Kim's Webquest

The American Dream
The American Dream for generations has been promoting immigrants to come to America from near and far. The imagery of America is of a city on a golden hill where everyone has the opportunity to succeed. Still, as shown in The Tortilla Curtain, not all that glitters is gold--America isn't all its cracked up to be. This idea of the American Dream is prevalent throughout various pieces of literature and in every day life. The question is: Is there a dream or is it time for everyone to wake up?




(This person follows Mike Hong's belief: The Dream is dead!"


To start here are some opinions on the American Dream:

"The American Dream is a myth."
-Mike Hong

"It's the dollar bill attached to the end of the string... it lures in immigrants for jobs."
-Jake Eisensmith

"Dolla, Dolla Bill Ya'll."
-Wyclef ft. Akon and Lil Wayne

These three quotes explain the different takes on the American Dream.

The first take is the pessimistic belief:
*The Dream is dead... it's a myth. This ideology is that of broken hopes and basically suggests that one has been tampered by harsh relatives of life. Mike Hong believes that it was never real and that we've all been tricked. A very pessimistic point of view that thinks that thinks that the whole "idea" of America is a complete lie.

The second quote is the intellectual belief:
*The American Dream has to exist to entice people to come. It plays a part in creating the aura of America and keeps workers traveling to America. Jake's line of thought is that the dream is a necessary evil.

The third is the economic belief:
*The Dream is the Dollar. Money allows some to transform their lives and fulfill their dreams. As shown by "Dolla, Dolla Bill, Ya'll" this line of thought is that money is the means to an end. The Great Gatsby falls in line with this as Gatsby uses money in an attempt to reach his goal of achieving love through financial means.




(Gatsby uses money as an ends to a means. He doesn't end up doing too well)

Are these various beliefs possible? Well... yes. It's all about how you look at the dream. The definition of dream is many but these two definitions are closely linked:

6. an aspiration; goal; aim: A trip to Europe is his dream.
7. a wild or vain fancy.

(Source: Dicationary.com)

The American Dream can be a goal or just a wild and vain "fancy"--something that does not necessarily exist in reality. It's all about interpretation. If enough people will the American Dream to exist, then it will. If they choose to follow one of the aforementioned lines of belief then that is what the American Dream will be. Most likely, there will be many interpretations of the same dream. And thus the American Dream is like any other dream: real in the heart and mind if you wish it but when you wake up the only impact is that you've seen something better in your head.

Economics and the Dream

I think that the current economic crisis has caused a large issue for those wishing to purpose the "dream" in the form of money. Like I stated above, the key to this belief is that one must attain dollars in order to render their wishes true. In an economic crisis, not only are you not bringing in a great amount of income, you have taken a huge lose. This feeling will lead people to be more "depressed". (Note the name Depression for example). It is already a fact that in times like these more gun violence occurs and more civil unrest--today there are a bunch of "tea parties"--and that the only way to cure this dissatisfaction is... cure an economy. Living off the dollar is a dangerous habit as your dreams will flux and flow with the movement of the markets.

Lesson Plan: Tortilla Curtain

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dchdp28m_9gmz974hr&hl=en

Go to the above link and follow all the sections. The end result will be two documents: One containing just normal information and the other a poem. Good Luck!

Mexican Drug Cartels

(Recognize this country? If you said: America's National Park... you're wrong. That's Canada)

The biggest issue seemed, for a while at least, to be the illegal immigration problem. And after the plethora of problems that America has encountered over the past year, the most impacting domestically (bar the economic crisis) is quite unexpected. Mexico might just be breaking out into Civil War. The issue revolves around the problem with Mexico's exploding drug problem. Over the past year more than 6,300 people have died in the fight between the drug lords and the Mexican Army (Johnson Para. 4). 

And with things spiraling out of control the Obama administration has to been preparing to aid and has sent Mike Mullen, the chairmen of the Joint's Chief of Staff to Mexico according to MSNBC. Mullen is there to sign a security agreement with Mexico, but with the harsh conflict with the drug cartels is surely a topic of conversation (Johnson Para. 3). In addition to the average of 100 deaths a week due to the fighting, the cartels also have had quite the effect on the drug trade in American. 90% of all cocaine that comes to America goes through these Mexican Drug Lords. Additionally, the majority of the Marijuana trade comes is through these cartels... as well as heroin (Johnson Para. 7).  

And with 1,000 deaths in the first two months of the year already, the war seems to be picking up pace (Johnson 4). Not slowing down. The U.S. government just this past thursday began a plan to militarize the southwestern border of the United States to deal with these cartels. With a combo-team of the Department of Homeland Security and the National Guard if they are overwhelmed, the U.S. is stepping up its commitment to security. What to make of all this: Will it harm Mexican-American relations? Hispanic Americans? American Security?

I think collectively the answers are Maybe, maybe, and maybe. It all really depends on the way that the tides begin to turn in the upcoming months. I think that overall Mexican-American relations are strong but have been strained due to the whole illegal immigration debate. But, since Mexico is linked to the dollar source as Americans spend a lot of time traveling to Mexican cities such as Cancun, Los Cabos, etc. More than 100,000 students travel to Mexico every single spring break. Now they are more likely to meet possible drug wars and violence which may sway travelers away from the country. Personally, I know that a few friends of mine have already changed their travel plans (going to Spain instead). 

How will Illegal Immigration be affected by the drug cartels? I doubt very much. Illegal Immigration has already begun to slow due to the current economic crisis. Still, Illegal Immigration could become more and more hated or even violent if the drug wars spill over the borders. We have enough issues with Illegal Immigration as it is and to turn it violent would lead to a backlash by the citizens of the Southern States as well as the population. We already see the negative attitude towards illegals and Mexicans in general in The Tortilla Curtain (By T.C. Boyle). The main hispanic protagonist is named Candido who deals with racism towards him throughout the novel at various aspects from being told to "die beaner" to having dirty looks thrown towards him and having to deal with the fact of being thrown out of the country at every waking moment. The Americans in the novel already show a condescending attitude towards the immigrants... which sometimes borders on racist. Just look at Jack who constantly is preaching about the immigration problem, dehumanizing those like Candido and America into nothing more than animals or as he says "peasants." It's also interesting that Deleany, someone who I consider more of a moderate is already swayed by these racist views. Imagine if there was more of a violent aspect in addition to just illegals abusing our tax dollars. The drug cartels and war in the South would be the first time that America has had actual war on its soil since the Civil War. This could lead to southern outrage and more of a backlash towards immigrants from Latin Countries. At best case scenario, the current Cartel Wars will end before it spills over to the U.S. At worse case, we have a third major war on our hands.

And from American-Security this "war" is a huge issue. The physiological aspect of going to war would no doubt hurt our country with its already fragile state and I doubt we could handle three wars at once. Illegals would be hunted out and basically even more so than before they would be considered a threat and thrown back to Mexico or worse--imprisoned. These drug cartels should not be overlooked and could become one of the largest stories of the upcoming year.  

Update:

And apparently the saga continues. According to Newsweek, the Drug Cartels have already spilled passed some American towns on the border to major cities such as Phoenix Arizona. Just a few tidbids are disturbing: Phoenix has become the capital of kidnappings in the United States with 368  abductions in the past year. 33 people were recently indicted as having ties to the cartels in Greenville Tennessee, for selling 24,000 POUNDS of marijuana. And lately sources are saying that the trend is reaching Atlanta all the way in Georgia which is being dubbed as the "new southwest border". Homeland Security Security Janet Napolitano has told Newsweek that, "this is getting the highest level of attention." She indicated that more border control and National Guards are being deployed at requests. 

Has the war on drugs really failed so badly? What's next?

All I can say is wow. 

Entourage Analysis

(Vince, Drama, Turtle, E, Ari and another side character Shana. Lloyd is absent from this promo).

Entourage has always been about the boys. Vinnie Chase, Eric "E" Murphy, Turtle and Johnny Drama make their way in the dog-eat-dog Los Angles world, just trying to find something in the stardom and having a good time too. Always adding his input is Vince's agent Ari Gold who tries to get movie deals for his client, but manages to come along for the ride. Topics of the episodes stem from award shows to casinos to the

 playboy mansion; Entourage is a show that one should definitely not take seriously.

The boys all have their personalities and ambitions in

 the "entourage". Vince is the laid-back leader who specializes in flirting with girls and acting as Ari puts it "like a moviestar." Eric is Vince's right hand-man, who handles most of the busywork and is usually more cautious when it comes to making decisions. Turtle is the entourage's resident loafer who for four and a half seasons has just lived on the other four's lives. Turtle had a few short stints as a rapper's manager, driver and is currently looking for a job. Then there's Drama, a mostly out of luck TV

 star, who finally got his deal for a serialized show 5 Towns. The problem? Drama thinks he's a much bigger star than he is and has the ego of one--hilarity ensues.

One thing the boys share is their love for women. Of course, they all handle their relationships in a different way. Vince has the short flings or hook ups. Eric is more dedicated to relationships. Turtle will take whatever he can get. Meanwhile, Drama always ends up having the strangest relationships: both partners are usually crazy.

(Ari with Lloyd)

Lloyd, Ari's secretary, is different from every other character. Lloyd is gay. And he is not afraid to show it. Throughout the series there is a Lloyd-Ari subplot in which Lloyd sticks up for his beliefs against Ari, who continually makes fun of the fact that not only is Lloyd gay, he's also Asian. It is interesting to see how the show contrasts the way that Lloyd and the boys act when it comes to their relationships. While there is a variety of options for the Entourage, Lloyd has one partner and their relationship for lack of a better term is "flamboyant."

Take for example, the episode Tree Trippers in which Lloyd "housesits" Ari's house. The show portrays the homosexual gathering as out of the normal and different and in the end, everyone ends up swimming in the pool naked. It is a bit overdramatic and added-just-for-the-sake of shock factor. I mean Entourage is not a show to be taken seriously so there is very few "serious moment." Entourage overall is a show about living in the moment and enjoying wherever life takes you. There is a continuity overall and character growth spread out over each of the five seasons. You have to look deeply to find it because the show has very basic beginnings.

Each character in the show is given some sort of stereotype (Vince = laid-back, E = worrying "older brother, Turtle = lazy bum, etc.) but the characters have moved away from these basic traits as the show has grown longer. The writing in Entourage is actually helpful in this aspect. The way each of the character's speak has actually changed and grown. Vince at the start was pretty basic in his thoughts and only wanted to live the Hollywood life. E knew very little about the L.A. lifestyle (he was manager of a Sbarro's in NY) and had no idea how to manage clients, but after five seasons he's opened a firm and is a well-versed expert. On the flip-side (just to add a little perspective), Lloyd's growth has not come in such great jumps, although to be fair: Lloyd is a minor character and didn't appear until Season 2. 

I think that Lloyd will have some growth and the show has actually given the character a lot more screen time. I'm wondering if it will ever get to the point where Lloyd's life and relationships will be used as more than just a tool for more jokes and antics. I think one should watch the Ari-Lloyd relationship especially. The writers have begun to expand it in the later seasons so this is probably going to continue to build up. Entourage as as how has come so far from the first season, from just a show about having fun to a drama involving Hollywood. In some ways, it still has a lot of development to go but the show has definitely made huge leaps in character progress since its initial broadcast. 

Socratic Seminar Questions

Over the past two weeks, we've taken a different look on sexuality and physical identity. Overall questions have risen including: What exactly is considered normal? Should physical identity play that much of a role in our lives? What about sexuality? All things to consider.

Socratic Seminar Questions:

#1: One of the first things we did was expose ourselves to the Coming Out Series. What do you think about this whole "concept" of coming out of the closest? Should someone's sexuality, especially homosexuality, be out there and known?

#2: Later in the week we watched Six Feet Under. One of the characters had to deal with that very question as he came out to his family. Do you think the way that the TV show portrayed it was very similar to how it occurs in real life? How does Six Feet contrast two gay characters: Keith (The Cop) vs. David (The Gay Mortician) 

#3: How does sexuality play a part in our identity? Does it define one or just play a small role in it? Could one argue that sexuality and identity are separate?

#4: Moving onward, let's take a look at Physical identity. We watched an episode of the Twilight Zone in which all the physically "grotesque" people were considered normal and vice-versa for the good-looking people. Are we grouped by our looks?

#5: How do we judge others? Does the Twilight Zone have a point: We only consider the norm what the majority considers to be 'correct'? What if homosexuality was the majority action? Would we consider heterosexuality to be wrong?

#6: If you had a chance to read the Prom Story, it strikes an interesting chord. With our own Senior Prom coming up, what would you think if someone brought a same-sex partner?

#7: This lesson is the last before our adventures into various culture. Are different views on sexuality a cultural view or more of a moral stance? 

#8: Finally, what are your opinions on the recent passing of Proposition 8 and similar amendments banning Gay Marriage.

Good Job Guys!

Gender Discrimination

President Obama declared on November 4th at Hyde Park, "Change has come to America!" I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about this: America's latest recession has been a "man-cession." (as stated in Rampbell 2). Catherine Rampbell is a well-known economists who keeps up a blog called Econmix at the New York Times. The latest shocking economic news (in the midsts of other bad signs) is that Women may surpass the amount of Men in the work force.  In December of 2008, Men accounted for 83.1% of ALL jobs lost. The entire situation is staggering. Since the beginning of the recession in December of 2007, the United States economy has shed 3.6 million jobs. Though 83.1% is the highest percent of job loss that has been all men, the numbers have been consistently high (Rampbell Para. 5).  Towards the bottom of the post, Rampbell analyzes two different graphs which track the status of job losses. The first shows the amount of Women/Men being fired each month (in a measurement of what appears to be 1 = 1,000. Thus 100 = 100,000 jobs lost). Its interesting to note how many more jobs Men are losing each month--and even towards the beginning, Women are GAINING jobs while Men are losing it. On the lower graph, there is a comparison between percentage of men and women in the work force. While it started at 52 - 48 percent, it is slowly creeping towards what is a dynamic equilibrium of sort (Rampbell Econmix Blog). Due to the current nature of the recession, Women may soon hold the majority of work for the first time in United States History... and perhaps all of History.

There's a lot here to digest. I think there are a few intelligent questions to ask about the situation:

Firstly, does it really matter if its a Man or Women who hold more Jobs? I think as America has moved forward, the "content of one's character" is more important than the "color of their skin". Dr. King's words ring true for gender issues as well. Women over the past 50 years have advanced in many ways unbeknownst to us. Still it is impossible for a true equality to actually exist. For example, though Women want "equal rights" they have never supported an equal rights amendment which would have given them complete equality to men--including the rights to be drafted. In a sense, Women want to be "separate but equal." They want the benefits of an equal society (and arguably they should) but then why should they scoff at the potential to be drafted? Rampbell points out in her blog that, "men are more likely to work in industries more sensitive to the business cycle." (Rampbell Para. 3) Thus, Rampbell is suggesting that because its easier to see large-scale cuts in construction or finance as opposed to "safer industries [which women work in] such as healthcare, education and government work." The difference in jobs basically suggest 

Secondly, is it "sexist" that men are being cut from more work or is it just the will of the "market"? When it comes to American politics, it seems that there have always been too different groups of worship: One led by conservatives that believe more in the "capitalistic" portion that makes up America; the idea that money will make up for all issues and that the "free" market will always work out. (On the flip side, look at where deregulation and the "free" market has gotten us.) The other group argues for more of a social aspect of the American Culture. I think a fair name to call these are the "American Dreamers." The Dreamers are made up of more-so liberal Americans who at times jump from logic and think that anything is possible without analyzing the situation. This dreamers, for example, are the ones that see that it would be possible to make everyone equal when it clearly is not.

What comes to mind additionally when discussing these two groups was the recently passed Lilly Ledbetter Act (The actual documentation is included in sources). The Act makes it possible for Women who have been "pay discriminated against" to sue for discrimination up until 180 days after their LAST paycheck. Previously, it had to be from the initial act (which meant that those like Lilly Ledbetter were unable to sue because they never realized what was going on until way after they started working. Her suit was thrown out of the Supreme Court). The Dreamers suggest that this bill will bring more "equality" while the Marketers cry how this will kill the hirings of women. There really is two outlooks to every situation; especially in this economic crisis. Certain acts that seem like no brainers fall under intense scrutiny because of what is happening.

I think until President Obama (or whoever succeeds him) is able to right this economic crisis, the status of "equality in the market place" can't move forward. The Market followers have a point, in a volatile state that the market currently exists in, it is impossible for progress to be made overall (though the ground can be laid for future growth). But beyond all the economic questions the issue is: How equal can the job market get? 

The answer to that question is likely this: We can reach a "plateau" of equality but unless we want to end up like a society like that in Harrison Bergeron. There will always be a level of inequality but as long as we are equal when it comes to pay in equal jobs, crime and justice then there isn't that much more we have to do. The law should be equal when it comes to gender but human philosophy should never preach equality: Then we'd be all be "handicapped". Humanity should be One in Spirit, not in substance. Where's the fun in that?

*Additional Sources in Post:

1) Job Loss

2) Lilly Ledbetter Act

Hey Guys

Below is my first post and assignment. We read a poem called "Girl" which talked about societal rules and how each girl must act in a certain manner in order to grow up to "not be a slut". We were asked to take the idea of that poem and make one of our own. I took some liberty in creating a poem about Obama and how the followers must approach the new President in order to be considered a "good supporter." 

I didn't take the assignment too seriously, in the sense that the poem is not to be taken literally. Just a satire of the political situation. (Note: I'm an Obama fan). I imagined the conversation as one between two voters: One Obamafanatic and one who is an Obama supporter but not one without doubts.

Also note the length, which is not nearly as long as "Girl". I think that most poems are better off short and powerful than longer (where each line seems to have a lessening impact) and weakening. But to each poet, his own.

Hope you enjoy. 

Some interesting stories about rules of gender. Check out this one blogger's interesting response. This person seems to have a very interesting point of view--a mix of humor and seriousness.

Be sure to also check out some other poems about rules including:

Kim's.

Graham's

Hong's

Jake's