My First Quarter Meta-Blog Post

My blogging has changed dramatically over the past eight weeks. After all, this is my first blog and I am very much a rookie to the world of blogging online. But as the first quarter has progressed, I have noticed some underlying themes and changes in my online writing style.

First off, I have noticed a trend in most of my blog posts. Mainly, I seem to have gravitated towards the political issues that face Americans today. While each blog post does not contain political material, the posts that I have enjoyed writing about the most have involved American politics in a variety of forms. Even when the topic of my blog for that week seemingly does not involve the political sciences, I tend to attempt to make parallels to the political climate today. As the weeks have gone on, and as the number of blog posts have increased, I have also increased my usage of outside materials in my blogs. Instead of going on a tangent that no one could follow, I really have begun to use articles and quotes to keep the reader fully engaged and actively reading. I take account for these changes because I know that these documents will make my blogs more successful and understandable. I have also found that as my blogging has progressed, I am writing even more about events that happen in my own personal experiences. I think that this really helps my posts because it makes my points even more personal and introspective. When I have read my past blogs, I have been very surprised to see my opinion fluctuate so much in my writing. I believe that in the future, I really should ease off on the subjective and opinionated nature because I feel that this can have a negative effect. It forces readers to accept my opinions without any sort of flaws. I really don't want this because it doesn't allow readers to express their own unique and personal viewpoints that would most certainly enhance the discussion and conversation pertaining to that topic.

I personally believe that the blog post that best exemplifies my blogging so far in the first quarter in the one titled "Political 'Connectedness'". Here is the link: http://rennikss.blogspot.com/2010/10/political-connectedness.html

NPR: Truly Public Radio?

Recently this week, National Public Radio has come under serious doubt after the firing of liberal analyst Juan Williams for his comments regarding Muslims on airplanes. Williams was recorded on Fox News saying that he gets nervous when he sees people with Muslim garb on commercial flights. NPR is now under much scrutiny from all political affiliations because they believe that Williams had the right to voice his opinion and that NPR is censoring some very important topics from the media.

From my standpoint, I have to completely agree with these claims. As a regular viewer of Fox News, I have grown extremely fond of Williams because of his passion for the political sciences and his unique background coming from Cuba. Because of this I am shocked about how NPR has decided to handle Williams over this controversial comment. Since National Public Radio is funded by hard-working Americans' capital, and each of these Americans has their own opinions, they should have to conform to certain guidelines to make sure that the our hard-earned money is going to represent all of us fully and completely. So when a highly-respected analyst voices his opinion on an extremely heated topic, a view that I believe many people share, it should be voiced without persecution since this, after all, is our First Amendment. I also strongly believe that Williams' contributions to Fox News, known to be a conservative-minded network, led to his firing. Secondly, I am quite frankly blown away on how National Public Radio CEO Vivian Schiller has handled the situation. Instead of doing something more civilized, like a suspension or a fine, she rushes to her judgement and fires the correspondent. To make matters worse, instead of doing it behind closed doors and in confidentiality, she decides to blast Williams for his opinion while insulting the mentally-ill. It is time for Schiller to be removed from her role, as this incident clearly shows that in the current state of National Public Radio, it truly is not public and the station does not present all viewpoints of controversial issues.

Is the Dictionary Always Correct?

Earlier this month, our AIS teachers boldly declared that the dictionary is an extremely biased source that serves many stereotypes and acts of injustice against a variety of things. While some members in the class seemed stunned at this idea, I, for one, was not surprised at the notion. Every word in the dictionary has an origin of some sort, and this source has to have been heravily influenced by the time period surrounding it. Let's look at one example.
As we discussed connotations and denotations in American Studies this week, one of the terms that was brought up was the phrase "whitewashing". In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it describes whitewashing first as to whiten with whitewash. Most interestingly enough, the second denotation of the phrase is to "deliberately attempt to conceal unpleasant facts about a person or organization". While the first use of the term has been dated back to the 16th century, the alternate usage of whitewash was first heard in the Era of Slavery in the United States. What significance does this have? During slavery, whites were considered superior to others, particularly blacks. So by whitewashing, the wealthy slaveowners would "cover up" the African-American's falts and truths in an attempt to rid them of their "unpleasant" background and assimilate them into American culture. This means the whites are trying to purify, to cleanse these slaves to become peaceful and graceful. I believe also that especially in the mission of the church, priests and missionaries wanted to remove all of the African-Americans' "sinful and dirty" culture and history and replace it with the holiness of white Christian beliefs, to "whitewash" over them. And since at the time, less than 1% of blacks were educated, the writers of the dictionary who coined the term were most certainly white. So this is one example of how the dictionary can be incorrect by using biases that the surrounding culture conveyed at the time.

Political "Connectedness"

This weekend, I was fortunate enough to observe a summit at the White House involving President Obama and a multitude of mayors, governors, and former secretaries of transportation regarding the issue of much-needed revamping and reconstruction of our nation's roads, bridges, and everything in between. Throughout this summit, these officers of high esteem brought up a plethora of great ideas and concepts to create an execution plan in making a new transportation bill. The bill would include a front-loaded $50 billion dollar stimulus, in addition to a 6-year, 12-figure plan aimed in rehabbing our nation's infrastructure to promote much greater efficiently in the United States. This would call for  “nothing less than a fundamental overhaul of America’s transportation policies and programs.”

The only thing stopping this revolutionary bill from going into full effect is great opposition from a variety of sides, especially the Republicans. Now I know the arguments against this resolution: higher taxes, greater spending despite an already substantial federal deficit, and I understand these points. But what amazes me is that the opposite side refuses to see how the long-term benefits greatly outweigh the "problems". Our current and outdated system makes the United States one of the worst efficient countries in the entire world, in terms of traffic flow. Our country already is dead-last as far as percentage of GDP used on transportation. With the new plan, we would be able to create hundreds of thousands of jobs for the unemployed. We would be able to fund new technologically-advanced systems, such as high-speed rail, that are healthy on the environment and allow poorer urban communities to go to places cheaper and faster than ever before. New more effective ports for trading will make America will in the global marketplace, whether importing or exporting.
All of these benefits would be reaped by all Americans, especially those in urban communities.

But due to partisan relationships between parties, most likely, this act will not pass through the congressional stage of the process. First off, it's time America behaves like America; through unities and partnerships on opposing sides, we will be able to do great things. Especially on Capitol Hill, I believe that it is time people think of themselves as Americans. Not as Republicans or Democrats or any other distinctions, but of people who will unite for a common good to make this country better. Secondly, our representatives ought to stop making their elections the paramount issue for them, despite today's rugged political climate. Instead of constantly campaigning for votes, our Congressmen and Congresswomen should start acting in the best interest of the people, despite political affiliation, and as bipartisan leaders that assist our country in the long-term. We know that all of the members on Capitol Hill are highly qualified and are capable of making these crucial decisions for our country. This might be challenging, but after all, it is their job.

Athletic Stereotypes

As I was listening to the radio this weekend, I came across an ad that had two football players call this fan who missed watching their games because he didn't have a cell phone service that allowed him to do so. What I found interesting was that the two players' voices seemed to resemble black players. I began to think about our stereotypes for American athletics and how we portray black athletes.
For sports, especially on the North Shore, we always picture our best American athletes as black. I frequently hear phrases from my fellow classmates about "black hops" and "black speed". I believe that people have made this conclusion because of the supposed majority of African-Americans in mainstream American sports. I do not believe this assumption is fair because it "forces" all African-Americans under this notion that they are athletic and if do not have this trait, you are not of your race. So if you happen to not be naturally gifted at basketball, you do not follow your race and you are an oddity. I believe that this has to stop for a few reasons. One reason is that this stereotype limits the view for blacks because it makes them seem like they cannot do anything besides sports, that they are not as intelligent as some other races. Like in the video, African-Americans can do both athletics and academics. Also, it gives off the illusion that other races, such as whites and Hispanics, cannot participate in athletics as well as blacks. This needs to be changed now.