A major subject in the news recently is the WikiLeaks website, and its controversial founder Julian Assange. WikiLeaks has caused some problems for world governments by posting secret internal documents on the internet, and making secrets public that many say are detrimental to these countries. Recently Assange was arrested in conjunction with a case that seemingly has nothing at all to do with WikiLeaks; he has been charged with sexual assault and molestation. Obviously, it’s impossible for me to know if he is guilty or innocent at this point. What I do know is that there is a ton of speculation going on right now. Some say that Assange is a rapist and should go to jail, while others say that the charges are merely a smear campaign waged by “The Man” to whom Assange is trying to “stick it”. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but I think it’s interesting how different news sources have covered this important story. I recently read two articles that came at the story from very different points of view, and I found this dichotomy interesting.
The first article was on the CNN website, in the “world” section. I assumed that this would mean that the article would have a global focus and point of view, but I quickly realized that it was written with a distinct anti-Assange slant. Many American sources (though CNN is an international news organization, it is run out of Atlanta and is, for all intents and purposes, American) have been quick to condemn WikiLeaks, while very few have succeeded in staying neutral Searching the CNN website, I found a variety of viewpoints on how horrible WikiLeaks is, but failed to find any sources to contrast these one-sided articles. I’m personally not sure how I feel about WikiLeaks. I can see the good and the bad, but I’m wary of having my views shaped, even somewhat, by a potential bias in the media. In the article about Assange’s arrest, it seems as if the writer has already decided that Assange is guilty. The article contains no opinions, but the facts are presented in such a way that the criminality of Assange is emphasized, whereas any doubt over the legitimacy of the charges (the real story here, in my opinion) is kind of swept under the rug.
I didn’t notice the bias (which I think/hope is subconscious) so much at first, but then I read an article on the Al Jazeera site that was, in my opinion, more impartial and just better-written in general. The article had more quotes from a more varied array of sources. Whereas the CNN article seemed to be holding Assange’s attempted takedown of the U.S. government against him as it wrote the article about his arrest, Al Jazeera seemed more fair. It’s not as if Al Jazeera doesn’t have a reason to hate Julian Assange (indeed, it seems everyone has a reason to hate Assange): it was accused in one of the leaks for being a pawn of, and mouthpiece for, the Qatari government. Despite being somewhat embroiled in the controversy itself, Al Jazeera did a great job of reporting it, in my opinion, and it was interesting to see how different articles could tilt indisputable facts to get a point across.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
The Power of Stories
In English, we are currently reading the book Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi. The book chronicles Nafisi’s efforts to teach a literature class for a group of young women, an action that directly rebels against the strict Iranian government. The book is obviously specifically about Iran and its oppressive regime, but the main idea of the book can, in my opinion, be made much more universal. This fundamental idea is that stories are often the best, or at least a good, defense against tyranny.
In places where people’s lives are not what they would like them to be, stories can serve as a form of escapism. In Iran, for example, I would imagine that reading F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby would be eye-opening for Nafisi’s students (I haven’t read this far in the book yet, but I will soon find out what kind of meaning the students take away from this book). The Great Gatsby describes, in great detail, a world that Iranians, especially women, would be unfamiliar with. It’s important for an oppressed people to be exposed to a culture that is radically different than their own (in the case of The Great Gatsby, an extremely materialistic one, to the point of excess), even if that culture is only experienced through stories. If these stories are not made available, there is the possibility that the population as a whole will be brainwashed, in a way, into believing that the current societal norms and culture is the only option. This can be very dangerous, as it often perpetuates tyranny.
Interestingly, it is just as important for stories to come out of places like Iran as it is for them to go in. Only by hearing first-hand experiences of everyday people can the rest of the world begin to understand what they go through, and try to help them. Stories like Persepolis and Reading Lolita in Tehran can go a long way toward getting the rest of the world to sympathize with the oppressed, and possibly do something to help.
In places where people’s lives are not what they would like them to be, stories can serve as a form of escapism. In Iran, for example, I would imagine that reading F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby would be eye-opening for Nafisi’s students (I haven’t read this far in the book yet, but I will soon find out what kind of meaning the students take away from this book). The Great Gatsby describes, in great detail, a world that Iranians, especially women, would be unfamiliar with. It’s important for an oppressed people to be exposed to a culture that is radically different than their own (in the case of The Great Gatsby, an extremely materialistic one, to the point of excess), even if that culture is only experienced through stories. If these stories are not made available, there is the possibility that the population as a whole will be brainwashed, in a way, into believing that the current societal norms and culture is the only option. This can be very dangerous, as it often perpetuates tyranny.
Interestingly, it is just as important for stories to come out of places like Iran as it is for them to go in. Only by hearing first-hand experiences of everyday people can the rest of the world begin to understand what they go through, and try to help them. Stories like Persepolis and Reading Lolita in Tehran can go a long way toward getting the rest of the world to sympathize with the oppressed, and possibly do something to help.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
The Smartphone STD Test: Good or Bad?
Recently, I saw a story on my Google Reader that intrigued me, and that I think speaks to a larger narrative within our society. When I read the article, which in essence said that British researchers have developed a program that allows smartphones to analyze the user’s urine and check for STDs, I was skeptical. After reading that the user does not pee directly onto the phone, but rather onto a computer chip that is then plugged into the phone, this seemed like a slightly better idea.
Actually, it may seem silly, but this development has the potential to be a very good thing. People who are too lazy (or embarrassed) to see the doctor might be able to catch these diseases earlier than they could have without the app. That being said, this seems like one more demonstration that our society is too reliant on technology. When a phone starts to replace actual professionals with advanced medical degrees, it’s not a good sign. The phone app can’t be right 100% of the time, and sometimes a person might rely on it when it shows a negative test when there might actually be a problem. Unlike a doctor, a program on a phone can’t be held accountable when it makes a mistake.
Technology is good in most instances, but we need o have boundaries on what we expect to be done for us. In my opinion, the STD app is probably a little much. That being said, I’m interested to see how, and to what extent, it gets used in the future.
Actually, it may seem silly, but this development has the potential to be a very good thing. People who are too lazy (or embarrassed) to see the doctor might be able to catch these diseases earlier than they could have without the app. That being said, this seems like one more demonstration that our society is too reliant on technology. When a phone starts to replace actual professionals with advanced medical degrees, it’s not a good sign. The phone app can’t be right 100% of the time, and sometimes a person might rely on it when it shows a negative test when there might actually be a problem. Unlike a doctor, a program on a phone can’t be held accountable when it makes a mistake.
Technology is good in most instances, but we need o have boundaries on what we expect to be done for us. In my opinion, the STD app is probably a little much. That being said, I’m interested to see how, and to what extent, it gets used in the future.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Disappointment
I know I've been writing a lot about the midterm elections lately, but as they just occurred this Tuesday I thought it would be appropriate to bring them up one last time. For the last couple weeks, it was hard to turn on the TV without seeing either a campaign ad or a pundit predicting or analyzing election results, so it's obvious that Americans have been bombarded, like it or not, with news about this major event, so I think I can be excused for adding my two cents one last time.
Obviously the elections can't be neatly summed up in a word, considering the multitudes of people that participated, all with different outlooks and opinions. That being said: disappointment. In my opinion, this word most accurately describes the climate of this election. While legions of incensed Tea Partiers got a lot of media attention, these people did not represent the majority of American voters. Aside from the far-right Obama-haters and the die-hard Obama fans, the majority of the country's voters were simply disappointed with the direction that the country is headed. To back up this theorizing with some data, the Global Language Monitor conducted a study and found that the terms "frustration" and "disappointment" were far more frequent than "anger" or "rage". Of course, whenever people are unhappy with the way Washington is working, they look to blame the party that is in power, and therefore should be in a position to do something about it. In this case that party was the Democrats.
There's nothing wrong with being disappointed and informed, as many voters were. However, acting on uninformed disappointment can be problematic. In other words, it is difficult to pick out members of our government to "blame" our current mess on. Washington is so complicated that often the"bad guys" are hard to find. The "good guys", however, are substantially easier to pick out. One apparently negative outcome from Tuesday's elections was Russ Feingold's loss in the race for the Wisconsin Senate seat. He has authored a lot of important legislation on campaign finance, a huge problem in politics today. He also has a reputation as a good compromiser, which is something that voters supposedly were interested in. Still, Feingold, who was greatly respected for voting his conscience and not strictly adhering to party lines, was ousted along with many other incumbents in favor of Ron Johnson, an adamant global warming denier.
Though I do lean left politically, I don't see anything wrong with the disappointment directed at the Democrats, though I do think both parties should shoulder some of the blame. When one party has a clear majority in Congress and has control of the executive branch, they are expected to pass major legislation that will affect Americans' lives for the better. With the possible exception of health care reform (which is largely unpopular), this hasn't happened. Therefore, it's okay for voters to be disappointed and to want to get some new faces in Washington. That being said, I think they could have been a little smarter about it, and tried to differentiate between good incumbents and entrenched career politicians. It's a fine line, but I assumed Americans were intelligent enough to tell the difference. Instead, I was a little disappointed.
Obviously the elections can't be neatly summed up in a word, considering the multitudes of people that participated, all with different outlooks and opinions. That being said: disappointment. In my opinion, this word most accurately describes the climate of this election. While legions of incensed Tea Partiers got a lot of media attention, these people did not represent the majority of American voters. Aside from the far-right Obama-haters and the die-hard Obama fans, the majority of the country's voters were simply disappointed with the direction that the country is headed. To back up this theorizing with some data, the Global Language Monitor conducted a study and found that the terms "frustration" and "disappointment" were far more frequent than "anger" or "rage". Of course, whenever people are unhappy with the way Washington is working, they look to blame the party that is in power, and therefore should be in a position to do something about it. In this case that party was the Democrats.
There's nothing wrong with being disappointed and informed, as many voters were. However, acting on uninformed disappointment can be problematic. In other words, it is difficult to pick out members of our government to "blame" our current mess on. Washington is so complicated that often the"bad guys" are hard to find. The "good guys", however, are substantially easier to pick out. One apparently negative outcome from Tuesday's elections was Russ Feingold's loss in the race for the Wisconsin Senate seat. He has authored a lot of important legislation on campaign finance, a huge problem in politics today. He also has a reputation as a good compromiser, which is something that voters supposedly were interested in. Still, Feingold, who was greatly respected for voting his conscience and not strictly adhering to party lines, was ousted along with many other incumbents in favor of Ron Johnson, an adamant global warming denier.
Though I do lean left politically, I don't see anything wrong with the disappointment directed at the Democrats, though I do think both parties should shoulder some of the blame. When one party has a clear majority in Congress and has control of the executive branch, they are expected to pass major legislation that will affect Americans' lives for the better. With the possible exception of health care reform (which is largely unpopular), this hasn't happened. Therefore, it's okay for voters to be disappointed and to want to get some new faces in Washington. That being said, I think they could have been a little smarter about it, and tried to differentiate between good incumbents and entrenched career politicians. It's a fine line, but I assumed Americans were intelligent enough to tell the difference. Instead, I was a little disappointed.
Monday, October 25, 2010
The United States: Master of the House
In my English class, we have been reading the book Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver. Set in the Congo in the 1960’s, the novel discusses the intense political climate in that country from an American point of view. The book covers a fairly large span of time, but a key plot point is the assassination of Patrice Lumumba. Orleanna is the character, in my opinion, that has the most interesting take on the situation, specifically the CIA’s role in the assassination plot. Obviously no one can be certain of exactly what the CIA did or did not do, but it’s fairly clear that, at the very least, they knew, and approved, of the plans to kill Lumumba. Orleanna, on page 320, says, “President Eisenhower was right then sending his orders to take over the Congo. Imagine that. His household was the world, and he’d finished making up his mind about things”.
Since the end of World War II, it seems that the United States has seen the world as its “household”. This means that we, as a nation, have a right, and a responsibility, to intervene in world affairs as we see fit. This is a very important narrative to understand, as it has shaped U.S. foreign policy for upwards of 50 years. The scenario in the Congo is a prime example of the consequences of this worldview. From America’s tacit support of the Lumumba assassination, to our varied meddling in Latin America, to the Korean War, to the Vietnam War, to the Iran-Contra scandal, to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has a long history of interfering in foreign affairs. This track record is well documented elsewhere, so I won’t go into too much depth here. Suffice to say that most of the time the U.S. has acted to advance its own interests, with little respect or regard for other nations.
Recently, I was reading an interesting blogging debate, so to speak, regarding the legality and ethicality of CIA assassinations of suspected terrorists. Basically, we as a country claim the right to assassinate anyone, anywhere, at any time, if we have reason to believe that they are a terrorist, or are somehow helping terrorists. This is just another example of America applying the “household” principle to our foreign policy. If any other country sent predator drones or soldiers into the United States to assassinate someone it had deemed a threat to its national security, we would consider that country to be drastically overstepping its boundaries. Somehow, when it comes to the rest of the world, this situation is analogous to pursuing a rodent into your neighbor’s living room, uninvited. When America is the aggressor, however, it is all of a sudden similar to chasing the rodent from one area of your own house to another. In my opinion, Orleanna’s perspective is valuable (she is an American caught in the middle of a situation where American intervention had some tragic consequences) and the “household” narrative that she points out sheds a lot of light on U.S. foreign policy both then and now.
Since the end of World War II, it seems that the United States has seen the world as its “household”. This means that we, as a nation, have a right, and a responsibility, to intervene in world affairs as we see fit. This is a very important narrative to understand, as it has shaped U.S. foreign policy for upwards of 50 years. The scenario in the Congo is a prime example of the consequences of this worldview. From America’s tacit support of the Lumumba assassination, to our varied meddling in Latin America, to the Korean War, to the Vietnam War, to the Iran-Contra scandal, to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has a long history of interfering in foreign affairs. This track record is well documented elsewhere, so I won’t go into too much depth here. Suffice to say that most of the time the U.S. has acted to advance its own interests, with little respect or regard for other nations.
Recently, I was reading an interesting blogging debate, so to speak, regarding the legality and ethicality of CIA assassinations of suspected terrorists. Basically, we as a country claim the right to assassinate anyone, anywhere, at any time, if we have reason to believe that they are a terrorist, or are somehow helping terrorists. This is just another example of America applying the “household” principle to our foreign policy. If any other country sent predator drones or soldiers into the United States to assassinate someone it had deemed a threat to its national security, we would consider that country to be drastically overstepping its boundaries. Somehow, when it comes to the rest of the world, this situation is analogous to pursuing a rodent into your neighbor’s living room, uninvited. When America is the aggressor, however, it is all of a sudden similar to chasing the rodent from one area of your own house to another. In my opinion, Orleanna’s perspective is valuable (she is an American caught in the middle of a situation where American intervention had some tragic consequences) and the “household” narrative that she points out sheds a lot of light on U.S. foreign policy both then and now.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Rambling Musings on the Midterm Elections
Recently, in my English class, a key subject of discussion has been the role that narratives and/or myths play in our lives, and how these stories affect the world around us. I’ll be slightly tweaking the subject of my blog to address this subject a little more in the future, starting with this post. From now on, this blog will primarily address narratives that shape noteworthy events in the news. It’s only a slight change, but hopefully it will improve the overall quality of my blog. If not, I sincerely apologize to you, my legions of followers.
Anyway, this week I would like to talk about politics, specifically the midterm Congressional elections. An emerging narrative is largely shaping these elections, and it is one characterized by a mistrust and dislike of candidates who embody the “political establishment”. It’s not difficult to see where all this anger comes from; the economy is in bad shape, the U.S. is mired in two seemingly unwinnable wars, Obama’s healthcare plan has not been well-received, and many other problems abound. This frustration has, in many cases, been channeled through the Tea Party, and its upstart candidates. There have been many examples of this narrative playing out during these elections, and no example has been in the news more than Delaware candidate Christine O’Donnell.
O’Donnell was a complete unknown before the primaries for the open Senate seat in Delaware, having run for office twice before in relative anonymity. She played off voter frustration to defeat career politician Mike Castle, formerly the governor of Delaware and a member of the House of Representatives, in the Republican primaries. As she now steps into the spotlight preceding the general election, a lot of her views have become increasingly known around the country. I won’t waste time going through her position on each issue, but suffice to say that many of her beliefs could be described as “ill-informed”, like her refusal to acknowledge evolution and climate change, and her statement that being gay is an “identity disorder”. Most importantly, though, O’Donnell seems blatantly unqualified to serve in Congress, having never been in an important decision-making position before.
This last aspect of her candidacy addresses the root of the problem with the narrative. Somehow, paradoxically, lack of experience is now a positive thing in many voters’ eyes. O’Donnell’s latest campaign ad has been widely lampooned for its opening line, addressing a clip of her admitting that she “dabbled in witchcraft” as a teenager. To me, this is a non-issue (but funny nonetheless). What is much scarier is what she says seconds later: “I’m you”. That’s terrific, but the problem is that I’m woefully unqualified to be a member of the Senate. I have no expertise in important matters like the economy and military strategy. There’s no way that I would vote for myself in a Senate election. Nor would I vote for the vast majority of Americans, who simply are not knowledgeable or experienced enough to effectively run the country. I don’t want our elected officials to be me; I want them to be better than me. Increasingly, though, it seems as if I am in the minority on this issue. Many Americans vote for candidates like O’Donnell precisely because of their ignorance and inexperience, and spurn relatively moderate, reasonable candidates like Castle. Suddenly, being an “outsider” is more important in American politics, particularly the Tea Party movement, than being intelligent, qualified, or honest. Fortunately, it appears as if Christine O’Donnell will lose her Senate race. Even if she won, one person probably wouldn’t be able to single-handedly impact policy. However, it isn’t her that makes me apprehensive. Rather it is the narrative of mistrust and fear that has enabled her, and other similar candidates, to even come close to being elected. This is a narrative that is affecting our world in a very negative way, in my opinion, and it is one that needs to change sometime soon.
Anyway, this week I would like to talk about politics, specifically the midterm Congressional elections. An emerging narrative is largely shaping these elections, and it is one characterized by a mistrust and dislike of candidates who embody the “political establishment”. It’s not difficult to see where all this anger comes from; the economy is in bad shape, the U.S. is mired in two seemingly unwinnable wars, Obama’s healthcare plan has not been well-received, and many other problems abound. This frustration has, in many cases, been channeled through the Tea Party, and its upstart candidates. There have been many examples of this narrative playing out during these elections, and no example has been in the news more than Delaware candidate Christine O’Donnell.
O’Donnell was a complete unknown before the primaries for the open Senate seat in Delaware, having run for office twice before in relative anonymity. She played off voter frustration to defeat career politician Mike Castle, formerly the governor of Delaware and a member of the House of Representatives, in the Republican primaries. As she now steps into the spotlight preceding the general election, a lot of her views have become increasingly known around the country. I won’t waste time going through her position on each issue, but suffice to say that many of her beliefs could be described as “ill-informed”, like her refusal to acknowledge evolution and climate change, and her statement that being gay is an “identity disorder”. Most importantly, though, O’Donnell seems blatantly unqualified to serve in Congress, having never been in an important decision-making position before.
This last aspect of her candidacy addresses the root of the problem with the narrative. Somehow, paradoxically, lack of experience is now a positive thing in many voters’ eyes. O’Donnell’s latest campaign ad has been widely lampooned for its opening line, addressing a clip of her admitting that she “dabbled in witchcraft” as a teenager. To me, this is a non-issue (but funny nonetheless). What is much scarier is what she says seconds later: “I’m you”. That’s terrific, but the problem is that I’m woefully unqualified to be a member of the Senate. I have no expertise in important matters like the economy and military strategy. There’s no way that I would vote for myself in a Senate election. Nor would I vote for the vast majority of Americans, who simply are not knowledgeable or experienced enough to effectively run the country. I don’t want our elected officials to be me; I want them to be better than me. Increasingly, though, it seems as if I am in the minority on this issue. Many Americans vote for candidates like O’Donnell precisely because of their ignorance and inexperience, and spurn relatively moderate, reasonable candidates like Castle. Suddenly, being an “outsider” is more important in American politics, particularly the Tea Party movement, than being intelligent, qualified, or honest. Fortunately, it appears as if Christine O’Donnell will lose her Senate race. Even if she won, one person probably wouldn’t be able to single-handedly impact policy. However, it isn’t her that makes me apprehensive. Rather it is the narrative of mistrust and fear that has enabled her, and other similar candidates, to even come close to being elected. This is a narrative that is affecting our world in a very negative way, in my opinion, and it is one that needs to change sometime soon.
Monday, October 4, 2010
How will history judge Obama's record?
Recently, I read an interesting blog post by Stephen Walt. In it, Walt argues that the public perception of Barack Obama’s first two years in office is a little too harsh. Walt emphasizes the numerous “non-events” that Obama has averted, whereas others (and even Walt himself, by his own admission) have often focused on Obama’s lack of progress or failure to enact significant legislation. I agreed with much of what Walt said, and think that Obama has largely been blamed for circumstances outside of his control. Between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the faltering economy, and America’s greatly diminished reputation and influence abroad, Obama inherited a very difficult situation from the previous administration. Many people, in critiquing Obama’s failure to deliver on his campaign promises, haven’t considered the tough hand he was dealt coming into the presidency.
This argument only goes so far, though. All presidents have to deal with issues left behind by their predecessor; a president’s legacy is largely defined by how he adapts to and deals with these problems. Still, Obama faces a much tougher task than most presidents in recent memory. To compound matters, many members of Congress (Republicans, for example) are clearly unwilling to compromise to solve the difficulties we presently face. Obama’s certainly got a lot on his plate, but how does it stack up with what other presidents have had to deal with? Here’s my opinion:
1. When Abraham Lincoln ascended to the presidency, he inherited a nation torn apart. Even before the 1860 election, the secession movement was already well under way, and he was so hated by so many that he traveled to his inauguration in disguise to avoid assassination attempts. By the time Lincoln took office, the Civil War had begun. Lincoln took command of the Union army and steered the nation through its darkest hour, wielding his presidential power to win the war and bring the Union back together.
2. In 1932, Herbert Hoover’s failed economic policies had, in part, led to the biggest financial crash in American history. Making matters worse, Adolf Hitler had just been elected chancellor of Germany, and fascism appeared to be a major threat to world peace. Into this unsteady and troublesome political climate stepped Franklin D. Roosevelt, who immediately enacted legislation to try to combat the Great Depression. It took some time, but FDR eventually was able to turn the economy around. He also guided the U.S. through World War I, and handled relations with Stalin, no easy task. By the time FDR died, the U.S. had all but won WWII and the Great Depression was officially over.
3. Lyndon Baines Johnson, Vice President under John F. Kennedy, was forced to take over as president following Kennedy’s assassination. JFK had steadily increased U.S. involvement in Vietnam, doing everything short of deploying troops to try to support the South Vietnamese government and undermine Ho Chi Minh’s communist North Vietnam. Domestically, race riots flared up, and the Civil Rights movement was in full swing. When LBJ assumed the presidency, he enacted legislation to extend greater equality to African Americans, and also tried to implement a “war on poverty”. Speaking of war, he greatly escalated America’s involvement in Vietnam, sending troops in and eventually becoming embroiled in the Vietnam War.
I would assert that the issues Obama faces currently rank fourth on my list of presidents’ inherited problems. For their masterful handling of their difficult situations, Lincoln and Roosevelt are widely considered to be among greatest presidents of all time. Johnson’s record is more nuanced; his domestic policy in dealing with the Civil Rights issue is widely considered a success, but his foreign policy, namely the Vietnam War, is viewed as a disaster. Like these three great men, President Obama faces some seemingly overwhelming challenges, many of which can’t be completely attributed to his administration. However, he has to deal effectively with these obstacles in order to be a great president. If Obama succeeds, like Lincoln and FDR, he could go down in history as one of the best presidents ever. If he doesn’t, like LBJ, he’d better get ready to pack his bags in 2012.
This argument only goes so far, though. All presidents have to deal with issues left behind by their predecessor; a president’s legacy is largely defined by how he adapts to and deals with these problems. Still, Obama faces a much tougher task than most presidents in recent memory. To compound matters, many members of Congress (Republicans, for example) are clearly unwilling to compromise to solve the difficulties we presently face. Obama’s certainly got a lot on his plate, but how does it stack up with what other presidents have had to deal with? Here’s my opinion:
1. When Abraham Lincoln ascended to the presidency, he inherited a nation torn apart. Even before the 1860 election, the secession movement was already well under way, and he was so hated by so many that he traveled to his inauguration in disguise to avoid assassination attempts. By the time Lincoln took office, the Civil War had begun. Lincoln took command of the Union army and steered the nation through its darkest hour, wielding his presidential power to win the war and bring the Union back together.
2. In 1932, Herbert Hoover’s failed economic policies had, in part, led to the biggest financial crash in American history. Making matters worse, Adolf Hitler had just been elected chancellor of Germany, and fascism appeared to be a major threat to world peace. Into this unsteady and troublesome political climate stepped Franklin D. Roosevelt, who immediately enacted legislation to try to combat the Great Depression. It took some time, but FDR eventually was able to turn the economy around. He also guided the U.S. through World War I, and handled relations with Stalin, no easy task. By the time FDR died, the U.S. had all but won WWII and the Great Depression was officially over.
3. Lyndon Baines Johnson, Vice President under John F. Kennedy, was forced to take over as president following Kennedy’s assassination. JFK had steadily increased U.S. involvement in Vietnam, doing everything short of deploying troops to try to support the South Vietnamese government and undermine Ho Chi Minh’s communist North Vietnam. Domestically, race riots flared up, and the Civil Rights movement was in full swing. When LBJ assumed the presidency, he enacted legislation to extend greater equality to African Americans, and also tried to implement a “war on poverty”. Speaking of war, he greatly escalated America’s involvement in Vietnam, sending troops in and eventually becoming embroiled in the Vietnam War.
I would assert that the issues Obama faces currently rank fourth on my list of presidents’ inherited problems. For their masterful handling of their difficult situations, Lincoln and Roosevelt are widely considered to be among greatest presidents of all time. Johnson’s record is more nuanced; his domestic policy in dealing with the Civil Rights issue is widely considered a success, but his foreign policy, namely the Vietnam War, is viewed as a disaster. Like these three great men, President Obama faces some seemingly overwhelming challenges, many of which can’t be completely attributed to his administration. However, he has to deal effectively with these obstacles in order to be a great president. If Obama succeeds, like Lincoln and FDR, he could go down in history as one of the best presidents ever. If he doesn’t, like LBJ, he’d better get ready to pack his bags in 2012.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Welcome
Dear Esteemed Reader,
Hello, and welcome to my brand new blog. As this is my first post, I will begin by telling you a little about myself. I am a senior at Glenbrook North High School in Northbrook, Illinois. At Glenbrook North, I am a member of the Glenbrook Academy of international studies (widely referred to as Academy), which is a program focusing primarily on language and history. Fittingly, this blog will deal mostly with history, with a little bit of language sprinkled in.
Each entry of my blog will address an issue that is relevant in today's news, and hopefully make some elucidating historical comparisons or parallels. History is a subject I'm interested in, and I also think it's important to stay up-to-date on the important events going on in our world today. Whether you share these interests or just happened to stumble upon this blog while navigating through cyberspace, I hope that my posts will at least be thought provoking and informative, and I'll try to be entertaining whenever possible.
Just to give a little preview of what's to come, topics that I've been thinking about lately include the following: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the "Ground Zero Mosque", health care reform, the economic recession, and many others.
Finally, since this blog will be about the many issues that we face, it is only appropriate that I should conclude with this song. Just like my blog, it strives to "talk about issues, but still keep it funky". Also, it's really funny.
Until next time,
Brandon Isaac
Hello, and welcome to my brand new blog. As this is my first post, I will begin by telling you a little about myself. I am a senior at Glenbrook North High School in Northbrook, Illinois. At Glenbrook North, I am a member of the Glenbrook Academy of international studies (widely referred to as Academy), which is a program focusing primarily on language and history. Fittingly, this blog will deal mostly with history, with a little bit of language sprinkled in.
Each entry of my blog will address an issue that is relevant in today's news, and hopefully make some elucidating historical comparisons or parallels. History is a subject I'm interested in, and I also think it's important to stay up-to-date on the important events going on in our world today. Whether you share these interests or just happened to stumble upon this blog while navigating through cyberspace, I hope that my posts will at least be thought provoking and informative, and I'll try to be entertaining whenever possible.
Just to give a little preview of what's to come, topics that I've been thinking about lately include the following: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the "Ground Zero Mosque", health care reform, the economic recession, and many others.
Finally, since this blog will be about the many issues that we face, it is only appropriate that I should conclude with this song. Just like my blog, it strives to "talk about issues, but still keep it funky". Also, it's really funny.
Until next time,
Brandon Isaac
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)