Finding the Answer(s)

Most Americans would agree that there is a single American dream-- that there is one thing that all Americans strive for. Most would also agree that this "thing" is in some way materialistic (i.e. nice house, car, good education). However, if there is one thing that all American want to achieve, it is something that all humans strive for: making sense of it all. It is a curse of being human. Everything is percieved as a mystery that must be solved. We feel compelled to simplify things that are in reality, extremely complex. Messy Middle-Eastern conflict turns into a war of good vs. evil. There is no way that our enemies could have any sense of reasonability; they only think "KILL KILL KILL!!!". Also, how silly is it to think that the only thing any American wants is a house. A house is nothing but some wood and fiberglass insulation stapled together a bunch of times (maybe a few windows if you want some natural light). I don't think there is any one answer for all the questions out there. For most humans, this idea never sinks in. They spend their entire lives finding a non-existent answer. Out of this frustration comes religion; without a concrete answer, people turn to the supernatural. Maybe. Or possibly, there is a single solution for everything. Maybe I'm completely wrong...? I guess it's just in my human nature to analyze these things.

Recount

Recently I saw the movie Recount on HBO. The movie, as the title suggests, takes a second look at the Florida Recount in the 2000 Presidential Election. As I watched, I did what any good AIS student would do: I analyzed biases. The film had a strong liberal bias, and as a democrat, it was very painful to watch the apparent injustice unfold. The whole controversy was depicted as a huge mess that boiled over in a vast right-wing conspiracy. Whether this depiction was accurate, I'll never know, but it was quite obvious that the filmmakers had an agenda to incriminate the Bush campaign. Contrarily, Al Gore was portrayed as pratically super-human. It almost seemed he was too good of a man to become president. He eventually conceited graciously even though it was apparent he would have won (should the recount had continued). I would certainly like to believe that the film was a 100% truthful portrayal of this event, but I wonder whether such a thing exists...

The Stuff Cowboys are Made of

I recently wrote my exploratory essay on the effect of frontier idealism on American politics. What does that mean? Well, whether you realize it or not, most of the politicians we see on TV embody, or at least attempt to embody, the traits supposedly pioneered (pun not intended) by the American Frontiersman.
Actually though, these traits were creations of the 20th century-long after the frontier had closed. The typical cowboy, according to author Richard Slotkin, is a rugged individualist who carries around a huge gun (think about it) and prefers the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. The most important asset of his to protect is his pride. He'll never give up until the enemy suffers. It fascinates me how this celluloid portrayal of "American-ness" is so prevalent today in American politics.
One example of this is how President Bush refuses pull troops out of Iraq. A removal of military presence would mean a "surrender" and would therefore be detrimental to his "cowboy" image. John Wayne says in one of his films, The Searchers, "I don't like surrenders." John Wayne was just an actor though; he portrayed a fictional character. Similarly, Bush simply refuses to look at the realistic side of the issue. He just looks at it through his cinematic lens.

Family Life

As I left my house this morning, I noticed a picture(above) in the New York Times. The story was about John McCain and his family's military legacy. The picture, however, was of Sen. McCain standing at a podium during the 2000 election. Behind him and to his right are his Caucasian birth children; however, behind him, literally in his shadow is his adopted Bangladeshi daughter, Bridgette. I wonder whether this is just a coincidence or McCain (with the help of his campaign manager of course) made an attempt to "soften" his image. The picture was taken not to long after the infamous South Carolina underground smear campaign in which McCain was accused of fathering an illegitimate black child. Unfortunately, some people were dumb enough to believe these lies that could not be farther from the truth. Even though McCain was wronged greatly, I question his decision to put his presidential campaign literally in front of his family.

King Speech

Last night, while I read the transcript of MLK's 1967 speech against the war, I also listened to Marvin Gaye's "What's Goin' On". Many of the same issues are discussed in both. As I listened and read, I realized that almost nothing has changed since the era of Vietnam. The country is still plagued with "superficial patriotism". We engage in a "war on crime" here on the home front, but we still let ourselves be duped into a murderous, fruitless fight overseas. How can we expect to help other nations when we, ourselves, need help. There are some striking (and down-right frightening) similarities between now and then. It's been forty years. Why haven't we learned our lesson?

What Really Matters?

I was watching coverage on the democratic race for president on CNN. They were discussing how the media was starting to criticize Barack Obama. They mentioned the way that Obama came under fire for not holding his hand to his heart during the national anthem, before a rally. People accused him of being unpatriotic. After seeing this, I asked myself "Why does this matter?" Aren't there more significant and effective ways to show the passion you feel towards your nation. For example, trying to make the country better than it already is (wait, isn't that the point of running for president). Similarly in Arthur Miller's The Crucible, Proctor becomes suspicious when it is discovered that he had not attended church regularly in the past. Instead he was taking care of his family while his wife was seriously ill. Obviously caring for others is more important than showing up every week at a place where you're told to do so.

The Impossible Compromise

During Geoffrey Stone's very intriguing lecture, he mentioned how there is a continuum between freedom and safety. In other words, the more freedom a country has, the more dangerous the territory tends to be. Whereas nations with really controlling governments tend to be safer and quieter. This is because the citizens of these countries fear the government. Therefore there is a big trade-off philosophically between the possession of civil liberties and national security. While many argue that an agreement of these two viewpoints cannot be reached, I believe that the obstacle to finding national security is not personal freedom, but rather people's maturity. When people are awarded civil liberties, many do not understand the responsibility that comes with them. People are not the right forms of dissent. They would rather burn flags in violent protests than sit down talk peacefully about change. It could be argued that these people are not mature enough to deserve many of their rights. If citizens were to use their rights responsibility, the country would be able to achieve that impossible compromise. Maybe the secret to making the most out of your rights is not using them every chance you get, but knowing that you can use them at anytime and choosing not to. That, to me, is a more powerful use of civil liberties.