The beginning of this book surprised me a bit, because Lincoln is shown having more against slavery on economic and political grounds than actual moral grounds. But now we begin to see how Lincoln has transformed himself into the politician we remember. "And so, for the first time, Lincoln began to speak, not in terms of motives, but in certain natural moral relationships, which slavery violated" (188). This, however, appears to be more a political move than anything done from the heart. In fact, " My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia"(189). This shows how Lincoln has no clear idea about what should be done when the slaves were to be freed, and thought of them more as something to be opposed against than actual people and human beings. He was more concerned with what they represented than who they actually were. He seems to think of slaves more highly as it goes on and proclaimed slavery was "fatally violating the noblest political system the world ever saw"(197).
The ethical decisions that Lincoln faces during this section of his life. He now has to fiercely debate against Mr. Stephen Douglass who loved to antagonize Lincoln about his beliefs. Lincoln was unable to fully disagree and say his beliefs about slavery, since "no Illinois politician could hope to survive in the white racial supremacist climate of Illinois."(222) He was torn between winning the election, and being able to tell what he truly believed. He had to carefully balance his position and try not to offend anybody, much like politicians of today. When he finally felt comfortable to make that argument " Lincoln's attack on the immorality of slavery moved to the center of his arguments. Douglass is aghast and sees that "questions of morality were purely personal and had no place on the public square debate"(226). Lincoln sees differently and this is one of the most important decisions for him. He no longer decides to debate slavery as economically unjust or such, but instead is making it his central argument that it is immoral. This issue would later go on to define him as a person, and his ethical choice now had far-reaching consequences.
Guelzo, Allen C. Abraham Lincoln : Redeemer President. Boston: William B. Eerdmans Company, 2002.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
On the Waterfront
I believe many people in On the Waterfront approach the concept in many different ways. Although Terry's struggle is the highlighted one, many other characters in the film try to find the answer to that question as well. Edy's father at the beginning accepts Joey's death, and does not decide to do anything about it. He realizes the mob controls everything and he is not going to try and go the same way as Joey. However in the end after looking at what Terry, and Joe Doogan have done to stand up to the mob, he decides to go with it and even pushes Joe Friendly into the water. He seems to want to go wherever the wind blows, and when he sees that the power of the mob has been diminished he even gets his justice and pushes Joe Friendly. Charlie, in the scene with the taxi, also tries to deal with that question. He is torn between love for his brother and what he thinks the mob will do to him. He even goes as far as to pull out his gun, but Terry easily disarms him, and it shows how Charlie really does feel love for his brother at the end. He is truly caught between two opposing forces trying to dictate what he should do. In the end, he feels sorry for his brother and decides to support him. Unfortunately that ends up costing him his life, however he does appear to be vindicated before he died, leading one to feel as though there must be some losses in the quest for truth.
I believe that a traitor is someone who betrays a group or somebody for their own benefit. They can get money, power, protection, or any assortment of things, but at the end of the day they are doing it for selfish reasons. A whistle-blower is doing it for their own beliefs and truly believes what they are doing is right. They must also be doing something that will benefit society as whole. This is much harder to decide who is helping society and who only thinks they are helping society. Osama Bin Laden beleives he's doing the right thing but nobody thinks of him as a hero. This is because he does not have a plan for creating things, he only wants to destroy. He doesn't want to enrich the world, he only wants to go back to the way things were four centuries ago, and will do anything he can to make sure it happens.
I believe that a traitor is someone who betrays a group or somebody for their own benefit. They can get money, power, protection, or any assortment of things, but at the end of the day they are doing it for selfish reasons. A whistle-blower is doing it for their own beliefs and truly believes what they are doing is right. They must also be doing something that will benefit society as whole. This is much harder to decide who is helping society and who only thinks they are helping society. Osama Bin Laden beleives he's doing the right thing but nobody thinks of him as a hero. This is because he does not have a plan for creating things, he only wants to destroy. He doesn't want to enrich the world, he only wants to go back to the way things were four centuries ago, and will do anything he can to make sure it happens.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
AMS Q1
Many characters in All of My Sons base their actions on what they perceive society as needing. Joe Keller even admits "For you, a business for you!" (70). He knowingly shipped out defective parts that would kill other men as long as his son could be happy withe the business. He greatly values family over society as a whole and he has taken it to an absurd extreme. In the end however, he begins to realize that in fact society is like an extended family. He observes " Sure, he was my son. But I think to him they were all my sons. And I guess there were, I guess they were" (83). He has gradually realized that there is no different connection between family and society. Any one of those men could have been in his family, and it happened to Chris. However, there is no real difference between Chris and those other men that were killed. Joe Keller finally decides to believe this when they get the letter from Larry. Larry threatens to kill him, and that is what finally convinces him that society and family really are no different. Kate on the other hand is not convinced, and all they should be is sorry. She remarks " What more can we be!"(84). She is not convinced that this letter changes anything, and that all they should do it be sorry. Larry was a horrible tragedy, but she believes her overall behavior should not really change because of him.
I believe that needs of your family is often more important than the needs of society. Your family not only depends on you, but what you do much more greatly affects it. So you become an important part of it. Try as hard as you want, and you're unlikely to be able to change society. However, you're family can very easily be changed for the better through your efforts. This makes it paramount to help them as the potential is so much greater. However, helping society should not be sacrificed for that. Society is also important, if a bit harder to relate to, due to the lack of physical people you can know. Society is much easier to harm, as you don't feel like you're harming anyone. It's more of a vague object that people think of, and this allows them to justify all the wrongs that happen to society as a whole.
Miller, Arthur, and Christopher Bigsby. All My Sons : A Drama in Three Acts. New York: Penguin Classics, 2000.
I believe that needs of your family is often more important than the needs of society. Your family not only depends on you, but what you do much more greatly affects it. So you become an important part of it. Try as hard as you want, and you're unlikely to be able to change society. However, you're family can very easily be changed for the better through your efforts. This makes it paramount to help them as the potential is so much greater. However, helping society should not be sacrificed for that. Society is also important, if a bit harder to relate to, due to the lack of physical people you can know. Society is much easier to harm, as you don't feel like you're harming anyone. It's more of a vague object that people think of, and this allows them to justify all the wrongs that happen to society as a whole.
Miller, Arthur, and Christopher Bigsby. All My Sons : A Drama in Three Acts. New York: Penguin Classics, 2000.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Abraham Lincoln: The Young Adult Years
This week I read a section in my book about Lincoln as he was growing up in his young adult years. Lincoln after a series of failed debts in New Salem, became a successful legislator in the Illinois state legislature and a very respectable practicing lawyer. One of Lincoln's friends is quoted as saying "he could write out a speech... and then repeat it word for word without any effort on his part"(Guelzo 84) to show how much of an amazing memory he had. This skill seems to have helped him out a lot in later years, as he could recognize faces and dates to help put people at ease. It also furthers the theme that there was a lot more to this man than most people think of, and he really was quite the intellectual. His choice to pick being a lawyer as a career was also an interesting choice, due to his rather humble roots. "To truculent Democratic yeoman and workers, this made lawyers appear as the secret trades union of the markets, bemystifying honest farmers and urban workingmen and winning enormous fee"(Guezlo 96). This quote on the other hand shows how the average person, as they do now, despises lawyers and sees them as confusing and unnecessary. Lincoln on the other hand wanted to further and support the law, and being a lawyer is the most common occupation for politicians.
One of the most interesting parts I found was how the book describes Lincoln as a religious skeptic. Lincoln frankly said "My father was a member of the Baptist Church, but I am not"(Guezlo 116). This seems very different from the person we think of as president. It seems even more unlikely that a person who had said that could be elected to the presidency. Even now there is only one person in Congress who openly says he does not believe in God. Lincoln himself realized this problem and and admitted it was "a tax of considerable per cent. upon my strength throughout the religious community"(Guezlo 116). He was however not a complete atheist, but instead more of a religious skeptic. It is extremely impressive that he managed to still get election to the Illinois State legislature with this type of handicap, and is really a testament to his amazing political expertise.
One of the most interesting parts I found was how the book describes Lincoln as a religious skeptic. Lincoln frankly said "My father was a member of the Baptist Church, but I am not"(Guezlo 116). This seems very different from the person we think of as president. It seems even more unlikely that a person who had said that could be elected to the presidency. Even now there is only one person in Congress who openly says he does not believe in God. Lincoln himself realized this problem and and admitted it was "a tax of considerable per cent. upon my strength throughout the religious community"(Guezlo 116). He was however not a complete atheist, but instead more of a religious skeptic. It is extremely impressive that he managed to still get election to the Illinois State legislature with this type of handicap, and is really a testament to his amazing political expertise.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Abraham Lincoln
My biography is about the one and only Abraham Lincoln and how we contributed to society in general. Allen C. Guezlo has so far done an extremely good job with illustrating how society has evolved during the early years of America and how this influenced Lincoln. In the introduction he also compared him to Jefferson and how he differed from his supposed idol. Jefferson believed heavily in an agrarian society. It also showed how there is actually tons of literature and ideas being spread in the early days of America. After all, "republicanism infected Americans with the conviction that everyone should have access to learning"(22). This is counter-intuitive to ones image of the early days of America. You think of Daniel Boone, and frontiersmen, instead of a pursuit for ideals that infected the country. This really presents a better view of Lincoln as someone of his time, instead of a rare scholar, in a time of hillbillies. As the book says, Lincoln " is not often thought as an intellectual in an era which, unfortunately, is not often thought of as an arena for ideas"(24-25). This really shows how much of a misconception we have about this time period and how stereotyped it has become. As we think of America it goes from rebellious intellectuals and heroes, to pioneers. There was not obviously this big of a drop off, and the intellectualism of Jefferson and Washington was just not just a one-time event in American history.
The second chapter deals more with how he grew up, as a farm laborer, a character familiar to most Americans. His humble roots is one of the great stories of America and still celebrated today. There are even toys about it, namely, Lincoln Logs. However this book shows how not only did he overcome that, but he also overcame a father is at best unwilling to educate his son. At worst, he flatly prevented it. "Thomas Lincoln was easily irritated when Abraham began to bestow on reading time that his father might have better wanted to see him spend on hire-out labor"(35). However threw some inner desire Lincoln still managed to pursue a career in politics, and managed to self-educate. For all the foibles that most biographies discover about their subject, in an effort to sell books, this just seems to show how great of a man Lincoln was. He was amiable to all, and believed truly that liberty was a gift to be given to all.
Guelzo, Allen C. Abraham Lincoln : Redeemer President. Boston: William B. Eerdmans Company, 2002.
The second chapter deals more with how he grew up, as a farm laborer, a character familiar to most Americans. His humble roots is one of the great stories of America and still celebrated today. There are even toys about it, namely, Lincoln Logs. However this book shows how not only did he overcome that, but he also overcame a father is at best unwilling to educate his son. At worst, he flatly prevented it. "Thomas Lincoln was easily irritated when Abraham began to bestow on reading time that his father might have better wanted to see him spend on hire-out labor"(35). However threw some inner desire Lincoln still managed to pursue a career in politics, and managed to self-educate. For all the foibles that most biographies discover about their subject, in an effort to sell books, this just seems to show how great of a man Lincoln was. He was amiable to all, and believed truly that liberty was a gift to be given to all.
Guelzo, Allen C. Abraham Lincoln : Redeemer President. Boston: William B. Eerdmans Company, 2002.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Debt and it Consequences
For this week I decided to read an article about debt and how it's perceived in culture. It talked about how debt is an intrinsic part of who we are as a people, and that it is somehting we must come to terms with. For example, "in Aramaic, the language that Jesus himself spoke, the word for “debt” and the word for “sin” are the same"(2).
I thought this article was very interesting, seeing as how our country is ten trillion dollars in debt, and that we're still in a deficit. I find this despicable, as does everyone I know, yet we still continue to go deeper in debt. People just can't face the fact that we will have to raise taxes, or severely lower the budget to get out of it.
I also thought it was interesting because of how debt is shown as such a horrible thing in most of historical literature. For example, "hell, in Dante’s “Divine Comedy,” is the place where absolutely everything is remembered by those in torment" (3). This really shows how those that are unfamiliar with capitalism can be scared of taking someones money using just your word to say you'll pay it back later. Debt is also an important part of a capitalistic society, but it is important to remember their misgivings, in that you should only go into debt for what you can for sure pay back later.
I thought this article was very interesting, seeing as how our country is ten trillion dollars in debt, and that we're still in a deficit. I find this despicable, as does everyone I know, yet we still continue to go deeper in debt. People just can't face the fact that we will have to raise taxes, or severely lower the budget to get out of it.
I also thought it was interesting because of how debt is shown as such a horrible thing in most of historical literature. For example, "hell, in Dante’s “Divine Comedy,” is the place where absolutely everything is remembered by those in torment" (3). This really shows how those that are unfamiliar with capitalism can be scared of taking someones money using just your word to say you'll pay it back later. Debt is also an important part of a capitalistic society, but it is important to remember their misgivings, in that you should only go into debt for what you can for sure pay back later.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Analog vs. Digital
For my reading this week, I chose to do an article about an upstart young company that's trying to make a digital video camera that is as good as one with film. This camera is known as the red1 The founder of the company however, is the billionaire founder of Oakley. It manages to have "4,096 lines of horizontal resolution—"4K" in filmmaker lingo—and 2,304 of vertical" (1). This is the same as analog recordings, however digital cameras are much easier to use and operate with. One of the greatest successes of the Red1 was how it can also allow the camera operator to blur certain areas of the screen, and use various other techniques that usually only analog can do. The best part? The Red1 sells for $17,500, while most analog cameras rent for $25,000 a month.
I'm a pretty big novice to the area of high quality film-making. However this seems like a win-win situation. Everyone saves money, and ultimately has an easier job. Its just yet another example of an invention rendering another technology obsolete. One of the most of the revealing things, is that "Peter Jackson, the Lord of the Rings himself, bought four" (2). The Lord of the Rings series is one of my favorite of all time, so Peter Jackson endorsing these cameras pretty much signifies to me how good these are. If these cameras do not become the standard in the next ten years, I will be very surprised, as it seems inevitable from this article. The only negative thing mentioned about them is that they don't produce a tangible result like film. This complaint seems ridiculous, as film itself can't be exposed to light or scratches, making it much more likely to fail than a hard drive.
Behar, Michael. "Analog Meets Its Match in Red Digital Cinema's Ultrahigh-Res Camera." Wired. 18 Sept. 2008. 23 Oct. 2008
I'm a pretty big novice to the area of high quality film-making. However this seems like a win-win situation. Everyone saves money, and ultimately has an easier job. Its just yet another example of an invention rendering another technology obsolete. One of the most of the revealing things, is that "Peter Jackson, the Lord of the Rings himself, bought four" (2). The Lord of the Rings series is one of my favorite of all time, so Peter Jackson endorsing these cameras pretty much signifies to me how good these are. If these cameras do not become the standard in the next ten years, I will be very surprised, as it seems inevitable from this article. The only negative thing mentioned about them is that they don't produce a tangible result like film. This complaint seems ridiculous, as film itself can't be exposed to light or scratches, making it much more likely to fail than a hard drive.
Behar, Michael. "Analog Meets Its Match in Red Digital Cinema's Ultrahigh-Res Camera." Wired. 18 Sept. 2008. 23 Oct. 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
The Lies of Commericials
Throughout this election, TV commericals have been one of the big ways to convince voters. And of course there have been misleading facts, quotes taken out of context, and sometimes even outright lies. Supposedly, McCain started lying to voters in tv commercials, but "Mr. Obama began his own run of advertisements on radio and television that have matched the dubious nature of Mr. McCain’s more questionable spots" (1). For example one ad claims that McCain is very against stem cell research, when in fact but broke with President Bush to consistently support it starting in 2001 but he "broke with President Bush to consistently support it starting in 2001 "(1).
In my opinion, these commercials are ridiculous. In an ideal world people would be able to learn the truth, and thus would be unaffected by these commercials. However that is not how it is. People are influenced by these commercials, so lying into them is unforgivable. Particularly Obama, who's ads have "taken a decidedly negative tone in the past few weeks" (2). This is coming from someone who is supposedly above politics. Joe Trippi, a longtime Democratic strategist calls it "an eye for an eye"(3). This is outrageous. Because McCain, his opponent is doing it, that makes it ok for Obama to do it? One is supposed to stay above sinking to the enemies level. Fortunately there are some great resources I have found online likePolitifact that help people see who is lying and when. I feel bad for our nation when I see politicians lying, but I feel even worse when I see that it is an effective strategy.
Rutenberg, Jim. "Dubious Claims in Obama’s Ads Against McCain, Despite Vow of Truth." New York Times. 25 Sept. 2008. 9 Oct. 2008.
In my opinion, these commercials are ridiculous. In an ideal world people would be able to learn the truth, and thus would be unaffected by these commercials. However that is not how it is. People are influenced by these commercials, so lying into them is unforgivable. Particularly Obama, who's ads have "taken a decidedly negative tone in the past few weeks" (2). This is coming from someone who is supposedly above politics. Joe Trippi, a longtime Democratic strategist calls it "an eye for an eye"(3). This is outrageous. Because McCain, his opponent is doing it, that makes it ok for Obama to do it? One is supposed to stay above sinking to the enemies level. Fortunately there are some great resources I have found online likePolitifact that help people see who is lying and when. I feel bad for our nation when I see politicians lying, but I feel even worse when I see that it is an effective strategy.
Rutenberg, Jim. "Dubious Claims in Obama’s Ads Against McCain, Despite Vow of Truth." New York Times. 25 Sept. 2008. 9 Oct. 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Homer as a Feminist
There are many times in The Odyssey where Homer illustrates how he considered women to be equal to men in power. One of the main characters to show this is Athena, as she deftly guides Odysseus through his various trials and tribulations. This is shown especially when she shrouds Odysseus in a protective mist to help him get through the Phaecians. We can see how Athena manages to do a crucial task in getting Odysseus to make the Phaecians, and be able to get their help in building a ship. She also tells him to specifically talk to Queen Arete, which is the crucial bit of information he needs in order to make it back to Ithaca. Another example is Queen Arete herself. Athena describes her as "They gaze on her as a god, saluting her warmly on her walks through town. She lacks nothing in good sense and judgment"(181). Queen Arete is obviously held in very high esteem by her countrymen, showing how a woman can occupy an important leadership position.
Another important female character in The Odyssey is Circe. Homer illustrates this when Circe drags some of Odysseus' men and turns them into pigs. She becomes one of the central obstacles in Odysseus' quest and plays a part just as big as the much more famous cyclops. Despite the fact that she is woman, she is shown as holding her own with the various other monsters in the book. Circe is also shown as being a strong female character when she guides Odysseus through all the troubles that are coming up for him. Had she not played this critical role, Odysseus surely would have died when he sailed into the crags, or maybe would have eaten the Cattle of the Sun, dooming him and his crew instead of just his crew. Overall I think we can see that Homer did see woman as being equal with men. Some woman chose to stay at home, such as Penelope, but then again some of the men in the story are stereotypical in their foolishness and recklessness, but that is just how woman and men vary greatly in their personalities. Homer is showing how women can be important, but they can also be stay-at-home wives if they want to.
Homer. The Odyssey. Trans. Robert Fagles. New York: Penguin Classics, 1997.
Another important female character in The Odyssey is Circe. Homer illustrates this when Circe drags some of Odysseus' men and turns them into pigs. She becomes one of the central obstacles in Odysseus' quest and plays a part just as big as the much more famous cyclops. Despite the fact that she is woman, she is shown as holding her own with the various other monsters in the book. Circe is also shown as being a strong female character when she guides Odysseus through all the troubles that are coming up for him. Had she not played this critical role, Odysseus surely would have died when he sailed into the crags, or maybe would have eaten the Cattle of the Sun, dooming him and his crew instead of just his crew. Overall I think we can see that Homer did see woman as being equal with men. Some woman chose to stay at home, such as Penelope, but then again some of the men in the story are stereotypical in their foolishness and recklessness, but that is just how woman and men vary greatly in their personalities. Homer is showing how women can be important, but they can also be stay-at-home wives if they want to.
Homer. The Odyssey. Trans. Robert Fagles. New York: Penguin Classics, 1997.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
The new Google Phone.
I decided to read an article about the newly announced HTC Dream from T-Mobile. The most interesting part of this phone is that features Google's long-awaited Android operating system. This operating system is completely open source, and anyone can develop applications for it. Of course the obvious comparison, would be between it and the iPhone, the most ubiquitous smart phone out there.
I'm always a big fan of Google, and the Android operating system is no exception. While many of the iPhone's best apps cost "typically anywhere from $0.99 to $9.99"(1) and have to get approved by Apple, all of Android's apps will be completly open to anyone, and free to download. This kind of openness is what the cell phone industry needs, as currently their is a stranglehold on tinkering, as evidenced by all the users trying to "jailbreak" their iPhone.
The one problem I can see is that it may not attract enough buyers to justify the Andriod OS. Let's face it, the iPhone is one slick gadget. While, "the HTC Dream will likely have a more staid look that lacks the iPhone's panache"(2). There's no way Google can put in the polish that Steve Jobs put into the iPhone, which may make it unpopular.
In the end, I'm just hoping Andriod takes off, and makes smart phones more like computers in that it is open to anyone and everyone.
Hamilton, Anita. "Android: Google's Dream, Apple's Nightmare?" Time Inc. 22 Sept. 2008. 27 Sept. 2008.
I'm always a big fan of Google, and the Android operating system is no exception. While many of the iPhone's best apps cost "typically anywhere from $0.99 to $9.99"(1) and have to get approved by Apple, all of Android's apps will be completly open to anyone, and free to download. This kind of openness is what the cell phone industry needs, as currently their is a stranglehold on tinkering, as evidenced by all the users trying to "jailbreak" their iPhone.
The one problem I can see is that it may not attract enough buyers to justify the Andriod OS. Let's face it, the iPhone is one slick gadget. While, "the HTC Dream will likely have a more staid look that lacks the iPhone's panache"(2). There's no way Google can put in the polish that Steve Jobs put into the iPhone, which may make it unpopular.
In the end, I'm just hoping Andriod takes off, and makes smart phones more like computers in that it is open to anyone and everyone.
Hamilton, Anita. "Android: Google's Dream, Apple's Nightmare?" Time Inc. 22 Sept. 2008. 27 Sept. 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
Shai Agassi in Wired
In Driven: Shai Agassi's Audacious Plan to Put Electric Cars on the Road, Daniel Roth writes about Shai Agassi and his plan to revolutionize the auto industry by making electric cars finally viable. He plans to combine the car industry with the cell phone industry by making charging stations where people can sign up for plans of certain miles.
I greatly enjoyed this article. It brought up many new ideas I had not considered. For example, how they would "buy their car from the operator, who would offer steep discounts, perhaps even give the cars away. The profit would come from selling electricity—the minutes"(2 Roth). Obviously we all want eletric cars, as they would keep us off foreign oil, and in the process be much better for the environment. The most interesting thing about it, is that everyone else seems to think that he can do it as well. He got $200 million, making it the fifth largest start up of all time, in less than a year. People seem to really believe in him, which makes this seem much more achievable and not idealistic dreams.
However not everything is sunshine and dancing chipmunks.This kind of effortt would take a serious amount of national cooperation, unheard of since World War 2. I don't think people would be able to unite over this, and get rid of all gas stations and put electric card charging stations everywhere. It seems to be lacking in concrete action. It might work in the smaller countries, such as Israel that can handle such a full-scale national undertaking, but in the USA I can just not see this happening.
Roth, Daniel M. "Driven: Shai Agassi's audacious plan to put electic cars on the road." Wired. 18 Aug. 2008..
However not everything is sunshine and dancing chipmunks.This kind of effortt would take a serious amount of national cooperation, unheard of since World War 2. I don't think people would be able to unite over this, and get rid of all gas stations and put electric card charging stations everywhere. It seems to be lacking in concrete action. It might work in the smaller countries, such as Israel that can handle such a full-scale national undertaking, but in the USA I can just not see this happening.
Roth, Daniel M. "Driven: Shai Agassi's audacious plan to put electic cars on the road." Wired. 18 Aug. 2008.
Operation Blogification has begun
Today the world experiences the magic that comes with new technology. Namely, I now have a blog. The world can hear my wonderful thoughts and make snide comments about it that ultimately, are completly baseless. Every technology comes with critics, but I feel confident that this blog will soon have a full caravan of readers, following my every word. To all those reading, Hello, and welcome to my blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)