Society never advances

In his essay "Self Reliance", Ralph Waldo Emerson makes the daring claim that society never advances, "it recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other." At first glance, this quote was really too bleak for me to try and accept-but after some consideration, I've come to realize just how true it really is. In class we read an article titled, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" which discussed how, although the Internet has opened boundless opportunities in terms of accessing information and sharing files, it's actually making our minds function differently, and not necessarily a good different. The author describes the effect the google generation has had on him as such, "Immersing myself in a book or a lengthy article used to be easy. My mind would get caught up in the narrative or the turns of the argument, and I’d spend hours strolling through long stretches of prose. That’s rarely the case anymore. Now my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do." By having so much access to information, we are less able to fully appreciate any specific one piece. Before, information was less accessible-which meant that what people were able to have, they analyzed in depth. Just think about early America-Any pamphlets or books people could get their hands on they would carefully read and discuss together at the local coffee shops. However now that we have access to more knowledge then we know what to do with, we read for a broader knowledge on all topics; rather then analyzing the literature in depth, we merely skim the surface; A wikipedia summary will suffice for most of our needs. So I don't think that we can necessarily call the internet an advancement-We've gained just as much as we've lost.

Progess?

A couple days ago, we discussed all the things we take for granted these days that weren't around when our parents were our age. The creation of internet, email, cell phones, texting, ipods, digital cable, TiVo...all these modern day technologies we take for granted, and it got me thinking...Is all this so called "progress" really helping us? I always assumed that all of these things were making our society more advanced, happier; I'm not sure why I always equated these words together, i just did.. But after really thinking about it, I don't think they really have any connection. Don't get me wrong, i'm just as big of a fan as my cell phone and ipod as much as the next person, but i think that in what we've gained with these technologies, we've also lost some things.
I remember one time in seventh grade, my history teacher was talking to us about how when he was a kid, all the kids in the neighborhood would get together outside and play big games of baseball or capture the flag in the park. But i don't really see that happening nowadays, what with television and videogames, there's just not as much of a motivation to get outside and do something. It's not that bad-I mean, on both ends kids have fun, which is the point of course; But what we lose to technology is the bonding. Personal connections formed with people. It's the same way with texting. I can't even count all the times i've seen two people sitting together at a restaurant-both texting or talking on the phone. It's as if, with the ability to talk to people far away easier-it's simultaneously become easier to avoid talking to people you're with. So while this new technology is more convenient, is it really any better? Is my generation really happier than my parents' generation was? If not...can it really be considered progress? or just change.

A Wag to the White House

This weekend, while babysitting, I had a conversation with a fourth grader as to the current news regarding Obama's new dog search. Last Tuesday, her mom let her stay up extra late to wait and see the outcome of the elections and listen to Obama speak; and to no surprise, her favorite part of his speech was when he announced his family would be bringing a new puppy with them to the white house. Now, all I thought about when I heard Obama announce this is how cute of a family the Obamas are-but apparently, what breed they plan on getting has been the topic of much debate-and not just among fourth graders...(Not to imply it hasn't been among the fourth graders-rumor on the streets of Central Elementary is that the Obamas are going for a Basset Hound.)
There's been a lot of talk about what type of dog they're getting and what that might say about the president-elect, which raises a lot of questions in my mind. Why are people making it such a big deal-is this topic much bigger than just what kind of dog he gets? Will the type of dog the Obamas finally decide upon say something as to what kind of president he'll be? Even more so-is there some sort of ideal dog a president should have? After all, I would argue that the kind of dog a person has definitely reflects a lot on their personality-but then again, it's not like there's really a wrong choice, right? (Unless of course it's like Cujo...that probably wouldn't be so good..) Either way-mutt or pure breed, puppy or adult, girl or boy-it will be interesting to see what the family finally decides on.

The , Dilemma

So, the homepage on my mom's computer is The New York Time's website and today as I opened the browser, a particular article caught my eye. It was titled "Phys Ed: Stretching: The Truth", okay I know what you're thinking...how does an article that clarifies what stretches best warm you up have to do with American Studies? Well, it doesn't; it was the title itself is was sparked my interest. "Stretching: The Truth"--when I first read it I thought "oh, phys ed.: stretching the truth-it's probably about lies or scandal within the secret world of Physical Education." -stupid? Perhaps; but regardless, it reminded me of our discussion about the second ammendment to The Constitution and just how important a single punctuation mark can be.

Taking a good look at the second ammendment's placement of puncuation points can bring into question the true meaning behind the ammendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In this particular instance, commas make all the difference. After all, the statement "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" implies that a militia is crucial to securing a free state and therefore, all citizens have the right to bear arms. Whereas with the real statement, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed." The right to bear arms seems to be qualified; it's only a right of the people when a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of the state. Why is it then that when people look at the 2nd Ammendment, they forget the preface and cut straight to the main point: The right to bear arms? Since the forefathers have since passed away, there's really no knowing for sure; however in my personal opinion, I would agruethat the right is definitely qualified; And since I don't feel that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of our state when we have the army--I don't believe that regular US citizens should have the right to bear arms. And to think-any debate over the meaning of this right was started over something as insignificant as a comma.