Now, I'm not one for economics, not in the least. Or, for that matter, politics. I find both are best left to other people more suited to the boredom and the backstabbing, respectively. But the more I hear about the fall of the economy the more it seems I need to learn so I can understand what's going on here.
What I have figured out is this. There was a housing bubble - people bought houses with mortgages they couldn't afford. The houses were foreclosed, the banks couldn't get their money and were shut down, and the economy crashed. In addition, the budget of the government has risen (due to war, new education and health programs, the rise of baby boomer retirees), and given us a massive deficit to deal with.
America has certainly recovered from economic crises before. It's how capitalism seems to work: up, then down, then up again. But how? It seems to me that to recover, America as a whole needs to spend a little less. We need to learn how to keep from overreaching our budgets by ousting luxuries and unnecessary things, both for ourselves and for the government.
I have a worry about that. For the government, is it even possible? Today's society expects government to do a lot. They need to refrain from raising taxes, but at the same time they also need to handle all kinds of jobs; everything from keeping the streets safe to walk on to ensuring that snow on the road is plowed. And every time there is a motion to let back on one of these things, somebody will raise a storm. No matter what we try to cut back on, there will be people who argue against it, loudly. A politician subject to this will see a fall in their popularity, and popularity is everything in politics. So few politicians (certainly not Illinois ones) will
Is this a vicious cycle? How long will this last? Can people accept that things need to change?
Hope so... It doesn't seem like we'll go anywhere if we don't.
2/15/2010
The Olympics Today: International Cooperation
Alright: I'll be the first to admit it. International cooperation sounds like a phrase taken directly from an advertisement for peace and happiness worldwide, idealistic and shallow. Normally, idealistic and shallow terms like this bug me. They come directly from a language I like to call "buisness-ese," a language where people are fooled into believing impossible ideals with the use of tricky words and key phrases, which in the end are meaningless.
But in this case, I'll make an exception, because if we can't have an altogether peaceful world, we might at least have a world where the governments and people work together, regardless of imaginary lines drawn on a map. International cooperation means that, for any project or task, people can work together as the best of the best. A talent pool of three hundred million people is large, yes. The United States has that. But if you work across borders, that already large pool becomes enormous, about twenty times larger!
How many problems in the world could be solved if a team was assembled all across the world, made up of only the best? How fast could we cure cancer, perhaps, or help alleviate global warming, if British and Chinese and Russian and American and heck, even North Korean scientists banded together to tackle these issues?
Admittedly, it sounds impossible, and it still might take forever to fix such problems. But it starts with tiny steps. Little, itty bitty steps, involving the world banding together for something. Which is why the Olympics are so important to me.
The Olympics represent something far greater than most of the world can even see. Now, I'm sure that in the background there are little blips of schemes and marketing plans going on - but for the most part, the Olympics are incredibly unique. Nearly all the world watches them. Participants come from all walks of life, yet have common goals. Normally, it sounds impossible: to have people from the middle east walking comfortably and without fear among Americans, and vice versa. Yet, at the Olympics, this could happen. After all, they're each there for one thing. All the athletes want to bring home the gold medals for their country. Plotting an attack of any kind on the side might just damage those chances.
This is why I love the Olympics.
The problem is that so few others see this. My father would rather watch an outdated movie for the third time instead of seeing the opening ceremony of the Olympics. When I told him about the Georgian luger who died (bless your soul, Nodar Kumaritashvili) during the warm-up runs, he shrugged, said it was tragic, and moved on. That's it. Apparently, the Olympics, and other countries, don't matter as much.
It seems to be a common theme, too. Asking around, I find that only half the people I ask are paying much attention to the Olympics. Why is that? Shouldn't there be more interest in a world-wide competition? The one great event that brings everybody together?
This lack of interest bothers me greatly. If people were more interested in the Olympics, perhaps people would be more interested in other cultures and countries. In other people. Maybe they would reach out to those people, and bond over the Olympics. From there, it's only step by step until countries could truly work together - not in war, not in competition, but in the spirit of true international cooperation. What could we get done? What could we, humanity as a whole, accomplish?
And could the Olympics be the single, subtle key to bringing this all about?
12/11/2009
Harry Potter and America: Free Speech
Another haunting similarity between American history and Harry Potter lies in Harry's fifth year. It's the year when Dolores Umbridge arrives at Hogwarts and takes control. To the public, she is the savior of the school, swooping in and providing the order and structure where it is clearly needed, especially in a time when rumors are running rampant and former idols in the wizarding world have been reduced to attention-seeking liars.
If things as illegal and wrong as the actions Umbridge took could happen at Hogwarts, and were easily covered up and silenced, what could are own government do? What is our government doing? Should the public have the right to know what is going on? (Well, I certainly think so.)
Well, according to the Ministry-driven press, at least.
From Harry's point of view we see what is really going on. The Ministry is trying to suppress the truth the only way it knows how - by force. Madam Umbridge becomes the dictator of Hogwarts, enforcing rules that serve only to restrict the rights of the students, even going as far as to use the illegal and painful Blood Quill on students, and eventually threatening Harry Potter with the use of the Cruciatus Curse, the Pain Curse, one of the Unforgivable Curses.
Likewise, information about our government is often held from us in America. The Pentagon Papers come to mind as a clear example of what the government is able to hide from us. Until they were released, no citizens knew the full truth about Vietnam and Cambodia, and as a result several Presidents came under the criticism that they should have deserved before. By the time the papers were released, it was too late for the public to truly protest. Even now we don't know the complete, unrestricted truth about the situations in Afghanistan and Iraq. While I believe Barack Obama is far better a president than George W. Bush was, I also believe both are withholding that which should be easy for anybody to read. How do we know that they are doing the right thing?
This is why the press needs to remain free. With the press under Ministry of Magic control in Harry Potter, they can print anything they like without restrictions, including anything from stretched truths to flat lies, and key information can be wrongfully held back from the public. Therefore, Umbridge can be portrayed as the hero of the Ministry and of Hogwarts, instead of a tyrant allowed to suppress and extinguish the voice of any who dare to speak out - either she's gone mad with power, or was mad in the first place, but either way it seems like nothing can stop here. The only thing that does in the end is the arrival of the centaurs, who exist outside the Ministry's control. Thank Merlin for that.
Likewise, information about our government is often held from us in America. The Pentagon Papers come to mind as a clear example of what the government is able to hide from us. Until they were released, no citizens knew the full truth about Vietnam and Cambodia, and as a result several Presidents came under the criticism that they should have deserved before. By the time the papers were released, it was too late for the public to truly protest. Even now we don't know the complete, unrestricted truth about the situations in Afghanistan and Iraq. While I believe Barack Obama is far better a president than George W. Bush was, I also believe both are withholding that which should be easy for anybody to read. How do we know that they are doing the right thing?
This is why the press needs to remain free. With the press under Ministry of Magic control in Harry Potter, they can print anything they like without restrictions, including anything from stretched truths to flat lies, and key information can be wrongfully held back from the public. Therefore, Umbridge can be portrayed as the hero of the Ministry and of Hogwarts, instead of a tyrant allowed to suppress and extinguish the voice of any who dare to speak out - either she's gone mad with power, or was mad in the first place, but either way it seems like nothing can stop here. The only thing that does in the end is the arrival of the centaurs, who exist outside the Ministry's control. Thank Merlin for that.
If things as illegal and wrong as the actions Umbridge took could happen at Hogwarts, and were easily covered up and silenced, what could are own government do? What is our government doing? Should the public have the right to know what is going on? (Well, I certainly think so.)
11/22/2009
Harry Potter and America: No Mudbloods In School
(This should start a series of Harry Potter themed blog posts. Enjoy, and beware of potential story spoilers!)
In what would have been Harry Potter's seventh year at Hogwarts, a number of the student population was denied readmission to the school. Among these students were Colin Creevey, Justin Finch-Fletchley, and Hermione Granger: muggleborns, denied solely on the basis of their "dirty" blood. With Voldemort effectively in charge of Hogwarts and working his way to complete control of the Ministry in months, there was nobody powerful or daring enough to challenge the decision to ban "mudbloods."
As a result of the direct support from the staff at Hogwarts, the pureblood students quickly rose to the top of the chain of command in school. Which makes me wonder: whatever happened to the half-bloods?
We get glimpses from Ginny, Neville, and Luna. But even Harry knows there's more to the story. What really went on at Hogwarts that year, and what happened to the half-bloods, the blood-traitors, and the almost-squibs of the school?
To answer that, I think we can make parallels to American History. The Little Rock Nine were the brave group of nine black students who were daring enough to try attending a "white" school after the famous Brown vs Board of Education Supreme Court case was settled in their favor. In the end it was necessary to give them an armed guard to prevent a lynching. Hostilities were simply that common at the time.
Could feelings at Hogwarts towards the "inferior" students been the same? It wouldn't surprise me in the least if, by the end of the year, more than one student had been reported dead of supposedly unknown causes. A hate crime, as one might call it. What would have happened if Harry Potter had not succeeded; what would have happened if Voldemort's reign had continued for years? Would the teachers overlook outright murder?
Unfortunately, it seems that would be the case. It seems like, unfortunately, pureblood superiority is simply another form of the prejudice in America's own past. So, which is worse? Judging by color and race, or judging by blood and family? If the end result when the situation goes unchecked would be the same, then is there even a difference?
In what would have been Harry Potter's seventh year at Hogwarts, a number of the student population was denied readmission to the school. Among these students were Colin Creevey, Justin Finch-Fletchley, and Hermione Granger: muggleborns, denied solely on the basis of their "dirty" blood. With Voldemort effectively in charge of Hogwarts and working his way to complete control of the Ministry in months, there was nobody powerful or daring enough to challenge the decision to ban "mudbloods."
As a result of the direct support from the staff at Hogwarts, the pureblood students quickly rose to the top of the chain of command in school. Which makes me wonder: whatever happened to the half-bloods?
We get glimpses from Ginny, Neville, and Luna. But even Harry knows there's more to the story. What really went on at Hogwarts that year, and what happened to the half-bloods, the blood-traitors, and the almost-squibs of the school?
To answer that, I think we can make parallels to American History. The Little Rock Nine were the brave group of nine black students who were daring enough to try attending a "white" school after the famous Brown vs Board of Education Supreme Court case was settled in their favor. In the end it was necessary to give them an armed guard to prevent a lynching. Hostilities were simply that common at the time.
Could feelings at Hogwarts towards the "inferior" students been the same? It wouldn't surprise me in the least if, by the end of the year, more than one student had been reported dead of supposedly unknown causes. A hate crime, as one might call it. What would have happened if Harry Potter had not succeeded; what would have happened if Voldemort's reign had continued for years? Would the teachers overlook outright murder?
Unfortunately, it seems that would be the case. It seems like, unfortunately, pureblood superiority is simply another form of the prejudice in America's own past. So, which is worse? Judging by color and race, or judging by blood and family? If the end result when the situation goes unchecked would be the same, then is there even a difference?
9/23/2009
9/04/2009
Bring on the Socialism
Obama, Obama, Barack Hussein Obama. What does his name bring to mind? Those triple-colored posters and t-shirts bearing his face and the words "change" or "hope?" Well, perhaps a year ago. But this year, almost everybody will think of a certain buzzword that seems to pop up all over him. "Socialist." And did that word ever pop up today in class.
The point of having a government at all is to keep things in order. We're in the middle of a post-Bush recession. Would you consider that to be order? What Obama is trying to do, or at least what he says he's trying to do, is help. He wants to bring health to the people of America who cannot afford it based on the mediocre system we use now. He wants to tax the ones who won't be hurt by the taxing. If help and duty requires a change in government that leans towards Socialism, so be it. So long as we hold to the values of our forefathers when it counts the most, why should it matter if others can improve their lifestyles?
I understand that Socialism and America should not mix, if possible. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and preferably ones that happen before all hell breaks loose rather than after.
So why do people protest? Can they not see that without some form of revision to our current government, things will continue on as they have? And if things continue on as they have, America is doomed to spiral down. A government must grow with its country, as must the people.
Are you willing to step down off the pedestal of Capitalism and allow Socialism to help out? Is America willing to give up the tiniest portion of its pride for the free-standing economy that has developed in return for a better community? You tell me, because frankly, I have no idea.
The point of having a government at all is to keep things in order. We're in the middle of a post-Bush recession. Would you consider that to be order? What Obama is trying to do, or at least what he says he's trying to do, is help. He wants to bring health to the people of America who cannot afford it based on the mediocre system we use now. He wants to tax the ones who won't be hurt by the taxing. If help and duty requires a change in government that leans towards Socialism, so be it. So long as we hold to the values of our forefathers when it counts the most, why should it matter if others can improve their lifestyles?
I understand that Socialism and America should not mix, if possible. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and preferably ones that happen before all hell breaks loose rather than after.
So why do people protest? Can they not see that without some form of revision to our current government, things will continue on as they have? And if things continue on as they have, America is doomed to spiral down. A government must grow with its country, as must the people.
Are you willing to step down off the pedestal of Capitalism and allow Socialism to help out? Is America willing to give up the tiniest portion of its pride for the free-standing economy that has developed in return for a better community? You tell me, because frankly, I have no idea.
8/28/2009
Opportunity
I will take this grand opportunity to make a glorious, bright, in-depth remark about the creation of this new blog.
FIRST!
Just kidding. Kinda.
This blog has been created for, but with any luck will not be maintained solely for, my American Studies class. I hope that this assignment will catapult me into a habit of blogging, so that (for once) I am able to maintain a blog - and a decent one, at that.
Wish me luck.
~ Merlin (Lauren)
FIRST!
Just kidding. Kinda.
This blog has been created for, but with any luck will not be maintained solely for, my American Studies class. I hope that this assignment will catapult me into a habit of blogging, so that (for once) I am able to maintain a blog - and a decent one, at that.
Wish me luck.
~ Merlin (Lauren)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)