Can You be Disobedient?

Henry David Thoreau was disgusted by slavery and the Mexican American War. In prosets, he offered the idea of civil disobedience. This is the act of being unruly in order to protest the government and its actions. I really took to this idea of being able to protest and be a non-conformist if you disagree with the government. 

In class on Thursday 12/12/08, we had a speaker come in and talk about her acts of cimil disobedience. A lady who had been arrested nearly 60 times in her life, all to protest what she thought was the government's abuse of power. The most dramatic of her tales was when she was in Iraq, against strict protocol, helping families that were affected by the US invasion. She conveyed to us with her voice and expression the same emotion that she must have felt while in Iraq. I was left speechless. She believes non-violent protest and civil disobedience are the most potent way of getting your voice heard.

My main question now is, can people perform acts of civil disobedience and still be active members of society? The speaker we had, after all, doesn't pay taxes and owns not a single automobile. So how can a New Trier student or faculty aspire to live in open protest to the government if we want, without being seen as strange or outcasts? 

The answer is... he or she probable cannot. In Thoreau's day, the government was still young and ripe for protest. Now, we are so used to the governments practices that any protest besides an anti-war march seems too edgy. I wish there was a way to open forum our protests to the government without having to break the law. 

Our speaker laid it out for us. In order to live her lifestyle, she made a decision to change her normal way of life. For a high school student wanting to go on to college and beyond, I just can't see myself being able to protest in such ways. 

What We Really Need

Henry David Thoreau spent two years in solitude while according observations for his book, Walden. In these two years he determined that man has only 4 requirements he must maintain for himself in order to survive: fuel, food, shelter, and clothing. A perfectly functioning human being can exist so long as he quenches these 4 thirsts. 

With the holiday season in full swing, it is a good time to consider what the brilliant Thoreau had to offer us. When we sit down to make our holiday lists, what should we ask for so that we don't bury ourselves with "not indispensable" items. When I asked myself that question, I remembered hearing about a sponsorship charities, like the Christian Children's Fund , in which a small portion of our money goes to ensure that children in third world countries do not go without the 4 basic needs. 

It is very hard to live like a transcendentalist today, with more  and more people worry about looks and luxuries. How can we strive to be individualists, when advertisements insult us with their low brow humor-- trying to connect with the common man?Advertisements are just plain bad. 

Anyway, I hope we live conscious of Thoreau's efforts to show us that we can live happy without the luxuries. 

Does He Really Fit the Bill?

The man is in our pockets and textbooks as the seventh President of the United States. Champion of the common man, he was known as he made his way into office. Andrew Jackson also is known for his tough love attitude toward the banking system, and got his face on the twenty dollar bill, big whoop. But does his face still deserve to be on the bill? After all, "Old Hickory" was not the most kind towards the Native American people. 

In fact, his record against the Indians during the Westward Expansion was less than flattering. "Indian Removal" was one of his talking points during his first inaugural address. 

As a nation of progress (defeating slavery and equalizing rights for all), it is somewhat disturbing that Jackson is still on the bill. The fact that he accomplished so little as far as building the nation, should be enough to overcome the common man friendship he had, that keeps his face on the bill today. Are we really a progressive nation, if we cannot recognize what a travesty the Indian Removal was? 

There is no going back in time to give the rightful land pack to the native people, but we can do one thing. We can replace the face of a man who fully supported and took part in the only genocide our country as witnessed with that of a man who has some more for us. FDR would be a much better candidate, and he represented progress to the extreme, pulling our country out of depression and laying the foundation for the United States' rise to world power.

Has Progress killed Bond?

Following the release of Daniel Craig's second film as James Bond, many critics, and even Rodger Moore himself, find themselves questioning whether what has happened to Bond is good. Throughout the forty years of Bond bonanza, the gadgets and pushing of the proverbial envelope have been changing to fit the modern world. However, with this country's unquenchable thirst for violence in entertainment, these critics feel that Bond has become too violent to appropriately fit the 007 model left by Craig's predecessors. With the progression in the media being made tin the past few decades, Americans have found themselves being able to view content with more violence, sex, and drug use than in the past. Obviously, the filmmakers of the Bond films had to adjust to the changing times and in turn have lost the charm and far out espionage sequence and replaced it with more death and more destruction.

Will Columbia Pictures head the warnings of critics and try to make a more classic Bond film in the future? Or will they listen to the outstanding box office preformance that ushered in over $70 million dollars for the studio? My friends, I regret to say, they will probably give into the power of green, and the American public will be force fed more putrid garbage through films that once warmed our imagination and inspired many to believe that futurism is ideal. Should we take this as a warning that progress may not be the key to our society? Perhaps the general balance we have now (save for a few exceptions) is where we should draw the line.

Obama Ushered In, World is Pleased

Now President-Elect Barrack Obama was in many eyes a shoe-in for victory. He had pragmatists and idealists on his side, arguing that the eight years of Bush policies are outdated and would be continued by McCain, and promising the vague idea of "Change" to the country's more desperate folk. The international reaction is also a noteworthy tidbit, as most countries see Obama as a strong and favorable leader. However, as can be seen in the link above, The China Worker, obviously a socialist piece, is fearful of Obama's election claiming that he is representative of big business and he being the first African-American to be elected President will cause false security to the issue of racism in America. This is a harsh, but pragmatic response to the election, as most pundits and newspapers have been swept up in the euphoria of Obama's election. Although the bias in this article is clearly define, it is interesting to see a sharp opposing viewpoint on the election, when American's eyes are filled with the same images in news and information. This non-dominant narrative, although not proven true, could be seen as a good warning to those that are willing to throw all of their faith into this strong and charismatic leader.

Just to get it out of the way... Boo Yah!

Win for Team or League?

With the dramatic series of games versus the Tampa Bay Rays, this past week, the Philadelphia Phillies have won the World Series. But who honestly cares, that the Phillies won? This was the question I was asking myself after I sat on my couch taking in every inning, every pitch, of the five game series. To me, I was looking at the broader ideal that followed the lack luster victory. A win for the Phillies meant a win for the National League. I view sports unlike I view the real world, with an idealistic eye. And frankly, I'm sick of hearing that my favorite baseball team, the Milwaukee Brewers, is overrated because the National League, and the Central Division more specifically, is weak compared to similar divisions in the American League. To me this win will bring prominence to the National League and help me not dwell on generalizing sports columnists that interfere with my pragmatic view of every day.

What to Make of it All?

I don't see how anyone can make a wise decision in our markets with the way it been going. This bipolar ride has left investors scratching their heads and wondering whether they should take the idealist or pragmatic approach to playing Wallstreet. CBS News provided a quick and ugly wrap up of this week's economy.

Option One: Is my dollar going to help raise investor confidence around me? Of course it will. The true idealist way of riding our this market trip-up would be to invest in strong stocks and tell all of their friends to do the same. Men like Warren Buffet, who have shown their expertise in the historically unstable U.S. markets, continue to invest and urge that the Americans who can afford it do the same. 

Option Two: Make like the majority of skeptical men and women during the Great Depression and hide my cash under the mattress. The downward trends in the market are too threatening to be overcome by isolated days of immense gain. As our class saw how pragmatists like Benjamin Franklin managed to equate all chance and reasoning to a simple process of data collection. When American's eyes are seeing red, (the stock graphs, that is) the pragmatist cannot help but hold onto that extra money to help pay for the day to day amenities as gas prices rise as well as food prices. 

To me, Option Two seems to be the most realistic and economically sound way of existing in this nation strived with economic turmoil. If it gets any worse, expect to see more Americans jumping on this wagon.