So Different, but So Alike

Joseph Goebbels and Emperor Hirohito both gave war speeches in a time where one was very much needed for their nations.  Hirohito graciously announced the surrender of his nation, while Goebbels only wanted to motivate his country to fight harder after a gruesome defeat at Stalingrad.  Although both men had different intentions for their speeches, they used similar rhetorical techniques and appeals in order to affect their audiences. 

Emperor Hirohito’s tone in his speech was not exactly what you would expect from a leader who had to tell his nation that they must surrender before their country is obliterated.  On the contrary, Emperor Hirohito speaks with such a proud, nationalistic tone that the citizens of Japan probably didn’t even think of it as surrender, but rather saving the rest of the world through their own sacrifice. Hirohito soothes the blow of defeat by instilling a strong sense of pride for the nation, saying “Despite the best that has been done by everyone—the gallant fighting of our military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of our servants of the State and the devoted service of our 100,000,000 people…” Rather than straightforwardly stating that they lost, Hirohito twists the situation saying that the war didn’t go exactly to “their interest.” The Emperor further manipulates the information, going as far as saying that “Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.”  This makes Hirohito sound almost heroic for saving human civilization, like he should be praised for his nobility.  Hirohito did a marvelous job at making the situation seem like a positive gain for him and his nation.  Bravo Hirohito, bravo. 

 Goebbels uses a similar method in his own speech. Though his speech is much longer, and cover’s several different points, there are some notable things it has in common with Hirohito’s. “This is a threat to the Reich and to the European continent that casts all previous dangers into the shadows. If we fail, we will have failed our historic mission. Everything we have built and done in the past pales in the face of this gigantic task that the German army directly and German people less directly face.” Goebbels warrants this claim throughout, listing the ways that the German people must help, how they MUST make sacrifices to support the troops. However there is a significant difference between the two speeches; Goebbels is obviously much more enthusiastic, I mean, he IS trying to bring his people up from defeat after all, compared to Hirohito who is just trying to bring his people down from…already being down… Goebbels also implies consequences for any that don’t support the Fuhrer’s reign, saying that those who don’t “must lose their heads.” While Hirohito tries to comfort the people of his nation, Goebbels focuses on not only nationalism, but also heavily on fear. His whole speech is filled with implications and dark undertones threatening any who does not contribute to the war effort.

               So in essence, both speeches had opposite goals in mind, but ultimately ended up using similar rhetoric, and similar appeals. So whether you’re a Japanese Emperor facing unconditional surrender, or a German leader serving under Hitler, it’s always within your best interests to make your country feel responsible for the world itself.

Thoreau vs. Machiavelli: Morality vs. Stability

When comparing Civil Disobedience by Thoreau to Machiavelli’s The Prince, there is no correct answer as to which is more rational.  Both of them share their outlook on the government; however, they both have their differences in their opinions.  For starters, Thoreau is talking to the bystanders telling them to act against the government he calls “the machine.”  While Machiavelli is talking to the princes, advising them on how they should run their own governments.  So we can already see that they are opposites just from labeling their audiences.  Furthermore, due to Thoreau’s use of language and unrealistic style of living life, Machiavelli’s style of government will be better because of the fact that it is realistic and truthful.

Something important to notice is that both Machiavelli and Thoreau focus greatly on the relationship between people and their leaders. Machiavelli focuses on how a leader should act towards his subjects, and Thoreau writes about how an individual should react to a corrupt leader.  These concepts are in great contrast to each other; Machiavelli believes that a ruler may do whatever is necessary to remain in power, whereas Thoreau would not hesitate to spend a night in jail if he disagreed with a tax.  However, it is important to realize that not everyone is as brave as Thoreau, so this might be unrealistic.  Machiavelli writes, “Thus no prince should mind being called cruel for what he does to keep his subjects united and loyal.” This quote reflects his very elitist views; as long as it is for the good of the country, the outcome justifies the cruelty.  Sometimes cruelty needs to be practiced in order to maintain stability.

 

Thoreau believes that men and women should act upon their morals and principles… to “let your life be a friction to stop the machine," –- the machine being a metaphor for a corrupt government.   While this is a great theory, I think that it is slightly unrealistic.  No one wants to be the one to stand up against a machine. The idea of fighting for what you believe in looks great on paper… but, unfortunately, the truth is that when the opportunity is given to do so, most of us will back down out of fear.  Machiavelli talks about the power of fear; he says “fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.”  His theory is essentially that, by establishing the fear of punishment, a prince is able to maintain an orderly government without injustice. That being said, his presumption is more realistic than Thoreau’s because fear can control people.  An example of this is when Ms. Parham used a Machiavellian-style of teaching the other day, and not one person stood up against “the machine.”  ( :D )  That is because our fear of punishment controlled us, which is the same way men and women would act under a Machiavellian-style government; orderly.  

Thanksgetting

On thanksgiving we like to lock ourselves inside the house with our close, and not so close, family members, eat food, catch up, and bond; but do we really? Holidays have changed. Thanksgiving use to be a holiday where we were thankful for our families, and opportunities in life; now we are thankful that old navy is having a buy one get one free sale on black Friday. What was once a holiday of giving has turned into another excuse for American buyers to go out and shop, shop, shop! Black Friday, the biggest shopping day of the year, draws shoppers out of their homes when they should be inside with their family. However we must ask ourselves, is it thanksgiving that has changed, or American culture? It seems like now we would rather be sleeping outside target awaiting a sale on our favorite shoes, than bonding with our relatives. Materialism in America has posed more of a threat than just making us loose track of our values; we have become human-like drones of consumption. We see the open doors of large shopping malls pasted with signs claiming, “You need these!” “Buy, Buy, Buy!” “You can’t pass up this deal!” and we ambush more like beasts than humans. Last year there were numerous cases of death from people falling in the stampede of shoppers fighting to get the best deal. We need to raise human compassion, even if it means reducing sales. Many Americans dread spending time with their in-laws and obnoxious aunts who use thanksgiving to voice their opinions on your “desert-dry” turkey and “less-than-admirable” dining set. You pretend to enjoy your time together when in reality you are anxiously waiting for your pesky relatives to voyage home so you can watch the Sunday game. Why is this? Appreciating family and the time you have together, now, seems just as rare as a happy marriage. Divorce rates climb at the same rate as iphone sales, and no one seems to see a problem. We must return to the time when we valued our parents, in-laws, brother, sisters, aunts, and uncles more than the material items that we think will make us happier, and our lives more significant. The key to happiness can only be found when we let go of the things that don’t matter to us. Forget about iphones. Forget your new jeans. Forget those earrings. All that would mean nothing without loved ones to share them with. So share. Share, and give, and actually be thankful this thanksgiving.

The Reluctant Fundamentalist: The Importance of Symbolism

            I believe that there is only one way to read a book, but there are many ways to interpret one.  In my opinion, the best way to truly understand the meaning of a book is to uncover the symbolism within.  This philosophy is greatly true in The Reluctant Fundamentalist by Mohsin Hamid.  The author uses a significant amount of symbolism beneath the façade of the basic storyline, but it requires sharp attention to discover.  Upon reading this book, I found that Erica, the girl who Changez falls in love with, has a symbolic connection to America.  This symbolism was not particularly easy to find, but if read correctly, the book revealed many hints to this connection.  A small hint to Erica’s symbolic connection to America is the similarity in the two names; Erica shares the last five letters with America. In the beginning of their relationship, when Changez sees Erica for the first time, he says, “ So stunningly regal was she.” (p.17) He later says, “ She attracted people to her; she had presence, an uncommon magnetism…strong, sleek and invariably surrounded by her pride.” (p.22) The book also reveals that Changez felt the same way about America in the beginning; He was attracted to America and its’ power, and he wanted to live the “American Dream.”  America is a country filled with pride, which Changez talks about later in the book.  The way he describes Erica is synonymous with his descriptions of America in the beginning of the book.  When the 9/11 attacks occur, Changez’s view on America begins to change.  Non-coincidently, his relationship with Erica begins to have problems.  Later in the book, Changez lets go of America and returns to Lahore around the same time that Erica goes missing.  I believe that this is not a coincidence.  The symbolism is extended even further when Changez makes love to Erica, insisting that she pretends he is Chris.  This scene contains important symbolism; If Erica is a symbol for America, than, in this scene, America influences Changez to pretend to be someone else, hiding his true identity.  After this scene, Changez gets deeper into the American life style.  However, Changez remains to be “reluctant.”  On page 106, he says “perhaps, by taking the persona of another, I had diminished myself in my own eyes.”  This quote shows how Changez feels about changing for Erica (America) and that he is ashamed of his new personality.  This is a perfect example showing his reluctance towards the American life.  Changez realizes how much America has changed him when he visits his old home in Lahore and becomes nostalgic.  Hamid’s use of symbolism is significantly effective in The Reluctant Fundamentalist because it adds so much more meaning to the main idea of the book.  Without understanding the symbolism, the reader might think Erica is simply an American girl who Changez falls in love with, but the symbolism adds much more purpose to her character.  Just from understanding the symbolism of Erica, the reader gains the understanding of America’s effect on Changez and how he really is a “reluctant fundamentalist.”  

Toulmin Analysis

Claim:  

We should get out of other countries for oil, and invest in renewable energy sources on our own land.

Reasons:

- To stop the war over oil in foreign countries
-  To improve our economy by making this an American operation.
-To limit the pollution by using safer forms of energy.

Evidence:

"To stop the war over oil in foreign countries" - Too many lives are being taken for the sake of oil, these lives can be prevented by producing our own energy, and limit our dependency on other countries.

"To improve our economy by making this an American operation" - Producing our own energy will create jobs, build a new industry, lower energy prices, and ultimately improve the economy.

"To limit the pollution by using safer forms of energy"- Moving towards sustainable energy like solar or wind energy will improve our environment, using much cleaner sources.



Warrants:

"To stop the war over oil in foreign countries"
         A.    Oil causes wars and controversy
         B.  Foreign countries are our source of oil

"To improve our economy by making this an American operation"
        A.  America needs to produce it's own energy.
        B.  We should stop outsourcing jobs.

"To limit the pollution by using safer forms of energy"
        A.  Oil usage pollutes our environment
        B.  Energy can be produced in a cleaner form.

Backing

"Oil causes wars and controversy" - Since oil equals power, because of it's high demand, it would be safer to move to other forms of energy that can be shared easier.

"Foreign countries are our source of oil" - We depend on other countries too much, we need to become more independent and self-sustainable.

"We should stop outsourcing jobs."  - Our economy can be improved if we stop sending jobs over seas and employ more Americans with jobs regarding energy production.

"Energy can be produced in a cleaner form."  - Oil usage pollutes our environment and we can prevent this by using cleaner energy sources like wind, or solar energy.

Analysis

I think that the two most effective reasons were "to improve our economy by making this an American operation" and "to stop the war over oil in foreign countries" because these the first one refers to the American economy which most people would agree that is needs improvement and that it's an important issue to cover, so it appeals to the general public strongly.  The other reason mentions the end of war which also appeals to the general public because, lets face it, who really wants to be in war?  The last reason about pollution is not necessary  but it does supply more backup.  I think that "energy can be produced in a cleaner form"has the most backup and is the most factual of the evidence, making it very important to this piece, however the other two are also important.  I think that the warrant "we should stop outsourcing jobs" requires backing because there are some people who believe that outsourcing is an advantage for America and support it.  I also think that "energy can be produced in a cleaner form" requires backing because some people are simply uneducated on the subject and need to know, in fact, which sources of energy can be produced cleanly.  I think that this argument uses a good amount of pathos, logos, however it lacks ethos.  I also think that a better use of diction could have been done.  Overall, this was an excellent piece. :D

Environmental Change

The issue of energy efficiency and the resources we use is an international problem that is effecting the global pollution and our domestic economy.  Now there are many solutions to this problem, and with options comes controversy.  Some, like me, support the investments in sustainable energy on our own land, and evacuating other countries, while others want to evacuate other countries, while continuing the use of finite energy sources on our own land. My opponent will agree that the level that our country depends on oil is way too much and it's bad for the economy because we're fighting wars in other countries, killing lives,because we are seeking oil in search of power.  We value money over the lives of these people.  I think that, while yes, we should get out of those oil-rich countries and start to build energy sources on our own land, I also think that they should be renewable energy sources rather than finite resources that need to be drilled, thus destroying useful land.  My view gets us out of other countries and onto our own soil, like others want, however, instead of investing in short term solutions in limited resources, I think it's worth it to invest a little more money in renewable energy sources that will turn out to be both economically AND environmentally beneficial in the long-run.

Lets make a change.

"Hands Tied Behind Him"

William Howard Taft, the 27th president of the United States, once said " Anti-semitism is a noxious weed that should be cut out.  It has no place in America."  I agree with President Taft because the United States is supposed to be known for its diversity and freedom.  Common issues such as anti-semitism and racism are showing the world that we are not so true to our policies, which is not a good reputation to have.  As global leaders, each and everyone of us should refute prejudice opinions and stand up for the independence that America is supposed to offer.  

According to the 2010 census, there is approximately 6.5 million Jews in America.  Coincidently, that is roughly the same number of Jews that lost their lives in the Holocaust in the 1940's.  This is only about 1.9% of the population of the United States.  Mark Twain once said "...If statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one percent of the human race...He [the Jew] is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world’s list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers.  He has made a marvelous fight in this world, in all the ages; and had done it with his hands tied behind him."  What Mark Twain is trying to say in this quote is that the contributions of the Jewish people should be valued more, accounting for the small population and the hatred they have had to face while contributing.  This is something to consider while thinking about anti-semitism in the future.  

American 'Freedom'

It states in the U.S constitution in article six, section three, 
that you have the freedom to practice any religion that you would like.  Because of this freedom, you've chosen to practice Judaism.  So you've grown up your whole life thinking nothing of it, like it was the norm, but one day you get old enough to find out that it's not as normal as you thought.  How did you find out?  Well there are many ways.  In certain places it's purely visible; seeing swastikas' graffiti'd on the walls, or "burn the jews" written in magic marker in a bathroom stall.  You see it written on the wall and your heart drops. You are confused.  "Why do they hate me?"  Well, if you asked them, they wouldn't give you an answer... They just do. The ones you call friends make jokes about a genocide of more than six million of your 'type'.  You think to your self, how could something so tragic be a topic of humor to others, but it is, and it hurts you deeply.  You even personally know of a few people that lost their lives being tortured in the Holocaust, and your'e sitting there listening to a person laugh about their death. Now at that moment you could choose to stand up for your self and approach this person, but you realize that if anyone knew you were Jewish, they would only laugh at you.  So now, not only are you forced to hear the jokes and do nothing about it, but you are also forced to hide your religion JUST to avoid humiliation.  That's the definition of American freedom.  Freedom without really being free.  You've even personally talked with a survivor who has told you numerous stories about the things they had to do to keep their lives, and yet, there are people in the world who DENY the holocaust of even occurring.  You then question if it's even worth being Jewish, you are automatically hated by a big percentage of the world.  Who would want that?  Well, it doesn't matter what you want.  After all, this isn't a free country.  

Stop anti-semitism.  

Sentence Imitation

Today the answer seems both more modest and more challenging:  If we want to reduce poverty, we have to stop doing the things that make people poor and keep them that way.  Stop underpaying people for the jobs they do.  Stop treating working people as potential criminals and let them have the right to organize for better wages and working conditions.  Stop the institutional harassment of those who turn to the government for help or find themselves destitute in the streets.  Maybe, as so many Americans seem to believe today, we can't afford the kinds of public programs that would genuinely alleviate poverty-- though I would argue otherwise.  But at least we should decide, as a bare minimum principle, to stop kicking people when they're down.  

                                                                            -p.238 from Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich


Today I realized a big problem in the Center for Global Studies:  We are a school for global studies, yet we limit ourselves to only three languages and countries to focus on.  I would expect a global school to have many more options.    If we want to be called a global center and truly live up to the name then we need to add more languages and global courses.  Imagine if we offered languages like German or Spanish while also offering courses like International Business.  Then, if the student body agrees to this new curriculum, we could improve our international studies and prepare students for international relations--  Many wish to pursue this field.   I think we can accomplish, if we all come together, an improved global curriculum that will steer students in the real global direction.

Things I Hate

In General...

1.  I hate waiting on lines.  One grumpy cashier obviously isn't enough for this many people.  Hire more employees.
2.  Stop dressing your dog.  It's a dog.
3.  Why are school buses yellow?  No one likes yellow.  I can think of six better colors for a bus.
4.  I hate when the tip of the shoelace falls off.  Those need to be designed better.
5.  I hate those guys who ride their bikes in the middle of the street next to cars, do you really think your'e going at the same speed?  Please move before I run you over.
6.  I hate when people sit next to me on public transportation when there are many other empty seats.
7.  Pulling up to the wrong side when filling up your gas.  There should be an indicator of which side your tank is on.
8.  Celebrity marriages.  They never work (Jay-Z and Beyonce being the only exception)
9.  Things that cost 98 cents.

Technology...

1.  Getting stuck at a red light at 1:00 am when there are no other cars for the next 4 miles.  They definitely need motion sensors or something.
2.  Phone batteries always last three hours less than advertised.  Please fix this.
3.  Why are there so many phone services?  Imagine if there was only one and we all used every phone tower that exists... we would have service literally everywhere.
4.  Gas is too expensive and the sun is free, we should use solar power much more.
5.  Reality TV.  I mean, this stuff can't possibly be "reality," can it?
6.  Music in elevators must be upgraded.

Political...

1.  I think the federal government has way too much power.  Does the peoples vote even matter anymore?
2.  The prison system.  There are way too many non-violent crimes.  And your'e wondering why so many people are unemployed 
3.  Presidential campaigns are too easily corrupted - it's all about who has enough money to pay off the media.
4.  Religion plays too big of a part in politics.  We should follow the constitution when it says "there should be a separation from church and state."
5.  There shouldn't be a limit of just two political parties, how can the entire country fit into two political  categories?
6.  We should limit taxes to only property tax.  People can only pay for what they can afford.

Brien McMahon/CGS

1.  When people purposely wear their pants low just to show their second pair of shorts directly under it.
2.  It's the "center for GLOBAL studies" not the center for the studies of three countries.  Add more languages like Spanish or German.
3.  The lunch shifts should be organized by grade, no one likes waiting in line behind freshmen.
4.  Screaming girls.  Shh!
5.  disable all announcement speakers.

Diamonds are Forever

 I’ve always appreciated my last name; Diamond. While it appears to be flashy at some points, on the back of a sports jersey or written on the top of a paper, I’ve found that it also illustrates my personality.  But before we talk about me, lets get into the history of this rare jewel.  Almost immediately upon discovery, diamonds were seen as something divine. Diamonds were used to ornament religious icons and temples and only kings were allowed to collect the most exquisite variety of these “divine gifts.”  Their properties were something man had never encountered before. Diamonds had very hard characteristics as well as a high dispersion index, and very high thermal conductivity. Because of these properties, ancient Indians (since it is believed that India was the first country in which diamonds were discovered and harvested) used diamonds as ornamentation, making them the eyes of Hindu religious statues.  

Diamonds are the hardest natural mineral substance known to man. For me, this has significance because I like to think of my self as strong-willed and hard working, comparing myself to the diamond.  However, despite common belief, it is not the hardest substance known to man.  When I learned this information I immediately connected that although I am strong willed I am not indestructible. I have weaknesses.  Like the diamond, I am transparent; my emotions are visible to the ones around me and I allow light to shine through me. Diamonds are very intricately cut, they are multifaceted with many different sides. Like the diamond, I have many sides to my personality as well; As you get to know me you will find different sides of me. Diamonds are also able to take white light and break it into all of its colors to appear like a rainbow.  In the same way, I can take something that is seemingly complex, and break it down to its logical components. I believe I have analytical intelligence while in arguments and understanding other people. Not only am I honored to be associated with this divine jewel, but I also believe that it is very appropriate to who I am as a person.