The morning after this past election night, Pulitzer-Prize-winning writer Thomas Friedman penned a column in which Michael Sandel, Harvard University political philosopher, noted that a new politics "must also be about a new patriotism -- about what it means to be a citizen." Students should blog in their own words their beliefs of what this means. In other words, what does it mean to be a citizen, looking ahead? What should this new patriotism look like? What should we be able to expect from all citizens?
In my opinion, being a citizen in the future is not complicated. It will not change from what it really takes right now- loyalty to the country and its ideals. The ideals that were so eloquently written in the Constitution should be espoused by every person in the United States- we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These ideals should define us. We should strive to work together for the benefit of not only our country, but the global community. Some argue that President-elect Obama's socialistic tendencies will be the downfall of our capitalistic market; however, I believe that it is entirely unpatriotic to leave people in the gutter. As I have experienced first hand, the destitute people are in need of help, and if those who are more fortunate are not willing to give it, they will never rise up. It should be expected that, on a smaller scale, we emulate the actions of philanthropists such as the Gates family or Warren Buffett. Therefore, we should follow the wise words (in paraphrased form) spoken by Senator McCain in his concession speech- we should now work together with our new President to bring America back to its former glory. Bipartisanship is the key to our recovery.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Economic Blog
What ironies present themselves in reading these two articles from the Wall St Journal, and what might that say about our country, its values, and what lies ahead?
The major irony that I derived from the two articles was that while some people, like Steve Wynn, are still pumping money into these fabulous resorts while American families are trying to scrape together enough money for an education. To me, this does not really reflect poorly on America though. I think that, especially since we are a capitalistic market, it is certainly within Steve Wynn's right to continue to fund his hotels. If he loses money, it is his problem. I also think that in some sense, it reflects poorly on the college admissions process. Many people are unable to access most information about their colleges; Web sites are a myriad of information, and deciphering it is somewhat difficult. At Brophy, we are fortunate to have more intimate conversations with admissions counselors, and hear about how they plan to support us attending their school. However, someone less fortunate might not have access to this. I think that schools need to make their fiscal aid more widely recognized; schools such as the Ivy League schools have increased their funding dramatically, and many schools also practice need blind admission (financial need is not a factor in admission). As for what lies ahead, I would say that I hope that Mr. Wynn does not lose out with his hotel, and that those who are considering other options realize that financial aid is becoming more readily available.
The major irony that I derived from the two articles was that while some people, like Steve Wynn, are still pumping money into these fabulous resorts while American families are trying to scrape together enough money for an education. To me, this does not really reflect poorly on America though. I think that, especially since we are a capitalistic market, it is certainly within Steve Wynn's right to continue to fund his hotels. If he loses money, it is his problem. I also think that in some sense, it reflects poorly on the college admissions process. Many people are unable to access most information about their colleges; Web sites are a myriad of information, and deciphering it is somewhat difficult. At Brophy, we are fortunate to have more intimate conversations with admissions counselors, and hear about how they plan to support us attending their school. However, someone less fortunate might not have access to this. I think that schools need to make their fiscal aid more widely recognized; schools such as the Ivy League schools have increased their funding dramatically, and many schools also practice need blind admission (financial need is not a factor in admission). As for what lies ahead, I would say that I hope that Mr. Wynn does not lose out with his hotel, and that those who are considering other options realize that financial aid is becoming more readily available.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Politics
How Important are Endorsements/Relationships when considering those running for office?
To me, endorsements and / or relationships are not that important. I think this apathetic view stems from a disregard for most celebrity crazes as well as the fact that I am not even close to being eligible to vote. I think that the idea of celebrity endorsement is unnecessary. When leaders such as Colin Powell back Barack Obama, that is something noteworthy. However, if Brad Pitt were to say that John McCain is the way to go, I would consider that to not only be less substantial, but also arrogant. This idea that media figures believe that they should have a say in the direction of the election process is conceited and out of line.
The term relationships is ambiguous though. If one were to say relationships in the context of personal friendships, I would say that has some bearing on the character of a person; while maybe not guilty by association, questions can be raised about the company with which one keeps. However, another sort of relationship exists; with entities such as the EPA, the Roman Catholic Church, etc. Those relationships are undoubtedly important to many voters; the other week, Bishop Thomas Olmstead sent out a video calling parishioners to action and to vote Yes on Proposition 102. This act, which I saw as outrageous, would substantiate the claim that relationships do have some part in the voting process. While maybe not directly supporting a candidate, entites will often point voters in the direction with statements such as, "The Catholic Church believes this...can you guess what candidate does as well?"
To me, endorsements and / or relationships are not that important. I think this apathetic view stems from a disregard for most celebrity crazes as well as the fact that I am not even close to being eligible to vote. I think that the idea of celebrity endorsement is unnecessary. When leaders such as Colin Powell back Barack Obama, that is something noteworthy. However, if Brad Pitt were to say that John McCain is the way to go, I would consider that to not only be less substantial, but also arrogant. This idea that media figures believe that they should have a say in the direction of the election process is conceited and out of line.
The term relationships is ambiguous though. If one were to say relationships in the context of personal friendships, I would say that has some bearing on the character of a person; while maybe not guilty by association, questions can be raised about the company with which one keeps. However, another sort of relationship exists; with entities such as the EPA, the Roman Catholic Church, etc. Those relationships are undoubtedly important to many voters; the other week, Bishop Thomas Olmstead sent out a video calling parishioners to action and to vote Yes on Proposition 102. This act, which I saw as outrageous, would substantiate the claim that relationships do have some part in the voting process. While maybe not directly supporting a candidate, entites will often point voters in the direction with statements such as, "The Catholic Church believes this...can you guess what candidate does as well?"
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
A Matter of Principles
What principles should define the new America?
In my opinion, multiple principles should define America. I think that we should have an economy that has a mix of both regulation and laissez-faire policy. Regulation will make sure that business' are kept in line with their practices; for example, making sure that they are adhering to environmental regulations and laws. However, I think that laissez-faire should be incorporated as well so that a free market may endure. People believe that the 80 billion dollar loan to AIG is a violation of this; however, most do not realize that the money was only promised, and that in fact the deal is to allow the government to buy stock, up to 80%. Socially, I think that there needs to be a shift towards a moderate thinking. The pervasiveness of immorality is irritating, and is only getting worse. Children are growing up with confusing messages about issues such as sex, and thus this will almost definitely negatively affect them. In foreign policy, I think we need to be a bit more introverted; I'm not suggesting we completely pull out of world policy, but we should not be so brash. This might, in my opinion, cause less of a negative perception of America; leaders like Hugo Chavez might not be so quick to judge the United States then.
In my opinion, multiple principles should define America. I think that we should have an economy that has a mix of both regulation and laissez-faire policy. Regulation will make sure that business' are kept in line with their practices; for example, making sure that they are adhering to environmental regulations and laws. However, I think that laissez-faire should be incorporated as well so that a free market may endure. People believe that the 80 billion dollar loan to AIG is a violation of this; however, most do not realize that the money was only promised, and that in fact the deal is to allow the government to buy stock, up to 80%. Socially, I think that there needs to be a shift towards a moderate thinking. The pervasiveness of immorality is irritating, and is only getting worse. Children are growing up with confusing messages about issues such as sex, and thus this will almost definitely negatively affect them. In foreign policy, I think we need to be a bit more introverted; I'm not suggesting we completely pull out of world policy, but we should not be so brash. This might, in my opinion, cause less of a negative perception of America; leaders like Hugo Chavez might not be so quick to judge the United States then.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Centralization versus Decentralization
What do you believe the government's role to be when tragedy strikes the United States, such as the impact of Hurricane Katrina on the South?
I believe that the government in general should have a centralized role in how the United States operates. Hurricane Katrina is an example of why. The State of Louisiana could not have rescued all the people, assessed damages, or rebuilt homes without the government directing and supporting it. People argue that such dependency gives to much power to the federal government, and thus undermines democracy, but they do not realize that we do not live in a democracy. If the federal government did not have to power to enact legislature providing financial aid, then no doubt the situation in Louisiana would have been much more dire. Even programs such as FEMA are government run organizations designed to promote pluralism and thus spread the power of the government among many. Thus, when disasters occur, such as Katrina or the terrorists attacks of September 11th, we all need to pitch in. Citizens, local, state, and federal government need to work together in order to cope with the tragedy. Otherwise, chaos will follow; the different levels will inevitably conflict if not unified.
Essentially, if one feels that I have gone on a tangent above, I believe that the federal government should send monetary aid, troops, relief workers, and whatever else it can do in order to help.
I believe that the government in general should have a centralized role in how the United States operates. Hurricane Katrina is an example of why. The State of Louisiana could not have rescued all the people, assessed damages, or rebuilt homes without the government directing and supporting it. People argue that such dependency gives to much power to the federal government, and thus undermines democracy, but they do not realize that we do not live in a democracy. If the federal government did not have to power to enact legislature providing financial aid, then no doubt the situation in Louisiana would have been much more dire. Even programs such as FEMA are government run organizations designed to promote pluralism and thus spread the power of the government among many. Thus, when disasters occur, such as Katrina or the terrorists attacks of September 11th, we all need to pitch in. Citizens, local, state, and federal government need to work together in order to cope with the tragedy. Otherwise, chaos will follow; the different levels will inevitably conflict if not unified.
Essentially, if one feels that I have gone on a tangent above, I believe that the federal government should send monetary aid, troops, relief workers, and whatever else it can do in order to help.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate
Paul Newman's death offers an opportunity to look at a life that accomplished so much both from an entertainment and from an outreach or justice perspective. Much seems admirable about the life he lived, both from an "accomplished what he set out to do" angle and from a "gave something relevant and tangible to others" angle. Turning inward, we get an opportunity to look ahead, reflect, and finish the thought in ten or more sentences: "By the time I die, I would like to have...
By the time I die, I would like to have done something internationally recognizable. I use the phrase internationally recognizable because I'm not seeking fame; I don't really want to be another Michael Phelps (as awesome as that would be). In my current imagination, something internationally recognizable is in the context of athletic achievement. My hope is to qualify for the 2012 Olympics in Rowing. I also wish to compete for the United States at the FISA (Federation de Societies d'Aviron) Rowing World Championships. While I might not necessarily gain international fame, it is essentially something recognizable on an international level.
However, there are other things that I think I would like to do before I do. I would like to have raised a family that, while not perfect, survives and works well. I would like to have been able to provide above and beyond for them.
Overall, as long as my life is productive and without great tragedy, I will be content at the end. Unless that end is very painful.
By the time I die, I would like to have done something internationally recognizable. I use the phrase internationally recognizable because I'm not seeking fame; I don't really want to be another Michael Phelps (as awesome as that would be). In my current imagination, something internationally recognizable is in the context of athletic achievement. My hope is to qualify for the 2012 Olympics in Rowing. I also wish to compete for the United States at the FISA (Federation de Societies d'Aviron) Rowing World Championships. While I might not necessarily gain international fame, it is essentially something recognizable on an international level.
However, there are other things that I think I would like to do before I do. I would like to have raised a family that, while not perfect, survives and works well. I would like to have been able to provide above and beyond for them.
Overall, as long as my life is productive and without great tragedy, I will be content at the end. Unless that end is very painful.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Teenage Drinking
As a teen, what is your perception of drinking amongst those in your age group? Is it problematic? Do most teens, in your opinion, know and understand their limits and the ramifications of drinking at that age? What are the potential dangers you see of teens and alcohol use? Do you believe there is a problem among your age group, or is it just normal, rite-of-passage use that you witness or know about?
In my opinion, drinking in my age group is somewhat prevalent. I am straight edge, and a majority of my friends do not drink. However, I have several friends who I do not hang out with on the weekends who do drink; I quietly voice my disagreement but do not patronize them for it. I believe that a majority initially have no idea what their personal limits are; they can only speculate based on what they have heard. As for the ramifications, I would say that they do but choose to ignore it anyways; for instance, a girl posted on MySpace-
I would say that this is a pretty relevant example of the careless disregard that many teenagers have for others, and answers the issue of whether it is a danger.
I would say that it is both a rite-of-passage as well as a problem. Many people think that they have to get drunk once before they graduate high school, and then get as blindly drunk as possible when they turn 21. The two might even be viewed as correlated, because this rite-of-passage view could develop into a more serious alcohol addiction.
In my opinion, drinking in my age group is somewhat prevalent. I am straight edge, and a majority of my friends do not drink. However, I have several friends who I do not hang out with on the weekends who do drink; I quietly voice my disagreement but do not patronize them for it. I believe that a majority initially have no idea what their personal limits are; they can only speculate based on what they have heard. As for the ramifications, I would say that they do but choose to ignore it anyways; for instance, a girl posted on MySpace-
| Subject- sligh | |
| Body: | yes yes its bad. drunk but whate going hit meh up! |
|---|
I would say that this is a pretty relevant example of the careless disregard that many teenagers have for others, and answers the issue of whether it is a danger.
I would say that it is both a rite-of-passage as well as a problem. Many people think that they have to get drunk once before they graduate high school, and then get as blindly drunk as possible when they turn 21. The two might even be viewed as correlated, because this rite-of-passage view could develop into a more serious alcohol addiction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
