FYE Who's job is it to care?

Who’s Job is it to Care?

In light of the earthquakes in Haiti, and the recent earthquakes/tsunami/volcanoes in Indonesia I have began to ask my self this question. The Indonesian and Haitian people were not associated with the United States, yet in both cases the world as looked to the U.S. to help in the recovery necessary after natural disasters. I can see that as Americans and fellow human beings, we feel for these people. However, I find it interesting that we have homelessness, disease, and a terrible foster care system in our own country, which people don’t seem to feel the urge to throw their money at. 

What is it that makes Americans care so much about events such as Haiti, when they have seem to lost interest in their own people? Is it the president’s reaction that Americans use to gage their reaction? Perhaps it is just the medias coverage of issues that muster the attention and compassion of the American people. The media is a business of supply and demand, so what is it that makes the media focus more on natural disasters than on the everyday issues in the U.S.? Perhaps the death packed action of a natural disaster is just more interesting than the slow death and turmoil of the American people.

ENG 105 Essay #3

How Should the U.S. Reform Immigration?

            Illegal immigration has a significant effect on all Americans and accordingly, the various solutions offered for immigration reform are debated passionately. Because illegal immigrants as well as legal immigrants are so integrated into our society, the solutions offered for illegal immigration can be very emotionally received. With an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living and working in the United States, illegal immigrants have taken on a significant role in our schools, job-market and society (Nelson).

            A significant way in which illegal immigrants affect all American citizens, without a doubt, is economically. Illegal aliens often enjoy public schooling, emergency medical care, use of roads and bridges, food-stamps, and various other amenities paid for in tax dollars that are meant for American citizens. It is obvious, and essentially undisputed that illegal immigration has become a burden on society, and that actions must be taken to reform the U.S.’s current policies. What is disputed, however, is what approaches should be taken in this reform.

            Some believe that the solution to the immigration issue is to pass harsher laws against illegal immigrants and utilize mass deportation to drain the country of the current illegal immigrants. These beliefs are typically associated with the Republican Party. They are using state laws to attempt to deter illegal immigrants and get rid of those already in the U.S. using deportation. However, there are other options available, such as assimilating illegal immigrants into society by providing them with opportunities to benefit society, and become citizens, as most democrats would support. The most effective solution, as well as a mutually agreeable one that will allow the root of the problem to be addressed, is for Congress to pass legislation providing illegal immigrants with opportunities to earn citizenship, as well as legislation that will prevent businesses from soliciting the work of illegal immigrants.

Arizona has addressed the immigration problem by making laws to increase the states power to identify illegal immigrants. States are limited in which ways they are allowed to approach the immigration issue. States only have the power to help enforce the policies that are created by Congress. In other words, the only option states really have is to crack down harder on illegal immigrants and those who hire them. Arizona moved forward in this policy because the current National Policies are ineffective, and the result of this ineffectiveness is an especially large financial burden falling upon states that border Mexico, such as Arizona. The fear that Hispanic immigration endangers American ideals and institutions is a fear shared by many, but should not justify unconstitutional actions that are supported by Arizona. As Joe Pace writes in Salon, this sentiment is the result of “xenophobia and partisan politics” (Pace). It is understandable that Arizona feels so desperate to take action. However, the bill that Arizona has passed, and which has been partially revoked by the Supreme Court, is not an acceptable solution.

The controversial law passed by the state of Arizona in April of 2010 is called SB1070 (Archibold). The law required all immigrants to carry documented proof of their citizenship at all times. The law also gives police the power to make warrantless stops of anyone they believe may be an illegal immigrant. Furthermore, these people may be detained until they can provide proof that they are in fact in this country legally (Showdown in Arizona). This law obviously brings up serious issues with racial profiling and the high possibility of legal immigrants being harassed.

It is important to realize that the stringent new law, giving police free-reign to stop anyone suspected or appearing to be an illegal immigrant, subjects many legal citizens of the U.S. to frequent unreasonable searches. This means that Hispanics who have come to the U.S. legally, or were born here are inconvenienced by frequent police stops simply because of the color of their skin. This law gives police permission to harass U.S. citizens who have done nothing wrong, and regardless of their heritage, this goes against the constitutional laws of the United States.

As a result of the discriminatory legislation, the Latino-American population, in particular, is gaining a distrust of policemen. This distrust was best predicted by President Obama, who predicted that the Arizona law would “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe” (qtd. in Archibold). In creating this mistrust and resentment, the legislation is causing racial separation gaps to widen. With the fact being that the fastest growing segment of the population in the United States are the Hispanics, racial separation and tension is  detrimental to society (Greenblatt). It is important that the American people, particularly voters, keep in mind the rights of Hispanic citizens, even though Hispanics are a minority because racial tension caused by the violation of the rights of a minority has negative effects upon all of society.

            Another approach classified under “stricter enforcement”, would be to deport all or many of the illegal immigrants living in the country. This is also most frequently associated with the Republican Party. Deportation, however, is an extremely ineffective approach to take and comes with many moral complications. Deportation is extremely expensive. To deport all of the illegal immigrants, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, estimated in 2007 that the cost would “be at least $94 billion” (Francis). Deportation is morally complicated because to send illegal immigrants back to their impoverished countries of origin is likely to send them to death or difficult lives without opportunity. It would also mean that the illegal immigrant parents of children that were born here would be deported, leaving their children behind. John McCain stated, "If you're prepared to send an 80-year-old grandmother who's been here 70 years back to some other country, then frankly you're not quite as compassionate as I am," expressing the moral complication of simply deporting all illegal aliens (qtd. in Greenblatt). Not only is deportation costly and complicated, but it would also be pointless. Immigrants risk their lives and leave their homes because they are desperate for opportunity. If immigrants are already willing to risk their lives in order to come to the U.S., the chance of being deported will surely not deter them.

            One of the best ways to deter illegal immigrants would be to eliminate the opportunities for illegal immigrants to earn money in the U.S. Immigrants most commonly come to the U.S. in search of better opportunities. If the laws against hiring illegal immigrants were to be enforced, illegal immigrants would no longer have job opportunities as motivation to come to the U.S. By taking away this motivator, employers will also be forced to offer acceptable wages to workers, and these jobs will be open to legal American citizens. Some claim that employers cannot find American workers who are willing to do the work that illegal immigrants do, such as Stephen Colbert who remarks that, “Apparently, even the invisible hand doesn't want to pick beans" (Colbert). However, a more accurate claim would be that Americans do not want to do the manual labor that illegal aliens have been exploited to do, for such low wages. Admittedly, products will cost more as a result of paying workers more reasonable wages, but these higher wage earners will save taxpayers money, by requiring less welfare benefits. Holding employers accountable is an important part of addressing the cause of the illegal immigration issue.

            Another important part of immigration reform is what we should do with those who have already come to the U.S. It is unfair to condemn every illegal immigrant as a criminal. For example, it is not the fault of the children who were brought to the United States by their parents,  that they came here illegally. Specifically for this group, the DREAM act has been created. The Development, Relief, and Education, for Alien Minors, or DREAM act, would offer illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, an opportunity to earn their citizenship. The U.S. has an estimated 2.1 million undocumented workers who were brought to the U.S. as children (Pace). Unless one honestly believes that these kids should “trek back from whence they came in order to bring themselves into compliance with our immigration laws,” it is unjust to condemn them as criminals (Pace). It is important that Americans consider the moral implications of laws, and also realize that not all illegal immigrants should be considered criminals.

            Not only is the Dream act socially just, but also a significant economic improvement. This act would create higher wage earners, who will benefit the economy, and these workers would actually become taxpayers. Therefore instead of having to pay to find and deport illegal immigrants, the government could “provide an opportunity for them to live up to their full potential as future doctors, nurses, teachers, and entrepreneurs and make greater contributions to the U.S. economy” (Hing). The DREAM act would give young illegal aliens the opportunity to either go to college or join the military. Not only would both of these options convert people leaching off of the system into tax-payers, but it would also benefit the economy by creating higher wage earners living in our economy. As reported in a study done by Arizona State University, the average person with a bachelor’s degree earns around $750,000 more in a lifetime than somebody with only a high school diploma (Hing).

            An important distinction to be made about the DREAM act, is that it is not an amnesty giveaway. Those brought here as youths are not simply “given” their citizenship because the government and American people feel bad for them. These individuals have to earn their citizenship by becoming productive and contributing members of society. The many, Republicans in particular, who would argue that the DREAM act is just a giveaway should consider whether risking ones life in the military for freedom is giveaway.

            In conclusion, the attempts made by states to crackdown on illegal immigration create various other complications, and do not address the root cause of illegal immigration. To really address the immigration issue, uniform nationwide laws must be passed through Congress. Additionally, these laws should enforce policies, such as policies against the hiring and exploiting of illegal immigrants, because these job opportunities are a major motivator for people to illegally come to the U.S. It is also important that we are just and reasonable. The DREAM act is one piece of legislation that could be passed by congress that would give those who are illegal immigrants that came to the U.S. at no fault of their own as children, an opportunity to earn the status of a legal citizen. The immigration issue in the U.S. is a delicate subject because, after all, we are nation composed of immigrants, and it is important that U.S. keeps this in mind when deciding how to reform the current policies.

           

Works Cited

Archibold, Randal C.  “Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration.” The New 
               York Times. The New York Times, 23 Apr. 2010. Web. 1 Oct. 2010..

Colbert, Stephan. “Stephan Colbert Opening Statement.” Project: Address. You 
                 Tube, 24 Sept. 2010. Web. 26 Oct. 2010. Television.

Francis, David R. "Costs will rein in Arizona's immigration crackdown." Christian
             Science Monitor 30 Aug. 2010: N.PAG. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 26 Oct. 2010.

Greenblatt, Alan. "Immigration Debate." CQ Researcher 18.5 (2008): 97-120. CQ Researcher. Web. 13 Oct. 2010. <http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2008020100>.

Hing, Bill O. “Economic Benefits of the DREAM Act.” ImmigrationProf Blog. 

             N.p. 20 Sept. 2010. Web. 4 Oct. 2010.

Pace, Joe. “When the Right Filibusters its Own Ideals to Death.” Salon.com. 
                      Salon Media Group, 22 Sept. 2010. Web.  28 Sept. 2010.

“Showdown in Arizona.” Editorial. The New York Times. New York Times, 28 
                 Jul. 2010. Web. 20 Sept. 2010. 

ENG 105 Blog #4

“Clear in His Mind, but His Soul is Mad”

            The film Apocalypse Now Redux (2001) is a contemporary version of Conrad’s novella, Heart of Darkness. In the film, many themes are carried over, as well as many characters. The character Kurtz has strong similarities in both the film and novella. Both mediums emphasis the importance of maintaining Kurtz’s image, and what he represented to those in the jungle.

            The way Kurtz is described by characters is very similar in each medium. In both works, Kurtz is described by those around him as “a great man.” Each Kurtz is held in high esteem by all of the natives he commands as well as by most of civilized society. The way the Russian in Heart of Darkness considers Kurtz to be perfect and superior to normal men, is similar to the way the journalist perceives Kurtz. The journalist in the film says, “you don’t judge the colonel like an ordinary man” because to the journalist, and all of his followers, Kurtz is more than a mere man. Kurtz is put upon a pedestal that he does not belong on.

            In both mediums, Kurtz’s reputation is important to uphold. The company wants to protect Kurtz’s image so that people still believe that imperialism is a good and progressive institution. Similarly, the U.S. military wants to protect Kurtz’s image because to the American people, he represents America’s part in the war as protector of freedom and liberty. Both the company and the military are represented by Kurtz and must take care that he is maintained as a man of civility and compassion in the minds of the people, even though this is far from reality.

            Because of this need to protect Kurtz’s image Willard and Marlow are sent to remove Kurtz from power. Kurtz’s honesty appeals to both Marlow and Willard, upon there arrival to the depths of the jungle where Kurtz resides. In the scene of Apocalypse Now, where Willard is waiting to kill Kurtz, he gets to understand Kurtz and feels a connection keeps him from leaving or killing Kurtz for days. Marlow also has a fascination with Kurtz and feels a connection to Kurtz’s honesty that makes him feel connected to Kurtz despite the simultaneous hatred he has for what Kurtz has done. Both characters experience “a fascination with the abomination” that is Kurtz.

            Although there are many strong similarities between the Kurtz of the novella and that of the film, the same scene building up to Willard killing Kurtz, shows that there are definite differences between the characters and relationships in the novella and film. The Kurtz of the novella resists leaving the jungle as much as he can. In contrast, the Kurtz of the film wants to be put out of the misery he is living in. Willard describes that everybody including Kurtz himself wanted him to fulfill his mission. This exposes the difference between the two. The Kurtz of the film realizes that he has lost control and finally wants to be able to give up, even though he is not able to stop himself, whereas the Kurtz of the film wants to go on ruling as a god in the jungle forever. This difference shows a difference in the personalities of the two men.

Republic 2.0 Chapter 8

 Chapter 8 Freedom of Speech

Chapter 8 discusses how the first amendment right to freedom of speech applies to television. Though it is fairly easily understood that freedom of speech is meant to give individuals the right to voice whatever opinions they may have, it is less clear how it should be enjoyed by groups. Sunstein declares that there is a distinct difference between the two, and that the first amendment rights were created to protect the rights of individuals.

Because T.V. networks are not people, Sunstein argues that they should not enjoy a total freedom to say whatever they want without regulation. The government enforces laws that benefit T.V., such as in copyright laws, creating a give and take relationship between the two. The government gives protection of the law, so Broadcasters must give the government a small amount of input.

This chapter also discusses situations when freedom of speech is taken too far, and ought to be restricted. For example, some people use freedom of speech on the Internet to create directions of how to create a bomb, when, where, and even on whom. Another example is when a site posted a list of doctors who had performed abortions, and posted on the site when two of the doctors had been murdered. These are both cases in my opinion when people should not be able to claim innocence due to first amendment rights, and go to show that freedom of speech should not be absolute.

Now to deal with these issues we must ask, “how can we make it legally clear that the first amendment has limitations without losing the freedom of expression it was intended to provide us with, and what limitations should we specify”? It is one thing to decide what we believe is morally right, but also another to decide how the government can facilitate it. There are countless scenarios where we must decide if freedom of speech is being exercised or abused. This, perhaps, is why we have left these decisions to the court system, so that each case may be looked at individually. However, isn’t it unfair to never state that the first amendment has limitations, and then to hold people responsible for over-stepping its boundaries? Isn’t it also unfair to expect judges to decide each case without giving them something that legally says, there is a limitation to free speech? 

FYE Don’t Ask Don’t Tell “Revoked”

Just this past Thursday, a Virginia judge ruled that the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell policy” is unconstitutional and issued an order against it. This injunction will immediately give homosexual Americans the right to enlist in the military, and active service members the right to openly admit to being gay. However this is not necessarily anything for the LGBGT community to celebrate just yet.

Though Obama has been an open and vocal supporter of doing away with the policy, he is expected to file a countersuit to this court decision. The policy has been for sometime in review of the president and the pentagon. It is expected by many that Obama will file a countersuit to revoke the injunction until the policy has been internally reviewed by himself and the pentagon.

This could mean disaster for any service members that choose to become openly gay at this time. If the court ruling is knocked down, all of the new service members, and members who choose to come out, could be kicked out of the military. Though gays are technically legal to be openly so in the military, it comes with a catch. No freedom has truly been gained for the gay community yet, but this ruling is sure to hasten the process of the pentagon and the Presidents’ decision making.

FYE Republic 2.0 chapter 7

Chapter 7 “What’s Regulation? A Plea”

            Chapter seven addresses Government regulation of newspapers, magazines, television, radio, and Internet. Suntein supports Government regulation in all of these areas. Sunstein believes that each of these forms of media  benefit from government, and should therefore be held accountable by the government to meet certain modest requirements.

            On the Internet, the U.S. government has been very active in policing. The government tracks down the makers of viruses and holds them accountable for the havoc they wreak, and helps to repair the damage caused by them. When the ILOVEYOU virus come out, the government is who the people looked to for solutions. Because of the responsibility that the government has to do this, it is only fair that the government would have the right to some mild regulation of the internet.

            Government holds more requirements for television broadcasters. Broadcasters have requirements to include educational programming for children, attention to public issue, and opportunities for diverse views to voice their opinions. However, considering the government gave the property rights for digital cable away to these broadcasters in the 1990’s, the “$70-billion giveaway”,  these seem to be very relaxed demands.

            Newspapers and Magazines are also given certain rights, granted and enforced by the government. These two forms of media are both protected by having the right to refuse to print things that they don’t want to. Essentially no other person or group can force them to run anything they don’t want to, or don’t agree with.

            Given all of the rights and protections that are offered to all of these forms of media, it seems that they owe the government, to an extent. With these protections, therefore, com regulation. These regulation to not significantly hinder groups, and without the government these forms of media likely would be completely unable to function, and therefore these regulations are a very small price to pay.

ENG 105 Essay #2

The Critical Mistakes of Achebe’s Critical Analysis

            In the essay “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness” by Chinua Achebe, Achebe critically analyzes Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. Achebe evaluates the novella (as well as Conrad) as being racist and alleges that Conrad sets “Africa up as a foil to Europe” (Achebe 337). However Achebe’s claim that Heart of Darkness is a racist text meant to highlight the good in Europe is unfair and inaccurate. Although Achebe’s analysis is passionate, his conclusion that the racist opinions expressed by Marlow are those of Conrad is based on false criteria.

            Of course, Achebe’s essay does have redeeming qualities. What makes Achebe’s essay so effective is the passion in his argument. This passion stems partly from the fact that his birthplace is Nigeria. Achebe’s tone is indignant and emotionally charged. An example of his passion coming through is when he attacks Conrad’s writing as “irrational love and irrational hate jostling together” (345). Achebe’s irritation can be sensed in word choice.  Achebe also shows emotion by utilizing exclamation marks (344, 349). Such poignant diction throughout his essay indicates a strong emotional connection with the argument, and makes his argument more memorable.

            However, Achebe’s passion is not sufficient to make his analysis accurate. One major flaw in Achebe’s essay is his failure to adequately evaluate Marlow’s progress towards casting off racist views of Africans and Africa. Marlow has racial prejudices that nearly all Europeans of his time had. Achebe quotes in his essay the passage in which Marlow describes the savage fireman as a dog in breeches to show that Marlow looks down upon Africans (340). However, Achebe leaves out that Marlow later indicates that he values the fireman more than Kurtz, a white man. Marlow confesses that he is “not entirely prepared to affirm the fellow was exactly worth the life… lost in getting to him,” the fellow being Kurtz and the life lost being the fireman (Conrad 50). Achebe also complains that Marlow never sees any Africans as “brothers,” but later Marlow realizes they had “a kind of partnership,” a claim which implies equal importance (51). This example demonstrates that Achebe is selective regarding which information he chooses to focus on, and does not recognize that Marlow grows by becoming less racist throughout the novella.

            Achebe claims that Conrad uses the African woman (and supposed mistress of Kurtz) as a foil to the European female character who was Kurtz’s intended. Achebe asserts that Conrad’s attitude towards the African woman is shown when he bestows “human expression to” the European woman but withholds it from the African. Achebe interprets the facts that the African woman does not talk and the European woman does as evidence that Conrad is a racist. Achebe perceives that the contrast created between the two women is meant to show Europe’s all-around superiority to Africa. In the passage of Heart of Darkness where Achebe analyzes Marlow description of the African woman as being “savage and superb, wild-eyed and magnificent… without a stir and like the wilderness itself, with an air of brooding over an inscrutable purpose” (Achebe 341). This passage, however, does not insult the African woman, but rather depicts the woman as strong, pensive, and powerful. In contrast, the European woman is ignorant and extremely emotional because of her loss of Kurtz. In strong contrast to Achebe’s interpretation, the evidence shows how the African woman is shown as being “magnificent” and powerful, while the European woman is weak and emotional (Achebe 341). These descriptions can hardly be used to support, as Achebe claims, that it is Conrad’s goal to designate African society as inferior.

            In part, Achebe’s opinions have been formed because of misreading. Achebe fails to see sarcasm and irony. Achebe writes that the “simple truth is glossed over in criticisms of his work … due to the fact that white racism against Africa is such a normal way of thinking that its manifestations go completely unremarked,” claiming that Heart of Darkness is a racist text (Achebe 343). Racism is portrayed in the novella, however it is not a value that Conrad defends. Conrad’s creation of a character with racist views similar to those of his time, gives Conrad the opportunity to relate his character to the common people of his time. This allows him to more effectively cast off their racist beliefs. Had Marlow not been as prejudiced as the average person of his time, then the average person of his time would be significantly less likely to identify with Marlow, and would not then shed racist beliefs along with Marlow while reading the novella. In actuality, Marlow’s racist opinions are written with irony. When Marlow describes the natives as being wild and having a “humanity—like yours…. Ugly,” his purpose is to show the irony that inside whites and blacks all share the same humanity regardless of how superior civilized Europeans may view themselves (Achebe 343). This irony is not meant to insult Africans as Achebe writes, but rather to point out to the audience the striking similarities between Africans and Europeans that should not be ignored.

            Further criticism can be made of Achebe, such as his failure to recognize that Conrad and Marlow are different entities. Achebe judges Conrad based on the incorrect criteria that Heart of Darkness is a biography or journal. However, in J. Hillis Miller’s essay “Should We Read ‘Heart of Darkness’?” he points out that Conrad’s novella is a work of literature, therefore Marlow is but a mere fictional tool whose opinions are not those of the author (Miller 465).   

Achebe notes that Conrad traveled down the Congo River in 1890, and draws the unwarranted claim that this indicates that Heart of Darkness is a personal record of Conrad’s journey. To draw such a conclusion from such a modest fact is unjust. Traveling down the Congo was important to the book, because it gave Conrad the ability to describe the physical appearance of Africa and how imperialism was functioning along the river. Without this insight, Heart of Darkness would have suffered, and possibly never have been written. But, it is important to recognize that even though Conrad had this experience, this does not mean that Marlow’s story is not the “travelers tale” of Conrad and therefore the embodiment of Conrad’s opinions and biases. This journey in no way offers any proof, or even probability, that Heart of Darkness is anything other than the work of literature it is declared as by the author.

            Based on the careless false assumption that Conrad and Marlow are one and the same, Achebe shifts his criticism from the novella, Heart of Darkness, to the author. In doing so, Achebe ceases to write a critical response to the novella and simply attacks Conrad and personally insults him when writing that he “is a dream for psychoanalytic critics” (Achebe 345). Such personal attacks as are employed by Achebe should not take up such a significant part (if any at all) of a critical analysis of a novella. In doing so, Achebe loses focus and creates confusion about his own essay’s point. Changing the subject of his criticism shows weakness in Achebe’s argument. The need to resort to insults of the author comes across as an indicator that there is not sufficient criticism to be made of the novella itself. Also engaging in such indirect and emotional criticism undermines his credibility as an author. In this case Achebe’s passion is overdone and comes across as anger, making this essay appear less credible and more immature.

Extreme over-simplification of the novella is another damaging way that Achebe takes away from his own credibility. Achebe makes the extreme claim that that Conrad’s “method amounts to no more than a steady, ponderous, fake-ritualistic  repetition of two antithetical sentences, one about silence and the other about frenzy” (Achebe 338).For a man who even openly admits that he does “not doubt Conrad’s great talents,” it is absurd to make a claim that such a complex work of literature is nothing more than two sentences. Even more, it is an arrogant and foolish claim on Achebe’s part, which only serves to discredit himself. If this sweeping judgment were accurate, it would be completely unnecessary for Achebe to have written an extensive critical analysis of the novella. Regardless of Achebe’s opinions on racism, he should at least be able to recognize and respect the literary art in the novella.

Lastly, Achebe’s solution offered in reaction to Heart of Darkness is unreasonable. Achebe boldly claims that Heart of Darkness simply should not be read complaining that “Conrad’s problems are… safely dead… Unfortunately his heart of darkness plagues us still” (Achebe 345). To say that no one ought read the novella implies that he believes his interpretation and analysis of Heart of Darkness to be the only opinion that need ever exist or be considered. To make such a claim shows arrogance, and disrespect for literature as a whole.

            Achebe wrote his criticism with passion and conviction, but that very emotion may be what blocked him from fairly evaluating the novella. Achebe’s argument is built on incomplete analysis of many aspects of the novella, including Conrad’s message that Africans are equally as human as Europeans. The failure to recognize the irony and sarcasm employed by Conrad creates a distorted understanding of Heart of Darkness and its intent. These major flaws take away from the credibility of Achebe’s claims that Conrad is a racist and that this novella uses Africa as Europe’s foil

Works Cited

Achebe Chinua. “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness.”                 Armstrong 336-49.

Armstrong Paul B, Ed. Heart of Darkness. New York: W.W. Norton, 2005.

Conrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness. Ed. Paul B. Armstrong. New York: W.W.                  Norton, 2005. Print.

FYE The Onion Corporations' Effect on Freedom

On the satirical website “The Onion,” I came across an article that addresses one of the issues from the Rasor, O’Rourke debate held for Constitution Day.  This article was titled “American People Hire High-Powered Lobbyist To Push Interests In Congress.” In this article the author addresses the issue that has arisen because of corporate spending influencing politicians.

            In the U.S., money talks. Politicians are now more than ever dependent on corporate sponsors to keep up with opposing candidates’ campaign budgets. Because of this, politicians have grown dependent on corporations just as much if not more, than the people who they depend on to vote for them. Because corporations make these donations, politicians owe them something back, if they wish to continue being funded so they can continue to be re-elected. This seems to me to be sounding less and less like free speech, and more like bribery.

            The article discusses how congressmen are now representing the interests of corprations rather than the people.  Also corporations are known to hire lobbyists in order to persuade congressmen to fight for their interests. “The Onion” writes:

"Unlike R.J. Reynolds, Pfizer, or Bank of America, the U.S. populace lacks the access to public officials required to further its legislative goals," a statement from the nation read in part. "Jack Weldon gives us that access."

Indeed it seems that by giving corporations the right to support politics financially, the supreme court has compromised the integrity of the government, and reduced the voice of the people.

Cited:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/american-people-hire-highpowered-lobbyist-to-push,18204/

FYE O'Rourke v. Rasor

            On September 16, Dean O’Rourke was involved in an on-campus debate which included a debate regarding whether or not a Corporation has the right to free speech. Dean O’Rourke argued in favor of corporations holding this right. An article I came across on The Onion, however, points out a very negative side effect of this being the case.

            Dean O’Rourke argued that because corporations are a large group of people, corporations themselves are people. From this conclusions, Dean O’Rourke went to claim that as people, corporations have the right to freedom of speech. Because endorsing certain bills, campaigns, or officials, is considered a form of speech, this supreme court ruling gives corporations the right to spend as much as they want to give support to different bills or campaigns.

            In Dr. Rasor’s opinion corporation do not qualify as people. Each individual within a corporation has the option to offer endorsement themselves, so Dr. Rasor expressed that corporations should not be able to spend money on behalf of a corporation. For example, Dean O’Rourke explained that Virginia Wesleyan college is technically a corporation, and then went on to ask the audience if as people we felt that VWC was people. I found this argument to be very shaky at best. Dr. Rasor responded  by stating that even  people at this school come here willingly, does not mean that they would want President Greer to represent all of us or make political decisions on our behalf.

            In this way corporate freedom of speech misrepresents people. Because a corporation is not a group formed based on one shared political opinion, corporations does not represent all of its members.  Giving corporations free political speech and spending rights in this way misrepresents the free speech of man individuals and is in this way misleading and unfair.

FYE Republic 2.0 chapter 6

Republic 2.0 Chapter 6 Blogs

            In chapter 6, Sunstein dicusses the plusses and minuses of  “the blogosphere”. While Sunstein concedes that we are better off with blogs than without, he spends the majority of the chapter refuting Posner and Hayeks’ claims that blogs are diverse and accurate compilations. Sunstein warns that blogs should be chosen and read with caution of what we believe from them.

            Posnar uses Hayek’s opinions and data to claim that blogs are like products. Like a product, Posnar believes that if a blog is inaccurate or “defective” the demand for that log will go down. This reduction of demand would lead to a shorter supply or readership of bad or inaccurate blogs, and remove the problem of bad blogs. Because so many people access and read blogs every day, he says that there is a massive amount of proof readers, and mistakes or incorrect information is quickly corrected. Posnar claims that because many blogs have ads, this give them incentive to have accurate and useful information in order to encourage more readership which in turn creates more profit for the site.

            Sunstein however criticizes Posnar’s claim of the high quality and accuracy of blogs. Many blogs do not have any advertisements included and therefore the writer has no incentive to equally represents two sides of a story or ensure that information is completely correct. Furthermore, Posnar incorrectly assumes that accuracy is the best way to increase readership for those sites with a fiscal incentive.  Blogs can receive attention for being funny or outrageous and offering entertainment value. It is quite easy for bloggers to completely fabricate information just to draw attention. Additionally, blogs are good when looked at by open-minds, but can also serve as another medium to increase social polarization.

FYE Republic 2.0 chapter 5

Republic 2.0 Chapter 5

            Chapter 5 discusses the difference between a citizen and a consumer. Sunstein discusses that even though everyone is both a citizen and a consumer, we make different choices based on which one we are at the time. As consumers we make decisions for ourselves and for our own good. But as citizens, people have a much higher likelihood of making choices for the common or greater good.

            As consumers we tend to take the most inexpensive route. For example many people have seen the movie “Super Size Me,” and watched the main character nearly eat himself to death, and yet continue to eat at McDonalds. This is because even though we know how inhumanely the animals were treated, all we consider is “Is it cheap? Is it convenient? Does it taste good?” Even many of those who did stop eating at McDonalds because of watching the movie didn’t do so because of the implications of eating McDonalds, but because the instinctive fear of contamination that all humans posses.

            However as citizens are choices have completely different qualifications. For example, the many people who saw “Super Size Me” and did not stop eating McDonalds still feel strongly against McDonalds. If legislation were to be put greatly restricting or even condemning McDonalds, there is a strong chance that as citizens these people would sacrifice the convenience, and taste of McDonalds. As citizens we make idyllic choices, and we consider the good of our community state or country rather than just ourselves like we do as consumers.

ENG 105 Blog #3

Blog #3: The Illegal Immigration Issue in the U.S.

Nearly all Americans can agree that illegal immigration is a costly and serious problem in the United States that needs to be addressed. Though many Americans resort to considering all illegal immigrants to be enemies, many of them are not illegal by choice. Rather than compromising core American values, the U.S. should work to pass legislation such as the Dream act, which is both socially just, and fiscally beneficial.

Arizona has addressed the immigration problem by making laws to increase the states power to identify illegal immigrants. Arizona moved forward in this policy because the current National Policies are ineffective, and the result of this ineffectiveness is a major financial burden falling upon states such as Arizona. The fear that Hispanic immigration endangers American ideals and institutions is a fear shared by many, but should not justify unconstitutional actions. As Joe Pace writes in Salon, this sentiment is the result of “xenophobia and partisan politics” (Pace).

            It is important to realize that the stringent new law giving Police free-reign to stop anyone suspected or appearing to be an illegal-immigrant subjects many legal citizens of the U.S. to frequent unreasonable searches. As a result of this, the Latino-American population, in particular, is gaining a distrust of policemen. This distrust was best predicted by President Obama, who predicted that the Arizona law would “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe” (Archibold).

            Thankfully there is a different approach to the immigration issue, which the Democratic Party is attempting to discuss in Congress. The Development, Relief, and Education, for Alien Minors, or Dream act, would offer illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, an opportunity to earn their citizenship by going to college or joining the U.S. military. The U.S. has an estimated 2.1 million undocumented workers who were brought to the U.S. as children (Pace). Unless one honestly believes that these kids should “trek back from whence they came in order to bring themselves into compliance with our immigration laws,” it is unjust to condemn them as criminals (Pace).

            Not only is the Dream act more socially just, but also significantly more beneficial economically. This act would create higher wage earners, who will benefit the economy, and these workers would actually become taxpayers. Therefore, instead of having to pay to find and deport illegal immigrants, the government could “provide an opportunity for them to live up to their full potential as future doctors, nurses, teachers, and entrepreneurs and make greater contributions to the U.S. economy and society, and actually benefit from legal college-educated taxpayers” (Hing).

            People brought to the U.S. as children should not be considered criminals, but unfortunately they are by our current laws. They deserve an opportunity to become functioning members of society, and legal citizens. The Dream act offers a positive solution for immigrants, as well as the U.S. economy, making it a positive improvement for everyone and, by far, superior to alternative laws such as Arizona’s.

Works Cited

Archibold, Randal C.  “Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration.” The New 

          York Times. The New York Times, 23 Apr. 2010. Web. 1 Oct. 2010.

Hing, Bill O. “Economic Benefits of the DREAM Act.” ImmigrationProf Blog. 

          N.p. 20 Sept. 2010. Web. 4 Oct. 2010.

Pace, Joe. “When the Right Filibusters its Own Ideals to Death.” Salon.com. Salon 

          Media Group, 22 Sept. 2010. Web.  28 Sept. 2010.

Works Researched

Chen, Gregory. “Immigration program could lead to racial profiling.” Washington 
          Post. Washington Post, 5 Oct. 2010. Web. 5 Oct. 2010.

Davenport, Paul, Amanda Lee Myers. “Jan Brewer Admits She Was Wrong About 
          Beheadings.” The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post. N.p., 4 Sept. 2010. 
          Web. 29 Sept. 2010.

Kessler, Charles R. “The Crisis of American National Identity.” Claremont. The 
          Claremont Institute, 5 Dec. 2010. Web. 3 Oct. 2010.

Price, Michelle. “Arizona lawmaker Russell Pearce takes aim at automatic           
          citizenship.” The Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor, 
          15 Jun. 2010. Web. 24 Sept. 2010.

“Showdown in Arizona.” Editorial. The New York Times. New York Times, 28 Jul. 
          2010. Web. 20 Sept. 2010.