How High Can a Ceiling Be?

As always, America is concerned with money-with the economy and with the budget. Now that concern has taken Americans to a new debate over raising the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is the maximum amount that our nation is allowed to borrow. It is no news that our nation is in debt and that our economy is sunk in the economic sea, one way to help raise the sunken ship is to raise the debt ceiling; according to Obama and some other politicians. The final decision about the debt limit will be up to Congress, until they vote on this many Americans will be debating from different points of views whether this will have a positive or negative impact on our economy.

Like many political issues or any debate for that matter, there are two main positions on the debt ceiling: 1) Raise the debt ceiling 2) Do not raise the debt ceiling. Of course there are many different angles and sub topics to this issue, but these are the two main stances. On both sides of the issue, politicians and supporters argue with logical reasoning and with propaganda. In the essay entitled “How to Detect Propaganda”, propaganda is defined as “expression of opinion or action by individuals or groups deliberately designed to influence opinions or actions of other individuals or groups with reference to predetermined ends” (496).

I found a video clip of Sarah Palin talking about the debt ceiling in an interview with FOX news. In this video Palin clearly says that she does not support raising the debt ceiling. Palin’s position is why increase our debt when we already have so much debt? Instead of digging ourselves in deeper, we should work on paying off the debt that we already have. This makes sense, if a person has reached their debt limit on one credit card why would they get another credit card to put more debt on? Borrowing more money will only increase our debt: ok, this is an easy idea to grasp. In this video interview Palin says, “I would say before you think about seriously voting to increase the debt limit and incur more unsustainable, immoral, unethical debt that is really going to ruin our country to continue down this path”. Do I detect a bit of name calling here? According to the Institute for propaganda Analysis name calling plays on people’s fears and uses bad names to encourage the listener to form judgment without looking at the facts (497). Palin calls this debt by the names of “immoral” and “unethical”. Palin does not go on to explain how the debt is immoral or unethical, these words allow the listener to assume the worst about the debt and she goes on to play on every American’s fear that our economy is “going to ruin” and this will surely happen if the debt ceiling is raised.

Now for the other side. Their main argument is that we are on the verge of a financial crisis (haven’t we already reached that point?) and that raising the debt ceiling will prevent this and help our economy get out of this recession. In an article in The Atlantic entitled “Why Are Democrats Playing the GOP’s Game With Debt Ceiling?” the author Derek Thompson states, “There is a consensus on the debt limit among the most important people in Washington.” In making this statement, Thompson is using the propaganda device called transfer. Transfer carries over the authority of some esteemed person or group according to The Institute for Propaganda Analysis. In saying that the most important people in Washington agree that the debt ceiling must be raised, the author is implying that we should take their side, after all, they are the most important people in Washington and they know what their talking about, right? Thompson also uses the name calling devise in calling the people who oppose this “wacky”….really? Isn’t that a bit childish?

We need to remain aware of the different propaganda devices and hear both sides of an argument before we form judgment, otherwise we may fail to think for ourselves and blindly believe one side based on their deceptive devices.



-E

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/04/democrats-catch-debt-ceiling-fever/238077/

Blog 10: news source

I am sure you can all relate to a time in class where the professor mentions a major world event and sarcastically says, “You all do know that we are in a war” or “Were you even aware that an earthquake hit Japan last week?” In making these sort of sarcastic comments, the professor is referring to the fact that many young people are not aware of what is going on in the world. In his essay Are We Reaching Da Youth?, Danny Schechter says that mainstream news media ignores the youth and in turn, youth are ignoring the mainstream media. On page 419 Schechter says, “They [the youth] now get their “news” from late night TV, Comedy Channel or The Onion. Attitude is what excites them, not information.” I suppose this may be true for the majority, I don’t know, but it is not true for me. I do not watch late night TV or the Comedy Channel, and what is The Onion? I may be the black sheep here but I actually am interested in information, contrary to what Schechter says.

I think it is important to know what is going on in the world, small local news is usually of no interest to me. Being a busy college student who also works and has other obligations, I do not have time to sit down and read the news whether it be in the paper or on-line. My dilemma is how to find time to become informed with events of national or world significance. I actually get most of my news through my Dad’s influence.  In the evenings and mornings when my Dad is home, he always turns on the news (at this minute he is in the next room watching the news). Or when we are going on a trip or running an errand together, he has on his radio talk shows (usually about politics) or the news. My Dad provides an easy opportunity for me to be informed about what is going on in the world. Since my Dad already has the news turned on, I will sit down and watch the news with him while I eat my breakfast or dinner. As I think back on major events such as 9/11, the earthquakes in Hattie and then Japan, the Egyptian uprising, I was first informed by the television news, it is my main source of information. When I want to know more about what is going on I do usually turn to news on the television.

I am aware that news is biased, that they do not always report the whole story, and that they report and focus on the dramatic news. As I said before, I do not really have time to check on-line for extra information to cross reference in order to find out the whole story or to see what is reliable. I believe that in being aware that there is always another point of view and that the entire story my not be covered, I am able to discern what is reliable.

-E

I "just don't get it"

I think that Robin Tomach Lakoff has a point in saying that groups or individuals that do not have a history of hearing hate speech “just don’t get it.” I have been having a hard time connecting with some of the essays in this chapter of our readings. I have also been having a hard time processing my own thoughts regarding hate speech and I shall attempt to explain why.

I have personally not been a victim of hate speech so I do not know by experience the damage done by hate speech and I confess, I do not fully “get it.” I understand that words can be hurtful and I have been hurt by words before. The people that are closest to me have the greatest capacity to hurt me though; it is because I have made myself vulnerable to them in opening up to them.  When I hurt or am hurt by a friend, the problem is resolved by us talking through it, not by the offender being punished. I would not wish restrictions on what my friends say to me, human relationships often involve us hurting each other unfortunately, and that is often due to misunderstanding between one another. The beauty of hurtful words between friends is the ability to work through those situations and the result is often (but not always) a closer friendship.

I care about what the people close to me think. If and when a stranger insults me I do not care what they say or think about me, their words are like droplets of water that roll off an oily surface. The words of a stranger do not penetrate, therefore they do not have the chance to wound me. When hearing and reading about “hate speech,” I think of it as a similar situation, as a stranger saying offensive and hurtful words to another stranger.  When thinking about hate speech this way, I “just don’t get it” because I do not understand how the words of a stranger can deeply and even mentally wound a person. I think, “just don’t let it bother you;” but it obviously is something more than this and can damage a person or a group of people. In the Greek language there is a word “ginosko”  that can be translated “know by experience.” There is a difference between knowing something in your head and knowing something by experience. I do not understand hate speech and the apparent harm it causes because I have not experienced it for myself, I do not “ginosko“ it. This is not to say that I do not wish to understand though. If any of you have been the victim of hate speech I would appreciate hearing how it has affected you. It is hard for me to sympathize with someone or a group if I do not hear another’s personal experience. I think Lakoff summarizes my thoughts on this issue well in saying, “So if our group, or you as an individual member of that group, have never been subjected to epithets in the past, no words directed at you, however irritating, can have the full noxious effect of true hate speech” (437).

-E

"It's all about respect": Blog 8

“So many of his [James’s] protagonists are unhappy in the end, and yet he gives them an aura of victory. It is because these character’s depend to such a high degree on their own sense of integrity that for them, victory has nothing to do with happiness. It has more to do with a settling within oneself, a movement inward that makes them whole…What James’s characters gain is self-respect” (225).

     So many people are searching for happiness, their goal in life is to be happy. The problem with this is that happiness is an emotion and it is not lasting. The Webster’s Dictionary defines happiness as, “The quality or state of being delighted, pleased, or glad, as over a particular thing.” We can all remember happy moments in life such as a birthday, buying your first car, weddings, ect., but did that happiness stay with us continually? Did it last up to this point? No, it drifted away and was replaced with depression, frustration, or some other emotion; this is part of life. Happiness is based on circumstances or possessions. Circumstances change and possessions get old and overused. The fact that happiness is not a lasting state shows why people are always seeking it. Perhaps there is something better in life that we can not only seek but obtain.

     Nafisi says that most of James’s protagonists end up unhappy, but the reader can be satisfied with the ending of his stories because the protagonists are victorious despite their unhappiness because they gain self-respect. It is hard to live with ourselves if we have no self-respect. As a child I often played the game “would you rather” where a friend would give me two options and says would rather ’this’ or ’that’.  In the prompt for this blog I was given two choices: happiness or self-respect. If I had to live with only one of these, I would take self-respect over happiness. I choose this not only because I think that self-respect is more important, but also because I could not be happy if I had no self-respect. When one can esteem himself or herself, that is a lasting state that is not swayed by constantly changing emotions, like Nafisi points out it is a sort of victory in life.

     When I was waiting to get on a bus in Oahu I observed two local guys in line who appeared to have just met each other. When they were ready to enter the bus they turned around and said to me and my friend, “You ladies get in first” and the other replied, “Yah, that’s how to show respect, it’s all about respect man”.  I remember those two guys sitting in the back of the bus together, talking about respect for the next three stops. They kept repeating the phrase, “It’s all about respect”. In a way they were right. When people are searching for happiness they can do so by dishonest means and hurt people along the way, but when a person can live his or her life in a way that they can respect and that others can respect, that is a state of being that no one can take away.