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?

Housewives Don't Work!

For those of you who thought that the title to this piece was offensive, I am sorry, but it was meant to seem that way as it was satirical.

A few mornings ago I was reading the New York Times and came across an interesting article from the same author who had previously written about the "GOP War on Women". The article was about a comment that was made by one of Obama's strategists, Hilary Rosen, about Ann Romney.

Rosen said that Ann would not know what the average working class American woman would want because she had "never worked a day in her life".

Personally, I find this comment offensive because it assumes that a housewife (as Romney has self-described) does not work. Political satirist Steven Colbert hits on this sentiment saying that "because I have a mom, my mom" he is offended by the statement.

After digging a bit I realized the context of the statement and am a bit less surprised by Rosen's comment. She seemed to be responding somewhat logically to a question as to whether Mitt Romney asking his wife about what women want should be seen as a cute move, or a serious political blunder.

Rosen was frustrated because Romney had grouped all women as having the same wants and needs, and was begging for recognition of the fact that Romney had never before dealt with harsh economic issues, and that because of her husband's wealth, been partially shielded from the strife of the depression.

Even though this comment is truly offensive, the meaning behind it seems to have been lost.

Dr. Pepper 10

Recently I have seen commercials on TV that claim to market a product "only for men". My first reaction to this was that it could be nothing but more Viagra pills, condoms or a republican advertisement, yet I was sorely mistaken.

To call the ad for Dr. Pepper's new product sexist would be a massive understatement. Openly mocking diet soft drinks the ad calls for men to consume its "ten manly calories". In opposition to what? Feminine calories?!

This product is marketed solely to those men that would eschew a diet soda simply because they "can handle the intensity of a soda that is not". That would view losing weight as a form of submission that "only concerns women".

The ad opens up with a violent aliens movie, and implies the alienation of women with the line "this is a guys movie", and then saying that there is no possible way women could enjoy the beverage with "this is a guys drink". This is not true, and in my own personal experience every girlfriend I have ever had has been more into alien action films than I have been, but that is not the real issue.

The real issue here is that slapping a new label on a soda and hoping that more men will buy it because you say it is not for women mirrors the same kind of tactic that our "storyteller" uses in the Kentucky cycle. It attempts to derive rage by emasculating men who are insecure with the self image. This kind of advertising is hateful. It causes violence.

To say this ad is incorrect is a given, but what effect does it truly have on people? Offering the opinion of someone with not too much education on the topic, I would think that Mr. Bolos' TV tokenism project could give us a bit of insight into this issue. Does the subtle transmission of racism implicate the subtle transmission of sexism?

What do you think? Do you want to have a Dr. Pepper 10 (don't answer this question if you are a girl, because obviously your opinion does not matter...)? Why do you think Dr. Pepper decided to air this?

Kony and Psychopharmaceuticals

Today in class we had a discussion about the implications of the "Kony 2012" video, and what types of action it should necessitate.

We spent a long while talking about the appeal to the media god (I call it that because it seems as though we have become disciples of our own talking boxes) present within the video, the streamlined and sexy way that it was portrayed.

But as we abruptly finished our discussion on the topic, I was left wondering what exactly caught our attention about the video other than its aesthetic appeal.

In order to understand the phenomena of this appeal, it is important to view our motivations themselves as plots, such as Ahab's obsession with Moby Dick, or Jack Gladney's obsession with death from which he proclaims that "all plots tend to move deathward", which I take to mean as that they eventually end, sometimes in the death of the protagonist.

As the consumerist society we are, we have an obsession with satisfaction. This is evident in the rise of the psychopharmaceutical industry (the moment we feel sad we tend to gravitate towards ending it, instead of accepting the rich emotional experience that it allows), the centralization of sources of nutrition in gigantic superstores (it is too much to walk across two isles to get milk and a couch for your living room, nonetheless the village green), and in many other areas.

I believe that the most reflective of this urgent need for satisfaction is the response to the Kony video - people justify their indifference/ignorance to the true moral implications of a horrid scenario by writing it off in the form of a check, and I believe that this form of providing the necessary means, without any effort, is at the center of the American value system.

I truly wonder whether or not we could actually inspire some kind of change through any other action - it intrigues me that not more people are flying over to Uganda in order to try and create change - I wonder what kind of society this necessitates.

Powerful Labels: "GOP War on Women"

One of the themes that we have been discussing in class lately, is how types of advertising, or labeling become more powerful when more provocative words, with much more powerful connotations are used to back up their message.

One such example of this would be the labeling of a proposed Inheritance tax as the "death tax", a scheme that has been deployed by the GOP since the early 1990's as a way to scare off potential congressional reforms to the flawed tax structure.

Something that was slightly touched on, was the fact that the GOP seems to have been much more successful in the past with how they label certain projects or beliefs, and how that has effected the direction of voters support. This is not to say that Liberals cannot use powerful labels, or that they have not used them in the past, it is only to put forth the fact that the Conservative project has been much more successful.

Yet as much as this remains true today, there is a liberal project every now and again that catches peoples attention and recently I discovered one example that I think is important to share.

The "GOP War on Women" as it is has been labeled, is term used to call out Republicans on comments that are inherently anti-women's rights/progression of equality.

One such example of this rhetoric is a recent radio broadcast done by personality (if you can call him that) Rush Limbaugh, who wanted women "to post videos (of the sex they will supposedly be having) online so we (him and his purported audience) can all watch" in relation to forcing employers to cover birth control medications.

This harsh insensitivity is evident in the rhetoric of many Conservative "personalities (most emphasized in the rhetoric of men, but also evident in that of women as well... cough cough Bachmann, cough cough Palin) which they justify through a constructed lens of "family values" that they see fit to push on their supporters.

Yet this problem has an impact outside of the rhetoric that is being used solely against women; Limbaugh chooses to brand women who support the advancement of equal rights legislation as "feminazis".

This literal connection to the Nazi party, I would argue, has a societal impact as its use engenders hatred not only towards women of activism, but also towards the Jewish population, the Jewish race should no longer be forced to serve as the scapegoats of society - end the Women's rights movement - but do it for the Jews!

This relation to the fight for equality makes an uneducated and hate-filled person seem knowledgeable as they are relating something we know little about to something we fear - that is a manipulation that should be punished in some way.

Do you see any labels around you? Have you been persuaded in the past based solely on powerful (and/or hateful) rhetoric?

TV Tokenism: In Treatment

For our TV Tokenism project, we are to analyze an image. Here is mine:

And here is another I will use for contrast/comparison:

Analysis:

I believe that the thesis of TV Tokenism still holds true in "In Treatment", an HBO premium cable drama. The reason is that the way in which minority characters are used, through their allotted screen time as well as the type of character's they portray is very similar to the way in which they are portrayed in network drama's. There are a few key differences, though, that may make the phenomena a bit more intense.

First, a little background - the show revolves around a Dr. Paul Weston who runs a psychoanalytic practice out of his apartment, and through seven weeks, it chronicles up to six patients, as well as his own sessions with another psychoanalyst.

Every season so far, only one of the patients has been a minority.

Out of eighteen people so far, only three have been portrayed. This disparity in representation is a relic of the same exclusionary casting principles that we have discussed in class.

Beyond this, the minority characters, specifically the one pictured, "Alex" (portrayed by Blair Underwood) are always depicted as recovering from some horrible, life-altering event. None of the other characters are portrayed this way, as their problems stem from insecurities about body image or failed marriages.

You know, normal people stuff.

The minority characters are not as well represented, and when they are are portrayed as having "abnormal" problems that distance us from the character - I claim that this is a reproduction of the same "tokenist" values as we have talked about.

Short version:
Minority with Minority Problems
Troubled Background
Underprivileged in Contrast
Distancing from Lead

Sources:
1st: http://blog.nj.com/alltv/2008/01/large_intreat-alex.jpg
2nd: http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/20/laura.jpg

Answer to David K. Post on Acceptance Without Justificaiton

Another long comment response that could also function as a blog post I believe - read it if you are interested in the debate over constructing the free market .... everything is a construction .. and every action has a justification and a subtextual meaning

David -

First, societal focus is important. It is an integral part of combating the negatives to the human condition. To put this into context, I will supply an analogy. Killing is wrong – we all know this is true – no one person should kill another – if I have to provide warrants for this I quit. Stealing is also wrong – this is another claim I do not think I need to support much to prove true. Absent the criminal justice system, though, it would be impossible to control individual’s incentives to commit these crimes.

The same concept applies to economics. Stealing is wrong – and government regulations are in place to stop people from gaming the system.

We are the only truly industrialized country that does not provide a national healthcare service for all of its citizens. This forces regulations to be put on small businesses that crushes their revenue and makes them fail.

In France, for example, the upper classes are taxed 60 percent of their income (both capital gains and normal income taxes) and the lower classes are taxed near nothing (in fact the lowest common denominator is not taxed at all).

This progressive tax system allows for massive government investment in institutions of education and healthcare that we in the United States desperately need.

It may be easy to see the world through the rose colored glasses of privileged white males such as the cove of entitlement that is the north shore and the politics of Mitt Romney and Co. propose we do – but the education that we are provided is not indicative of that which the rest of the nation is provided.

This may seem like a tangent that does not relate but here is how it supports my argument – in the animal kingdom, the animals that survive are the fastest, the strongest, and the ones with the biggest jaw strengths. In human society however, the ones that survive are the ones with the most money.

The ones that get the most amount of money are the ones that successfully play the system.

I am not saying this is a bad thing; I myself am a free market capitalist (a Keynesian one at that) but when you get to the point that we did in 2008, when derivatives and bundled mortgages (the kind of things that are a result of uncontrolled greed) and the entire economic market fails – you need to take that as a sign that something is massively screwed up.

China is able to compete so well with the United States for two reasons – the first reason is that their government developed programs (from the massively high tax rates that they impose) protect (at the most basic level) their proletariat citizenry, and second because the companies that provide compensation for their workers are not forced to a minimum wage – they have developed a system that feeds off of our exploitation incentivized economic system.

Our founders did not warn us of mob rule - this they warned us against rules that could be instated to favor classes - this is representative of the status quo fetish with protecting the richest, maybe we need some mob rule to straighten us out (1% reference).

Second, the private sector is a machine that's only drive is to make more money - it needs to be regulated because within a world of a single incentive all other issues get thrown to the side - wages, labor rights, working conditions, hierarchies of power, political sway, all of which would be highly infringed upon in a world of solely free market as the golden rule would hold true: "Whoever has the gold, makes the rule".

Your next argument I have already addressed - the idea the free market is the only thing that allows for an increase in the standard of living is fictitious - it relies on an ignorance towards the massive changes that government programs and non-pressurized incentives have created - multiple empirical examples are outlined in the father post.

The difference between the poor and the rich is not the type of car they have; although that would be amazing if that were the case. Take a moment to stop and reflect on the flaws of that one sentence.

The problem with a lack of regulations and government programs is that the poor get exploited and go hungry – half of my own family that lives in Chicago and deals with these problems on a daily basis do not even own a refrigerator, nonetheless a car.

This is the reason that a stable basis for living needs to be established and families of poverty need to be given healthcare, access to government education programs, food programs, and all of these “leviathans” alike. Nice Hobbes reference by the way – although I think he probably supports my side of the argument.

I always find it laughable when people dismiss the New Deal and the Great Depression as the free market fixing itself – please provide a warrant for this – it is just not true.

The great depression is an empirical example of the elimination of the middle class as well as an unregulated greed that crashed the stock market. People were forced to cut their losses and move on, and the New Deal made that possible.

In the most basic sense, sure, taxes are “stealing” and “coercive” – the difference between the government doing it and individuals doing it is in the effect I guess – if you do not like it, please leave society and live on an island somewhere that you bought with the billions of dollars you stole from the middle class in bundled mortgages friend.

If the government puts it into social programs, at least the base standard of living is increased for a vast majority of people – sorry you can’t benefit, but you already have enough cash money.

Answer to Joe F.'s Comment on "Acceptance without Justification"

Note: this comment was too long to be posted as a comment so I posted it as a post - if anyone has comments please continue the stream on this post!

Joe – thank you as well for leaving such an insightful comment on my blog – I think that the dialogue that is going on is extremely important.

First, I would like to say that I am a firm believer in the capitalist system – my qualms are not with the theoretical legitimacy of the system in its purest state – for I believe that a world of anarcho-syndicalist values would probably work in a vacuum.

The problem is that this is ONLY true in a vacuum!

I will address the first part of the comment here: my argument is not that government funded projects are the only thing that creates innovation – in fact I am only making the argument that a stable flow of government funding to programs that incentivize research programs is beneficial to the innovation that you two are discussing.

You can be correct about all of the things that you discussed – the creation of different fuel/power sources, but it skirts the core issue that the basic technology that enabled the spin-offs that you are talking about were all a result of focused government programs that used national interests in order to speed up the development of an efficient technology.

This is just a warrant as to why government projects and investments are essential to the joys that we take for granted every day; namely the internet which was created in a government project.

Now I will address a point that keeps coming up (stay with me for the second part of your comment because I feel this is a good point to explain my views on the whole “transaction” business).

You are correct about this; in a perfect transaction, everyone benefits.

Yet you, along with everyone else that defends this ideology, blissfully ignore the systemic flaws in the system of transactions that is the prerogative of those with resources to “game” the system.

This perfect mathematical system of transactions goes very well until one of the following things happens: Theft, Opportunism, Failure of Regulations, Lack of Regulations, Off-Balance of Supply and Demand.

Any of those above problems, along with a large other number of issues leads to the economic disparity that the Occupy movements have been criticizing.

What I keep saying about the rich getting richer and the poor getting pushed through the gutter is true – sure in 1900 the average person would have been in horrible poverty if they were to be alive today, but the income disparities of the 1900’s were much less than they are today.

I feel as though I have just answered your third paragraph by accident, but it is sufficient because at the end of your comment you come to similar conclusions as I do.

Keynesian economics is more predictive of human nature and greed than is Friedman economics – this is a fact, and the most basic difference between the two. 

I will defend until the day I die that most people, when left to their devices, will take as much advantage as possible of the things they can – some people are smarter than others and have that ability at an unbalanced level – this is what the purpose of government regulations are.

The status quo is a trap for the poor. It must end – this is the thesis of my argument and I see no alternative to this approach.

Other than just writing off government approaches as coercion… but that seems intellectually dishonest and lazy to me.

Acceptance without Justification

Hey all - 

The other day in class we were having a discussion about how investor confidence in the public sphere is key to developing new technologies and advancing civilization, and one of my classmates proposed that, in general, the capitalist system fuels incentives necessary to improve society by rewarding investors socioeconomic stability and the capital necessary to live a luxurious life.

 

It is this promise that would theoretically spur ingenuity and creativity.

 

He is not the only one that believes this to be true, policy analyst Josiah Neeley of the Texas Public Policy Foundation (a conservative think take in Austin, Texas) concludes “technological advances have been driven by private investment, not by government fiat”. *

 

Yet there is another side to this story that I personally find much more persuasive – it is presented by Robert Jensen (a journalist also from Texas) in his article that is cited above.

 

The argument starts with questioning exactly what advances have been made solely through private investments, I shall present two: Thomas Edison’s Light Bulb and the Wright Brother’s Airplanes.

 

The interesting thing about this is that both were a product of government projects; they required basic interchangeable magnetic conductors that were created by the military in order to increase the efficiency of weapons for battle.

 

The article and the argument present multiple other examples including the iPhone and the plow – but the truly interesting thing about this article is its implications for how people take in information about the system of economics that we live under.

 

I would not have known that all of these things were a result of government action if I had not read the article I found doing debate work – I wonder, was anyone reading this post already privy to this information?

 

If not, then I believe that it is indicative of a silent acceptance of the capitalist system – we talked a bit about this in class but did not go too in-depth because of time management issues we have quite frequently.

 

We accept the inevitability of a system that pushes the poor through the gutter and allows the rich to get infinitely richer while denying the government’s ability to regulate and control that expansion, we view taxes as an infringement of our basic rights when they are only there to protect us. 

 

This article, and the conundrum it represents are a call to awareness for the cyclical nature of the system that we live in.

 

Are we silently accepting of our own system of governance? What can we do to increase our understandings of why things are this way?

 

*(Taken from “Conservative Fantasies about the Miracles of the Market” - @ http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/23-7#.Tx7Xt6xxHZk.facebook)

To Respond to a Post - Paddy AIS On Capital Gains

I think that his post was very well constructed and had a lot of good information that portrayed both sides in a very good light. My post is going to focus solely on the third paragraph of his post because it is the one that I find the most incorrect myself (obviously he was portraying the arguments of the other side, but I feel as though I should challenge a few of his justifications).

I will start off with why investments seem as though they are more favorable. Warren Buffet has many times made the claim that investments are attractive because of the lack of work needed to maintain them. You do not need to work eight hours a day to make investments, you can simply allow the company that manages your investments (that is if you are wealthy enough to have a portfolio) do the work for you. This is a reason why the argument that a tax on profits hurting the economy is somewhat nonsensical. People make investments because it is EXTRA income that they can yield from the money they have already made. No matter what the amount of that extra income, as Buffet says, no large effect will be seen on the incentive value.

The next argument I have a problem with is your analysis of the McBride article. I read the article, and I feel as though he concludes the opposite of what you are saying. Taxes on capital gains had stayed the same for ten years as the "business cycle" remained on its ever present loop. This is evidence that this economy will fluctuate with or without the "extra" taxes.

I think that the most logical conclusion here would be to lower income taxes for those that do not make enough to qualify as "middle class" and to increase capital gains taxes for those who make more than a million dollars a year to fifty percent of the "profit". This was proposed by Barney Frank in 2007 as a measure to stop the dip that was starting to occur. A lot of blame is put on Frank for this measure, but it was voted down by a 62 senator majority and never left the senate.

It was in the loo of this policy that the downturn was allowed to occur.

This seems to me to be the most reasonable.

Please post responses to any part of this post because I would be interested to see what people think, and to contest the way they justify it, as I think that any discussion such as this should be a debate, and not a one sided monologue - use studies and facts though please.

Plausible Deniability

For the past few days in class, we have analyzed a poem by poet laureate Robert Pinsky entitled "Shirt", which evokes strong historical grounding in explanation of how a piece of clothing, specifically a shirt that Robert Pinsky is supposedly wearing, could have become what it is. 

A specific stanza within the poem makes a reference to a decedent of George Herbert, a famous poet from the Seventeenth century, named "Irma" who is a "black lady in South Carolina" and we did not have time to analyze it.

The reason this stanza was especially interesting to me was a contrast that it had with the previous few lines. They recalled a slave woman "sweating at her machine" sorting the cotton that would eventually be used to make clothing or furniture or something that cotton eventually becomes. You can immediately make the connection between the slave woman and "Irma" because the slave women were black and Irma is described as being a black woman who lives in South Carolina, a state which was riddled with slave labor prior to the Civil war. 

With this connection the author is trying to show us that at every stage of development of the shirt, the connotation of slavery and the practice of racism and prejudice drive its creation. You cannot help imagining that Irma's own ancestors were the ones that picked the cotton for the shirt that she "inspected" and in Pinsky's explanation that the shirt "satisfied" Irma he connotes that she was helpless in the structural bondage of racism that forced her hand in negligence towards the fact that slave labor was used in it's creation. 

Thus with a few words, Pinsky is able to weave together an entire history of racism and prejudice that are hidden behind the veils of plausible deniability.

The last small connotation that this stanza holds is debated over. Whether the mention of George Herbert's name is a connection to a poem he wrote in 1633 entitled "The Collar" (see, because it is the Collar of a shirt) or whether Irma could actually be a descendent of Herbert because of the muddled history of Racism, Slavery and Rape that is evident throughout history opening up the possibility for her name to actually be "Irma Herbert".

For some reason this stanza stood out to me, what part of the poem stood out to you?

MEGA Meta Post

As we become prey to the stress that finals bring, it is important part of studying to analyze the changes that we have gone through during the past semester, as it can point to a focus for improving in the coming one. In this post I shall focus on how my writing style, as well as analysis of events, has changed over my blog posts.

While I have improved on my analysis of evidence over the semester, I have also allowed myself to become lazy. The concept that regularly escapes me is that of selection; I trouble myself with dense, sometimes philosophical explanations for things when very little is needed. The goal that I have outlined for myself the second semester is to make my points with the smallest amount language necessary to make it effective, and I will accomplish this through a system of revisions I will outline later.

In my first blog post, I made an attempt at analyzing a short video about biological science, and I barely scratched the surface of its sub-textual meaning. My only analysis of the video itself was that it "came as a surprise to me". To start, the word "surprise" has really no meaning in regards of the article and expresses no opinion towards its contents. Thus the "analysis" is missing, and all I have presented is a reaction. This is totally devoid of any sympathy for the reader as I am relying on them to come up with the analysis for me. This is unfair to them, as my job as the writer is to clear up key issues for the reader.

Around my fifth blog post, we had started to talk explicitly about storytelling in class, and that prompted me to start to piece together, slowly but surely, different pieces of the metaphorical puzzle. In my sixth blog post about the play that our class had the pleasure of seeing, Clybourne park, I was intrigued as to the name appearing in the surrounding area as a street. I wrote a short paragraph of analysis that dug a little bit deeper than my earlier surprise and is the first time that I show real progress in the evolution of my posts.

Yet, with the ability to effectively analyze, comes a sense of over-confidence (or at least for me it seams to have) as I started to stray from the analysis of texts and started to spew intellectual psychobabble. This is most evident in my post "Global Suicide" in which I re-explain the philosophy behind an article indicting anthropocentric ideals. What exactly this article said does not truly matter, the only thing that needs to be known  is that it was deeply philosophical and that I was unable to escape that realm when writing my post.

Blog posts should be short, concise, to the point, and interesting - that last post did not meet any of those requirements and was what truly made me start to become aware of my own writing in this regard.

So, how can I begin to work on these challenges?

My main goal is clarity. That means, for me, that I must map out very carefully the points that I want to make before making them, as in my own case, on the spot writing is always a conscious stream, verbose and intellectual as though I am letting all of my thoughts spill onto paper. This has no sympathy for the reader and will ultimately hurt me.

As this post is about concision of though I will sum up what I have said here and then be done:

1) My past blog posts have gone from under-analyzed, to okay-analyzed, back to under-analyzed, while I thought that they were always improving.

2) This deprives my writing of crucial sympathy for the reader and makes it seem as though it is a written stream of thought and not well-thought out writing.

3) The way in which I can start to work on this is by being aware of why I am writing something every moment I am writing it, and to stop myself and reflect if I become unintelligible. It is all about clarity for me.

As this post is partly about concision of thought, I will stop here as I have presented my arguments,
thanks for reading!

Indifference

This morning, as the frigid air that surrounds our American Studies class crept in through the cracks in the windows (seemingly from the very fibers of the walls that enclosed us), I was reintroduced to the piece "Those Winter Sundays" by Robert Hayden, as well as the interview of Bill Jones over his choice of "Winterreise" as his personal favorite Christmas song.

Throughout the discussion, and even afterwards as I passed the time among dodge balls and friends, I was focused on a single concept that had been slightly touched upon, but for myself it had not been enough.

In the tenth line of Hayden's poem, he describes a way of talking to his father as "indifferent", literally to have no interest or sympathy at all! As in Jones' piece, despite his feeling of extremely intense devotion and love for his father he cannot remember whether or not within their time together he afforded his father any sort of thanks.

Thus the conundrum: how can two people who profess such deep love for the person that sacrificed such a large portion of their life for them feel "indifferent", when the very notion of acknowledging that sacrifice is brought into question?

What is it, in other words, that makes them unable to utter their true feelings?

Of my own belief, I think that it is a sense of duty that has been passed down between generations to keep your feelings to yourself as they alone are part of the definition of vulnerability.

Vulnerability is to be avoided at all costs. Or at least that is what I am getting from the piece, I am interested to see if anyone has any alternative views on this question as this is a very interesting piece of writing we have here.

The Key to Keynes: Why Reagonomics Will Always Fail Pt. 1

It is about time I did a series, and what better a topic to analyze than the one that is on everybody's mind nowadays; the economy. The very URL to this site gives a hint to my personal opinion about the best form for a National/International economy as it includes the name Keynes; I think it is time that I justified exactly why I included that as part of the title.

Blog posts do not come out of thin air, and the prompting for this specific post was some malcontent that I had towards news that the stock market closed very near to its starting point a year later at the end of 2011. This may not seem like a large development to those who do not watch the market clearly, but it is an indication that the very progress that so many Americans are holding dear to their hearts is just not happening.

What I will try to prove in this series of blog posts is that in a world in which the rich are allowed to eat the poor, money will never trickle down. Thus the anarchical capitalist monolith cannot self sustain without regulation.

By regulation, I mean a strong government hand that will make sure that profit never overcomes hunger - that people's own greed never causes a person enough hardship to not be able to have enough money to feed her own family.

The rich eat the poor when they are allowed to. The current fiscal catastrophe is a testament to this very fact, and exactly what the ninety-nine percent occupy rallies are protesting. To provide some statistics, in the past five years, the income of the top one percent of America has increased by two hundred thousand dollars a year, to near two million dollars of NET income per year. This is contrasted with the decrease in net income of an average person that is considered under the poverty line being two thousand dollars.

In these harsh economic times, the rich are allowing themselves to get richer and the poor are being forced through the gutter, so to speak.

In the next part of this series I will provide a few more statistics to describe our current economic times, as well as delve into the flaws of the system, and how an alternate economic state could benefit all aspects of society.

Could We Have Done More?

The year 2011 is over. With it brings ceremonial celebrations, very merry holidays, and for some just a bit too much to drink. But what is the true significance of the New Year?

For many, there is no significance, the coming of yet another year is but a regular occurrence that allows for a measurement of the past. Though, for others, the New Year brings with it a seemingly lost sense of hope. It invigorates you to get off of the couch and use that membership that was bought for you over the holidays at the local gym. Yet it sometimes seems odd to me that the with the acknowledgment that we have entered into a new era, we actively try to rid ourselves of the past.

I would be remiss to think that energy that comes with the clock ticking January the first, comes a much more depressing theme in American life. We allow so easily a new year to come because we are actively trying to forget the past. People who are overweight use it as a motivation to lose those extra twenty or so pounds, people who did not do so well in school use it as a motivation to study for their finals (trust me, this one I have experienced personally), but to what end? At the end of this wonderful new opportunity, when the horizon is about to set once again on the New Year, the same people are asking for exactly the same thing!

So, here is an open ended question, what more could we have done in the past year? If we allow the New Year not to be a time in which we try to FORGET, but as a time to REFLECT, then maybe we will no longer have anything to REGRET.

A way in which people do this, a way in which they forget, is by turning all of their troubles into resolutions, a list of tasks that they wish to complete in the new year, a way of changing themselves.

It seems almost quintessentially American to do this, I myself have done it every year, yet as I expand my frame of reference it seems as though no other countries do it. Through having asked my friend from other countries, they in fact practice another ritual all together.

Jonaas, a friend of mine from Austria, sent me a letter which had only one question on it; he has quite the dramatic flare.

The question that he put on there was one that has been asked to him every year on New Years eve for all of his years. It was this: in the past year, what do you regret having done, how will you make sure that it does not happen again in the coming year?

Instead of making a resolution, he uses the past to better form his future. Is it then an American value to try and cover up the past and promise to the future that it would not happen again, only to find out that your promise cannot be fulfilled?