Professor: Steven Wolfe Edward Snowden: Hero, Traitor or Whistleblower?
What is a hero? What is a traitor? Who do we consider to fall into one of these categories? To many a hero can be someone that does a good deed for them, as simple as that. For other a hero is someone who does an act of valor for his or her nation. I would fall into the category of people that would think that just a good deed could be heroic. A traitor is a person who betrays his or her country, friends, family, etc. According to the Webster Dictionary a whistleblower is “a person who tells police, reporters, etc., about something (such as a crime) that has been kept secret”. Knowing these definitions: what would we consider Edward Snowden? A hero, a traitor or a whistleblower.
Edward Snowden is a computer specialist, a former CIA employee, and former NSA contractor who “persuaded between 20 and 25 fellow workers at the NSA regional operations center in Hawaii to give him their logins and passwords” (NYDailyNews) for the purpose of leaking up to 200,000 classified documents to the press. This is an issue because it has opened the debate over mass surveillance done by the government and to what extend they are doing the surveillance, government secrecy and creation of programs not revealed to the public, and the balance between national security and information privacy. The leaking of such documents has raised controversy among citizens concerned with civil liberties and especially to the radical people that already think our freedom is being jeopardized. Notonly that, but also, revealing such documents put our national security at risk because government doesn’t know who is going to obtain such documents and to what extend they are going to use them. I believe that Edward Snowden is a traitor and has betrayed The United States and its people. Snowden mentioned in his interview with Glenn Greenwald in Hong Kong, June 2013: “This is something that’s not our place to decide, the public needs to decide whether this programs and policies are right or wrong” (Snowden). First, his job is to be a computer system administrator for a government agency, that is all, he is not being paid to make decisions whether something is right or wrong. Second, he is not in the position to decide whether the public should know something or not, and that is why he swore under oath to keep all secrets to himself, to stay away from that state of mind in whether to reveal a secret or not. We have a government were the people select the leaders and we put our trust in the people that are adequate to maintain order and to make decisions that will benefit the people and the nation. If such people think that is it necessary to create a program where they monitor calls, e-mails, messages, etc, then let them do so because they are doing it for the security of our nation and to maintain peace in and out of the country. Moreover, We live in a world where privacy is becoming more of an idea than a reality, people might think thatgovernment is taking it away but that is not true, we are giving away our own privacy. We live in a time when we do not mind using “EZ-Passes that give us access to the fast lane in exchange for keeping the government informed about where we drive.” (Hirsh and Sorcher) We buy things off the Internet where websites can keep out credit card numbers, and other personal information, such as your address, etc. We go to Facebook to see what people are doing, where they are at, what they like, where they live, most visited places, and things that we might think they are unimportant but to a kidnapper, a rapist, a robber, this are key items to facilitate their acts. And that is just an example of one of the many social networks are being used today. We give up our privacy by just going on the Internet where we are all targets because “Advertisers are searching for you… all based on your search-engine terms and the cookies deposited on your computer to watch you surf the Internet and report back on your habits.” (Hirsh and Sorcher) we all allow those cookies into our computers and we don’t think is wrong, but when someone says that the government is monitoring you then all of the sudden you think they are violation your privacy when you have already given your personal information to others. All I am trying to prove here is that we live in a world where most people are not thinking ‘Am I being watched?’ and people don’t care if they are under surveillance, if you are not doing something wrong then why worry so much about being watched. I have attached a video to demonstrate how we give up privacy and personal information just through social media. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P_0s1TYpJU
Another point to add is that Snowden had leaked programs that are not illegal because they are authorized under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act according to CNN article “In a first, U.S. to use NSA surveillance against terror suspect” By Evan Perez and Michael Martinez. So this jeopardizes National security not only by revealing such program but also because government does not know who is getting the information being leaked. So why would you jeopardize national security when these programs are already authorized, just because you think is right doesn’t mean it actually is.The same article named above proves that these secret programs do work whenever they need to find evidence and prevent possible terrorist attacks. As mentioned in the article; A terror suspect “has been charged with providing and attempting to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization” (Perez and Martinez) The organization he was going to provide information was The Islamic Jihad Union, “a Pakistan-based extremist group with an anti-Western ideology” (Perez and Martinez) such group is known for conducting suicide attacks in Uzbekistan. The suspect “allegedly has sworn allegiance to the IJU, stating that he was ‘ready for any task, even with the risk of dying,’” (Perez and Martinez) so this proves that the programs prevented a possible terrorist attack.
In conclusion, I think that Edward Snowden is a traitor because he revealed documents that were suppose to remain secret; he broke his oath, and also jeopardized our national security by revealing something that many people were not concerned about.
Works Cited
Perez, Evan. "In a First, U.S. to Use NSA Surveillance against Terror Suspect." CNN. Cable News Network, 26 Oct. 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. Hirsh, Michael, and Sara Sorcher. "Edward Snowden Is Completely Wrong." National Journal (2013): 35. Academic Search Complete. Web. 11 Dec. 2013.
"NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I Don't Want to Live in a Society That Does These Sort of Things'" YouTube. YouTube, 09 June 2013. Web. 09 Dec. 2013.
"Edward Snowden Duped NSA Co-workers." NY Daily News. NY Daily News, 8 Nov. 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2013. Vale, Jack. "SOCIAL MEDIA EXPERIMENT." YouTube. YouTube, 18 Nov. 2013. Web. 09 Dec. 2013.
Essay 3: Education system: Acceptable or Substandard?
How would you feel if you were told that you live in a country where about 32 million adults cant read [1], or that 21% of Adults cant read above a 5th grade level? [1]. You would feel bad right? What about if you were told that “The United States may be a superpower but in education we lag behind. In a recent comparison of academic performance in 57 countries, students in Finland came out on top overall. Other top-performing countries were: Hong Kong, Canada, Taiwan, Estonia, Japan and Korea.” [2] What makes our country lag behind? Might be that the “White House estimated that Title I funding that goes to schools with large populations of low-income students would be eliminated for more than 2,700 and cut off support to 1.2 million disadvantaged students [3], or maybe that “special education support cuts were predicted to eliminate more than 7,200 teachers and aides” [3]. Education is a tool that we have that help us create harmony and peace by teaching us how to analyze a situation and act accordingly. In the United States we are not using this tool appropriately.
In the movie Surfwise, Doc Paskowitz talks about how he is against our education system. Paskowitz thinks that school are not teaching what matters. In his point of view, what matters are: teaching life lessons, morality, family values, and that true knowledge came from real-world experiences. Something that he mentions is the things that he thinks shouldn’t be taught in school and they are being taught anyways, things such as: conformity and materialism. Paskowitz doesn’t get much into details of what is causing this but he thinks that if education system keeps teaching the wrong things, this is going to lead to annihilation of our peace and harmony among our kind.
In comparison to Doc Paskowitz, there is Michael Moore’s book “Stupid White Men” which in chapter 5 gets into the same subject: education system and how it is failing. Moore thinks that schools are not teaching what matters or “It isn’t challenged with anything interesting or exciting” [4]. Which means, they are not making what matters interesting enough which causes people not to care and be obedient citizens and fall into the wagon of people that just follow each other, making no change what so ever. All of this causes people to get into a circle of negative things, which start by being uneducated because they are not interested in learning. Second, not caring enough about what happens to schools and education. Therefore, people start making bad decisions by electing bad leaders, which causes this huge hole in our education system and this is how we see that it just goes around and around until we finally decide to stop it.
In my opinion, I think that our education system is broken; in a way that compared to other nations, we are extremely ignorant in many subjects and illiterate to a certain extent. I think this because in the United States, government cares more about funding National Defense than funding school and our education system. And is not just me saying it; according to the website www.usgovernmentspending.com, in 2012, the federal budget was 25% towards Defense and 3% towards Education [5]. No wonder we are the most powerful Country in the world but definitely not the smartest.
Comparing both opinion, Paskowitz’ and Moore’s, I agree with both of them, we do have a defective education system. But getting into more detail, I would personally agree more with Michael Moore and with the reasons he gives us. In my opinion, the cause of this problem is that people don’t care enough about education because no matter what level of education you have, you will always find a McDonalds or a Wal-Mart where you can work at and make some sort of living, if that’s how you want to call it. That is our biggest problem, conformity, and this conformity will always lead to poor decision-making, especially in uniformed subjects, example: voting for candidates for School Board of Education and such. If you are uneducated and don’t really care about this kind of stuff because is unimportant to you, then you are going to start voting for the first person you see in the ballot not even knowing the person and what their ideas are. As I mention before this creates a circle of bad decisions and it going to continue to be like that until we create a solution that doesn’t involve violence or chaos in the country.
In order to solve this problem in our education system, I agree with the solution that Michael Moore suggested. First, I wouldn’t walk away like Doc Paskowitz because I think that the solution is in the hands of student, including myself, because is our future and we are still in school and we can fight for what we deserve. Is not in the hands of the people that went through school already because if they didn’t do anything back then, they are not going to do anything now. Students need to get more involve with the School board and the politics in each State so we can all fight together for a better education and better ourselves from what we are now, an ignorant nation. In my opinion is the best solution because not only help us educate ourselves by participating and getting involve in the political system, but it also help us grow as a person and help future generations while we are at it.
What is morally right or wrong? What makes us decided what we want? These are questions we ask ourselves often whenever we face something that is controversial and when there is only one thing you can choose to do for the sake of one thing or the other. If you had the choice of either leaving or staying in a perfect society called Omelas; with no problems of any kind, everyone doing what they are suppose to do, no crimes, perfect houses, everything is just perfect, but this is only possible if a child of such society is neglected from it, not kill nor physically abused, just neglected from everything. Also, know that if you choose to leave, the destination is, as mention in the story, “a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness” (LeGuin). Whether to stay or walk away from Omelas, a perfect Utopia, that is the question. I would included myself in the group of people that would walk away from Omelas because I would not be able to live with myself knowing that my “happiness” is caused by the suffering of a child.
In the story written by Ursula K LeGuin, “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” there is a perfect town called Omelas, where everyone is happy, there is no crimes, everyone do what they are suppose to do, pretty much an Utopia. In other to get this perfection there must be a sacrifice, which is a child being completely neglected, just let to suffer. The main issue is; whether you would sacrifice so little for the happiness of others, or walk away from such town but not knowing where you are going and how is it going to be at your destination. In my opinion, I would be one of the people that walk away from Omelas. There are a few reasons why I would. First, because I would not be able to live with myself morally knowing that one child is neglected in order to keep such a perfect city. Second, I believe that perfection and happiness is something that you have to create in your mind, and everyone have a different mentality. Therefore, it is impossible knowing what the perfect city really is because the definition of a perfect city is different in everyone’s eyes. Lastly, I do not consider Omelas to be the perfect city because even though everyone does what they are suppose to and everything works accordingly, it is not a free society because they have to make the sacrifice of the child and that does not make it perfect, perfection would be that this neglected child is not sacrificed and he joins the community as well, that would make it an a perfect society. So walking away would be my choice, I know that I may not find such perfection where I am headed but I am sure I would be able to live with that and at least I will have my freedom and my conscious clean.
A real life situation that can relate to this moral dilemma would be slave labor in the clothing industries. How is it related? I think is it related on how we are benefiting from other people’s suffering and sacrifices just to wear a nice shirt or a nice pair of pants, which brings us to the question, is it okay to sacrifice a few for the sake of other? Just like in the Coventry Bombing, is t okay to sacrifice the lives of a few for the well being of many? In my opinion, in this kind of situation where garment factory workers in Bangladesh get “some wages as low as $37 a month” [1] which would be around 1.85 US Dollar daily. I would say that it is okay to sacrifice the few for the sake of others. Why? Because in comparison to “Coventry Bombing” and “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” The factory workers are settling for so little and in the other two stories the people or the child are not given a choice to what they want to do. I understand that the workers may be poor and don’t have any other resources and their only choice is to work in such industry, but like Ronald Reagan said “There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect.” [2] So, we, as humans would have to change our mentality and conformism in how we live and what barriers we put in our lives. And “There is nothing impossible to those willing to try.”(Alexander The Great) [3] But not everybody is willing to try and that’s the key to change the current situation on slave labor in the World. Therefore, I think that my position from “Omelas” does not remain the same when it comes to the real-life situation mentioned above. It does not remain the same because in the story you can actually walk away from everything and create your own happiness, but in real life, comparing to the slave labor in Bangladesh, you cant do anything about situation, because you have to wear clothes and it’s not like you are going to be naked all the time in other to not feel bad about the sacrifices being made. Until people change their mindset and conformity in life, there is nothing anybody can do to change the situation about slave labor. As human, we work better as a whole and not as an individual when it comes to situations like fighting for people’s right and such.
In conclusion, I think that in the story “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” I would be one of the people that would walk away from the city even though I wont know what is waiting for me out there once I leave. Also, in comparison to real life situations, I think it will all depend on what the situation is and on the choices I have to make in other to stay or walk away from that situation.
What is morally right or wrong? What makes us decided what we want or how we want it done? These are questions we ask ourselves often whenever we face something that is controversial and when there is only one thing you can choose to do for the sake of one thing or the other. Whether to stay or walk away from Omelas, a perfect Utopia, that is the question. I would included myself in the group of people that would walk away from Omelas because I would not be able to live with myself knowing that my “happiness” is caused by the suffering of a child.
In the story written by Ursula K LeGuin, “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” there is a perfect town called Omelas, where everyone is happy, there is no crimes, everyone do what they are suppose to do, pretty much an Utopia. In other to get this perfection there must be a sacrifice, which is a child being completely neglected, just let to suffer. The main issue is; whether you would sacrifice so little for the happiness of others, or walk away from such town but not knowing where you are going and how is it going to be at your destination. In my opinion, I would be one of the people that walk away from Omelas. There are a few reasons why I would. First, because I would not be able to live with myself morally knowing that one child is neglected in order to keep such a perfect city. Second, I believe that perfection and happiness is something that you have to create in your mind, and everyone have a different mindset. Therefore, it is impossible knowing what the perfect city really is because the definition of a perfect city is different in everyone’s eyes. Lastly, I do not consider Omelas to be the perfect city because even though everyone does what they are suppose to and everything works accordingly, it is not a free society because they have to make the sacrifice of the child and that does not make it perfect, perfection would be that this neglected child is not sacrificed and he joins the community as well, that would make it an a perfect society. So walking away would be my choice, I know that I may not find such perfection where I am headed but I am sure I would be able to live with that and at least I will have my freedom and my conscious clean.
One real world situation that I think it can relate to this moral dilemma would be the stationing of soldiers in Afghanistan. How it is related? I think it is related in the sense of is it okay to sacrifice a few for the sake of others? Just like in the Coventry Bombing is it okay to sacrifice the lives of a few for the well being of many? In my opinion, I think that in this situation of stationing soldiers in Afghanistan, it is okay to sacrifice a few for the sake of other. Why? Because in comparison to “Coventry Bombing” and “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas”, Soldiers chose that career and they know what the consequences might be and in the other two stories the people or the child are not given a choice to what they want to do. Therefore, I think that my position from “Omelas” does not remain the same when it comes to the real-life situation mentioned above. It does not remain the same because in the story you can actually walk away from everything and create your own happiness, but in real life, comparing with the soldier situation, you cant do anything about stationing them over in Afghanistan or elsewhere because government is the one that has all the power to control the Armed Force, you cant really do much about it. Also, because in real life situation soldiers want to be in the war and be a part of “the strongest fighting force in the world… and serve together to protect America’s freedoms” (GoArmy), On the other hand, the child of Omelas does not have a saying in the decision of whether to be neglected or not.
In conclusion, I think that in the story “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” I would be one of the people that would walk away from the city even though I wont know what is waiting for me out there once I leave. Also, in comparison to real life situations, I think it will all depend on what the situation is and on the choices I have to make in other to stay or walk away from that situation.
What do we really look at in an Ad? How do we normally feel about the message it is trying to get across? Or do we even get the actual message? This are all questions we have to think about whenever we want to analyze an Ad or even look at it for a brief second. The Ad “It’s the hat” or at least that’s how I call it, we can see that all of this questions can be answer and discuss the way pathos or emotional appeal is used to get to the audience. This ad is trying to demonstrate how simple a hat can change the perspective of how people see you.
The Ad “It’s the hat” has a wide audience because it can be targeted to any person with an interest in hat or even someone that wants to change the way people look at them and so on. Therefore, it does not have a specific target when it comes to the buyers. It is a simple Ad, it does not have much content in it just the two figures and a small text in it, but the message it’s trying to get across is the one that is important and essential to understand the ad. Many people may see this ad and not even understand it because the lack of knowledge about history and who the figures represent. For those who don’t know, the figure on the left represents Adolf Hitler, which was the leader of the Nazi party during World War II. The right side figure represents Charles Chaplin, an English comic actor that is considered an icon in the film industry. I think that is a good point to include here because it is important for the analysis and specially the understanding of the message.
In my opinion the Ad is very clever because of how it uses emotion to get to the broad audience it can have. When say this, I am referring to the specific characters it uses, even though it does not say any names or show any actual pictures, we can inferred who they are and what they represent in history and to the world. It is clever because it is trying to show how simple it can be for people to change their opinion with a simple hat. What I mean is that when people see the left side of the ad they can infer that the figure represents Hitler, which has a negative reputation for what he did and because he can also represent evil or darkness. On the other hand, when they see the right side of the ad they can infer that it represents Chaplin, in this case representing joy, fun, laughter, and many other positive feeling and attitudes that Chaplin could reflect on people. After looking at the two figures, that is when emotion kicks in; what do I mean by this? What I mean is that people will have a negative response to the left side of the ad because of all of the bad things that Hitler did and the pain he caused to some people. Therefore, whenever looking at the right side they can just think that buying a hat will change who you are and what people will think about you. I think the ad has just the great amount of text because it does not need to say much but it needs to say the right thing and it does. By looking at it, we can see that the text is placed under the right figure because it is the one that is wearing the hat, also representing the “good guy” in the ad; and this way people can easily relate to the figure above it. When it comes to content, I think it doesn’t need anything else added to it because just by using the two figures it is enough to get the message across and also leave room for people to have a more diverse point of view.
In conclusion, I can say that this is a very unique ad because of the characteristic explained above. Also, I think it expresses a great message not only for the buyers but also anybody that looks at the ad. It has a great way of explaining how people can change their opinion just by changing the appearance of others.
Final Research
English 1302
Professor: Steven Wolfe
Edward Snowden: Hero, Traitor or Whistleblower?
What is a hero? What is a traitor? Who do we consider to fall into one of these categories? To many a hero can be someone that does a good deed for them, as simple as that. For other a hero is someone who does an act of valor for his or her nation. I would fall into the category of people that would think that just a good deed could be heroic. A traitor is a person who betrays his or her country, friends, family, etc. According to the Webster Dictionary a whistleblower is “a person who tells police, reporters, etc., about something (such as a crime) that has been kept secret”. Knowing these definitions: what would we consider Edward Snowden? A hero, a traitor or a whistleblower.
Edward Snowden is a computer specialist, a former CIA employee, and former NSA contractor who “persuaded between 20 and 25 fellow workers at the NSA regional operations center in Hawaii to give him their logins and passwords” (NYDailyNews) for the purpose of leaking up to 200,000 classified documents to the press. This is an issue because it has opened the debate over mass surveillance done by the government and to what extend they are doing the surveillance, government secrecy and creation of programs not revealed to the public, and the balance between national security and information privacy. The leaking of such documents has raised controversy among citizens concerned with civil liberties and especially to the radical people that already think our freedom is being jeopardized. Notonly that, but also, revealing such documents put our national security at risk because government doesn’t know who is going to obtain such documents and to what extend they are going to use them.
I believe that Edward Snowden is a traitor and has betrayed The United States and its people. Snowden mentioned in his interview with Glenn Greenwald in Hong Kong, June 2013: “This is something that’s not our place to decide, the public needs to decide whether this programs and policies are right or wrong” (Snowden). First, his job is to be a computer system administrator for a government agency, that is all, he is not being paid to make decisions whether something is right or wrong. Second, he is not in the position to decide whether the public should know something or not, and that is why he swore under oath to keep all secrets to himself, to stay away from that state of mind in whether to reveal a secret or not. We have a government were the people select the leaders and we put our trust in the people that are adequate to maintain order and to make decisions that will benefit the people and the nation. If such people think that is it necessary to create a program where they monitor calls, e-mails, messages, etc, then let them do so because they are doing it for the security of our nation and to maintain peace in and out of the country. Moreover, We live in a world where privacy is becoming more of an idea than a reality, people might think thatgovernment is taking it away but that is not true, we are giving away our own privacy. We live in a time when we do not mind using “EZ-Passes that give us access to the fast lane in exchange for keeping the government informed about where we drive.” (Hirsh and Sorcher) We buy things off the Internet where websites can keep out credit card numbers, and other personal information, such as your address, etc. We go to Facebook to see what people are doing, where they are at, what they like, where they live, most visited places, and things that we might think they are unimportant but to a kidnapper, a rapist, a robber, this are key items to facilitate their acts. And that is just an example of one of the many social networks are being used today. We give up our privacy by just going on the Internet where we are all targets because “Advertisers are searching for you… all based on your search-engine terms and the cookies deposited on your computer to watch you surf the Internet and report back on your habits.” (Hirsh and Sorcher) we all allow those cookies into our computers and we don’t think is wrong, but when someone says that the government is monitoring you then all of the sudden you think they are violation your privacy when you have already given your personal information to others. All I am trying to prove here is that we live in a world where most people are not thinking ‘Am I being watched?’ and people don’t care if they are under surveillance, if you are not doing something wrong then why worry so much about being watched. I have attached a video to demonstrate how we give up privacy and personal information just through social media. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P_0s1TYpJU
Another point to add is that Snowden had leaked programs that are not illegal because they are authorized under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act according to CNN article “In a first, U.S. to use NSA surveillance against terror suspect” By Evan Perez and Michael Martinez. So this jeopardizes National security not only by revealing such program but also because government does not know who is getting the information being leaked. So why would you jeopardize national security when these programs are already authorized, just because you think is right doesn’t mean it actually is.The same article named above proves that these secret programs do work whenever they need to find evidence and prevent possible terrorist attacks. As mentioned in the article; A terror suspect “has been charged with providing and attempting to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization” (Perez and Martinez) The organization he was going to provide information was The Islamic Jihad Union, “a Pakistan-based extremist group with an anti-Western ideology” (Perez and Martinez) such group is known for conducting suicide attacks in Uzbekistan. The suspect “allegedly has sworn allegiance to the IJU, stating that he was ‘ready for any task, even with the risk of dying,’” (Perez and Martinez) so this proves that the programs prevented a possible terrorist attack.
In conclusion, I think that Edward Snowden is a traitor because he revealed documents that were suppose to remain secret; he broke his oath, and also jeopardized our national security by revealing something that many people were not concerned about.
Works Cited
Perez, Evan. "In a First, U.S. to Use NSA Surveillance against Terror Suspect." CNN. Cable News Network, 26 Oct. 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2013.
Hirsh, Michael, and Sara Sorcher. "Edward Snowden Is Completely Wrong." National Journal (2013): 35. Academic Search Complete. Web. 11 Dec. 2013.
"NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I Don't Want to Live in a Society That Does These Sort of Things'" YouTube. YouTube, 09 June 2013. Web. 09 Dec. 2013.
"Edward Snowden Duped NSA Co-workers." NY Daily News. NY Daily News, 8 Nov. 2013. Web. 11 Dec. 2013.
Vale, Jack. "SOCIAL MEDIA EXPERIMENT." YouTube. YouTube, 18 Nov. 2013. Web. 09 Dec. 2013.
Jesus Salas
Essay #3
English 1302
Professor: Steven Wolfe
Essay 3: Education system: Acceptable or Substandard?
How would you feel if you were told that you live in a country where about 32 million adults cant read [1], or that 21% of Adults cant read above a 5th grade level? [1]. You would feel bad right? What about if you were told that “The United States may be a superpower but in education we lag behind. In a recent comparison of academic performance in 57 countries, students in Finland came out on top overall. Other top-performing countries were: Hong Kong, Canada, Taiwan, Estonia, Japan and Korea.” [2] What makes our country lag behind? Might be that the “White House estimated that Title I funding that goes to schools with large populations of low-income students would be eliminated for more than 2,700 and cut off support to 1.2 million disadvantaged students [3], or maybe that “special education support cuts were predicted to eliminate more than 7,200 teachers and aides” [3]. Education is a tool that we have that help us create harmony and peace by teaching us how to analyze a situation and act accordingly. In the United States we are not using this tool appropriately.
In the movie Surfwise, Doc Paskowitz talks about how he is against our education system. Paskowitz thinks that school are not teaching what matters. In his point of view, what matters are: teaching life lessons, morality, family values, and that true knowledge came from real-world experiences. Something that he mentions is the things that he thinks shouldn’t be taught in school and they are being taught anyways, things such as: conformity and materialism. Paskowitz doesn’t get much into details of what is causing this but he thinks that if education system keeps teaching the wrong things, this is going to lead to annihilation of our peace and harmony among our kind.
In comparison to Doc Paskowitz, there is Michael Moore’s book “Stupid White Men” which in chapter 5 gets into the same subject: education system and how it is failing. Moore thinks that schools are not teaching what matters or “It isn’t challenged with anything interesting or exciting” [4]. Which means, they are not making what matters interesting enough which causes people not to care and be obedient citizens and fall into the wagon of people that just follow each other, making no change what so ever. All of this causes people to get into a circle of negative things, which start by being uneducated because they are not interested in learning. Second, not caring enough about what happens to schools and education. Therefore, people start making bad decisions by electing bad leaders, which causes this huge hole in our education system and this is how we see that it just goes around and around until we finally decide to stop it.
In my opinion, I think that our education system is broken; in a way that compared to other nations, we are extremely ignorant in many subjects and illiterate to a certain extent. I think this because in the United States, government cares more about funding National Defense than funding school and our education system. And is not just me saying it; according to the website www.usgovernmentspending.com, in 2012, the federal budget was 25% towards Defense and 3% towards Education [5]. No wonder we are the most powerful Country in the world but definitely not the smartest.
Comparing both opinion, Paskowitz’ and Moore’s, I agree with both of them, we do have a defective education system. But getting into more detail, I would personally agree more with Michael Moore and with the reasons he gives us. In my opinion, the cause of this problem is that people don’t care enough about education because no matter what level of education you have, you will always find a McDonalds or a Wal-Mart where you can work at and make some sort of living, if that’s how you want to call it. That is our biggest problem, conformity, and this conformity will always lead to poor decision-making, especially in uniformed subjects, example: voting for candidates for School Board of Education and such. If you are uneducated and don’t really care about this kind of stuff because is unimportant to you, then you are going to start voting for the first person you see in the ballot not even knowing the person and what their ideas are. As I mention before this creates a circle of bad decisions and it going to continue to be like that until we create a solution that doesn’t involve violence or chaos in the country.
In order to solve this problem in our education system, I agree with the solution that Michael Moore suggested. First, I wouldn’t walk away like Doc Paskowitz because I think that the solution is in the hands of student, including myself, because is our future and we are still in school and we can fight for what we deserve. Is not in the hands of the people that went through school already because if they didn’t do anything back then, they are not going to do anything now. Students need to get more involve with the School board and the politics in each State so we can all fight together for a better education and better ourselves from what we are now, an ignorant nation. In my opinion is the best solution because not only help us educate ourselves by participating and getting involve in the political system, but it also help us grow as a person and help future generations while we are at it.
Sources
[1] http://www.statisticbrain.com/number-of-american-adults-who-cant-read/
[2] http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/27/2535771/school-budget-cuts-sequestration/
[3] http://www.greatschools.org/students/academic-skills/1075-u-s-students-compare.gs
[4] Moore, Michael. "Idiot Nation." Stupid White Men-- and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation! New York: Regan, 2001.
[5] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_detail_fy12bs12012n
Jesus Salas
Essay #2 (Revised)
English 1302
Professor: Steven Wolfe
Essay 2: Moral Dilemmas
What is morally right or wrong? What makes us decided what we want? These are questions we ask ourselves often whenever we face something that is controversial and when there is only one thing you can choose to do for the sake of one thing or the other. If you had the choice of either leaving or staying in a perfect society called Omelas; with no problems of any kind, everyone doing what they are suppose to do, no crimes, perfect houses, everything is just perfect, but this is only possible if a child of such society is neglected from it, not kill nor physically abused, just neglected from everything. Also, know that if you choose to leave, the destination is, as mention in the story, “a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness” (LeGuin). Whether to stay or walk away from Omelas, a perfect Utopia, that is the question. I would included myself in the group of people that would walk away from Omelas because I would not be able to live with myself knowing that my “happiness” is caused by the suffering of a child.
In the story written by Ursula K LeGuin, “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” there is a perfect town called Omelas, where everyone is happy, there is no crimes, everyone do what they are suppose to do, pretty much an Utopia. In other to get this perfection there must be a sacrifice, which is a child being completely neglected, just let to suffer. The main issue is; whether you would sacrifice so little for the happiness of others, or walk away from such town but not knowing where you are going and how is it going to be at your destination. In my opinion, I would be one of the people that walk away from Omelas. There are a few reasons why I would. First, because I would not be able to live with myself morally knowing that one child is neglected in order to keep such a perfect city. Second, I believe that perfection and happiness is something that you have to create in your mind, and everyone have a different mentality. Therefore, it is impossible knowing what the perfect city really is because the definition of a perfect city is different in everyone’s eyes. Lastly, I do not consider Omelas to be the perfect city because even though everyone does what they are suppose to and everything works accordingly, it is not a free society because they have to make the sacrifice of the child and that does not make it perfect, perfection would be that this neglected child is not sacrificed and he joins the community as well, that would make it an a perfect society. So walking away would be my choice, I know that I may not find such perfection where I am headed but I am sure I would be able to live with that and at least I will have my freedom and my conscious clean.
A real life situation that can relate to this moral dilemma would be slave labor in the clothing industries. How is it related? I think is it related on how we are benefiting from other people’s suffering and sacrifices just to wear a nice shirt or a nice pair of pants, which brings us to the question, is it okay to sacrifice a few for the sake of other? Just like in the Coventry Bombing, is t okay to sacrifice the lives of a few for the well being of many? In my opinion, in this kind of situation where garment factory workers in Bangladesh get “some wages as low as $37 a month” [1] which would be around 1.85 US Dollar daily. I would say that it is okay to sacrifice the few for the sake of others. Why? Because in comparison to “Coventry Bombing” and “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” The factory workers are settling for so little and in the other two stories the people or the child are not given a choice to what they want to do. I understand that the workers may be poor and don’t have any other resources and their only choice is to work in such industry, but like Ronald Reagan said “There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect.” [2] So, we, as humans would have to change our mentality and conformism in how we live and what barriers we put in our lives. And “There is nothing impossible to those willing to try.”(Alexander The Great) [3] But not everybody is willing to try and that’s the key to change the current situation on slave labor in the World. Therefore, I think that my position from “Omelas” does not remain the same when it comes to the real-life situation mentioned above. It does not remain the same because in the story you can actually walk away from everything and create your own happiness, but in real life, comparing to the slave labor in Bangladesh, you cant do anything about situation, because you have to wear clothes and it’s not like you are going to be naked all the time in other to not feel bad about the sacrifices being made. Until people change their mindset and conformity in life, there is nothing anybody can do to change the situation about slave labor. As human, we work better as a whole and not as an individual when it comes to situations like fighting for people’s right and such.
In conclusion, I think that in the story “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” I would be one of the people that would walk away from the city even though I wont know what is waiting for me out there once I leave. Also, in comparison to real life situations, I think it will all depend on what the situation is and on the choices I have to make in other to stay or walk away from that situation.
Source
[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199208/Bangladesh-asked-raise-36-month-minimum-wage--clothes-retail-giant-H-M.html
[2] http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/human_mind.html
[3] http://www.great-quotes.com/Articles/Historical_Inspirational_Quotes.htm
Jesus Salas
Essay #2
English 1302
Professor: Steven Wolfe
Essay 2: Moral Dilemmas
What is morally right or wrong? What makes us decided what we want or how we want it done? These are questions we ask ourselves often whenever we face something that is controversial and when there is only one thing you can choose to do for the sake of one thing or the other. Whether to stay or walk away from Omelas, a perfect Utopia, that is the question. I would included myself in the group of people that would walk away from Omelas because I would not be able to live with myself knowing that my “happiness” is caused by the suffering of a child.
In the story written by Ursula K LeGuin, “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” there is a perfect town called Omelas, where everyone is happy, there is no crimes, everyone do what they are suppose to do, pretty much an Utopia. In other to get this perfection there must be a sacrifice, which is a child being completely neglected, just let to suffer. The main issue is; whether you would sacrifice so little for the happiness of others, or walk away from such town but not knowing where you are going and how is it going to be at your destination. In my opinion, I would be one of the people that walk away from Omelas. There are a few reasons why I would. First, because I would not be able to live with myself morally knowing that one child is neglected in order to keep such a perfect city. Second, I believe that perfection and happiness is something that you have to create in your mind, and everyone have a different mindset. Therefore, it is impossible knowing what the perfect city really is because the definition of a perfect city is different in everyone’s eyes. Lastly, I do not consider Omelas to be the perfect city because even though everyone does what they are suppose to and everything works accordingly, it is not a free society because they have to make the sacrifice of the child and that does not make it perfect, perfection would be that this neglected child is not sacrificed and he joins the community as well, that would make it an a perfect society. So walking away would be my choice, I know that I may not find such perfection where I am headed but I am sure I would be able to live with that and at least I will have my freedom and my conscious clean.
One real world situation that I think it can relate to this moral dilemma would be the stationing of soldiers in Afghanistan. How it is related? I think it is related in the sense of is it okay to sacrifice a few for the sake of others? Just like in the Coventry Bombing is it okay to sacrifice the lives of a few for the well being of many? In my opinion, I think that in this situation of stationing soldiers in Afghanistan, it is okay to sacrifice a few for the sake of other. Why? Because in comparison to “Coventry Bombing” and “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas”, Soldiers chose that career and they know what the consequences might be and in the other two stories the people or the child are not given a choice to what they want to do. Therefore, I think that my position from “Omelas” does not remain the same when it comes to the real-life situation mentioned above. It does not remain the same because in the story you can actually walk away from everything and create your own happiness, but in real life, comparing with the soldier situation, you cant do anything about stationing them over in Afghanistan or elsewhere because government is the one that has all the power to control the Armed Force, you cant really do much about it. Also, because in real life situation soldiers want to be in the war and be a part of “the strongest fighting force in the world… and serve together to protect America’s freedoms” (GoArmy), On the other hand, the child of Omelas does not have a saying in the decision of whether to be neglected or not.
In conclusion, I think that in the story “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” I would be one of the people that would walk away from the city even though I wont know what is waiting for me out there once I leave. Also, in comparison to real life situations, I think it will all depend on what the situation is and on the choices I have to make in other to stay or walk away from that situation.
Source: http://www.goarmy.com/soldier-life.html
Jesus Salas
Essay #1
English 1302
Professor: Steven Wolfe
Essay 1: Advertisement
What do we really look at in an Ad? How do we normally feel about the message it is trying to get across? Or do we even get the actual message? This are all questions we have to think about whenever we want to analyze an Ad or even look at it for a brief second. The Ad “It’s the hat” or at least that’s how I call it, we can see that all of this questions can be answer and discuss the way pathos or emotional appeal is used to get to the audience. This ad is trying to demonstrate how simple a hat can change the perspective of how people see you.
The Ad “It’s the hat” has a wide audience because it can be targeted to any person with an interest in hat or even someone that wants to change the way people look at them and so on. Therefore, it does not have a specific target when it comes to the buyers. It is a simple Ad, it does not have much content in it just the two figures and a small text in it, but the message it’s trying to get across is the one that is important and essential to understand the ad. Many people may see this ad and not even understand it because the lack of knowledge about history and who the figures represent. For those who don’t know, the figure on the left represents Adolf Hitler, which was the leader of the Nazi party during World War II. The right side figure represents Charles Chaplin, an English comic actor that is considered an icon in the film industry. I think that is a good point to include here because it is important for the analysis and specially the understanding of the message.
In my opinion the Ad is very clever because of how it uses emotion to get to the broad audience it can have. When say this, I am referring to the specific characters it uses, even though it does not say any names or show any actual pictures, we can inferred who they are and what they represent in history and to the world. It is clever because it is trying to show how simple it can be for people to change their opinion with a simple hat. What I mean is that when people see the left side of the ad they can infer that the figure represents Hitler, which has a negative reputation for what he did and because he can also represent evil or darkness. On the other hand, when they see the right side of the ad they can infer that it represents Chaplin, in this case representing joy, fun, laughter, and many other positive feeling and attitudes that Chaplin could reflect on people. After looking at the two figures, that is when emotion kicks in; what do I mean by this? What I mean is that people will have a negative response to the left side of the ad because of all of the bad things that Hitler did and the pain he caused to some people. Therefore, whenever looking at the right side they can just think that buying a hat will change who you are and what people will think about you. I think the ad has just the great amount of text because it does not need to say much but it needs to say the right thing and it does. By looking at it, we can see that the text is placed under the right figure because it is the one that is wearing the hat, also representing the “good guy” in the ad; and this way people can easily relate to the figure above it. When it comes to content, I think it doesn’t need anything else added to it because just by using the two figures it is enough to get the message across and also leave room for people to have a more diverse point of view.
In conclusion, I can say that this is a very unique ad because of the characteristic explained above. Also, I think it expresses a great message not only for the buyers but also anybody that looks at the ad. It has a great way of explaining how people can change their opinion just by changing the appearance of others.