Protecting their Country or Protecting their Jobs?

In response to Mr. O'Connor's post Perilous-er and Perilous-er...

I'd like to believe that contacting the representatives and voicing my opinion would a very effective way to make the Senators reconsider their decision. Unfortunately, I don't think this is the case. It is clear that the Senators have made their decision to prioritize getting re-elected, rather than ensuring they are sticking to their political values.

The American Civil Liberties Union is an organization dedicated to protecting our civil rights. The ACLU even has a process of looking at politicians' voting records on civil liberty issues and then using this information to calculate a "score," which indicates how pro civil liberties each politician is. You can view this scorecard on the ACLU website here. After the most recent session of Congress, our own Illinois Senator, Dick Durbin received a score of 91%, placing him among some of the most pro civil liberties politicians on the list. This is why it is strange that he passed a bill that as Doc O'C mentioned in his post, is "the greatest threat to civil liberties Americans face" according to Forbes magazine.

Why would a politician who is notably pro civil liberties pass such an act? Did he simply change his mind about our civil rights?

The most glaring explanation is that he was afraid of being labeled as a candidate who does not support the defense of our country, jeopardizing his chance of being re-elected in the upcoming election. Is this a justified fear? Would this be a justified label? Is this a proper excuse for passing this act?

Fighting for your Foe?

The other day in class we talked about Stockholm syndrome, a case in which hostages develop an attachment and positive feelings for their captor. While reading the Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglass this weekend, I came across a statement that reminded me of this condition. 

On page 12 Douglass explains how slaves in America would sometimes fight with one another "each contending for the superior goodness of his own" master. This is certainly not a severe case of Stockholm's syndrome, but is similar enough for me to be reminded of it while reading. 

At first, the thought of this idea surprised me. Why would the slaves defend the people responsible for their pain and suffering? I thought maybe because the enslaved people had such little personal identity that they began to use their masters as a part of their own identification, feeling that the "greatness of their masters was transferable to themselves" (12). 

I soon realized that I really should not have been all that surprised with this form of identification. In fact, it is not so different from the way Americans identify themselves today. The things one belongs to whether it is a school, a town, a team...etc. becomes a big part of their identity. My peers like to take pride in and defend New Trier for an example, because it is what they belong to. Slaves will defend their masters, because they are who they belong to. Not that the Peculiar Institution and the Institution of New Trier is the most accurate comparison, but they are both used by a group of people to further identify themselves. Therefore, if one of them is being criticized, it is only natural to become defensive.

A Closer Look

My favorite segment of Saturday Night Live is always "Weekend Update," when Seth Myers gives a funny twist to actual news. In a recent episode Seth took "A Closer Look At Europe" regarding Greece's current economic state. A clip of this segment can be watched here.

Seth pokes fun at Greece saying that they "are not good at changing their ways." Not only does he make fun of Greece, but of every country "who though lending the Greeks money was a good idea." This segment was very well written and definitely made me laugh, but it also made me wonder how other countries would respond if they see this.

Would they also find it funny? Or would it be taken offensively, creating strong feelings of dislike towards our country? This video certainly doesn't help with America's reputation of thinking we are the most superior country.

Also, not to get too sympathetic on you, but how would Americans respond to videos from other countries making fun of us? After all, we currently are having a little bit of an economic low ourselves. Does this make Seth a hypocrite?

What do you think, is this video harmful or harmless?

RIP

Growing up, I have spent many of my Sunday night dinners in front of the t.v. while watching 60 Minutes. This is why I was sad to hear that Andy Rooney recently passed away. Always closing the show with a new complaint of his, Rooney was often criticized for his negativity. I'm all for optimism, but for some reason I was never bothered by Rooney's complaints. 

I think this is because I respected him for stating his honest opinion, rather than trying to sugarcoat the truth, as Americans often do.

We saw an example of this in Clybourne Park, performed at the Steppenwolf Theater. With minorities moving into a racially homogeneous neighborhood, the last subject the characters wanted to talk about was race. In the second act the character Steve points this out, claiming that they are all "dancing around" the subject. Ironically he is not even able to say the exact word "race" himself.

This scene showed how even today, although Americans claim to be past racism, we still sugarcoat the way we talk about it, in order to avoid discomfort.

Andy Rooney certainly did not sugarcoat the subjects he talked about on 60 Minutes. You can click here to see some quick clips stating his honest opinion. Do you think we could all learn something from Andy?  Or was he just an old man who liked to complain?