover up his true reason for going to war: to protect his economic interests.
2nd paragraphy:
- say what the moral values were
- recall Washington's Farewell Addres
- mention Monroe Doctorine
3rd paragraph
- economic interets that U.S. had around the world
- show why U.S. would benefit from going to war- in an economic sense.
4th paragraph
- give quotes from Wilson to show reader that Wilson might have said stuff to public to encourage their support behind him
- BUT with the economic benefits sitting right in front of him- any person would go for them
Conlusion:
- conclude with question asking reader what would they have done in his situation
(said that country would risk lives of its people to raise money) or (cover up, just as Wilson did, his TRUE reason for going to war)
Wilson uses moral values as a facade to cover up his true reason for going to war: to protect his economic interests.
2nd paragraphy:
- say what the moral values were
- recall Washington's Farewell Addres
- mention Monroe Doctorine
3rd paragraph
- economic interets that U.S. had around the world
- show why U.S. would benefit from going to war- in an economic sense.
4th paragraph
- give quotes from Wilson to show reader that Wilson might have said stuff to public to encourage their support behind him
- BUT with the economic benefits sitting right in front of him- any person would go for them
Conlusion:
- conclude with question asking reader what would they have done in his situation
(said that country would risk lives of its people to raise money) or (cover up, just as Wilson did, his TRUE reason for going to war)
Friday, October 2, 2009
Changes In War
War has definitely changed since with early 1900's. Now, most people don't even realize that there is a war going on in Afghanistan. This is because the government doesn't ask us to buy liberty bonds or to not eat certain foods. The way people fight war is now more technologically advanced than World War 1 times. People fight with million and trillion dollar machine equipment so I think that taxing the people for this now would seem that it wouldn't really get the american people anywhere but into debt. Since war is more expensive nowadays, the people have had to come up with new, more efficient ways to get more money from the people without damaging the economy more than it is now.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Political Cartoon Response
Cartoon #5: Uncle Sam to Porto Rico: “And to think, that bad boy came near being your brother!”
The person named Cuba is dressed in a straw hat with smoking guns and a safe with debt pouring out- everything that is bad that’s associated with cuba is portrayed on or around this black man. Uncle Sam and Puerto Rico is standing across the street watching Cuba run away. Uncle Sam is holding Peutro Rico's hand as if to guide it to the ideal country that it can become.
Cartoon #2: How Some Apprehensive People Picture Uncle Sam After the War
Uncle Sam is standing while The Phillipines, Cuba and Puerto Rico climb all over him. This is showing how the United States want to take over these countries by spreading their beliefs and annexing them. Hawaii is sitting on the ground playing with something with a patient look on the childs face. Uncle Sam's facial expression is very stern. I'm not sure if he is mad at the children on annoying at the fact that they are playing with him.
Notes from class:
1: The Cuban Melodrama: The Noble Hero to the Heavy Villain
1896
Female begging for help from the U.S.- Cuba portrayed as weak
Spanish- the villain
Exaggeration
2: How Some Apprehensive People Picture the U.S. After The War
1989
Cuba
Toddler- pain in the neck- annoying- young, in need of help
Irony- children needing help
labeling
3: Miss CUBA receives an invitation. Miss COLUMBIA (to her neighbor): Won’t you join the stars and stripes and by my fourty- sixth?
1901
Pretty young girl- tall, patriotic, standing strong
Columbia- refers to united states
Columbia- dressed in formal attire (nice, expensive, clean)- Cuba looks like “native”
4: After the first Mile. Cleveland Leader.
1903
Looks like an African American
Making fun of Cuba
Largest cane sugar crob
Public schools increase
More schools and making money
Americans are abusing them- everything Cuba does benefits the Americans- but Cuba thinks its benefitting them
Negative view of Cuba
5: Uncle Sam to Puerto Rico: And to think that Bad Boy became your big brother
1905
Cuba running away from U.S.
Debt following Cuba
Cuba- uncivilized look
Bad boy
Compared to Puerto Rico
Bandit
Peurto rico v. Uncle Sam height- uncle sam has power over Puerto rico
The person named Cuba is dressed in a straw hat with smoking guns and a safe with debt pouring out- everything that is bad that’s associated with cuba is portrayed on or around this black man. Uncle Sam and Puerto Rico is standing across the street watching Cuba run away. Uncle Sam is holding Peutro Rico's hand as if to guide it to the ideal country that it can become.
Cartoon #2: How Some Apprehensive People Picture Uncle Sam After the War
Uncle Sam is standing while The Phillipines, Cuba and Puerto Rico climb all over him. This is showing how the United States want to take over these countries by spreading their beliefs and annexing them. Hawaii is sitting on the ground playing with something with a patient look on the childs face. Uncle Sam's facial expression is very stern. I'm not sure if he is mad at the children on annoying at the fact that they are playing with him.
Notes from class:
1: The Cuban Melodrama: The Noble Hero to the Heavy Villain
1896
Female begging for help from the U.S.- Cuba portrayed as weak
Spanish- the villain
Exaggeration
2: How Some Apprehensive People Picture the U.S. After The War
1989
Cuba
Toddler- pain in the neck- annoying- young, in need of help
Irony- children needing help
labeling
3: Miss CUBA receives an invitation. Miss COLUMBIA (to her neighbor): Won’t you join the stars and stripes and by my fourty- sixth?
1901
Pretty young girl- tall, patriotic, standing strong
Columbia- refers to united states
Columbia- dressed in formal attire (nice, expensive, clean)- Cuba looks like “native”
4: After the first Mile. Cleveland Leader.
1903
Looks like an African American
Making fun of Cuba
Largest cane sugar crob
Public schools increase
More schools and making money
Americans are abusing them- everything Cuba does benefits the Americans- but Cuba thinks its benefitting them
Negative view of Cuba
5: Uncle Sam to Puerto Rico: And to think that Bad Boy became your big brother
1905
Cuba running away from U.S.
Debt following Cuba
Cuba- uncivilized look
Bad boy
Compared to Puerto Rico
Bandit
Peurto rico v. Uncle Sam height- uncle sam has power over Puerto rico
Sunday, September 20, 2009
The Alphabet Soup Article- NPR
In other words, is the complicated legislative process we've created in this country more responsible for outcomes than the desires of the majority?
I think that there is a need for a complicated legislative process. Democracy is not just simple. If government in the United States was simple, the governemnt would be a monarchy instead of a democracy. Since I've esatbalished the 1st grade, simple reason that the legislative process is complicated, I can now answer the question. I think that because the lesilative process is so complicated the outcomes are definitely a majority over the desires. Just because the consitutents want the government to pass regualtions on a certain industry or pass a bill on health care, that doesn't necesarily mean that the regualtion or bill will get passed. The legislative process calls for a lot of compromises and has lots of shortcomings. Since the proposal for something has to go through this long, complicated, dissection- called the leglative process, I feel that most of the desires are stripped and the outcome is determined by whose pocket wins the battle. The people though, I feel, only have a small amount of room to complain because they vote the people into these positions to govern over the legislative process. Maybe for there to be actual change in government, there needs to be a change in the process.
I think that there is a need for a complicated legislative process. Democracy is not just simple. If government in the United States was simple, the governemnt would be a monarchy instead of a democracy. Since I've esatbalished the 1st grade, simple reason that the legislative process is complicated, I can now answer the question. I think that because the lesilative process is so complicated the outcomes are definitely a majority over the desires. Just because the consitutents want the government to pass regualtions on a certain industry or pass a bill on health care, that doesn't necesarily mean that the regualtion or bill will get passed. The legislative process calls for a lot of compromises and has lots of shortcomings. Since the proposal for something has to go through this long, complicated, dissection- called the leglative process, I feel that most of the desires are stripped and the outcome is determined by whose pocket wins the battle. The people though, I feel, only have a small amount of room to complain because they vote the people into these positions to govern over the legislative process. Maybe for there to be actual change in government, there needs to be a change in the process.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Party Animals
I think that the article represents Chris Matthews’ “It’s Not Who You Know, It’s Who You Get to Know” perfectly because it shows almost a hypothetical place listing. If a person is at the top of a list of “democratic party animals”, it means they are getting around Washington, and getting their name out. The more people you know, the more ahead you a person can get in the game of politics and Politico’s list helps the people to gauge where they are and where the need to be. It’s almost as if the list is a report card to the politicians. The politicians host and attend these parties as way to network with all of the important people on Capitol Hill. Networking is the modern term of "It's Not Who You Know, It's Who You Get To Know".
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
rough draft= final draft?
There are a few quotes that I would like to bring up reguarding the Address to Congress.
The first:
"It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don't. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government".
While this quote sounds amazing, and the "ideal plan" for the country, I don't think it will exactly work out that way. Sure, there will be security from insurance carriers dropping you and that will cause stability, but what I want to know is: how will this be paid for? As seen in After the Fact's USDA article, just because a bill starts out one way, there is no indication that a bill will end up that way because during the "process" that a bill must go throguh in the Senate and then House, when there is always the ability to make changes to the bill. The question is how many changes there will be.
Providing insurance to people who don't have it is a great idea, but there is a reason that people who don't have insurance now- dont have it. Take illegal immigrants for instance, they don't have insurance becuase one, they can't afford it, and two if they applied for insurance, they would obviously have to show proof of citizenship. Since the taxpayers are the people who have to pay for the insurance under this new, united health care plan (mainly the middle class tax payers) I don't feel, being a citizen of the middle class, that I, who has a job and does pay taxes, should have to pay for these people who are here illegally and don't contribute to the 'pot' of money that the funding for insurance would be coming out of. 1. I dont think there will be enough funds under the current plan to support it and 2. the illegal immigrant numbers will rise- since there is no control over the borders- causing taxes to rise and eventually taxpayers will not make enough money after taxes to be able to do anything else other than pay taxes. Now, I do realize that illegal immigrants aren't the only people who don't have insurance, and they are not indiviually responsible for these problems, but I do use them as an example to strengthen my arugment.
What I dont understand is the last sentence in the quote. If costs are supposed to drop becasue more and more people get on insurance and competition to get the peoples' business causes the prices drop, will this bill or "reform plan" stay how Obama wants it to, or will committees in the House change the bill just as committees in After the Fact did.
The point that I'm trying to make with the first quote is: this sounds great, in the beginning, but will the final bill that is signed into law actually look like this, or will it be so distorted and changed that it will not resemble this at all?
The second:
"While there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance, an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance".
This talk of "details" bothers me because these "detials" are not just details, they aren't just detials in a bill that people don't hear about or don't notice in day to day life. These details are the foundation and everything built upon the new health care reform. These details are essential to the reform because the details are the reform. Without explanations and guidelines and everything else included in the bill- the details..., you do not have reform and you do not have a bill. This broad consensus that he speaks of sounds good- but will the broad consensus now be the same consensus after the bill is passed? This exchange that allows indivuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, will coverage actually be affordable to people under the final version of the bill. Will the small businesses have more interference from the government? Will small businesses get more attention from the government under this new bill? Will insurance be required to non-American citizens as well as American citizens. Will the government change thier views on what consitutes an American citizen all because they want every individual to have health insurance.
Everything Obama talks about sounds wonderful, but the question is how is he going to pay for it, who exactly will be required to have insurance, and once again- will the final bill resemble the rough draft of the bill that he wants to pass now?
The third:
"Add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years".
Once again, and i feel as though im beating a horse dead by now. This is what Obama says that he is proposing, but just because the president proposes something, doesnt meant that the Senate and then House will agree with the bill. The other politicians might want to change the cost to more or less or even add to the deficit even though Obama claims that he won't.
To conclude, the point that I'm trying to make is this: Everything said in Obama's speech is what Obama wants. Just because Obama wants something passed into law doesn't mean that it will be. I am not convinced because there are too many shades of gray, too many things that haven't been yet worked out in Congress. There are too many questions, more than I have asked in this entry, that have not yet been answered. So I leave you with this question:
Will the final draft, the law that is passed look anything like the one Obama wants, the rough draft?
The first:
"It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don't. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government".
While this quote sounds amazing, and the "ideal plan" for the country, I don't think it will exactly work out that way. Sure, there will be security from insurance carriers dropping you and that will cause stability, but what I want to know is: how will this be paid for? As seen in After the Fact's USDA article, just because a bill starts out one way, there is no indication that a bill will end up that way because during the "process" that a bill must go throguh in the Senate and then House, when there is always the ability to make changes to the bill. The question is how many changes there will be.
Providing insurance to people who don't have it is a great idea, but there is a reason that people who don't have insurance now- dont have it. Take illegal immigrants for instance, they don't have insurance becuase one, they can't afford it, and two if they applied for insurance, they would obviously have to show proof of citizenship. Since the taxpayers are the people who have to pay for the insurance under this new, united health care plan (mainly the middle class tax payers) I don't feel, being a citizen of the middle class, that I, who has a job and does pay taxes, should have to pay for these people who are here illegally and don't contribute to the 'pot' of money that the funding for insurance would be coming out of. 1. I dont think there will be enough funds under the current plan to support it and 2. the illegal immigrant numbers will rise- since there is no control over the borders- causing taxes to rise and eventually taxpayers will not make enough money after taxes to be able to do anything else other than pay taxes. Now, I do realize that illegal immigrants aren't the only people who don't have insurance, and they are not indiviually responsible for these problems, but I do use them as an example to strengthen my arugment.
What I dont understand is the last sentence in the quote. If costs are supposed to drop becasue more and more people get on insurance and competition to get the peoples' business causes the prices drop, will this bill or "reform plan" stay how Obama wants it to, or will committees in the House change the bill just as committees in After the Fact did.
The point that I'm trying to make with the first quote is: this sounds great, in the beginning, but will the final bill that is signed into law actually look like this, or will it be so distorted and changed that it will not resemble this at all?
The second:
"While there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance, an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance".
This talk of "details" bothers me because these "detials" are not just details, they aren't just detials in a bill that people don't hear about or don't notice in day to day life. These details are the foundation and everything built upon the new health care reform. These details are essential to the reform because the details are the reform. Without explanations and guidelines and everything else included in the bill- the details..., you do not have reform and you do not have a bill. This broad consensus that he speaks of sounds good- but will the broad consensus now be the same consensus after the bill is passed? This exchange that allows indivuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, will coverage actually be affordable to people under the final version of the bill. Will the small businesses have more interference from the government? Will small businesses get more attention from the government under this new bill? Will insurance be required to non-American citizens as well as American citizens. Will the government change thier views on what consitutes an American citizen all because they want every individual to have health insurance.
Everything Obama talks about sounds wonderful, but the question is how is he going to pay for it, who exactly will be required to have insurance, and once again- will the final bill resemble the rough draft of the bill that he wants to pass now?
The third:
"Add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years".
Once again, and i feel as though im beating a horse dead by now. This is what Obama says that he is proposing, but just because the president proposes something, doesnt meant that the Senate and then House will agree with the bill. The other politicians might want to change the cost to more or less or even add to the deficit even though Obama claims that he won't.
To conclude, the point that I'm trying to make is this: Everything said in Obama's speech is what Obama wants. Just because Obama wants something passed into law doesn't mean that it will be. I am not convinced because there are too many shades of gray, too many things that haven't been yet worked out in Congress. There are too many questions, more than I have asked in this entry, that have not yet been answered. So I leave you with this question:
Will the final draft, the law that is passed look anything like the one Obama wants, the rough draft?
Current Events
To add to the recent post of the quotes from After the Fact's USDA article, I would just like to make a side entry. I would like to point out an excerpt from my second quote "The legislative process is so contituted that willful minorities can sometimes thrawrt the will of determined majorities". Now, just like then, the president cannot get his way with a certain bill just because it's what he wants. Obama is facing a similar situation, just as Roosevelte was in 1906. Obama wants to pass the Health Care bill, but he has seen a lot of dissent from the consitituents all around the United States.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
USDA Government Inspected
‘Use everything… “except the squeal” ’
This quote, I think shows the motivation and reason why Davidson and Lytle wrote this article. This quote shows the meat packers disregard for the public’s health. Using everything but the squeal means that they used every single piece of the pig. This is disgusting because there are parts of a pig that shouldn’t be used for consumption by humans. I think the quote showcases just how bad the meat packing industry was and how badly reform was needed. Armour and Swift, in my opinion and were sadistic comics because there isn’t anything funny, to me at least, in saying that they used every single square inch of the pig. Even though I’m not a swine expert, I’m pretty sure the pig, just like any other animal, has some parts of their body that are not fit for human consumption. Most of the reformers, though, were not focused on just the issue of the Meat Packing industry. The reformers, thought wanting to make conditions in the meat packing industry better, were focused on the big picture, the sanitation conditions. The bigger picture was what everyone was fighting for.
“And historians, for their part, must trace a path through the congressional maze in order to see what compromises and deals shaped the final bill. The legislative process is so constituted that willful minorities can sometimes thwart the will of determined majorities”.
This quote, which I feel is their thesis, shows how historians must trace the history of an occurrence to figure out how a bill is shaped and passed. This whole article shows how reformed wanted change, but had to fight for it. This article was excellently written to show how the United States government works and this quote summarizes the article perfectly. In the United States, bills cannot be signed into laws just because the president, Theodore Roosevelt, wants them to. The president, just like Wadsworth and Lormier has to abide by the same rules that fall under the legislative process. The minorities in the quote, talks about were the few people, such and Wadsworth and Lormier who supported the meat packing industry and claimed that nothing was wrong with it. The majority (ies), obviously the president, are portrayed as they are in the legal system: people who have the take the same steps as the minorities do. The president is not necessarily going to get a bill passed just because he is the president. The job of the historian is to look back into records and see who wanted to make changes to what and if those changes were accepted or turned down by the opposing party or even their own sometimes. Another job is to look at what the bill first began as and see how it is shaped at the end and determine where the changes occurred and why.
This quote, I think shows the motivation and reason why Davidson and Lytle wrote this article. This quote shows the meat packers disregard for the public’s health. Using everything but the squeal means that they used every single piece of the pig. This is disgusting because there are parts of a pig that shouldn’t be used for consumption by humans. I think the quote showcases just how bad the meat packing industry was and how badly reform was needed. Armour and Swift, in my opinion and were sadistic comics because there isn’t anything funny, to me at least, in saying that they used every single square inch of the pig. Even though I’m not a swine expert, I’m pretty sure the pig, just like any other animal, has some parts of their body that are not fit for human consumption. Most of the reformers, though, were not focused on just the issue of the Meat Packing industry. The reformers, thought wanting to make conditions in the meat packing industry better, were focused on the big picture, the sanitation conditions. The bigger picture was what everyone was fighting for.
“And historians, for their part, must trace a path through the congressional maze in order to see what compromises and deals shaped the final bill. The legislative process is so constituted that willful minorities can sometimes thwart the will of determined majorities”.
This quote, which I feel is their thesis, shows how historians must trace the history of an occurrence to figure out how a bill is shaped and passed. This whole article shows how reformed wanted change, but had to fight for it. This article was excellently written to show how the United States government works and this quote summarizes the article perfectly. In the United States, bills cannot be signed into laws just because the president, Theodore Roosevelt, wants them to. The president, just like Wadsworth and Lormier has to abide by the same rules that fall under the legislative process. The minorities in the quote, talks about were the few people, such and Wadsworth and Lormier who supported the meat packing industry and claimed that nothing was wrong with it. The majority (ies), obviously the president, are portrayed as they are in the legal system: people who have the take the same steps as the minorities do. The president is not necessarily going to get a bill passed just because he is the president. The job of the historian is to look back into records and see who wanted to make changes to what and if those changes were accepted or turned down by the opposing party or even their own sometimes. Another job is to look at what the bill first began as and see how it is shaped at the end and determine where the changes occurred and why.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Chris Matthews Version 2.0
Everyone who has read Hardball, including you, now knows the game of politics, or at least thinks they do. The lessons or advice given to win the game that comes with catchy titles are embedded in each chapter. The art, discovered in the book, is using each of those lessons in everyday life to get ahead of the competitor. As I’m sure you know, Mr. Lloyd Blevins, social media will be your way into the world of politics. The increase in social media is causing the game of politics to evolve. No longer is LBJ’s strategy: the door to door campaigning, necessary to get the vote. The door is your Facebook or Twitter home page, the act of knocking is now called clicking, and the act of speaking to someone is now called typing. Since the game is growing, a person must fight to get ahead, and the way to get ahead now, is recognizing the strengths in and then using social media.
Social media can be defined as media designed to be disseminated or spread through social interaction using easy and quick publishing techniques. These publishing techniques are shown when a person updates his or her status, posts a video on someone’s wall or even clicks “Like” on a picture or comment. The reason I stress using social media is because it’s an easy but efficient way to establish alliances with a force that a politian rarely sees all of, but should be constantly aware of the existence of: the constituents. Utilizing social media will help you connect with the people and talk to them through a portal in which distance, time and formality doesn’t matter.
While formality might not matter, the issues still do. Putting your thoughts on issues and other things in one easy to locate place is a good idea. The whole idea of a computer was to make finding information faster and easier. You can put notes on your Facebook page, either linking to another site where you comment on issues, or you could break down your own opinion right in the note and put the ideas that are formally expressed into colloquial terms where the people can understand exactly what you’re trying to say. Issues can range from a new bill you’re thinking about introducing, depending on what political position you hold, all the way to talking about accusations made against you. Listen closely, this becomes extremely important. You don’t want to end up like Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky episode. He lost all credibility with his constituents, and since you’re just starting out, you need all the help you can get. Do not lose your credibility with your constituents. If you do make a mistake, admit to it, use spin to make a huge example out of yourself in a very positive way and move on. Once you make that positive example out of yourself, use Facebook and Twitter to help spread the word that you are back and better than before.
Although you hopefully won’t make a fool of yourself and have the whole hill laughing at you, one thing for certain, you will always have enemies. This is where Facebook because your Sherlock Holmes. Facebook collects info on whomever you want it to. You can increase or decrease the amount of info you receive on a person. A good idea is to increase, to the max, the status updates, tweets, etc. from your enemies. The more you know about your enemies, the better prepared you can be for any kind of situation. Facebook helps you keep your friends a click away, but your enemies… updated on your homepage.
The game of politics has progressed and modernized since Hardball was first written. Social media makes the game easier in the sense of expanding it to the worldwide scale with the click of a button; but with the new speed of technology, the speed of the game increases. The game of politics is no longer keeping up with only constituents’ needs as well as political and personal needs. Now, a politician must keep up with technology. Social media is constantly changing, from the layout of Facebook changing to the software on their computer. There was an old saying, “The only way to win is not to play”, now I think the saying is, “The only way to win is to type faster”.
Social media can be defined as media designed to be disseminated or spread through social interaction using easy and quick publishing techniques. These publishing techniques are shown when a person updates his or her status, posts a video on someone’s wall or even clicks “Like” on a picture or comment. The reason I stress using social media is because it’s an easy but efficient way to establish alliances with a force that a politian rarely sees all of, but should be constantly aware of the existence of: the constituents. Utilizing social media will help you connect with the people and talk to them through a portal in which distance, time and formality doesn’t matter.
While formality might not matter, the issues still do. Putting your thoughts on issues and other things in one easy to locate place is a good idea. The whole idea of a computer was to make finding information faster and easier. You can put notes on your Facebook page, either linking to another site where you comment on issues, or you could break down your own opinion right in the note and put the ideas that are formally expressed into colloquial terms where the people can understand exactly what you’re trying to say. Issues can range from a new bill you’re thinking about introducing, depending on what political position you hold, all the way to talking about accusations made against you. Listen closely, this becomes extremely important. You don’t want to end up like Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky episode. He lost all credibility with his constituents, and since you’re just starting out, you need all the help you can get. Do not lose your credibility with your constituents. If you do make a mistake, admit to it, use spin to make a huge example out of yourself in a very positive way and move on. Once you make that positive example out of yourself, use Facebook and Twitter to help spread the word that you are back and better than before.
Although you hopefully won’t make a fool of yourself and have the whole hill laughing at you, one thing for certain, you will always have enemies. This is where Facebook because your Sherlock Holmes. Facebook collects info on whomever you want it to. You can increase or decrease the amount of info you receive on a person. A good idea is to increase, to the max, the status updates, tweets, etc. from your enemies. The more you know about your enemies, the better prepared you can be for any kind of situation. Facebook helps you keep your friends a click away, but your enemies… updated on your homepage.
The game of politics has progressed and modernized since Hardball was first written. Social media makes the game easier in the sense of expanding it to the worldwide scale with the click of a button; but with the new speed of technology, the speed of the game increases. The game of politics is no longer keeping up with only constituents’ needs as well as political and personal needs. Now, a politician must keep up with technology. Social media is constantly changing, from the layout of Facebook changing to the software on their computer. There was an old saying, “The only way to win is not to play”, now I think the saying is, “The only way to win is to type faster”.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Hardball: The Political Bible of the 21st Century
The most identified rule that I liked was It's Not Who You Know, It's Who You Get To Know. The lesson is learning all you can about your opponents and retaining the information to determine the connections between all of the constituents. This is very beneficial to the person because they can “get in” with the older, more established members of government. The closer one is to the more established members, the easier and more successful a person will be in their climb to the top. Networking, as this “climbing” is important in all occupations, but networking benefits politicians the most. Sarah Palin is currently holding press conferences and making statements against the new Health Reform. Her opinion, is that the new reform will have “death panels” that will decide if a person is “worthy” enough to live or not. There are rumors that Sarah Palin is thinking of running for President in 2012. If that is true, she is most likely trying to outreach into the Republican community to “get in” with her Republican constituents. This is necessary after the Republican’s failed attempt to reach majority after losing the presidency to Democrat Barak Obama. Networking, for Sarah Palin, would prove to be a smart move since there is so much controversy over her recent resignation from being Governor of Alaska. Another example is the Town Hall meetings. Democratic law makers are holding town hall meetings to “connect” and listen to the people. The crowd, at the meetings, consists of 70% random lottery. This showcases networking in the sense that the lawmakers are trying to connect with the people and inform them on the health care reform, but most of the people in the meetings feel that they aren’t getting anywhere. Learning all you can about a person is beneficial in the political world. Sarah Palin shows that making statements against the opposing political party and their views gets you attention which in return increases support and dissent. Sarah Palin takes her support and networks with people to establish relationship that she hopes will be beneficial if she decides to run for president in 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)