Pledging Allegiance?

"I simply wish to refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually," Thoreau says in "Civil Disobedience." While the subject of whether or not the "One nation, under God" segment of the United States pledge of allegiance is often broached, few have questioned the idea of students being forced to pledge allegiance to the state. I found an article that discusses the "Under God" issue, and in doing so describes the Pledge as a symbol of nationalism; "In the burst of patriotism that followed the Sept. 11 terrorism attacks, bills to make the oath mandatory have been introduced in Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Mississippi and Missouri." (The article was written in 2002, but I found another article that stated that as of 2006, the law in Illinois was that "The Pledge of Allegiance shall be recited each school day by pupils in elementary and secondary educational institutions supported or maintained in whole or in part by public funds.")
And so, the Pledge of Allegiance is meant to be a symbol of our patriotism, but it seems as if the pledge itself and the laws enforcing it are almost brainwashing kids to accept whatever the United States government does. By pledging this sort of oath, we are subconciously being persuaded not to think for ourselves, but instead to agree to the government's decisions and obey them, rather than our own instincts. Honestly, I have never thought to question where our taxes (or my parents') go, or if we are doing more harm than good when we go to war. After hearing Kathy Kelly's perspective, mine has turned around completely, and I feel like I have heard the deep dark secrets of our government. Maybe I'm just influenced by the pledge and Ms. Kelly so much because I'm a very impressionable person, but either way, the pledge of allegiance, I believe, convinced me at an early age that the U.S. government was flawless. Hopefully, more people will start to question the integrity of the entire oath, rather than just the "under God" section.

Simplicity and Zen

The other day, I happened to notice a book in my house called The Zen Commandments: Ten Suggestions for a Life of Inner Freedom. Apparently it was on Oprah's Book List, which made me wonder if the idea of living simply and "in the moment" was becoming more popular as people start to realize how unnecessarily hectic their lives are. Zen, a form of Buddhism that emphasizes living a life of meditation and simplicity, very much reminded me of Emerson and Thoreau's ideas. Because I was not all that familiar with the guidelines of Zen, I looked them up online and found two "essential rules to living like a Zen monk" which bore a striking resemblance to Emerson and Thoreau's opinions. The first rule was to "think about what is necessary", because a Zen monk "doesn’t have a closet full of shoes, or the latest in trendy clothes." Thoreau would agree with these ideas, as in "Economy," when questioning the necessity of clothes, he says "Each generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new" (19). The other rule was to live simply, "And so to live simply is to rid your life of as many of the unnecessary and unessential things as you can, to make room for the essential. Now, what is essential will be different to each person. There is no law saying what should be essential for you — but you should consider what is most important to your life, and make room for that by eliminating the other less essential things in your life." Thoreau, who wishes learn what "the gross necessaries of life" are, aspires to live as simple a life as possible, and Emerson would not only agree with living simply, but also with the idea of spending time doing what is essential to you. In "Self Reliance," he says, "What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think" (23). If Oprah chose this book about Zen to be on her list, then simplicity must be gaining popularity in our chaotic world!

Obesity and Sugar Substitutes

While obesity has become an epidemic among Americans, the food industry has found ways to reduce calories and sugar content in many products. A major method of doing so has been the use of artificial sweeteners. However, by replacing natural ingredients with artificial ones, I wonder if we really are progressing and improving nutritional value. While fake sugars significantly reduce caloric values, there are side effects to sweeteners that may be more serious and worthy of our attention. I found an article that details the dangers of sugar substitutes, where it is explained that aspartame, the main ingredient in Equal and NutraSweet, has had more complaints than any other food additive available to the public, and studies have shown that it can lead to damage to the central nervous system and genetic trauma. Even though the recepients, (rodents), were receiving extremely high amounts of the sweetener, these results demonstrate that this is a potentially dangerous substance that we are putting into our bodies. And while Splenda does not contain aspartame, it is calorie-free because it's chemical composisition goes unrecognized by the body and cannot be absorbed; however, some scientists predict that after a while, our bodies will recongnize it and digest it as sugar (no longer making it "calorie-free").
Sweeteners and other food subsitutes seem to be a short-term way to cut calories and lose weight. I think that in order for this country to truly progress and improve the obesity epidemic, the American life style has to change. Substitutes allow us to continue to eat the way we have been eating, but instead, we must change our dietary habits to live healthier lives. Obviously, this would involve excersise and healthy eating, and not simply cutting a few calories here and there, but I think this would improve the American people's general wellbeing.

Abortion Rights and Progress

As we study "progress" and what exactly progress is, I began to think about how people view abortion. Since the U.S. separated with Britain, increasing individual freedoms has been a definition of progress. And when it comes to abortion, it seems unlikely that the government would take away a woman's abortion rights, when in the past, the government has progressed and even gained support by giving people more freedom. Taking away someone's right to a choice seems to be regressive rather than progressive. However, I found an article that presented a different perspective. Catholic Bishops at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops General Assembly approved a statement saying that if the Freedom of Choice Act was enacted, they would consider it an attack on the church, because it would reduce religious freedom, and "Church leaders also said they are concerned that any expansion of abortion rights could require Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or face loss of federal funding." I had never thought of abortion rights as an infringement on religious freedom. Still, the law would allow Catholic patients to decide whether or not an abortion is right for them, so really, I don't believe the law is reducing any individual religious freedom, just the freedom of a catholic institution to choose what it offers its patients. Even after seeing the Catholic perspective, I believe that the Freedom of Choice act is an important step in moving America forward.

Suze Orman: Balancing Dreams with Reality

This weekend I found an article in the Costco magazine titled “Balance dreams with reality” in which Suze Orman gives people some wise financial advice. One woman, Aurora, wrote to Suze asking: “Our dream is to own a McDonald’s restaurant. Our plan is to sell the house for a down payment. Do you think this is a good idea?” Suze warns, “I love dreamers, but your dream could become a financial nightmare. You are going to give up all that security for something that is risky.” When it comes to managing ones finances, experts such as Suze Orman advocate making safe decisions. During this economic crisis, it appears that people are being forced to sacrifice their dreams for the sake of financial security.
Idealism and realism both have their ups and downs in the financial world. While idealists such as Aurora may have been a main factor in causing the present economic crisis, as risky decisions can result in accumulating large debts, optimism and confidence motivate people to invest in companies, allowing companies to prosper. It is always difficult to know whether or not pursuing a dream is worth the risk, because, as Suze says, it could become a nightmare. But in order to improve the economic crisis, it is important we find the right balance between pragmatism and idealism.

Democracy in Iraq Too Idealistic

As the war in Iraq drags on, more Americans lose hope of establishing democracy in the violent and unstable country. The United States' original goal, to create a model democracy with a self-supporting oil industry and society in which women had rights and the people were free from security and financial challenges, today seems absurdly unrealistic.
As we began studying the formation of America's republic, I could not help but wonder how we expected to establish a democracy in Iraq when we still do not elect our own president by popular vote! However, as U.S. officials begin to look at the situation in Iraq more pragmatically, they admit that they had been too optimistic, and are "shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning." The Bush Administration did not understand just how important it was to Kurds and Shiites that they be granted a higher status, and officials now say "We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic." Not only are Kurds and Shiites expecting political privileges, but women's rights will not be as well established as the Administration had hoped, because the Iraqi government will have to accommodate Islam in order to ensure political stability.
The establishment of the Iraqi government is, in many ways, similar to that of the United States'. In the beginning, America's goal was democracy. However, officials decided this to be unrealistic, as positions of government could not be decided by popular vote, because the common people were ill-equipped to choose the best candidate. The original ideas were too idealistic, and to make sure the government would be stable, they had to be more realistic and make America a republic. In Iraq, while a complete democracy sounds great, the chances of it succeeding are very slim, and so the U.S. must forfeit some of its original plans for Iraq, because the now, the ultimate goal is a stable government with improved human rights.

Affirmative Action

Thomas Jefferson did not mean to include all men when he wrote that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." However, today's educators struggle to ensure that American citizens of all backgrounds have equal opportunity to succeed. The Chicago Public School boycott that occurred at the beginning of this year brought disparities in school funding into question. While New Trier spent almost $17,000 per student in the 2006-2006 school year, CPS spent an estimated $10,400 per pupil. This enormous difference makes it very clear that students who live in more privileged areas are receiving better educations, and therefore have more opportunities to succeed.
Neither John McCain nor Barak Obama seem to be enthused with today's affirmative action programs. McCain supports an effort to get a referendum on the ballot in Arizona that would do away with affirmative action. Obama, while not against affirmative action programs, says they are not a solution to long-term race issues because "frankly, if you've got 50 percent of African American or Latino kids dropping out of high school, it doesn't really matter what you do in terms of affirmative action. Those kids are not getting into college." America is not, by any means, a meritocracy. Because the education the wealthy are receiving is so much better than that of many minorities living in poorer areas, America's wealthy are at a huge advantage. Something needs to be done in order to level the playing field and give all citizens equal rights to the pursuit of happiness.

Guinea's Independence Too Idealistic?

When, after centuries of colonization, European countries leave African states to fend for themselves, it is extremely difficult for the newly independent state to stand on its own two feet. This week marks the fiftieth anniversary of Guinea's independence; however, few are celebrating. In 1958, when France offered to keep Guinea under colonial rule for another fifty years, independence leader Sekou Tourre responded "We prefer poverty in freedom to riches in slavery," and the French left, "taking with them their expertise, office files and even light bulbs." Now the people of the African state live in severe poverty, without reliable electricity or drinking water.
Did the leaders of the independence movement fail to plan rationally, pragmatically? Were they too idealistic in their hopes that Guinea would prosper as an independent state? While optimistic and daring action can lead to greatness, such as America's severance with England, it must be well thought out. Sekou Toure knew that it was likely that Guinea would face poverty when the French left, but went through with the independence movement regardless. And now, 89-year-old citizen Mohammed Bashir Toure would be happy to let the French recolonize, simply because his homeland is in such a state of disaster. While Mohammed's positive view of colonialism is in no way the consensus among Guineans, everyone agrees that the country is in desperate need of aid from somewhere.

Realistic Idealists

In a foreign policy speech to the World Affairs Council in L.A., John McCain referrs to himself as a "realistic idealist." He first states that he is an idealist who believes that it is America's duty to make the world a better place. Shortly after, he says "But I am, from hard experience and the judgment it informs, a realistic idealist." What I found interesting was that McCain did not abandon the world "idealist" when he stated that he was also a realist. He did not simply say that he was also a pragmatist; he emphasizes that he is still an idealist. I think this may be because Americans, for the most part, want to hear from the idealistic candidate; we want to hear how great life will be when this president takes over. McCain almost says that he is realistic with a negative connotation, as if unfortunately, he has seen some evil things in his years of experience, and is now forced to be realistic. Americans, I believe, support idealism over pragmatism. The founding fathers of our country were idealists. They took a huge risk by traveling across the ocean to a completely foreign land, bringing virtually nothing except the hopes of building better lives for themselves. Idealists are not afraid to take risks in order to improve life, and that is what the colonists did, and that is what presidential candidates try to show they will do.
Pragmatism is still very important to many voters, as it would be ridiculous to vote for a candidate who has impossible goals in mind. However, I think the idealist is the one who captures the attention.

False Confessions

It's hard to believe that there was a time where people were hung for crimes they didn't commit, where the accused had two options: confess or be hanged. But it is even harder to believe that these days of forcing confessions out of "criminals" are not over. In 2002, military trainers at Guantanamo Bay interrogated prisoners using a list of torture tactics that had been designed and used by the Chinese in the 1950s to evoke false confessions from Americans. And so, the tactics that the U.S. military have been using have been designed to get a confession, whether it be false or legitmate, out of the accused. Senator Paul Levin comments "People say we need intelligence, and we do. But we don't need false intelligence." It is hard to understand why these methods would be used because it seems as if no good can come from them, as the information gained from confessions is unreliable.

A 35-year-old Tunisian admited that while in Afghanistan, after spending two months in the dark without sufficient drinking water, he falsely confessed to having trained with militants. He later "denied having received the training, saying "he's been treated well" during two and a half years at Guantanamo and "felt there wasn't going to be any retribution" if he told the truth."

On a moral level, this torture is not all that different from what occured in Salem. Accused terrorists are tortured before they are given any sort of trial, and are then coerced into confessing to crimes they may not have committed. However, while the witch trials were the talk of the town in Salem, the U.S. goverment does anything but advertise the events transpiring at Guantanamo Bay.

I cannot help but wonder why interrogators seek confessions if they might not be legitimate. Maybe it is because they do not consider the possiblity that the accused is innocent. Maybe it is because they feel they need to rid the world of every threat to their people's safety, just as the people of Salem wanted to cleanse their society of those who were harming their children. Or maybe it is because in perilous times, people become blind to the irrationality of their actions.

McCain's Advantage in Recent Debate

In Sunday's Chicago Tribune, Gerould Kern argues that in the debate between McCain and Obama, McCain had the upperhand due to his years of experience in foreign affairs and military endeavors. In the editorial, the author's audience seems to be the same as the candidates': the American people. Kern is trying to make a connection with his audience when, while explaining our nation's debt, he writes "any bailout likely will..push that number into (gulp) the low 14 digits." He is showing Americans that he too is worried about the debt and future taxes, and in this way, he connects with his audience. His purpose in writing this editorial is to inform readers that McCain's experience gave him an advantage over Obama in the debate; however, Kern never goes so far as to say that this experience would make McCain the better man for the job. This may be because such a statement would not appeal to much of his audience, as he is writing in Illinois, a primarily democratic state.
Kern's argument is based on logos. He supports his claim that Mcain had the advantage because of his experience with specifics on McCain's past involvement in military decisions. Kern did not however, establish his own credibility on the subject, so the argument lacked "ethos." The argument also lacked any sort of emotional appeal, or "pathos," but that is likely because arguing the winner of a debate does not exactly warrant a heartfelt argument.

Perilous Times in the Inner City

For some time, Hetty Shephard felt trapped inside her home because she was not allowed out in fear of outside dangers, such as violent Indians. On June 19, 1676, she wrote "My heart longs sorely for the ocean, and all day I am weary of staying in the house." In the North Shore, times are rarely "perilous" and it's difficult to imagine what it would be like to have to stay home in order to be safe. However, a short drive to inner city Chicago transports us to a different world, where simply walking the streets can be extremely dangerous. Gang violence has become such a large problem, and has cost so many innocent children their lives, that many children and adults are now reluctant to leave their homes. I found an article detailing the sentiments of these Chicago children, and one fifth grader says 'I feel like a prisoner because I usually can't go outside.'
In order to ameliorate the situation, after school programs, sports teams, and church groups for youth have been formed, not only to get kids off the streets, but to give them a sense of belonging. Gang violence is one of many problems making times in the inner city "perilous," so many kids join gangs to obtain support and protection to help them cope with their problems. However, organized programs provide an alternative that gives kids a group to look to to help them deal with the times.

Changing Names

When reading the "Survival and Adaptation" packet, I was apalled by how the Native American children at English speaking schools were forced to pick an American name, just to make pronunciation easier for their teachers. These kids gave up their name, a crucial part of their identity! And even though this seems like a terrible thing to make students do, name-changing continues to be very common and acceptable. Asian Americans often give up the name they were given at birth and change it to an English name, as to avoid mispronunciations. Although it is the individual's choice to change his or her name, I couldn't help but wonder if they feel pressured to do so.
I found an aritcle at
http://www.asian-nation.org/headlines/2006/01/changing-names-among-asian-americans/ written by an Asian American expressing his feelings towards name change. The author quoted the Daily Northwestern Newspaper, which states that students with Asian and American names do not feel detatched from their culture. One student explains "Having an American and Korean name helps to kind of represent both of the cultures that I embody.” While this student appreciates having these two identities, the author of the article itself seems to fear that having an American name could cause the individual to forget their Asian heritage.

first post

this