shamWOW!

In American Studies class on Friday, we talked about romanticizing, or making things seem better than they actually are. During our discussion, a commercial immediatly came to mind for me. It's an advertisement for a towel called the shamwow, and after watching it I was pretty tempted to call the number on the screen and buy one.

If you strip away the colorful commercial, the towels are really just extra-absorbant and let you cut them into pieces. However, the over-enthusiastic spokesperson goes on and on for about 10 minutes with a ridiculous microphone, and convinces everyone that the shamwow will be the only cleaning item you ever need. The commercial used lines like "The item pretty much sells itself", making it seem like some undiscovered magic item.

Even though towel choice never seemed that important to me, by romanticizing this item, I was tricked into believing something was much better than it was. It's so interesting that before learning about romanticizing, I was so much more suspectible to falling victim to clever advertisers.

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.