Getting to Ground Level

Ideas have never been a problem for me.  What I struggle as a writer with is not the initial brainstorming period but rather the hard work of taking that idea with such potential and turning it into a clear and cohesive argument. As my Dad always says when taking a look at my writing, "Aidan, your always at the 5000-foot level."  What he means is that when I write, I tend to stay at a conceptual and philosophical level and rarely do the work of explaining my points and arguing them through evidence and analysis.  I think this issue has really showcased itself in my earlier blog posts. Through blogging every week, however, my writing has progressed to where I think I am able to express my ideas in a much more clear, cohesive and creative way.  While there are certainly many other changes present in my blog, for this post I would like to focus solely on this particular improvement  which I believe to be the most substantial.

In my second blog post, A Violent Interest, I explored American's fascination in violence (serial killers, violent video-games, tv shows/movies). Mr. O'Connor posted the following comment on this post, "Aidan, Good topic to explore (and a potential JT topic). In order to plumb the depths of this issue fully, it might be nice to anchor your ideas to a text." This is what I have been hearing since middle school, great idea, no followthrough.  The argument I made lacked any evidence, analysis ore even any clear claim.  Thus the post wasn't really an argument at all but rather ramblings on only the beginnings of a claim.  A collection of unanswered questions.  I wrote the post the second I had the idea and didn't take the time and effort to form a clear viewpoint and argue that viewpoint, thus the post never became what it could have been.

With Mr. O'Connors advice in mind, I tried to ground every post from then on in a text and I focused on making every post a structured argument or conversation instead of ramblings about a thought that crossed my mind.  I think my most recent blog posts are fair representations of my progress in getting down to ground level with my writing.  I am particularly proud of a very recent post entitled, Success, which talks about the American notion of what success is and how it is in contrast to what I believe success truly is.  My argument is grounded in multiple texts and I think the post has a clear and supported claim.  I argue that Americans have come to believe that success is measured in money and power and in the following excerpt I quote a homeless woman talking about true success and analyze her words.

"One of the interviewees named Dani stated that 'I feel successful just being alive.'" and that 'I just want to be me. That’s all. That’s my idea of success. Just to be myself.' Dani also expressed, 'I don’t want all that stuff and to wind up not a good person.'" 

First of all, I believe this is a powerful quote that services my argument nicely.  In the following excerpt, I attempt to analyze and explain my quote.

"How can Dani call herself successful if she is neither wealthy nor is she powerful?  Because Dani finds success not in materialistic things like money which only corrupt people, but  rather in morals and character.  Dani believes that you can have nothing, and be more successful than any multi-millionare as long as you are a kind, caring and happy person who is true to his or her self."

I believe that this is a major improvement from my blog posts earlier this year but I also see plenty of room for improvement.  For example, I tied my argument to an interesting text, however the analysis of the text could use some work.  I never pulled out and explained specific words.  My analysis only scratched the surface of what I could have done with the text.  


I look forward to further improve my writing in the semester to come.

The Place of the News

I noticed the following video posted on Facebook recently.  When you watch the video below, try to think less about the interviewee, as tempting as it may be, but rather think more about the interviewer.  Think about how the questions are being posed and try to determine his intentions.

Once I got over how overwhelmingly ignorant Senator Santorum sounded, I started to think about how this story was told.  I think we can all agree that the interviewers views and opinions were very clearly expressed both in is questions and responses to the Senator.  To me, it felt more like a debate or even an interrogation than an interview.

Although Senator Santorum is chiefly responsible for how he appears in this video, the certainly did not help.  I believe it is the place of the news to simply report events, or in this case, allow someone to express their views in a non-judgemental environment and allow the viewers to judge for themselves.  I could be wrong but it seems to me that this is not what is going on in this video.  The interviewer's harsh tone of voice and constant interruptions showed that Fox News was clearly trying to portray Senator Santorum in a specific manner, which is absolutely not their job.  Santorum was asked harsh and judgmental questions and then often wasn't even allowed to express his views fully due to the interviewer constantly interrupting.  Then to top it all off, the interviewer read the quote about mixed races in the army to Santorum as if to say "gotcha".   Fox was clearly trying to invoke a specific reaction, which robs us of the potential for individual thinking and making our own decisions.

This clip has really made me think about the stories we are told, particularly by the news.  In this case, the bias was fairly obvious, but it make me wonder, how often does this happen?  How often are components of stories left out, or are people portrayed in a certain light because it makes a better, more provoking story?

What do you think the place of the news is?

Success

"I just want to be me. That’s all. That’s my idea of success. Just to be myself."


Today in American Studies, we talked about how parent's work tirelessly so that their children can be successful.  I started to think about what success means in modern American society.  It seems to me that Americans generally associate success with money, power and things like cars, nice clothes and big houses.  The dictionary definition of success is actually quite fitting.  It reads as follows, "the attainment of wealth, position, honors, or the like."  It is hard for me to accept such a shallow definition which only allows rich and important people to be successful.  


Many of my heros and role models do not fit this criteria, but I would certainly think they are successful.  I will take one example, Clifford Brown.  Clifford Brown was and still is looked at as one of the greatest Jazz trumpeters ever to be heard.  He was certainly not wealthy, nor was he powerful, however he did what he loved and used his creativity and ability to create beautiful music and make a difference.  I see this as incredible success.


During my research for this blog post I found a project entitled What It Means To Be Successful: Lessons From the Lives of Homeless Women.  I strongly suggest reading more than the mere quotes and excerpts I can offer in this post, this collection of oral histories is truly eye opening.  One of the interviewees named Dani stated that "I feel successful just being alive." and that "I just want to be me. That’s all. That’s my idea of success. Just to be myself." Dani also expressed, "I don’t want all that stuff and to wind up not a good person." 


How can Dani call herself successful if she is neither wealthy nor is she powerful?  Because Dani finds success not in materialistic things like money which only corrupt people, but  rather in morals and character.  Dani believes that you can have nothing, and be more successful than any multi-millionare as long as you are a kind, caring and happy person who is true to his or her self.


I find the message that Dani conveys is profoundly true.  It is not what you posses that defines you and your accomplishments but rather who you are.

Equal Opportunity

My mother and father have recently been looking in to an SAT/ACT tutor for me to work with a bit.  I decided I would take the liberty in looking into some of the tutoring companies.  I was shocked by what I found in my research.  I read this article in the NY Sun about what the top SAT tutors in New York make per hour.  The article said that people pay as much as 400 dollars an hour to have their children work with Ivy League degree holding tutors.  While I couldn't find any article confirming this, my father told me he had heard that the top New York LSAT tutors charge up to 750 dollars an hour to tutor folks.  This salary is more than many lawyers make.  To me, this is absolutely obscene.  People are so desperate to give their child the competitive edge they need to get it to the best schools, that they will pay several hundred dollars an hour to have someone give their child all the secrets to standardized testing.  And why is all this necessary, because colleges use a number to gage the intelligence and potential of their applicants.  With the unfair advantage given to the fortunate and wealthy, these numbers become overwhelmingly distorted, it is hard to imagine how inaccurate these portrayals are.

Americans strive to create the image of equal opportunity, but the reality is that this is impossible.  For the past 25 minutes I have been staring blankly at my computer screen, unsure what to write, but I now understand that the reason for this is because I have been trying to search for a solution that simply can't be found.  If colleges lower the acceptance rates for people of lower socioeconomic status, those of higher status will argue that they are being cheated.  However, at the current state, those of lower socioeconomic status are at a clear disadvantage.  

Thus how can we say that we are a nation of equal opportunity?  Equal opportunity is fundamentally impossible, there will always be rich and poor, there will always be those at an advantage and those at a disadvantage.