When is Civil Disobedience Worth it?

According to the LAist, There is a plan for civil disobedience at the Festival of Lights in Griffith Park, a holiday light show where cars can drive along Crystal Springs Drive and look at the light displays. In the past few years, cyclists have become upset that they don't have the same rights, and can't drive their bikes down the light show as well.

Their reasoning is that the California Vehicles Code says that cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as car-drivers on the road, implying they can ride through the same places. It is known that the main reason for the no bikers rule is safety, and that Crystal Springs Drive is a private road.

This brings about the question, when is civil disobedience worth it? Is it worth it to ride your bike if it means getting arrested? Thoreau would argue yes, you need to stand up for what you believe in and make your own personal code of laws. Despite only spending a night in jail, Thoreau didn't follow any laws he found unworthy or meaningless, and urges others to do the same. If everybody followed Thoroeaus advice, the world would surely be a different place. Not everybody would be able to be locked in jail and therefore the government would have to reform completely. This is an interesting concept, but I don't think America is ready to give up on all its laws. The bikers may do as they please, but I wouldn't get arrested just for the right to bike through a light show.

Emerson verses Obama?

When looking at the news online, I came across a website explaining Obama's first steps towards saving our financial crisis. His plan includes making a huge investment in America's infrastructure, as part of a master plan to create 2.5 million jobs. In the long run, this plan will improve schools, reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil, and save billions of dollars. His future plans also include making public buildings more energy efficient by installing better light bulbs and replacing old heating systems.

Yesterday I read a chapter from Howard Zinn, which described the removal of Indians under the earlier presidents. Zinn mentioned Ralph Waldo Emerson, an author we've been deeply studying. The chapter mentioned the letter Emerson wrote to current president Martin Van Buren, in deep disapproval of his removal treaty with the Cherokees. Emerson went so far as to question the justice in America.

Reading about Emerson's opinions led me to wonder what he would have thought about newly elected president Barack Obama. It's hard to say, but I would argue Emerson would like Obama a lot. Obama's plan looks towards the future, but focuses on the present, on what we need now, something both Emerson and his apprentice Thoreau preached. I think that Emerson also would have appreciated Obama's simple and direct plan that gets at the heart of America's problems. There's no way of knowing for sure, but I think Emerson would have liked Obama and respected his ideas.

Social Reforms, Now and Then

When I was reading the book Give Me Liberty, by Eric Foner, I learned about the causes that people cared about, and the lengths they went through to try and get things such as gender equality and freedom for all African Americans. It's interesting to look at the reforms people are attempting to recieve today, and see their similarities and differences to the originals. For example, Seattle Times writes about today's health care system, which has for a long time been in deep need of reform. However, the author puts a positive spin on the article, with the new election making the future seem brighter. He comments: "No question, it will still be a tough fight. But you can see the possibility of success".

Another online news source, the Des Moines Register, worries about the success of America's education system, using evidence that during 2006, 15 year olds placed 29th on the science exams out of the 57 countries being tested. Clearly the author of this article considers the reform of education a dire cause, in need of immediate help. It's fascinating to see that despite the progress of America, there are still reforms to be made, but they've advanced from things like the improvement of attitudes towards African Americans to improvement of test scores, and from gender equality to equality in health care.

Does Progress always have a Downside?

With the new president, there's a happier atmosphere all around. Despite the economic crisis that is by no means over, Barack Obama's promise for change certainly has raised everyone's national optimism. While nobody can be sure of the future, at least we can say thatAmerica is breaking down barriers with this election. Even if the president doesn't live up to expectations, national progress has still been made in racism.

I was reminded of the election when I was reading Give Me Liberty by Eric Foner today, and read about America's earliest elections. It was a long process from the first election until African Americans were even allowed to vote, and we've come all the way to the President. Foner mentioned how when the voting rights were expanded for more whites, they were closed off to almost all African Americans, showing the bad side of progress. Will there be a bad side to our newfound national progress as well? We'll have to wait and find out, but the national progress over time is undeniable.

Pragmatism in a sea of Idealism

On Tuesday we all witnessed on TV (and a few of the lucky ones actually at Grant Park), the historic event of our first African American president being elected. There have been articles all over the news, and the main celebration seems to be that this proves America has gotten over its racism. When seeing these, I thought it was a little bit too far reaching to say things referring to our country as "post-racial" America. Obviously there was no way to keep things in perspective the moment Obama won, why take away all the wild excitement people were feeling? However, it's time to get pragmatic. Chances are, America didn't magically turn into a perfect country overnight. We're still going to need to work to break down prejuidices, and no matter what anybody says I do not believe there's not a trace of racism left in the country.

On the other hand, I think McCain handled his concession speech in the perfect manner, and should be a role model to all politicians when handling defeat. McCain was obviously pragmatic in the way that he had lost, his chances in the election were clearly over. However, he was very idealistic in his praise and sincere hope for Obama in the future. McCain had the power to start riots over his loss, but with the perfect blend of appeals, McCain left the election a well respected politician.

Pragmatic Thinking Regarding the Revolution

For homework this weekend, we were assigned chapter 5 of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, titled "A Kind of Revolution". I saw what we would have called "an asterisk" in chapter 1 appearing before my eyes. Instead of the normal American Revolution story, (the incredible odds, the cruel British, our noble battles and our people united), I found myself reading a story that reveals the internal fights, the cruel segregation, and overall faults of the Americans during the Revolution.

I suppose in the back of my mind I always knew that the "textbook" version of the American Revolution had to be pretty biased, but I just put it in the back of my mind and ignored it. I viewed this bit of history idealistically, believing that the Americans had only the most courageous intentions and never for a second faltered from their common goal. However, in cases like these, I'd argue that it's better to look at history pragmatically. It's never really safe to assume that one side was perfect, or that the history book was telling the unbiased truth. If you think more pragmatically, you'll be more likely to see when a source is biased, forcing you to look more cautiously.

Can Hope be a Bad Thing?

This morning I was reading through comcast news when I was shocked to find a quote from John McCain, "This is going to be a very close race, and I believe I'm going to win it". There's nothing wrong with being optimistic, but when McCain is still behind Obama in the polls, shouldn't he be a little pragmatic about the situation? According to the article, "Recent public polls have shown McCain trailing Obama both nationally and in some of the battleground states...". You'd think with McCain clearly behind, he should be a little bit less than comfertable right now. He even blew off critiques of Palin, stating that "she is exactly what Washington needs".

McCain is regarding the election idealistically, at least in the public eye. He announces to the world that he is confident in winning the election, but can too much hope prove to be a bad thing? Is it okay to have his confidence so high when he's not sure he'll succeed? Hope and idealism can be such great things that help one strive for success, but what's the point if you just end up getting put down? When trying to win at anything, such as the role of president, it's great to have hope, but one has to be pragmatic, and prepare for the worst at the same time.

What's the Tipping Point?

According to the New York Times, on Sunday, Barack Obama's presidential campaign announced that it had raised more than 150 million dollars in September, a huge amount unheard of by presidential campaign's in the past. Of course this is great news for Obama and all of his supporters, but it brings up the question, what is the "tipping point" for idealism or pragmatism? A very idealistic voter might think, everyone will just vote for who's views they agree with the most, while the most pragmatic one will be sure the elections are completely corrupt. What's the perfect balance?

When applied to Obama's recent good news, we all probobly wish money didn't matter, but we also have to realize that the campaign's are always going to be at least somewhat money driven. It's always good to think optimistically, but you can't always have your head in the clouds either. You have to stay grounded. People are most likely going to sway slightly more in one direction, but it can be dangerous to be completely on one side. For example, if Obama was 100% idealistic, he wouldn't have attempted to earn any money for his campaign, and therefore wouldn't be anywhere near where he is now. On the other hand, if he was completely pragmatic he wouldn't have his motto "change we can believe in", and he wouldn't be nearly as likeable, consequently losing many possible votes.

The Presidential Debate: Who Will Lead us through our Perilous Times?

Unfortunately I didn't have time to watch the debate last night, but I did read all about it from news articles. Though all aspects of presidency are important, it seems the question everyone wants answered is how our future president will fix (or at least get us through) the current economic crisis. McCain's approach is a 300 billion pledge to buy and renegotiate bad home loans to allow people to keep their houses. He provides America with ethos when he states that "it's my proposal, it's not Senator Obama's proposal, it's not President Bush's proposal and I know how to get America working again". Obama, on the other hand, tells us that he is going to "provide middle class tax cuts to 95% of working Americans". Both candidates seem to have a clear set plan to get us out of our perilous times, but the question now becomes who can convince us that they will go through with their plan, and which plan will succeed in its goal. According to CNN's poll of the undecided voters, Obama won the debate 59% to 37. However, I remembered the comment that was made in American Studies today, about how everyone who saw JFK during his presidential debate thought he won, while radio listeners were sure Nixon was the winner. This made me think back to making arguments, and how everything from whats visually presented to the evidence itself can profoundly affect something like a presidential debate. I guess its up to us to decide what arguments a real and what are cleverly covered by pathos and ethos.

Analyzing Arguments

When finding an argument to analyze, I looked to the Chicago Tribune, and flipped to the Editorial section. I immediately was drawn in by the article, "China's Milk Problem". The author wasn't listed, but it's published by Tony W. Hunter and edited by Gerould W. Kern. This article describes a problem going on in China at the moment, thousands of babies becoming ill and even being hospitalized due to the chemical Melamine that has been added to baby formula. I found this a very good argument, backed up by sufficient evidence.

The editorial makes the claim that the Chinese government should have acted sooner, ending with the powerful line "What a shame that it took the lives of children to force the governors there to pay heed to the governed." I had a difficult time finding ethos in the article having no author to go from, but the opening line develops a little trust with some background information, "China's rulers have long tried to control the flow of information withing their borders". Although not amazing, the fact that the author seems to know what he or she is talking about helps his or her ethos. The article immediately moves on to provide strong logos, with the facts that "Melamine that was added to infant formula in China has sickened 53,000 babies there. Nearly 13,000 had to be hospitalized. Three have died." These cold hard facts prove that their is clearly a problem in need of help.

I found plenty of pathos in the argument, mainly with the picture planted right in the middle of the article, forcing you to look at it. The picture is of a Chinese baby crying, which pulls at the heartstrings. The line "Grieving parents demanded to know how the government could have permitted such substandard construction", also proves pathos when it reminds the reader of everyone who suffers from the issue.

The main problem I found with this article was that there was no real connection to the reader, but in my opinion the logos and pathos made a strong enough statement not to really require a strong reader/author connection. The author also doesn't seem to have a specific audience, which in this case is a good thing, because nobody feels restricted from reading it or that it doesn't apply to them.

Overall, this argument was very strong, including at least a little of ethos, pathos, and logos, and thoroughly convincing. By the end of reading I was ready to fly to China to help with the problem! If anything, the author should have done more to establish themselves with ethos, proving that they should be believed about the topic.

Will History Repeat itself?

On Wednesday night legislature leaders, Mccain and Obama were called to a White House summit to discuss the current financial crisis. Bush warned that if the $700 billion financial bailout wasn't acted on, we could face a recession, and be thrown into another great depression. The Democrats and Republicans were finally reaching an agreement and have a meeting set for Thursday to start drafting a bipartisan bill. Bush describes the consequences of not acting soon: "America could slip into a financial panic and a distressing scenario would unfold". This distressing scenario might include shrinking retirement savings, rising foreclosures, lost jobs and closed businesses.

This brought me back to The Crucible, and the Salem Witch Trials. In my opinion, the main reason so many people were killed was because of the mass hysteria that broke out due to the rising fear of witchcraft, and this was brought about by the fact that the puritan community was steadily falling apart. The Puritans were facing perilous times, and witchcraft was brought into the picture to bring them closer together. It's pretty obvious that it didn't work out so well for them. Now, in modern day perilous times, will we face another set of Salem Witch Trials? Probably not, but I think we need to get out of these times as quickly as we can before America slips into panic.

EVERYTHING is an Argument

Upon reading Everything's an Argument by Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruszkiewicz, I immediately thought of the presidential campaign, and I couldn't really fit it under just one sub-section of argument. It would definitely fall under "Arguments to Convince"(10), because each candidate argues to America that they would be the best leader for the country, a very difficult task. For example, Barack Obama's campaign slogan is "Change we can believe in", an argument obviously meant to convince us of his ability to change America, and his overall ethos. I also found the campaign easily fitting under the the heading "Arguments to Make Decisions", because it is described as aiming "at making good, sound decisions"(13), and that's something that America is attempting to do. It's up to the candidates to convince us that they would be the better, more sound choice. A third heading I found was under "Arguments about the Future" (18), mainly because the it includes establishing "policies for the future", and that's what the presidents are all about. They have to argue why they would be good candidates for the future of America. Obviously, the presidential campaign is full of argument both secret and hidden, I guess it's up to us to decide which arguments to agree with and which to ignore.

White House at War over Lipstick?

About 2 weeks ago, Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin made a comment that the only difference between a hockey mom and a warthog is that a hockey mom wears lipstick. Fast forward two weeks to yesterday, and Barrack Obama makes a comment about the Republican party, joking that "You can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig". Although a seemingly innocent comment, the Republican party jumped on Obama's comment, calling it sexist and claiming it compares Palin to a pig.

This made me think of how news is usually told from one point of view, thererfore presenting a bias. On one side of the story, Obama made a sexist comment that was meant to demoralize Sarah Palin and the Republican campaign. If you take a look at the other narrative (in this case, both seem to be equally dominant), Obama used an everyday phrase that was misconstrued as a sexist remark. Either way you look at it, the Democratic campaign could be seriously damaged due to a simple choice of words (or not). Luckily, I found an interesting website that has a short post from both a democratic and republican author. Check it out here.

First Post

This is the FIRST post!