For this assignment we were supposed to bid on an item on the auction site, Ebay. Ebay as it turns out, is a very true to life example of how capitalism in America works. On Ebay, just like in real life, a rise in demand causes prices to increase on a given item. The more interesting part of Ebay, is its significance as a free market where the sellers compete to have the lowest price in order to sell their item more successfully than their competition. Often times Ebay was not realistic because people would pay more for an item that they thought might be a safer bet when making a purchase on the Internet. An example of this, would be sneakers. Auctions that had more photos and information posted about the item generally would have a higher starting price and final cost to the highest bidder. The reason that this is not realistic, is because the same exact item can be priced differently simply because the seller chose to put it at a higher price, but the item is no better or no worse. The catch with Ebay being a free market auction site, is that the lowest price does not always mean that you get the same item. Items that may have been selling for $350 with one person, brand new, may be sold by another for $70, brand new. The catch, is that the item for $70 may be a knock off of the original and not of the same quality.
The item that I bid on was a pair of Jordan "Grape" V sneakers. When I found the auction their was one day left and it was priced at $175, plus $15 for shipping ($190 total). The problem that i had, was that I was working the next day and would not be around a computer to bid before the auction was up. In order to be able to purchase the sneakers, I used the program J- Bid Watcher which bid on the item for me a few seconds before the auction ended. Although nobody had bid on the item, I put my maximum bid amount at 190 just in case of a last minute bid. When i returned home from work late that night, i found that i had won the item at the price I had last seen, $175, $190 total. To pay for it, I used my paypal account which had my chase credit/debit card registered for quick purchasing. Pay- pal is what I always use and always will use on Ebay, because it makes fraud and being cheated out of money nearly impossible, which to me is why I don't have real worries when I am bidding on Ebay.
If you are bidding on Ebay, it is important to know what to look for on an auction page. On an item such as sneakers, look to see if the seller writes, explicitly that the item is 100% authentic. If the auction looks a bit sketchy, look at the sellers feedback to see if people are content with purchasing from this seller. Any negative feedback should make you question the authenticity of the seller, and maybe reconsidering buying an item from this seller would be a good option.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Constitution Assignment: Part C
What does Amendment 11 indicate about the relative power of the federal government versus state governments (a question which 65 years later led to the US Civil War)?
The eleventh amendment was designed to prevent residents of a state from taking another state to federal court. This amendment on "Judicial Limits" was ratified in 1795, 65 years before the civil war began. It has significance as distinguishing the difference in how state courts can interact with another, and how federal courts can interact with state courts. Due to this amendment, state courts cannot hear lawsuits against their state brought on by residents of another. It went further to prevent residents of a state from bringing charges against their own state to the federal court. Since the civil war was about succession, that would mean one state suing another for independence from the rest. I think that the eleventh amendment was put in place in order to prevent this sort of thing from happening, where states would sue one another, using a person to file charges and circumvent the amendment. I can see how this would have deeply impacted the issue of slavery at this time. While the country was deeply divided between those for slavery, and abolitionists, the eleventh amendment had never been more significant. Slaves who escaped the south, and in free states sued for their freedom would find that they could not, as a parson could not sue the state in federal court. Even whites, who challenged the laws of slave states and free states, found that the same laws applied to them, and the eleventh amendment made it impossible for say, Virginia to challenge Massachusetts (or vice versa).
Does the 14th amendment combine with the earlier "no religious test" clause to guarantee a vision of a diverse and equitable society with no government discrimination?
The 14th amendment is interesting, because part of it describes what article one says about how representation in the congress is distributed. If we look at that, it is done in a way which ensures a diverse congress, through every state being represented in it. This doesn't guarantee ethnic diversity, due to whites being the vast majority of the united states at this time, but political and intellectual diversity were. As well, it added that, those guilty of treason are ineligible to hold public office, and the debt for the civil war is to be paid for the union, but not the confederates. I do not think that this amendment represents diversity, unity, or opposition of discrimination, for a few reasons. For one, this is an amendment which added insult to injury for the south after the civil war. What this meant for those involved with the confederacy, was that they were now under the constitution, guilty of treason, and the aggressor of the war. Also, the debt from the civil war was voided for the union, and all debts were to be paid by the Confederate states. This did nothing to unite the country, but descriminate against, and enrage half of the country.
Describe the amendment from the rest of the list (16-27) that you find most significant and make an argument for why we should consider it especially important.
I think that the most interesting amendment, is the 22nd amendment. This is what set a presidential term limit 6 years after the death of FDR, the first and only president to exceed the two term limit in American history. The amendment was pushed for by the Republicans, after the democrat Roosevelt had been elected four times (died about a month into his fourth term). I think that the idea behind it is interesting. Their had never before been a president that was elected for more than two terms before Roosevelt was, and that was because the people had felt that he should be president for those years. It is interesting that an amendment would be made to limit how long a person can be president. A lack of a term limit does not go against the constitution in any way, and cannot be manipulated. An example of this is George Bush, he was [elected] twice, but because of how bad a president he has been, he would not be elected to a third term. On the other hand, Franklin D. Roosevelt was an excelent president, elected four times, who took america through a depression, WWII, and implemented the "new deal" social reforms. In my opinion the 22nd amendment simply limits something which should not be limited. It was done for highly political reasons, and does not have a benificial impact on the country.
The eleventh amendment was designed to prevent residents of a state from taking another state to federal court. This amendment on "Judicial Limits" was ratified in 1795, 65 years before the civil war began. It has significance as distinguishing the difference in how state courts can interact with another, and how federal courts can interact with state courts. Due to this amendment, state courts cannot hear lawsuits against their state brought on by residents of another. It went further to prevent residents of a state from bringing charges against their own state to the federal court. Since the civil war was about succession, that would mean one state suing another for independence from the rest. I think that the eleventh amendment was put in place in order to prevent this sort of thing from happening, where states would sue one another, using a person to file charges and circumvent the amendment. I can see how this would have deeply impacted the issue of slavery at this time. While the country was deeply divided between those for slavery, and abolitionists, the eleventh amendment had never been more significant. Slaves who escaped the south, and in free states sued for their freedom would find that they could not, as a parson could not sue the state in federal court. Even whites, who challenged the laws of slave states and free states, found that the same laws applied to them, and the eleventh amendment made it impossible for say, Virginia to challenge Massachusetts (or vice versa).
Does the 14th amendment combine with the earlier "no religious test" clause to guarantee a vision of a diverse and equitable society with no government discrimination?
The 14th amendment is interesting, because part of it describes what article one says about how representation in the congress is distributed. If we look at that, it is done in a way which ensures a diverse congress, through every state being represented in it. This doesn't guarantee ethnic diversity, due to whites being the vast majority of the united states at this time, but political and intellectual diversity were. As well, it added that, those guilty of treason are ineligible to hold public office, and the debt for the civil war is to be paid for the union, but not the confederates. I do not think that this amendment represents diversity, unity, or opposition of discrimination, for a few reasons. For one, this is an amendment which added insult to injury for the south after the civil war. What this meant for those involved with the confederacy, was that they were now under the constitution, guilty of treason, and the aggressor of the war. Also, the debt from the civil war was voided for the union, and all debts were to be paid by the Confederate states. This did nothing to unite the country, but descriminate against, and enrage half of the country.
Describe the amendment from the rest of the list (16-27) that you find most significant and make an argument for why we should consider it especially important.
I think that the most interesting amendment, is the 22nd amendment. This is what set a presidential term limit 6 years after the death of FDR, the first and only president to exceed the two term limit in American history. The amendment was pushed for by the Republicans, after the democrat Roosevelt had been elected four times (died about a month into his fourth term). I think that the idea behind it is interesting. Their had never before been a president that was elected for more than two terms before Roosevelt was, and that was because the people had felt that he should be president for those years. It is interesting that an amendment would be made to limit how long a person can be president. A lack of a term limit does not go against the constitution in any way, and cannot be manipulated. An example of this is George Bush, he was [elected] twice, but because of how bad a president he has been, he would not be elected to a third term. On the other hand, Franklin D. Roosevelt was an excelent president, elected four times, who took america through a depression, WWII, and implemented the "new deal" social reforms. In my opinion the 22nd amendment simply limits something which should not be limited. It was done for highly political reasons, and does not have a benificial impact on the country.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Constitution Assignment: Part B
What does the "Full faith and credit" provision, from article 4, mean for Gay Marriage?
The fourth article of the constitution, in section one, starts with the idea that full faith and credit will be given to every state by one another. This was put in, I would assume, in order to formerly say that decisions and laws passed on a state level should not be questioned, and cannot be legally challenged by another state. Therefor, the national issue of Gay Marriage, is not a national issue to be decided on a national level, but a state decision, to be made on a state level. In terms of what it means for the argument the answer is; not much. Most states that have had proposed laws in favor have not been successful, because even state to state, gay marriage is highly unpopular. One thing that it does mean, is that more liberal states, who have the support to pass such a proposal, will be able to ensure the right for gay couples to be married. What this means, is same- sex marriage on a state level is recognized as a union between two people regardless of sexual orientation, but on a federal level it is not. The "Defense of Marriage Act" is a federal law, which was passed in 1996, concerning where and under what conditions these unions are recognized. Legally, no one state is obligated to recognize a union between a same sex couple if they so choose, but can if that state passes law recognizing it. The Federal government, according to the act, will not recognize any union other than between a man and a woman.
What is the Supreme Law of the Land? What is the significance, of the “No religious test” clause.
According to article 6 of the constitution, the supreme law of the land is the constitution, and any amendments, treaties, and state laws, which follow the legality of the constitution. This group of laws are what all judges in every state are by oath, obligated to recognize in courts of law. The no religious test clause, in article six, says that religion should have no bearing on a persons qualification to be elected to office. This is significant, because it is evidence that America is a land of religious freedom, and it would be unconstitutional for any individual to declare a religious allegiance or affiliation in order to assume any public office. The wording of the clause, in my opinion means that you must be loyal to America and its constitution, and religious loyalty cannot be placed above American loyalty. Religion has no place in the oath which binds elected officials to follow American law, because affiliation is a decision you are free to make, not be identified by. This seems to me, a clause which the founders used to promote the idea of American identity above all else, and unity under one nation and one flag.
Does the 2nd Amendment seem to allow “well-organized militias” to have guns, or to allow all people to have guns?
The second amendment concerns the right to bear arms in America. As the text reads, it would be interpreted as the unconditional right as American citizens to bear and posses arms. What many arguments over this amendment are about, is over what you are allowed to do, where and with what arms are legally allowed. That is not what this is about, what dictates who, what, when, where and why of arms, is left up to state and federal laws, but not constitutional amendments. What the second amendment is more about, is the right for an individual to own a gun, and nothing more. I think that the exact wording of this amendment is what you need to look at when deciding what it means. The way I see it, the writing of the second amendment is structured in this basic sentence; to ensure certain freedoms set in place for the people, a regulated militia, of the people, is necessary. To ensure that their can be a functioning, regulated militia, the right for the people to bear arms is vital. As a member of a militia is not defined as anything beyond a civilian who participates in military activities (which are also vaguely defined), virtually anyone can claim to be part of a militia and because of that I believe that the second amendment allows all people to bear arms.
Does “lethal injection” and/or the “electric chair” contradict the 8th amendment?
The 8th amendment is what makes cruel and unusual punishment unconstitutional. Capital punishment is a legal sentencing to death through methods such as, lethal injection, electrocution, and lethal gas. The eighth amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, which essentially would be any punishment that caused excessive pain and suffering (mental or physical), or is conducted in an nontraditional manner. The method of lethal injection is an injection of a dose of a lethal substance, that has no physically painful effects. Death by gas is also a painless procedure where a lethal gas is released in a chamber and causes the persons system to fail, with no physical pain being experienced. Electrocution is where the person is strapped into an "electric chair" and receives a high lethal flow of electricity directly into the body, causing an immense amount of pain. If we look at these forms of capital punishment, lethal injection and gas would not be considered physically cruel and unusual, but mentally can cause an excessive amount of mental suffering. The electric chair without question is, because it causes a very high amount of physical pain, and carries the same mental pain as the other methods. Obviously all forms of death sentences and its methods, cause massive amounts of mental suffering, which makes capital punishment at its core, cruel and unusual.
The fourth article of the constitution, in section one, starts with the idea that full faith and credit will be given to every state by one another. This was put in, I would assume, in order to formerly say that decisions and laws passed on a state level should not be questioned, and cannot be legally challenged by another state. Therefor, the national issue of Gay Marriage, is not a national issue to be decided on a national level, but a state decision, to be made on a state level. In terms of what it means for the argument the answer is; not much. Most states that have had proposed laws in favor have not been successful, because even state to state, gay marriage is highly unpopular. One thing that it does mean, is that more liberal states, who have the support to pass such a proposal, will be able to ensure the right for gay couples to be married. What this means, is same- sex marriage on a state level is recognized as a union between two people regardless of sexual orientation, but on a federal level it is not. The "Defense of Marriage Act" is a federal law, which was passed in 1996, concerning where and under what conditions these unions are recognized. Legally, no one state is obligated to recognize a union between a same sex couple if they so choose, but can if that state passes law recognizing it. The Federal government, according to the act, will not recognize any union other than between a man and a woman.
What is the Supreme Law of the Land? What is the significance, of the “No religious test” clause.
According to article 6 of the constitution, the supreme law of the land is the constitution, and any amendments, treaties, and state laws, which follow the legality of the constitution. This group of laws are what all judges in every state are by oath, obligated to recognize in courts of law. The no religious test clause, in article six, says that religion should have no bearing on a persons qualification to be elected to office. This is significant, because it is evidence that America is a land of religious freedom, and it would be unconstitutional for any individual to declare a religious allegiance or affiliation in order to assume any public office. The wording of the clause, in my opinion means that you must be loyal to America and its constitution, and religious loyalty cannot be placed above American loyalty. Religion has no place in the oath which binds elected officials to follow American law, because affiliation is a decision you are free to make, not be identified by. This seems to me, a clause which the founders used to promote the idea of American identity above all else, and unity under one nation and one flag.
Does the 2nd Amendment seem to allow “well-organized militias” to have guns, or to allow all people to have guns?
The second amendment concerns the right to bear arms in America. As the text reads, it would be interpreted as the unconditional right as American citizens to bear and posses arms. What many arguments over this amendment are about, is over what you are allowed to do, where and with what arms are legally allowed. That is not what this is about, what dictates who, what, when, where and why of arms, is left up to state and federal laws, but not constitutional amendments. What the second amendment is more about, is the right for an individual to own a gun, and nothing more. I think that the exact wording of this amendment is what you need to look at when deciding what it means. The way I see it, the writing of the second amendment is structured in this basic sentence; to ensure certain freedoms set in place for the people, a regulated militia, of the people, is necessary. To ensure that their can be a functioning, regulated militia, the right for the people to bear arms is vital. As a member of a militia is not defined as anything beyond a civilian who participates in military activities (which are also vaguely defined), virtually anyone can claim to be part of a militia and because of that I believe that the second amendment allows all people to bear arms.
Does “lethal injection” and/or the “electric chair” contradict the 8th amendment?
The 8th amendment is what makes cruel and unusual punishment unconstitutional. Capital punishment is a legal sentencing to death through methods such as, lethal injection, electrocution, and lethal gas. The eighth amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, which essentially would be any punishment that caused excessive pain and suffering (mental or physical), or is conducted in an nontraditional manner. The method of lethal injection is an injection of a dose of a lethal substance, that has no physically painful effects. Death by gas is also a painless procedure where a lethal gas is released in a chamber and causes the persons system to fail, with no physical pain being experienced. Electrocution is where the person is strapped into an "electric chair" and receives a high lethal flow of electricity directly into the body, causing an immense amount of pain. If we look at these forms of capital punishment, lethal injection and gas would not be considered physically cruel and unusual, but mentally can cause an excessive amount of mental suffering. The electric chair without question is, because it causes a very high amount of physical pain, and carries the same mental pain as the other methods. Obviously all forms of death sentences and its methods, cause massive amounts of mental suffering, which makes capital punishment at its core, cruel and unusual.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Constitution Assignment: Part A
Preamble
To ensure the retention and preservation of the ideals on which America was founded, an absolute document of National laws is needed to properly do so. The following is what we the founders have laid out as an legal outline for American life, governmental duties and regulations as well as civic duty as an American. The goal of this being to guarantee a unified nation, and a peaceful nation.
Legislative Branch
- A Congress makes up branch, which consists of both a House of Representatives and a Senate.
- The number of members for each state that are in the House, is decided by the population. More people, more representation
- The ratio of one representative per 30,000 people must not be exceeded
- Qualifications for House member: 25 years old, and an American citizen of 7 years
- Qualifications for Senate member: 30 years old, and an American citizen of 9 years
- Vice- President is president of the senate, but only holds a vote in the event a vote is a tie
- Senate seating is equal in every state despite population, two senators each state, who hold one vote each in the senate
- Terms for House are 2 years, and Senate terms are 6 years.
- Responsibilities of elected Congress members include:
1. Maintaining and arming a militia through passing legislation that would do so
2. Borrowing money from foreign governments on United States credit, when necessary
3. Taxation collection and implementation of tax laws
4. Oversight of impeachment trials
5. Declarations of war
- Congress cannot suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus, except in the case of rebellion or invasion
Executive Branch
- Head of executive branch is the President
- Made up of over three million people
- Has control over whether or not legislation from congress becomes law
- President has Veto power
- Qualifications for President: 35 years old, a natural born U.S. citizen, and lived in America for 14 years
- President can only be removed through impeachment on substantiated accusations of treason, bribery, and any other high crime and misdemeanors.
- President has power to absolve, or pardon anyone he chooses for any crime, convicted, pending or potential, with the exception of an impeachment.
- President takes oath to uphold and abide by the Constitution of the United States
- Commander and Chief of United States Army, Navy and any Militias
Judicial Branch
- Made up of the supreme court
- Court consists of 9 justices
- No qualification of any kind needed for appointment to court
- President has the power to nominate justices, but can only be appointed through the consent of the senate
- Justices are elected for life
The main thought that I had about the constitution was about the context in which it was written. What I think is most remarkable, is that the founding fathers were able to construct a document, using wording which was entirely intentional and could be used as the main source on American law. On top of that, they wrote in in such a way that over the 200 years since its completion, only a handful of amendments have been made to modernize and alter it. What is written provided what was necessary for our nation to function in the 18th century, and still provides that in the 21st century. The massive exception to this, is the civil war. In the preamble, it says that the constitution was written to ensure domestic peace and a united state of the union, but only a century later, in the 19th century, a civil war broke out, that literally turned this nation into two nations in a war against each-other.
What could have been put into the constitution that may have set a foundation for preventing the civil war, and the events leading up to it from happening?
People are always talking about how the founders were terrible, slave owning racists, but i really cannot find any evidence of intentional racist commentary
The preamble mentions our duty to America as citizens, but does not talk about our duty as citizens of the world outside of America
Securing the "blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity" is what is said in the preamble, meaning that we are supposed to ensure the AWOL for our children, and their children. So aren't things like national debt, war, and an energy crisis (which are problems that my generation and our children will have to take care of) technically un-american and unconstitutional?
I wonder how closely we follow the constitution today in America, because I don't think that in the past we have had many presidents and politicians who have operated completely "by the book" and fulfilled their constitutional obligations to the American people.
To ensure the retention and preservation of the ideals on which America was founded, an absolute document of National laws is needed to properly do so. The following is what we the founders have laid out as an legal outline for American life, governmental duties and regulations as well as civic duty as an American. The goal of this being to guarantee a unified nation, and a peaceful nation.
Legislative Branch
- A Congress makes up branch, which consists of both a House of Representatives and a Senate.
- The number of members for each state that are in the House, is decided by the population. More people, more representation
- The ratio of one representative per 30,000 people must not be exceeded
- Qualifications for House member: 25 years old, and an American citizen of 7 years
- Qualifications for Senate member: 30 years old, and an American citizen of 9 years
- Vice- President is president of the senate, but only holds a vote in the event a vote is a tie
- Senate seating is equal in every state despite population, two senators each state, who hold one vote each in the senate
- Terms for House are 2 years, and Senate terms are 6 years.
- Responsibilities of elected Congress members include:
1. Maintaining and arming a militia through passing legislation that would do so
2. Borrowing money from foreign governments on United States credit, when necessary
3. Taxation collection and implementation of tax laws
4. Oversight of impeachment trials
5. Declarations of war
- Congress cannot suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus, except in the case of rebellion or invasion
Executive Branch
- Head of executive branch is the President
- Made up of over three million people
- Has control over whether or not legislation from congress becomes law
- President has Veto power
- Qualifications for President: 35 years old, a natural born U.S. citizen, and lived in America for 14 years
- President can only be removed through impeachment on substantiated accusations of treason, bribery, and any other high crime and misdemeanors.
- President has power to absolve, or pardon anyone he chooses for any crime, convicted, pending or potential, with the exception of an impeachment.
- President takes oath to uphold and abide by the Constitution of the United States
- Commander and Chief of United States Army, Navy and any Militias
Judicial Branch
- Made up of the supreme court
- Court consists of 9 justices
- No qualification of any kind needed for appointment to court
- President has the power to nominate justices, but can only be appointed through the consent of the senate
- Justices are elected for life
The main thought that I had about the constitution was about the context in which it was written. What I think is most remarkable, is that the founding fathers were able to construct a document, using wording which was entirely intentional and could be used as the main source on American law. On top of that, they wrote in in such a way that over the 200 years since its completion, only a handful of amendments have been made to modernize and alter it. What is written provided what was necessary for our nation to function in the 18th century, and still provides that in the 21st century. The massive exception to this, is the civil war. In the preamble, it says that the constitution was written to ensure domestic peace and a united state of the union, but only a century later, in the 19th century, a civil war broke out, that literally turned this nation into two nations in a war against each-other.
What could have been put into the constitution that may have set a foundation for preventing the civil war, and the events leading up to it from happening?
People are always talking about how the founders were terrible, slave owning racists, but i really cannot find any evidence of intentional racist commentary
The preamble mentions our duty to America as citizens, but does not talk about our duty as citizens of the world outside of America
Securing the "blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity" is what is said in the preamble, meaning that we are supposed to ensure the AWOL for our children, and their children. So aren't things like national debt, war, and an energy crisis (which are problems that my generation and our children will have to take care of) technically un-american and unconstitutional?
I wonder how closely we follow the constitution today in America, because I don't think that in the past we have had many presidents and politicians who have operated completely "by the book" and fulfilled their constitutional obligations to the American people.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Thanksgiving and Black Friday
On wednesday night, the eve of the next day...celebratory meal, and friday shopping spree, I was out with friends and it seemed to me that people overall were confused as to what the holiday was about. I passed countless corner stores with cutout turkeys (wearing pilgrim outfits and holding muskets) scotch taped to the window. Fall colors and leaves fallen from trees were also used to show or convey the idea of being patriotic or otherwise involved in the holiday spirit. The true spirit and basis that lies behind thanksgiving, i do not believe to be the celebration of murdering Indian's (although that is what happened), but i know that it is definitly not dead leaves, and a gun touting, clothed Turkey. I think that although we have commercially skewed the message of thanksgiving, the idea remains that the holiday is about giving. Without the Indians to provide the Pilgrims with food, they wouldn't have survived to give the Indians smallpox blankets.
The day after thanksgiving, was black friday. As I am currently without cash flow, black friday was not significant for myself. I did however see a massive amount of people heading in and out of virtually every store I passed, which indicated that the economy must have gotten a severely needed boost from that day alone. When I was with my friend in union square, their were people dressed up as elves and a man screaming in a preacher style about consumerism. The whole idea of the show was right inline with that of the "buy nothing day" that Andy told us about in class. It was relatively hard to take these people who were dressed up to seriously, but because I knew what their idea was and a little bit from what I learned in class, I followed along and understood their message fully. I dont think I really belive that consuming a large amount of goods is a bad thing, and everyone does it, but when its phrased as consumer-ism, it becomes this bad thing, that everyone is against. I think that a better message is to be a conservative consumer, who consumes, with caution, or with a mindset not to make purchases to the point of excessiveness.
A footnote from the holiday. The massive crowds and animalistic shoppers at a Wal-Mart on long island this black friday stormed the doors, trampling and killing an employee. Not a single shopper stopped to help, not a single shopper checked to see if the man was alright. If their is a problem that lies in consumerism, than this is it.
RIP Jdimytai Damour
The day after thanksgiving, was black friday. As I am currently without cash flow, black friday was not significant for myself. I did however see a massive amount of people heading in and out of virtually every store I passed, which indicated that the economy must have gotten a severely needed boost from that day alone. When I was with my friend in union square, their were people dressed up as elves and a man screaming in a preacher style about consumerism. The whole idea of the show was right inline with that of the "buy nothing day" that Andy told us about in class. It was relatively hard to take these people who were dressed up to seriously, but because I knew what their idea was and a little bit from what I learned in class, I followed along and understood their message fully. I dont think I really belive that consuming a large amount of goods is a bad thing, and everyone does it, but when its phrased as consumer-ism, it becomes this bad thing, that everyone is against. I think that a better message is to be a conservative consumer, who consumes, with caution, or with a mindset not to make purchases to the point of excessiveness.
A footnote from the holiday. The massive crowds and animalistic shoppers at a Wal-Mart on long island this black friday stormed the doors, trampling and killing an employee. Not a single shopper stopped to help, not a single shopper checked to see if the man was alright. If their is a problem that lies in consumerism, than this is it.
RIP Jdimytai Damour
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Election 2008
The election this year was one of the most highly anticipated since JFK for many reasons to many different people. From every perspective and in reality, this was a historic election as the first African American man was elected to the office of president of the united states. To my parents generation, this election had a first hand significance, as the culmination of civil rights efforts that they had witnessed. For my generation, Barack Obama has the same significance as JFK did in 1960. Both JFK and Obama excited, and got the "young people" involved in politics for the first time. They both were symbols of hope and a young, new America, which registered with the younger generations who look for something new, different than the norm in politics. A common opinion, post- election is that Obama has to meet peoples high expectations of him, and that he is yet to prove himself. I think that a majority of these peoples expectations have been met simply by him being who he is. On election night, when NBC was broadcasting images of tens of thousands of people crying (after it was announced that Obama had been elected) they were not crying because they were in love with his policies. For the most part he represents everything that Martin Luther King Jr. had worked for, everything that civil rights worked for, and that 40 years after MLK was assassinated America had elected an African American president.
In terms of physical results, I don't think that Obama will be able to change a whole lot about the economy in a matter of weeks or months. This is because our economy had been subjected over the past 8 years to crippling policies which will take time and hard work to correct. Although our foreign policy and image as a country has been damaged, this is not something which will be as difficult to fix. It has been primarily true that a nations leader is what determines how that nation is viewed. When FDR was president, he provided hope and a sense of a rising nation after a world war, and the great depression, and America was viewed as just that. While George Bush was president for the last 8 years, we were viewed as a nation of idiots, and self- righteous brute force. With nothing but Obama's election, came a new image for America and a new standing in the world as a country moving forward, away from racism and aggression. It is because of this new image that our world standing and the international opinion of the American people will change dramatically for the better. An example of this, is the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez's comments before this years election. Chavez who had previously called George Bush Jr. the devil in front of the United Nations, only a week ago said that he would be completely open to talks with Obama if he was elected.
In terms of physical results, I don't think that Obama will be able to change a whole lot about the economy in a matter of weeks or months. This is because our economy had been subjected over the past 8 years to crippling policies which will take time and hard work to correct. Although our foreign policy and image as a country has been damaged, this is not something which will be as difficult to fix. It has been primarily true that a nations leader is what determines how that nation is viewed. When FDR was president, he provided hope and a sense of a rising nation after a world war, and the great depression, and America was viewed as just that. While George Bush was president for the last 8 years, we were viewed as a nation of idiots, and self- righteous brute force. With nothing but Obama's election, came a new image for America and a new standing in the world as a country moving forward, away from racism and aggression. It is because of this new image that our world standing and the international opinion of the American people will change dramatically for the better. An example of this, is the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez's comments before this years election. Chavez who had previously called George Bush Jr. the devil in front of the United Nations, only a week ago said that he would be completely open to talks with Obama if he was elected.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Capitalism Synopsis
Capitalist economics is an economic system based on the majority of the people, providing labor for the minority, at a cost that is a small percentage of the profit the laborer had generated. It is a system in which those with wealth (an amount of money to invest) can succeed while those without wealth are at a disadvantage. Capitalism, for those with wealth, works like this; Wealth is invested in a business which supplies your Capital (all of the materials needed to run and manufacture your product). This investment returns a finished product and becomes Profit (money gained after capital costs are accounted for). This profit is re-invested and becomes even more wealth. The reason for this re-investment, is because of the "profit motive", which is that the investment will yield a profit and increase your original wealth.
The "free market" is a main pillar of what capitalism is about. The free market is a market that allows anyone who wishes to compete for business in an industry to do so. This competition is based off of "market pricing". The market price, or "equilibrium price" is how the producer and the consumer dictate pricing, and who can compete for that market price. It is a competitive necessity of the producer, in order to compete to offer the lowest price they can without their capital costs coming within a penny of their profit. This competition to decrease capital costs in certain cases has global consequences. An example, is the cost of labor. Due to a competitive market, companies will pay the lowest amount that they possibly can get people to work for. It is for this reason that government is supposed to regulate certain costs and pricing such as the minimum wage that a company can pay for labor. Another case of government regulation is price control. Price control is used to prevent price fixing and price gouging. Price fixing, and gouging are when the prices are being regulated and set by the producer and not the consumer. When this happens, the consumer can be charged any price that is decided and that becomes the market price. A problem with the way that government regulates this is this can result in a shortage. A shortage is a scenario in capitalism, in which consumers have the money to pay the market price, but the product is not available
An important concept behind capitalism and the free market, is supply and demand. Supply is the total amount of a product available for purchase at any price. Demand is the amount of that product that will be bought at any price. Any price change for a product, will not change the supply itself, but the quantity that a company is willing to supply at that price, will. On the other side, a price increase or decrease will affect the demand for the product at that price. When a product has a limited supply (oil), as opposed to being unlimited (trees; wood) than the product is scarce.
Capitalism as a whole, the free market, supply and demand, and profit motive all seem to be for the most part; self correcting, and self regulating. This is the idea which in capitalism is called, the "Invisible hand". It is an idea based off of what economists such as Leonard E. Read (the author of "I, Pencil") observed about the market. They saw that without one real dominant force in the market, things were arranged where their were automatically low prices, competition (balanced the market), and low capital costs. In reality, the invisible hand is competition in the free market. What drives this competition is profit motive, and overall self interest. All occurring in a market that essentially anyone is free to enter. The free market in America, along with profit motive allows for "social mobility". Social Mobility is the chance to elevate your socio-economic status past that of your parents. The incentive for hard work is to better your parents, as is the motive for making profit through investment in the market. Social mobility provides a constant degree of self interest for a reason to invest in the market, which acts as the invisible hand ensuring stability and interest in the market.
The "free market" is a main pillar of what capitalism is about. The free market is a market that allows anyone who wishes to compete for business in an industry to do so. This competition is based off of "market pricing". The market price, or "equilibrium price" is how the producer and the consumer dictate pricing, and who can compete for that market price. It is a competitive necessity of the producer, in order to compete to offer the lowest price they can without their capital costs coming within a penny of their profit. This competition to decrease capital costs in certain cases has global consequences. An example, is the cost of labor. Due to a competitive market, companies will pay the lowest amount that they possibly can get people to work for. It is for this reason that government is supposed to regulate certain costs and pricing such as the minimum wage that a company can pay for labor. Another case of government regulation is price control. Price control is used to prevent price fixing and price gouging. Price fixing, and gouging are when the prices are being regulated and set by the producer and not the consumer. When this happens, the consumer can be charged any price that is decided and that becomes the market price. A problem with the way that government regulates this is this can result in a shortage. A shortage is a scenario in capitalism, in which consumers have the money to pay the market price, but the product is not available
An important concept behind capitalism and the free market, is supply and demand. Supply is the total amount of a product available for purchase at any price. Demand is the amount of that product that will be bought at any price. Any price change for a product, will not change the supply itself, but the quantity that a company is willing to supply at that price, will. On the other side, a price increase or decrease will affect the demand for the product at that price. When a product has a limited supply (oil), as opposed to being unlimited (trees; wood) than the product is scarce.
Capitalism as a whole, the free market, supply and demand, and profit motive all seem to be for the most part; self correcting, and self regulating. This is the idea which in capitalism is called, the "Invisible hand". It is an idea based off of what economists such as Leonard E. Read (the author of "I, Pencil") observed about the market. They saw that without one real dominant force in the market, things were arranged where their were automatically low prices, competition (balanced the market), and low capital costs. In reality, the invisible hand is competition in the free market. What drives this competition is profit motive, and overall self interest. All occurring in a market that essentially anyone is free to enter. The free market in America, along with profit motive allows for "social mobility". Social Mobility is the chance to elevate your socio-economic status past that of your parents. The incentive for hard work is to better your parents, as is the motive for making profit through investment in the market. Social mobility provides a constant degree of self interest for a reason to invest in the market, which acts as the invisible hand ensuring stability and interest in the market.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
"I, Pencil"
Paraphrasing
I, Pencil by Leonard E. Read is a story of what goes into making a given product such as a pencil. Read, uses the pencil as the narrator of the story to explain what goes into its own creation. The Pencil cites all of the manpower and the resources that come from different industries across the globe, which culminates to create this deceptively simple product. The main idea that the Pencil focuses on is that the countless hours and amount of work that goes into creating this final product is not seen by the consumer, and is often overlooked entirely. This idea is stated as an “invisible hand”, which plays the role of everything that goes into the pencil that we the consumer do not consider. The capitalist mentality of the pencil is shown by its feelings that government needs to stay out of these processes in order for this process to occur, which is succinct with a main pillar of the “free market”.
Quotes
"Each of these millions sees that he can thus exchange his tiny know-how for the goods and services he needs or wants. I may or may not be among these items."
"For, if one is aware that these know-hows will naturally, yes, automatically, arrange themselves into creative and productive patterns in response to human necessity and demand—that is, in the absence of governmental or any other coercive masterminding—then one will possess an absolutely essential ingredient for freedom: a faith in free people. Freedom is impossible without this faith."
"Each one acknowledges that he himself doesn't know how to do all the things incident to mail delivery. He also recognizes that no other individual could do it. These assumptions are correct. No individual possesses enough know-how to perform a nation's mail delivery any more than any individual possesses enough know-how to make a pencil."
Analysis
This story shows how, the people involved in the creation of a pencil each have a hand in this, but are not doing what they do to achieve the goal of a final product; a pencil. Leonard E. Read’s story is about how everyone’s “little bit of know how” contributes to making a finalized material (wood slats, shaped graphite, lacquer) which is used to finalize and create a number of other products. This is done through the outlook of a capitalist who believes strongly in the free market. The introduction of government and a governmental presence was shown in the story to be something that Read saw as highly detrimental to the way in which goods are fabricated. I think that he masked this resentment of governmental involvement with the “opinion” of how this involvement hinders creativity. When you think about it, manufacturing a pencil and every one of the different processes that Leonard E. Read referenced, involved no creativity because it does not warrant creativity.
I, Pencil by Leonard E. Read is a story of what goes into making a given product such as a pencil. Read, uses the pencil as the narrator of the story to explain what goes into its own creation. The Pencil cites all of the manpower and the resources that come from different industries across the globe, which culminates to create this deceptively simple product. The main idea that the Pencil focuses on is that the countless hours and amount of work that goes into creating this final product is not seen by the consumer, and is often overlooked entirely. This idea is stated as an “invisible hand”, which plays the role of everything that goes into the pencil that we the consumer do not consider. The capitalist mentality of the pencil is shown by its feelings that government needs to stay out of these processes in order for this process to occur, which is succinct with a main pillar of the “free market”.
Quotes
"Each of these millions sees that he can thus exchange his tiny know-how for the goods and services he needs or wants. I may or may not be among these items."
"For, if one is aware that these know-hows will naturally, yes, automatically, arrange themselves into creative and productive patterns in response to human necessity and demand—that is, in the absence of governmental or any other coercive masterminding—then one will possess an absolutely essential ingredient for freedom: a faith in free people. Freedom is impossible without this faith."
"Each one acknowledges that he himself doesn't know how to do all the things incident to mail delivery. He also recognizes that no other individual could do it. These assumptions are correct. No individual possesses enough know-how to perform a nation's mail delivery any more than any individual possesses enough know-how to make a pencil."
Analysis
This story shows how, the people involved in the creation of a pencil each have a hand in this, but are not doing what they do to achieve the goal of a final product; a pencil. Leonard E. Read’s story is about how everyone’s “little bit of know how” contributes to making a finalized material (wood slats, shaped graphite, lacquer) which is used to finalize and create a number of other products. This is done through the outlook of a capitalist who believes strongly in the free market. The introduction of government and a governmental presence was shown in the story to be something that Read saw as highly detrimental to the way in which goods are fabricated. I think that he masked this resentment of governmental involvement with the “opinion” of how this involvement hinders creativity. When you think about it, manufacturing a pencil and every one of the different processes that Leonard E. Read referenced, involved no creativity because it does not warrant creativity.
Responses to other Video's
Esther
hwhat lol. I think that what stood out the most for me was how your focus was on family, while virtually everyone else's video put emphasis on friends or personal things. Good job, and you have a massive family, i have like 8 people lol.
Insight: The way that Esther looked at her life, and did her video was really telling into what matters to her most. I would look at myself and think that I value my friends and think more of them than my family, but Esther was very matter of fact and made her family the forefront of her video. I think this is what made her video and her life not typical for an American teenager.
Binta
Really good video, i liked how you put your sister on the spot and you got a very spur of the moment response. I think this was enough to really make the viewer look at the rest of your movie with that in mind. Good job.
Insight: Their are so many different ways in which our lives are shaped and defined, but in Binta's video, the interesting thing was that she had someone who helped to shape her life (her sister) explain what they thought her way of life was. For the most part, her sister said quite typical things about Binta's way of life (not bad, just typical). Interestingly we saw through her pictures and family that she did not lead a typical American life, but infact a diverse and worldly one, unlike most Americans. Myself included.
Chloe
Nice video Chloe, i the fact that you showed so many different parts of your life helped to show how your life was a culmination of parents, friends, and different groups of friends, school and...not school
Insight: Chloe's video in my opinion seemed to show that she had a relatively typical way of life; friends, boyfriend, and family. The interesting thing was that, if this was a typical AWOL, than really it is a balanced and healthy way of life. The AWOL, similar to Chloe's way of life is not heavily based on a value of family or friends or anything for that matter. It is about participating in many different things, land being involved with many different people. This is what makes the AWOL different from the rest of the world, where certain countries and cultures highly value family, or hard work, or friendsack, or love.
hwhat lol. I think that what stood out the most for me was how your focus was on family, while virtually everyone else's video put emphasis on friends or personal things. Good job, and you have a massive family, i have like 8 people lol.
Insight: The way that Esther looked at her life, and did her video was really telling into what matters to her most. I would look at myself and think that I value my friends and think more of them than my family, but Esther was very matter of fact and made her family the forefront of her video. I think this is what made her video and her life not typical for an American teenager.
Binta
Really good video, i liked how you put your sister on the spot and you got a very spur of the moment response. I think this was enough to really make the viewer look at the rest of your movie with that in mind. Good job.
Insight: Their are so many different ways in which our lives are shaped and defined, but in Binta's video, the interesting thing was that she had someone who helped to shape her life (her sister) explain what they thought her way of life was. For the most part, her sister said quite typical things about Binta's way of life (not bad, just typical). Interestingly we saw through her pictures and family that she did not lead a typical American life, but infact a diverse and worldly one, unlike most Americans. Myself included.
Chloe
Nice video Chloe, i the fact that you showed so many different parts of your life helped to show how your life was a culmination of parents, friends, and different groups of friends, school and...not school
Insight: Chloe's video in my opinion seemed to show that she had a relatively typical way of life; friends, boyfriend, and family. The interesting thing was that, if this was a typical AWOL, than really it is a balanced and healthy way of life. The AWOL, similar to Chloe's way of life is not heavily based on a value of family or friends or anything for that matter. It is about participating in many different things, land being involved with many different people. This is what makes the AWOL different from the rest of the world, where certain countries and cultures highly value family, or hard work, or friendsack, or love.
My American Way of Life
This video of myself is not representative of every aspect of my life, nor was it intended. This video instead is a look at a very important aspect of my life, my neighborhood; Greenwich Village. Having Lived here since i was 3 years old, I identify myself with it and a large amount of my life has been spent with friends walking around, hanging out in parks, doing random things. I dub it "The GV" at the beginning of my video as a kind of joke, giving what is now an upper class neighborhood, a dope name. This is not a look at my entire life, my family does play a major role in my life, however, in my every day life, my AWOL, my time spent a great deal more outside with my friends than with my family.
In my video, virtually every store, deli, restaurant has a story or event involving me and my friends that goes along with it. At one point we pass, a bakery called "Magnolia" which due to undeserved publicity from some show, has stupid tourists and yuppies clamoring for one of the worst, yet sought after cupcakes in NYC. For the sole purpose of shock value, me and my friends quickly think up a vulgar and amusing story as to how we did..things in the store, and to the ingredients.
I think that overall, my way of life is not good, or bad. It is certainly one focused on friends more than family, but not friends over family. I spend time with my friends in my neighborhood and as a result, I have a massive amount of memorable events that are great things to look back on and make for stories where you just couldn't make-this-shit-up. At the same time I don't feel like this is any different from most kids growing up in New York, and all over for that matter. Almost all kids for better or worse spend vastly more time with friends than family.
I would have liked to include more content about my family, but I thought that it would be more relevant to make my neighborhood the main focus as I was walking around with friends at the time I was thinking about how i wanted to make my video, and when i was considering what MY WAY OF LIFE was, not my life story so much.
The general idea of my life in my video is really not evident if you are not from that group of friends from GV. This is because although I am the only one in my video (except for at the end) this represents growing up in the village, and what we did, how we did it and why we did it. Walking past Magnolia, making fun of the expensive new stores such as Ralph Lauren, Marc Jacobs, and the people who shop at them.
All of the aspects of my way of life, fit together seamlessly. The nature of doing all of what we do when we are walking around tends to have bad outcomes sometimes, and when it does, our parents have to get involved (only happened once). But in the end that is what makes for those unbelievable stories.
In my opinion, I live a typical New York way of life, not a typical AWOL. This is because i know for a fact that my dad who grew up in the Bronx has stories that parallel mine, and so do a great deal of kids at SOF. Living in NYC has its benefits, and this is one of them. Urban environments like those in Chicago and Philli are comparable to NY, while living in Minnesota, or Vermont or any suburban area is just not capable of producing a person who lives a life like we do in New York.
What is interesting to me about my life, is how broad of a social spectrum I have seen. I saw my neighborhood go from a artists community, where every store was a small buisiness, and the people were real New Yorkers, to the opposite. As of about 3 or so years ago, the artists were replaced by day- traders, the small buisinesses replaced by Coach, Apple, Hugo Boss and about four Ralph Lauren stores. This was what me and my friends were part of, and privy to, we were the last of the real Greenwich Village kids, and we knew it.
Jakob Friedman - American Way Of Life. from Binta B. on Vimeo.
In my video, virtually every store, deli, restaurant has a story or event involving me and my friends that goes along with it. At one point we pass, a bakery called "Magnolia" which due to undeserved publicity from some show, has stupid tourists and yuppies clamoring for one of the worst, yet sought after cupcakes in NYC. For the sole purpose of shock value, me and my friends quickly think up a vulgar and amusing story as to how we did..things in the store, and to the ingredients.
I think that overall, my way of life is not good, or bad. It is certainly one focused on friends more than family, but not friends over family. I spend time with my friends in my neighborhood and as a result, I have a massive amount of memorable events that are great things to look back on and make for stories where you just couldn't make-this-shit-up. At the same time I don't feel like this is any different from most kids growing up in New York, and all over for that matter. Almost all kids for better or worse spend vastly more time with friends than family.
I would have liked to include more content about my family, but I thought that it would be more relevant to make my neighborhood the main focus as I was walking around with friends at the time I was thinking about how i wanted to make my video, and when i was considering what MY WAY OF LIFE was, not my life story so much.
The general idea of my life in my video is really not evident if you are not from that group of friends from GV. This is because although I am the only one in my video (except for at the end) this represents growing up in the village, and what we did, how we did it and why we did it. Walking past Magnolia, making fun of the expensive new stores such as Ralph Lauren, Marc Jacobs, and the people who shop at them.
All of the aspects of my way of life, fit together seamlessly. The nature of doing all of what we do when we are walking around tends to have bad outcomes sometimes, and when it does, our parents have to get involved (only happened once). But in the end that is what makes for those unbelievable stories.
In my opinion, I live a typical New York way of life, not a typical AWOL. This is because i know for a fact that my dad who grew up in the Bronx has stories that parallel mine, and so do a great deal of kids at SOF. Living in NYC has its benefits, and this is one of them. Urban environments like those in Chicago and Philli are comparable to NY, while living in Minnesota, or Vermont or any suburban area is just not capable of producing a person who lives a life like we do in New York.
What is interesting to me about my life, is how broad of a social spectrum I have seen. I saw my neighborhood go from a artists community, where every store was a small buisiness, and the people were real New Yorkers, to the opposite. As of about 3 or so years ago, the artists were replaced by day- traders, the small buisinesses replaced by Coach, Apple, Hugo Boss and about four Ralph Lauren stores. This was what me and my friends were part of, and privy to, we were the last of the real Greenwich Village kids, and we knew it.
Jakob Friedman - American Way Of Life. from Binta B. on Vimeo.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The American Way of Life: The American Perspective
Jakob Friedman
10/7/08
History
The American way of life is something, which has been more of a cultural phenomenon than anything else since the creation of America. It has not however been defined and no real commonly accepted articulation of the AWOL has been made. In order to find out what it was, or if one even existed, I interviewed an array of people living in America. The views expressed by people who were interviewed on America, and the American way of life (AWOL), varied. For the most part, it seemed that Americans were indecisive about where America is right now. This made it so people were saying that, America is a failing nation, but also in other ways is still the country it used to be. An explanation for these responses is that America right now is in uncertain times and in turn the people are uncertain on what will be the end result of the economic, foreign policy, social, and political conflict.
My mom, who I interviewed on the AWOL chose to focus her answers on how the American family. “In the past,” she said “it used to be that the mother would stay home and do house work, while the father would go out and earn the money. Now the economy is simply not strong enough in America for that to be the standard.” My mom works 2 jobs and used her own life as proof of how the American standard (or AWOL) has changed. In terms of family life, and economics the American way of life has changed, the economics of the times have impacted the family life and changed how we live in America. My dad, whom I also interviewed, expressed the idea that the American way of life really is just a modern lifestyle shared by various peoples other than Americans. “Due to industrialization of the majority of the world, virtually every major culture that once was traditionally definable has become a commercialized nation and like America.” He did say that the American way of life is unique in one respect above all others. “America is at its core a country founded on ideals which culminate to create an ideal environment for creativity and entrepreneurship.” Creativity thrives when it is allowed to and tends to result in advances in the sciences and technology. America has indeed been the place for innovation of the majority of technology in the last century since the technical revolution, than again the Japanese, and other nations have also been innovators.
In class we interviewed a college graduate student named Tim, who grew up in long island, and is self-described as coming from a privileged background. Tim said that he believed money to be the biggest determining factor in how people live and what dictates how people get to live their “American way of life”. Tim did not define what he believed the AWOL to be, but what he said fell under the common idea that it is about having the freedom and ability to rise through a class system created to allow people to rise from what they do, and how hard they work to get their. When asked in class by Sandy, what he thought positive and negative aspects of the AWOL were, Tim said, “A positive aspect is that the system is set up for people to be able to change their socioeconomic class with hard work. The negative aspect is that people can change their position but it is so much harder to do so when coming from poverty.” What Tim said points out a very large part of America, it has great poverty as well as great wealth, but unlike other countries, we have a middle class which is unlike the upper class and much closer to the lower class because of how wealthy the few people who make up the real (not just well off, the CEO’s) upper class are. Kevin during class made an important distinction between the wealthy and the rich. “Shaq, is rich. He gets paid millions to play basketball, but the person who signs the check and pays him millions to play is wealthy”.
When I interviewed people in the street about the AWOL, I never was able to get a definitive answer. When talking to a 20- something year old, white, middle class woman, I asked her about what she thought largest problem in America was that could the AWOL, her response was that “the economy is the problem and is going to warrant changes from the American people”. I asked her to clarify that. “The economy is in bad shape right now and if we change how we live, who knows what might happen, the American people wont change how they live, and they shouldn’t.” When Mr. Fanning came into class to talk to us about the AWOL, he said, “The AWOL is having the freedom to fulfill ones dreams, to seek out and attain that goal.” To try and put the AWOL on a personal level, I asked him where he thought his job fit into the AWOL, and what he thought his role was in how it all played out. “My job as a principal, and overall as an educator is to provide the skills you all need to ensure a future where you can achieve the American dream and your goals in your own AWOL.” The definition of the AWOL was not something that he thought up himself or fully agreed with. He felt that the AWOL was an ideal that had been manufactured by the media, and not a real life ideal that is commonly seen or reached.
10/7/08
History
The American way of life is something, which has been more of a cultural phenomenon than anything else since the creation of America. It has not however been defined and no real commonly accepted articulation of the AWOL has been made. In order to find out what it was, or if one even existed, I interviewed an array of people living in America. The views expressed by people who were interviewed on America, and the American way of life (AWOL), varied. For the most part, it seemed that Americans were indecisive about where America is right now. This made it so people were saying that, America is a failing nation, but also in other ways is still the country it used to be. An explanation for these responses is that America right now is in uncertain times and in turn the people are uncertain on what will be the end result of the economic, foreign policy, social, and political conflict.
My mom, who I interviewed on the AWOL chose to focus her answers on how the American family. “In the past,” she said “it used to be that the mother would stay home and do house work, while the father would go out and earn the money. Now the economy is simply not strong enough in America for that to be the standard.” My mom works 2 jobs and used her own life as proof of how the American standard (or AWOL) has changed. In terms of family life, and economics the American way of life has changed, the economics of the times have impacted the family life and changed how we live in America. My dad, whom I also interviewed, expressed the idea that the American way of life really is just a modern lifestyle shared by various peoples other than Americans. “Due to industrialization of the majority of the world, virtually every major culture that once was traditionally definable has become a commercialized nation and like America.” He did say that the American way of life is unique in one respect above all others. “America is at its core a country founded on ideals which culminate to create an ideal environment for creativity and entrepreneurship.” Creativity thrives when it is allowed to and tends to result in advances in the sciences and technology. America has indeed been the place for innovation of the majority of technology in the last century since the technical revolution, than again the Japanese, and other nations have also been innovators.
In class we interviewed a college graduate student named Tim, who grew up in long island, and is self-described as coming from a privileged background. Tim said that he believed money to be the biggest determining factor in how people live and what dictates how people get to live their “American way of life”. Tim did not define what he believed the AWOL to be, but what he said fell under the common idea that it is about having the freedom and ability to rise through a class system created to allow people to rise from what they do, and how hard they work to get their. When asked in class by Sandy, what he thought positive and negative aspects of the AWOL were, Tim said, “A positive aspect is that the system is set up for people to be able to change their socioeconomic class with hard work. The negative aspect is that people can change their position but it is so much harder to do so when coming from poverty.” What Tim said points out a very large part of America, it has great poverty as well as great wealth, but unlike other countries, we have a middle class which is unlike the upper class and much closer to the lower class because of how wealthy the few people who make up the real (not just well off, the CEO’s) upper class are. Kevin during class made an important distinction between the wealthy and the rich. “Shaq, is rich. He gets paid millions to play basketball, but the person who signs the check and pays him millions to play is wealthy”.
When I interviewed people in the street about the AWOL, I never was able to get a definitive answer. When talking to a 20- something year old, white, middle class woman, I asked her about what she thought largest problem in America was that could the AWOL, her response was that “the economy is the problem and is going to warrant changes from the American people”. I asked her to clarify that. “The economy is in bad shape right now and if we change how we live, who knows what might happen, the American people wont change how they live, and they shouldn’t.” When Mr. Fanning came into class to talk to us about the AWOL, he said, “The AWOL is having the freedom to fulfill ones dreams, to seek out and attain that goal.” To try and put the AWOL on a personal level, I asked him where he thought his job fit into the AWOL, and what he thought his role was in how it all played out. “My job as a principal, and overall as an educator is to provide the skills you all need to ensure a future where you can achieve the American dream and your goals in your own AWOL.” The definition of the AWOL was not something that he thought up himself or fully agreed with. He felt that the AWOL was an ideal that had been manufactured by the media, and not a real life ideal that is commonly seen or reached.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)