American Dream

                The American Dream. In a way it defines America and American identities, the idea being that if a person works hard, that hard work will eventually pay off in the end. Unfortunately, the American Dream is just that, a dream. The reality of the world has much more complexities than the black and white results of the American Dream. Factors surrounding things that we can and can’t control keep us from climbing the social ladder as high as we wish. It comes from the family we are born into and the fruits that stem from that circumstance as well as the opportunities granted to some and not others.

            Education is the building block to success in the 21^st century. Without going to a decent college and getting that degree or doctorate or whatever it may be, the chance to move up the social ladder is slim to none. The interesting aspect about education is that even though it is so important for those in the lower class to improve their circumstances, they are less likely to succeed in an academic environment than those from a higher social class. According to Sean F. Reardon in his article “No Rich Child Left Behind”, “…children of the rich perform better in school, on average, than from the middle-class or poor families.” (Source A). So social class is a clear predictor of performance academically. Unfortunately the “…differences in educational success between high- and-lower- income students have grown substantially” (Source A). This growing gap has a direct link to the social class system in America. How is possible for these people to fulfill the American Dream if they are left struggling in the education system, a system that is so vital for someone’s future? The article, “Social Mobility in America: Repairing the Rungs” states that “…most OECD countries spend more on education of poor children than rich ones, in America the opposite is true” (Source B). Our country does nothing to help those struggling to climb the social ranks, yet we still state that anything is possible under the “American Dream”. Sure, there are a few that break the norms, but can we really base the existence of the American Dream on a few sporadic outside cases? It is clear that America is focused more on the rich, those who statistically are shown to succeed. But if this is true, where is there room for the American Dream?

            We are all born into families, each having different circumstances economically. These circumstance present us with a different number of opportunities. Those in the higher class have more opportunities than those in the lower class. This is plain and simple. It may not be what people want to hear, but the truth is harsh. In a report commissioned by the Pew Charitable Trusts in 2012, figure 3 shows that American in the upper and lower ranks will likely stay there during their lifetime (Source F). Now the American Dream is based partly on mobility on the social ladder. If mobility to those who need the benefits of the dream are unable to achieve it, what is the point? One of the main reasons those in the lower class are unable to move up is inequality. They are given less opportunities because they are in a lower class rank. “The Great Gatsby Curve” by Paul Krugman shows “…America is both unequal and has especially low mobility” (Source G). The graph compare America as well as other countries from around the world. The inequality in our country is a direct cause to the lack of mobility. By definition, the lack of mobility conflicts with the basic principal of the American Dream.

            It is not so clear, black and white, that the American Dream is real. I think that the American Dream is only a dream, and not a reality. The lack of educational success, assistance from the government, and inequality are clearly affecting American people negatively. It would ideal if anyone was able to move up in the ranks, to get that dream job and become that person they always wanted to be. It will most likely never happen for most. I hope that in the future, American’s can pull their act together and make something that may only be a dream into a reality and change our country for the better. 

Social Class

My results from the quiz showed that I belonged to the Bourgeois Vous, or the upper-middle class. I this reflects pretty accurately on my life. I do indeed eat a lot of fruits and vegetables and our house contains many books. I do view people in a positive light (unless they demonstrate otherwise) and I am not a fan of heavy metal music. I found it interesting how the length my parent’s breast fed me helped determine my class. I also thought it was different how choosing to eat food without paying or spy for a competitor gave a person a higher score on the social ladder.

                The article “Shadowy Lines That Still Divide” by Janny Scott and David Leonhardt shares many similarities and difference to my life and how social class defines and affects it. The article states that “mobility…has flattened out or possible even declined”. I find this very true. It is harder now with worldwide completion to become more successful than your parents. Everyone is vying for that top spot or that loophole. Living in McFarland, a town that is pretty well off, I see how parents “scramble to scoop up a house in the best school district, channel a child into the best preschool program, and land the best medical specialist…”; My parents were the same way, which probably why I still go to McFarland and why they push me so hard to be the best. This is why I don’t agree with the article’s statement: “Parents with money, education and connections cultivate in their children the habits that mediocrity awards”. This seems completely flawed in my personal case. My parents push me to be the best I can be so that hopefully my life could be easier than theirs. There is that constant pressure to succeed, not to settle for anything, especially mediocrity.

I agree with the main message in the article “Money Always Talks” by Daphne Merkin. I think that “the rich are different”. The article also states, “They make us think we would do better if we had their dough….Or, at least, we want the option to prove our lofty conjectures”. As the upper-middle class, I constantly see people talking about how they could change the world if they had the chance, or they would spend the money more wisely. What gets me is how money can inspire and corrupt people. Sure it can change your social class in an instant, but what if it changes you as a person? This thought may reflect on my social class, always trying to see the best in people, but money can flip people. Is it really worth it?

This leads into the film People like Us was very eye opening. It showed me that the rich really don’t have it all. They can be arrogant and selfish and naive, just like the rest of us. It is not their fault, but the fault of the class system. The boys from the mobile home wanted nothing but an education and a future, and I am sitting here complaining about how slow this laptop is. This divide of wants and wills shows that the class system is still here in the United States; those in need should be given more aid. I hope that in the future the class system will be something based on merit and honor and kindness, not money because in the end, money is just paper.

Sound and Fury

Sound and Fury depicts a family that consists of deaf and hearing members, along with all of their offspring. Each side found a stance on the controversial cochlear implant, a device that if implanted could allow a deaf person the gift of hearing. There are many different Discourses present that drive the arguments on each side.

Peter and his wife, along with their three children are deaf. They belong to a community that is close knit and protective of its culture and ways. The deaf community is strongly against the cochlear implant because they feel that it is taking away a member of their society. Belonging to this Discourse, the community and especially

 Peter and his wife don’t know what they are missing by not being able to hear. To them, silence is peaceful and to be happy in life, all they need is each other. They have their own language that suits their needs and the cochlear implant is almost a symbol that deaf culture is being destroyed. It is a message that they are a problem, and this new technology can fix them, yet they see that nothing is wrong with being deaf.

Peter’s family, particularly his mother, father, brother, and sister-in-law all are hearing, and are therefore categorized in the hearing Discourse. They know what opportunities a person can have by hearing and how much life with become easier for their children and grandchildren. They have experienced a world of music and noise and speech, so by denying someone of that right seems morally wrong to them. They feel like if something was created to take away a handicap, and then why not use it. This conflicts with the deaf community because they don’t feel like they are handicapped. Because both parties are different Discourses, it is hard for them to view the other’s point of view, which creates the conflict experienced by this family.

There is also the Discourse of Peter and Nita, as well as Chris and Mary being parents. They all want what is best for their children. Being a parent means thinking things through and giving your child the best chance. For Chris and Mary, they felt that the cochlear implant was the best option for their son because they are also part of the hearing Discourse. For Peter and Nita being part of the deaf discourse, they felt that the surgery required for a cochlear implant was unnecessary and would put their child, Heather, through more pain than was needed. Each couple wanted what was best, but their Discourse presented them with different solutions.

Clowns: Friend or Foe

 Have you ever had something that scares you so much that it will always spark some reaction? Coulrophobia, or the fear of clowns, is something that causes so much fear and anxiety in me. It rooted from when I was around the ripe age of seven. It was an overcast day, perfect for watching movies on T.V. This was before the time of when you could view the titles of shows, so being the innocent seven year old I was, flipped on a movie to channel to a seemingly ordinary film about kids in a suburb, much like McFarland. Things appeared routine until this little boy lost his boat into a storm drain. In the drain resided a clown who lured the child close enough to seize his ankle and wrench him to his doom. You get the main picture that this movie I watched was Steven Kings It.

The fear of clowns goes deeper than just the movie though. You never know what is really lurking under all of that makeup and costumes. Clowns are just so phony and they get right up in your personal space to the point where it is uncomfortable. I don’t think I could put into words why they cause such anxiety in me, but I had to try, it would be the fact that they deceive people with their “happiness” and “tricks”. What are they really thinking inside? What are their true intentions? So much is left unanswered that it leaves me feeling helpless and vulnerable.

Fear is something that is implanted so deep inside of everyone that it is hard to overcome. I believe I will always have some fear towards clowns. I don't know if it will be to the extreme of when I was seven, yet it will remain, festering and waiting to resurface when the time is right. So whenever you here the distinctive laugh of a seemingly "friendly" clown, think twice about approaching with an open hand.

WikiLeaks

There has long been the argument on what is too much when it comes to sharing secret knowledge to the world. What is considered acceptable, and what is considered to be truly classified. Julian Assange and his creation, WikiLeaks, have pushed this line to its breaking point, causing U.S. officials to force him to remain entrapped in an embassy, for fear of being arrested. But was what Assange leaked all that bad? Does it deserve to be brought out in the open to the public?

         

 I feel that this question of whether to categorize WikiLeaks as horrible or ingenious is rigged. I think it depends completely on the situation. If it were exposing military secrets, such as what Chelsea Manning did, then I would find that it would need to be stopped. If WikiLeaks exposed a corrupt politician who was for example transferring government funds into his personal bank account, then I feel it was doing justice.

                    

 The problem with sites such as WikiLeaks is the fact that everything has to be put into someone else’s perspective. Someone could find something completely justifiable for being on WikiLeaks, whereas another would find that it is putting our safety at risk. This inconsistency in perspective is the root of all the problems. I don’t think it would be right to shut down WikiLeaks, because it is a form of journalism in a way and it can help our society, however, I feel like there could be a better way sort out what is acceptable and safe to put out there, and what could really cause harm to a country.  

        

 I think that being consistent is the key. In Schoenfeld’s piece, Can the U.S. Bring Assange to Justice? , they mentioned that “No news outlet has ever faced criminal charges for publishing secrets” (pg. 2). I found this interesting because the news is able to broadcast to millions of people every day and share all of these stories, yet they get praised for their insight and courage. Again this goes back to perspective. WikiLeaks is portrayed as a villain, and the news is a martyr. Others might view it opposite. Perspective is all the matters in this tricky situation.

Overall, I've concluded I am very torn on this decision, and have come to the conclusion that there is no simple solution to Assange and his WikiLeaks. We will just have to wait and see what becomes of this controversial site, and if it lives up to our expectations, or burns down in flames. Only time will tell.

Black Mass: Whitey Bulger, the FBI, and a Devil's Deal

            I chose to read Black Mass: Whitey Bulger, the FBI, and a Devil’s Deal by Dick Lehr and Gerard O’Neill as my non-fiction book. I have always been fascinated by big mobsters and wondered if this book would give me a new perspective into their lives. There has also been some news on Whitey Bulger, so this book seemed like a perfect fit.

            This novel is centered on the relationship between James “Whitey” Bulger, the godfather of the Irish Gang in South Boston and John Connolly, an FBI agent looking for his big break during the late 1970’s up until late in the 90’s. It is interesting how this pair met. The introduction to the novel shares that Connolly and Bulger actually grew up in the same building and knew each other as young boys. Now to get to the main point, Bulger becomes an informant to the FBI, reporting on his main rival: the Italians. This leads into how Steve Flemmi got involved. He is known as the man with connections, especially with the Italians. Both mobsters gained protection from their own crimes, eventually leading them to rise in status and power while eliminating their main opponents.

            John Connolly had always watched others rise in the fame of their informants. While reading this book, it was very prevalent that he wanted the pride and status of upholding an important mobster. What made the novel unique was that the authors clearly felt that the FBI was using the partnerships for their own personal gain. An example is when Bulger almost lost his protection because he was target in a major FBI investigation in a horse race fixing in 1978. With the help of Connolly, Bulger managed to escape untouched with the help of Connolly and his supervisor, John Morris. Another is when Connolly tipped off Flemmi about a bug in their old meeting place in the Southie (South Boston). These are only two of the plethora of help that Connolly provided for Bulger and Flemmi, breaking informant rules to maintain his “status”.

            I like how this novel told about the softer side of Whitey Bulger. Everyone thinks that he is this ruff and tuff gangster, yet he is a person as well. I learned that he loved his mother and lived with her until his death. He liked to work out and keep himself clean and presentable. He enjoyed having coffee with friends. Little tidbits such as these were sprinkled in the text, and made it more personal.

            Currently, Bulger was put on trial and found guilty of 11 of the 19 murders as well as extortion, money laundering, drug dealing and weapons possession. I didn't even know that his trial was taking place until I saw it on the news and recognized his name. It was just another connection to this novel.

            Overall, I found that I enjoyed this novel more than I thought. It was written more like a story with plot and kept my attention going. I learned a lot about the mobs in Boston and how Whitey Bulger rose to become one of America’s top gangsters. I would recommend this book to anyone willing to give it  a try.

Wollstonecraft, Fuller, and Steinem

                As a female, I found that all of these essays somewhat connected to my life in some way. I thought that the variety of style in each piece was interesting and made me look at things in different way. I will say however that a few of the pieces were a little hard to interpret at first.

            The main theme in each essay was about feminism and discrimination against women in the past and the present. I think the most insulting comment someone can make to a woman is that they are weak. Women are so strong in so many ways. They should get more credit for how much strength they bring both physically and emotionally. Throughout time women have been thought of as second class citizens. In Margaret Fuller’s piece, she mentioned “And knowing there exists, in the world of men, a tone or feeling toward women as towards slaves…”  (pg. 1). I had never made this connection before, yet in some ways it seems true. Women have been thought as only capable of domestic chores such as cooking and cleaning and caring for children, while the men are free to work and live their own lives. Does that seem like a slave to you?

            Another fascinating point made was that men seem to care more about their position in social status or view in society then women. Gloria Steinem’s whole essay was about how if men could menstruate, it would almost become a bragging right on who could menstruate the longest, heaviest, etc. Obviously men can’t menstruate and women can, and you don’t see in society as it being as a positive thing in a way. I don’t know many girls who enjoy their period. I just found this point very interesting and a good way to show the male psyche verses the female.

            I find that being discriminated as a woman is still present in society today. Some can argue that is improving, and yes it has. Women are allowed to vote and work and have more rights. I feel however, that there are a lot of under the radar issues still present. Each of these writes who wrote their pieces felt discriminated in some way just because they are a woman.

            Overall, I found these essays to be inspiring. I want to prove history and the stereotypes wrong. I want to be a successful strong woman. I don’t want to be another domesticated housewife that does a man’s bidding. I want to step out on my own and make my own place in life.