Is This a True Necessity?

While I was out to lunch with my brother and dad today, I noticed my dad checked his email, updated his business schedule, and let my brother play a game of solitaire all on his phone. I started to think whether or not the ability to do all of this and more on a phone is a good thing. I’m sure the ability to check your email has made life easier for people, but is it really a necessity? I remember when my mom got a new phone over the summer; I had to teach her how to just find the phone book because there were so many other applications. It seems like this ‘advancement’ has just made our life more complicated. I thought that Thoreau said it well, “Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity! I say, let your affairs be as two or three, and not a hundred or a thousand” (Thoreau 73). I thought that this was the problem with new phones; they can do a hundred different things when all you need them to do it two or three. I figured I wasn’t the only one who had noticed this, so I looked it up on the internet and found an interesting article. The writer agreed with me, and even connected the complicating phones to new calculators that are out. Concerning a calculator, she asked an interesting question, “how did we manage to take the same classes in school without all this technology?” I think the fact that 25 years ago, students were able to learn the same thing that we learn today even though we have these $150 calculators proves that maybe they aren’t progress. I mean we had to spend the first week of school learning how to use the new, ‘improved’ calculators. Is that really worth it? Although I have to admit these new phones and calculators have at times made my life easier, overall, they just complicate our lives.

Is Getting Accepted the Most Important Goal?

In class today, we discussed an article from the New York Times about how the first well renowned public high school in the country stopped offering AP courses. Scarsdale, a school in Scarsdale, New York, dropped the AP classes and created a class called advanced topics (AT), which covered less material, but in more depth. This class still offered the AP exam, but made it optional. I was interested by this, and when I got home, I looked up the article online. I thought it was very interesting to see the students’ reaction to the change in courses. The article stated that most students “praised” the elimination of AP courses. I was surprised by this, because I believe looking in on it, one would think it’s a great idea because you’re not learning just to pass a test, you’re learning to learn. Many believe that is the way learning should be. But when it comes down to your own future, I believe people do what is best for them, which is learning in order to pass the test. That obviously isn’t the strategy at Scarsdale, which is why I thought it was interesting to see that the students are supportive of the change. When reading this article, I couldn’t help but think; would Thoreau support this change? The idea of going more into depth of fewer subjects is what made me believe that Thoreau would be supportive of this change. The AT class goes into more depth, which doesn’t let them cover all the material on the AP test, but the students get a better understanding of what they learn. When Thoreau said, “I say let your affairs be as two or three, and not a hundred or a thousand.” (Thoreau 73). In this quote, I believe Thoreau is saying, it is better to do less than more, because when you do less you are able to care about what you do. That is the exact reason Scarsdale changed their AP classes to AT, so they were able to move at a slower pace and learn to have a passion for what they were being taught. I thought it was very interesting how this article related to how we discussed whether or not New Trier should have eliminated its 5 level courses, and how some of the ideas Thoreau spoke of were seen in the reason for changing Scarsdale’s AP classes.

Improvements?

While browsing the internet, I found an interesting article from the New York Times web site. Although we are done studying the Great Depression, I still thought it would be worthwhile to write a blog on how similar the topics discussed in this article were to events taking place during the Great Depression’s time period. This article talks about the public works plan Obama looks to put into effect once he takes office in January. Americans’ have lost 2 million jobs in the past year, very similar to the time period surrounding the Great Depression. Once Obama takes office, he will put into effect a work plan that will create jobs for the middle class. This is very similar to the Great Depression, when FDR created the New Deal to create jobs for the unemployed. The only difference is that the jobs Obama is creating are new-era jobs, such as expanding broadband internet access and making buildings more energy efficient while FDR built highways and railroads. I thought this was very interesting how we have progressed to our improvements consisting of twenty-first century technology. It is thought if he can succeed in advancing our nation in such a way, it will be a major advantage for the United States in the global economy. This made me think about our unit’s topic of ‘Progress?’ I thought that these improvements would be considered progress because it gives the nation an extreme advantage in global economy, which is a major part of how our nation operates.

Advancement or Not?

While I was on my home page today, I saw an interesting article titled, No email soon for web- savvy Obama? Interested in why he will not have an email, I clicked on the link. The article went into depth about how Obama will most likely have to lose his beloved blackberry once he takes office. Once I got a couple paragraphs into the article, I realized how much it related to the discussion we had in class on Wednesday. As the article progresses, it talks about how Obama is inseparable from his blackberry because it lets him stay connected with his acquaintances via email. And because of security measures, Obama will have to lose the cell phone once he takes office. This made me think back to our discussion on whether technology advancements that spurred in the last decade are good or bad. I thought that this article showed a little bit of both sides of the argument. Many people believe the advances are great because of the ability to communicate easily through email. But the internet also causes many security risks. Identify theft has sky rocketed since the internet has became popular. The article addressed a form of this risk, people hacking into Obama’s email and sending emails that could cause controversy. The Presidential Records Act would make this very harmful because it makes emails that the president sends available to the media. This would create a huge controversy if a hacker was able to hack into Obama’s personal email on his phone and send suspicious emails. Any false information about the stock market that would scare the buyers into selling is the last thing this country needs right now. I believe with every advancement comes a setback. The internet and email show the great progress this world has made, but it is impossible for it to come without a negative aspect, and this just happens to be it.

Just a Speculation?

While talking to my dad a couple days ago, he brought up how much the stock market has dropped from Tuesday (when Obama was elected president) to Thursday. My dad thought it could have possibly been because Obama’s economic plans don’t favor big businesses. Investors know this, and if they think the businesses will falter because of this, they will sell their stocks. I wondered if this was the real reason why the stock market’s 1,000 point crash, the worst in a two day period since 1987, happened. I found a very interesting article that discussed speculations of the stock market’s crash linked to Obama. The article gives quotes and video clippings of people discussing their beliefs that the stock market crash is directly linked to Obama. One quote, from Fred Barnes, summarized my dad’s feeling exactly, “We have seen the stock market go down over 800 points the last two days. There is great uncertainty out there about [Obama’s] policies.” The validity of this statement was exactly what I was wondering. But the last paragraph of the article answered my question. It said that “the recent market plunge has absolutely nothing to do with Obama”. It used New York Times as support, “There were no clear catalysts that spurred the sell-off”. I was pleased to read this, because I was excited and happy to see Obama elected president. I thought it was interesting how Obama is already being the scapegoat for issues in our nation, though he isn’t even the president yet. This event made me wonder if it is foreshadowing how critics and news reporters will treat Obama in the four years to come.

True Promises?

Tonight at the dinner table, the topic of discussion was appropriately the election, seeing how America voted for a new president today. I was asking who my parents voted for and why they chose that candidate, which led to the topic of candidates positions on certain issues. After talking about Obama’s and McCain’s position on certain issues, I asked my parents how realistic they thought these plans were. My dad made a very interesting point about how he thinks that many of the tax and economic plans will get “watered down” because of the checks and balances that take place in our government. He thought that any plan would be leveled out because of the fairly even split in Congress. I thought it was interesting how closely related this comment was to what we have been discussing in class the past week. Last week we went over the Constitution of the United States, and discussed the checks and balances in the United States. For a bill to pass, it must receive 2/3 the vote in both houses. If a bill favors one party’s ideas more than another, it would be hard for the bill to get passed. This is why the bills would have to get “watered down” in order to be put in effect. Both my parents thought that their economic and tax plans were very idealistic because the bill they proposed would be modified and redrafted in order to get passed through congress. The chance that the final bill will be similar to what they propose is very slim. Overall, I thought it was interesting how much my dinner conversation related to what we’ve been discussing in class.

Is a 'Guarantee' Really Guaranteed?

While I was on my home page, I saw a headline that said, “McCain ‘guarantees’ Election Day victory in close race”. The first thought that came to my head was how optimistic that statement was. Being curious, I clicked on the link, and it brought me to the article. During Sundays interview with “Meet the Press” on NBC, McCain discussed his chances of winning the presidential race, which has become surprisingly close after Obama’s 12 point lead as late as Thursday. McCain said that “We’re going to do well in this campaign…we’re going to win it, and it’s going to be tight”. His headlining, and most optimistic quote, thought, was that McCain can “guarantee” a win on November 4th (Election Day). I was stunned by how bold and idealistic these statements were. Polls have showed that McCain has decreased his deficit to 5 points, a major change from Thursday’s polls, which showed him 12 percentage points behind. This gaining ground is thought to be due from McCain’s focus on the economy recently. Nonetheless, the polls still show that McCain is LOOSING! I believe he is in no position to discuss how he will win what he believes to be a close presidential race. Personally, I think he should focus on making the polls a little closer before he brags about how is believes he is going to win. I also wonder how McCain’s supporters feel after McCain has “guaranteed” them a victory. And will they would feel lied to if McCain ends up losing the presidential race. Although it’s good to be optimistic and have dreams, sometimes you have to know what dreams to keep to yourself, that way you won’t be letting so many people down if you fail to fulfill your dreams.

Who is More Realistic?

While surfing the internet today, I found an interesting article on the Washington Post’s website. It is a little outdated, but nonetheless interesting. The title caught my eye immediately; Who’s More Realistic: McCain or Obama? The article combines ideas of last unit’s topic of perilous times and our new unit of dreams and realities. As I began reading the article, I expected the author’s thesis right away. He had an interesting style where he discussed both candidates views on domestic policy, then finally said who he thought was more realistic. His answer was Obama, who he thought was correct when he stated that we lived in peaceful times, contradicting McCain’s views of the direct opposite. I thought this was surprising after reading both candidates thoughts on domestic policy. McCain, who thinks that we live in a dangerous world, and we have to aggressively use our power in this type of environment. Obama, who contradicted McCain with his view that the world is less dangerous than it was during the Cold War. Personally, from the invasion of Georgia over the summer to nuclear missiles, I believe the world is very dangerous. Therefore, I think McCain is more realistic on terms of foreign policy. One thing Obama said, though, I thought was very interesting; that the United States needs to stay calm. He believes that when fear spreads (connects to perilous times), we have a tendency to overreact, and cause new problems. Obama uses Iraq as a specific example of the U.S. overreacting to a situation, causing a costly and unnecessary invasion. The author of the article later gives more examples of this, while backing Obama’s claim. One of the examples, which I thought was comical and interesting, was how “the paranoia of communism helped fuel McCarthyism” because without the fear of the people, McCarthy never would have been trusted on all his accusations of communisms in the U.S. Overall, I thought this article had a nice link between last units topic and our new topic, and connected them very well.

New Response, Different Outcome? We'll Just Have to Wait and See

While I was surfing the internet, I found an interesting article on the New York Times website. The article talks about the challenge Elkhart, a small town in Indiana, is facing because of the economic situation. A large percentage of the residents in the area have been laid off their jobs in the past year. I thought it was interesting to see how much the town has been affected by the unusually large percentage of unemployed citizens. Banks are foreclosing peoples’ houses because they aren’t able to pay their payments anymore. The town has even passed a law saying each house could have one garage sale a month because that is the only source of some people’s income. The rise of unemployment has changed the balance of life in the area. City services are on the decline and the crime rate is rising rapidly. With people desperate for money, it seems like they will go to any length to get it. In the past 2 weeks, there have been 9 armed robberies on convenience stores. This stat is alarming and scary because Elkhart is the guinea pig town of the U.S., and this same situation could be seen in other towns across the country in future years. To summarize the situation this town has been facing, a company still in business is bigger news than a company that went bankrupt. This can be tied to a lot of situations we have discussed in class. This time period is linked to the great depression by many people, as it should because of how many similar situations have happened in the past month. The garage sale is very similar to when people would sell apples on the streets during the great depression. When the working class would lose their job, they would make money any way they could. Back then, it was selling apples, and now it’s apparently garage sales. I thought it was interesting to see the difference in authority’s response to the garage sales now to what they thought of selling apples during the Great Depression. Back then, the government was clueless about what was going on in the country, and they encouraged selling apples. Today, they look down upon this secondary way of making money during times of peril, and limit the amount one can do it. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this time now that they have handled the issue differently.

A Repeat?

While I was surfing the internet tonight, I found a very interesting article from the New York Times. The past week I have noticed how gas prices have been dropping and I have been very curious why that is. When I was scanning the home page of the Times website, one of the headlines was Oil Prices Fall Below $90 a Barrel. I even though gas and oil prices aren’t directly related, generally when one goes down, so does the other. My curiosity made me open the article and what I read was very interesting. The reason for the low oil prices was because of the economic slowdown. With the bad economy, buyers are being more cautious of their money spending, causing the demand for oil to go down. Only 2 months ago oil prices were at a record high or $147.27 a barrel, and analysts had predicted it only to keep going up. It’s interesting that a drop in prices is happening right now, because oil industries are still recovering from hurricane Ike. Experts say if the damage from the hurricane had happened in a time of economic boom, the prices would have sky rocketed. But as long as the demand stays low, so will the prices.
The past week in class, the topic has been the great depression. We made a web of why the great depression was started, and one of the branches was not as large of a demand in goods. After the stock markets crashed, people became more cautious of how they spent money. This caused less of a demand for products, putting many companies out of business. This is similar why oil prices have dropped recently. After the stock market fell the most points since the great depression, many people became cautious of their money. This has flattened out the demand for oil, forcing oil companies to lower the price. I thought it was interesting, and kind of scary to see the connection between the start of the great depression and now; after the stock market drops significantly, people become cautious with their money and the demand for consumer goods drops too. It will be interesting to see how this affects other companies.

Is This Really a Good Arguement?

I chose an editorial piece from September 25 in the Chicago Tribune. The author argues that the law Mayor Daley is putting into effect around Wrigley Field saying that bars can’t sell alcohol past the 7th inning isn’t a good law. The law would just be enforced during the playoffs and is optional for the bars. But the editorial states, “Those who don't go along with the "voluntary" cutoff might have a little trouble when it's time to renew their liquor licenses, Daley hints”, implying that it isn’t optional. Although alcohol sales would be allowed again once the game ended, the author still disagrees with the law. He states that the reason why a fan would watch a game from a bar stand instead of inside the field is because that way they can but alcohol after the 7th inning. The author used many different strategies to argue his point. A few that stuck out to me, though, was his target of audience, use of ethos, and use of logos. The audience is obviously supposed to be Chicago natives or cubs fans, because he says, “Cubs fans have waited 100 years for a World Series title. Come October, they’re going to need a beer to celebrate”. This targets the Cubs fans because it uses emotion (pathos) to make them agree that once they win, they should be allowed to celebrate with alcohol. Other fans from other cities wouldn’t know the pain cubs fans have endured in recent years and the excitement taking place this year. The author also uses ethos, which is apparent when he states both sides of the argument. Although the author is against the new law by the mayor, he still uses statements like, “We understand where the mayor is coming from” to create a sense of trust with the reader. The last tool the author uses is logos; in the beginning of the editorial, the side the author is taking is a little unclear. He doesn’t use a clean cut thesis in the beginning, and starts the editorial being able to go either way on the issue. As the piece goes on, his argument becomes clearer and clearer, then, at the end where he clearly states, “they’re going to need a beer to celebrate…they shouldn’t have to leave Wrigleyville to find one”. This makes the claim very plausible because nothing is too farfetched. He gains your trust in the beginning by not choosing an immediate side, and then brings you in with his thesis at the end. I thought this was a very well written editorial.

What is the Correct Response?

While on my home page today, I saw an interesting article from the New York Times. It reminded me of the driving question of the unit we’re currently studying: How does someone deal with perilous times? This article is about the hotel bombings that took place yesterday in Pakistan. At the time of the article, the death toll was at 53, but expected to rise because there are still people who are unaccounted for. This is obviously a perilous time in Pakistan because the bombing spreads fear through the Pakistani people of future attacks. The attacks are thought to be an attack on the new democratic government. It will be interesting how Asif Ali Zardari, the new president of Pakistan responds to these attacks and leads his nation through this period of perilous times. One of the tough decisions he faces is he has promised to continue fighting militants, but it is believed that when you do this, they retaliate by bombing civilians, as seen in the attack yesterday. But if he lets the attacks go unnoticed, he will almost certainly be criticized. Another decision Zardari has to be careful with is how similar he makes the Pakistan democracy to the American because of the strong Pakistan opposition to American policies. This could be a deciding factor in the amount of support he receives from the people of his country.
This relates to our new unit because the driving question is: How does someone deal with perilous times? We are looking at real examples of when this happened with the Puritans. That wasn’t the only example of how people deal with perilous times, though. There was 9/11 when all of the USA looked to President Bush to lead us through that period of fear and suspicion. It has been seen countless other times in the world, but each time the group of people responds a little differently. I believe the question is still looking to be answered, though: what is the perfect way to deal with perilous times?

How Can One Be So Opinioinated?

With the presidential race running at full strength, you hear political arguments and opinions constantly. This makes me wonder, how can someone be so supportive of one candidate or party? It seems impossible that a person can agree with every aspect of one presidential candidate and disagree with every view of the opposite party. This makes me wonder, do people know each candidate’s position on every topic and just choose to ignore the views of topics they agree with of the candidate’s they don’t support and vice versa. Or if it’s just the fact they don’t know all the positions that the candidate they support takes. If that’s the case, everything comes down to how much you know about the topic. You could completely agree with the main positions a candidate stands on an issue, but completely disagree with their position on some of the less popular issues, which may be important to you. Therefore, because you know a little about the candidate, you would support him because of the position he takes on the bigger issues, even though you disagree with the candidate’s position on the smaller, but more meaningful to you issues.
While attempting to come up with ideas for my in class essay I wrote on Wednesday, I started to think; in order for a reader to assess the truth of a narrative, they need to know a decent amount of information about what the narrative is about. If you are reading about a topic you are clueless on, then you won’t know what the author is writing about is true or not. Therefore, your whole perception on the issue that the narrative is about could be based solely off whether or not you knew about the issue.
These two topics connect because whether your view is on a presidential candidate or how truthful a narrative is, it is all based off your knowledge of the topic you’re judging.

lawlerlogan.blogspot.com

first post