Year End Post

There are three tenets, as I see it, to every blog post that I write. I have developed them over the year, and at this time they are still a work in progress, just like I am, and this post itself will attempt to describe this.

I hope that kids in the class next year can also see this end of the year post as a somewhat guide to blogging, from the eyes of an amateur himself.

The three tenets are:
I - Assume nothing; nothing about who you are writing too, link all of the warrants you use, etc.
II - Have empathy; make sure that every sentence you write is understandable, and that the overall point is communicated effectively.
III - Further the discussion - a lot of blog posts focus on articles that people have read, or things that happen to them, without extending a point and adding something unique, and in every blog post, you should strive to add something to the ongoing academic conversation.

I have had most trouble with the first one.

Assuming nothing is extremely difficult, because an individual's writing is influenced by so many things. I have taken courses in philosophy, psychology, sociology, I have researched countless wars, social events and revolutions, and I have delved deep into studies of formal science and mathematics, but the communication of these lessons is the only thing that matters.

So how do you effectively communicate a lesson that you have learned to someone that has not?

My way of doing this focuses on setting the stage for the reader to understand how I get from point A to point B, I try not to imply anything. In my May 6th blog post, Global Local, I address the issue of class from the perspective of someone who is upper class. I try to communicate using "data from the New York Times" and corroborating that with information from my own families income to provide an example of how the New York Times might get the statistics that they do.

Another way in which I have tried to do this, is by stating a point at the beginning of the blog post, and then proving that in somewhat the way I am doing right now. In my most recent post, Extremism, Nuanced?, I state that the purpose of the post is to explain the extreme nature of the G.O.P. and then provide my evidence in subsequent sections.

These are ways that I have attempted to assume nothing of my reader, and of myself, and I have drastically improved in that regard.

I started the SEMESTER off with a sentence such as "the structural bondage of racism that forced her hand in negligence towards the fact that slave labor was used in it's creation. " and I can tell you that it really did not mean anything in the end (Used in Plausible Deniability).

In the regard of assuming nothing, I have then assumed less and less every post.

Having empathy is also quite challenging, yet it is easier, and quicker to explain, as all that is required is that you make sure that anyone can understand your writing.

You must make conclusions for your reader, and then leave them with a spark to conclude on their own. Try to make sentences short. Real short.

And don't overflow them with evidence - the above paragraphs prove the point enough that organization and connected arguments make a readable post.

The last tenet is somewhat arbitrary, as it definitely depends on the person, but for the subjects of our class, a focus on Class, Race, War, and American themes alike is probably a comfortable area to stay.

Instead of simply citing a source, you need to explain it and talk about what it means to you, do not assume that the reader will do any legwork, because they won't, they will simply get bored.

Along with this, you simply cannot, CANNOT, quote something and not explain the quote. Whether you are making a point, or explaining how ludicrous something is, you must explain WHY that is, or HOW it works.

I have grown this year to learn these things, and will keep them with me as I further my blogging development this summer and in years to come,

May the force be with you, all ye who dare to take AIS,

Jon S.

Extremism: Nuanced?

Allen West accusing democrats of communism.

The subject of this post is the extremism of the GOP. Why a single party holds more than its share of the blame for our current political stagnation. This post will hopefully deal with the claim that the radical positions of politicians are shared equally between parties, and explain the history behind why all of this became true.

We have been discussing historical nuance in class recently and an article that was sent to me by my father got me thinking about a comment that Mr. Bolos made one day. He said that the current state of congress is nothing new, and that there has only once truly been a time of compromise. After reading this article, though, I believe that even though times may not have always been good, they are currently the worst.

According to political analysts Thomas Mann and Norman Orstein, "extreme remarks" and "totalizing ideologies" have become commonplace on the congressional floor because the GOP has capsized in a sea of deceit. These remarks cover issues from the dismissal of scientific evidence for religious reasons, accusations of democratic members of congress as communists, and allow for the polarization of the once the great floors of this nations capital. (The times when Tip O'Neill could go to the White House and drink with Ronald Reagan eventually getting a compromise are two have most definitely ended)

Many assume that both parties are to blame for this rush to ideological certitude, and that things such as the stress of the economic downturn as well as an upcoming election underpin the rising blood pressure of many constituencies, yet this is not the case. In another article by columnist David Frum of CNN, the reason that this is no longer the case is corroborated. Because of the increasing anger of the population, and a rush to certainty, the more pragmatic, "moderate" republicans have virtually become extinct. This is not so in the democratic party.

There are a few specific instances of this that collaborate the point. The first two main factors influencing Republican extremism are historical. Influencing the actual composition of the House of Representatives and starting in 1979 was a push by Newt Gingrich to regain a republican majority. In order to accomplish this goal, he bombarded the democratic party with negative criticism and blanket claims about the futile nature of government, and when he finally achieved his goal and became the speaker of the house, the next factor took effect.

The downfall to this movement, as outlined in the Mann and Orstein article, was the creation of an ideologically "pure" group that came to be known as the tea party, which has now been given some control of congress.

In 1985, the "Americans for Tax Reform" group was started by Grover Norquist, and released a document that would forever control the decisions of republican congressmen. The "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" makes it so that any signer can never support an increase in taxation, and 238/242 Republican congressmen have signed it.

These two things have made it impossible for Democrats to negotiate with Republicans. When something that is so key to this nations well being, revenue, is taken off of the table, so many doors are shut, and extremist comments are made in order to cover up the lie that there really is not an equal amount of extremism in both parties.

The truth about this issue is that, while there is a historical nuance to how the parties have changed, overwhelming support, both historically, and by forefront political analysts show that Republicans have held up congress, stopping the passage of any kind of important legislation.

This post hopefully educated many as to this issue in congress, and through that education, hopefully disillusioned the story the the G.O.P. has for so long been telling.

Compromise is necessary, this is a pragmatic post, I am not furthering the views of either group, just trying to point out the root of the failings of both. And that root is the G.O.P.

I would love to hear if anyone has anything to add to this, but as the year is ending, you will have to comment over the summer! Lets keep these blogs up and running!

Will Gay Marriage Decide the Presidency?

Hey y'all - The other day I was one of the many Americans to take a sigh of relief at the comment that President Obama made in affirmation of gay marriage.

In an interview with ABC reporter, Robin Roberts, Obama made a sharp political move emphasizing that he believes "same-sex couples should be able to get married." (A transcript of the interview can be found here.)

This is a sharp change from Obama's campaign wherein he made statements such as "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman" or "I am not in favor of gay marriage" that seemed to point to a complete opposition of the right that he now affirms.

This change from defining marriage as between a man and a woman, to saying that same-sex couples should be able to marry is definitely a "flip-flop" on Obama's held positions, but I myself cannot say that I disagree with his "new found" position.

Differing from the viewpoints of the President, Republican nominee and presidential candidate Mitt Romney, in a speech at Liberty University the other day said that he shared the values of the evangelical base in America, stating that he will adhere to the "common worldview" that "marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman".

This issue will polarize Americans as it not only touches party lines, but deeply seated religious beliefs and will test the question of whether or not, and to what extent Church and State should meld. I just hope for all of our sake that the issue is developed a bit more than a yes or no question during the up and coming debates!

Global Local

Recently in American Studies, our class has been looking at what constitutes "social class" in America.

As part of our study, we looked at a New York Times study on class which indicated four main "class indicators" which were household income, wealth, occupational prestige, and education.

What truly struck me in these studies was that to be considered "middle" class, you average household income would have to be around 40,000 $.

The reason that this statistic was so interesting is that after looking up for statistics on the average income in Illinois, and I found that the average household makes upwards of 50,000 dollars a year. This would mean that the average Illinois-ian would be considered (by the New York Times) to be "upper-middle" class. Not only that, but that the average income of a Trevian household was upwards of 100,000$. This is two times that of the average household IN ILLINOIS.

Not everyone in the New Trier area makes this much money, but it is safe to say that it is the norm, and it is starkly in opposition to what a lot of other areas are making. We are an upper class neighborhood and we have all been able to acknowledge that, yet I wonder what impact that has on the viewpoints we take in looking at class. 

Are we all doomed to the Great Gatsby "east egg" perspective? Or is it possible for us to look at the issue from a slightly more objective light?