Blog Analysis

I believe my word cloud really sums up my blog really well. Most of the terms are about topics regarding politics or the economy. That is what I wrote a majority of my blogs on. The funny thing is I was not really into or knowledgeable about politics or news. The blog, publication, and the letter assignment changed this. While doing research for these assignments, I learned a great deal about different topics. For example, I learned the reasons behind the financial meltdown of 2008, and the wealth distribution problems in the United States. I learned about local issues in Syracuse such as hydrofracking and drone use and the many social and political implications that surround these issues.

I think I have also improved my writing skills somewhat from the beginning of the semester. I am now finding it easier to organize my thoughts while working on the assignments. I think I am doing a better job in making points and backing them up with good evidence. I am using the rhetorical appeals really well in my writing.

Although blogging for the first time was interesting, I don’t have plans to continue my blog. It was really tedious and time consuming. However, I believe that the work I have done in Writing 105 this semester will help me a great deal throughout the rest of my college career.

Freedom of Expression: in 201 words

One of the biggest benefits of democracy is freedom of expression. It allows the free flow and exchange of ideas. As a result of this, Americans have been able to enjoy many rights and freedoms. A recent example of this is gay rights. This was a topic many people frowned upon several decades ago. Like many minority groups, homosexuals have faced harassment, discrimination, and were even attacked publicly. However, it was because of freedom of expression, advocates of gay rights were able to fight for their beliefs and rally a sizeable portion of the American population to support their cause.

This is not the case in many other countries. Last year in my social studies class, we had guests that discussed the discrimination against Falun Dafa practitioners in communist China. Falun Dafa is a spiritual movement of the early 1990s that combined qigong, Buddhist, and Taoist traditions. On July 1999, the Chinese government declared Falun Dafa as an illegal organization. They said that this group’s ideas and practices opposed the Communist Party and the central government because it preached idealism, theism, and feudal superstition. Thousands of practitioners were arrested, publicly beaten, and persecuted by the Chinese government for almost two decades.

Protestors in China participating in a non-violent protest to lift the ban on Falun Dafa

Drones in Syracuse

I decided to write my publication in support of the 38 protestors:

Drones in Syracuse

"Die-in" by protestors in April 2011

Last April, thirty-eight protestors were arrested outside of the New York Air National Guard Base, located just north of Syracuse. They conducted a “die-in”, where they covered themselves in red paint and laid across the base entrance, preventing anyone from going into or out of the base. This was in protest to the MQ-9 Reaper drones, which the 174^th Fighter Wing of the National Guard has been remotely flying over various Middle Eastern countries from Syracuse since 2009.




The protestors are being charged with trespassing and a few other minor charges. After a five day trial earlier this month, they are awaiting their verdict which will be read on December 1^st at the Town of De Witt Courthouse. Although the trial was long and gruesome, the testimonies and hearings of the protestors have shed light on a very grave issue. In their defense, the protestors claimed that by using drones, the United States is violating international human rights laws. In the process of taking out a handful of terrorists, drones have killed hundreds of civilians. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a British non-profit news organization, has reported that in Pakistan, US drone attacks have killed 392 civilians, including 175 children.

Frontline cover depicting the impact of drone strikes on
Afghani children

This is a heinous crime that must be stopped. Retired Colonel Ann Wright, one of the thirty-eight protestors, agrees. She justified the “die-in” demonstration by saying, “Citizens have a responsibility to take action when they see crimes being committed.” In an interview with DemocracyNow.org, she goes as far as to compare the drone attacks to the events in Germany during World War II. She says, “…German government officials knew what other parts of the German government were doing in executing six million Jews…and they took no action…they were held responsible later through the Nuremburg Trials.” She believes that this is the theory on which the protestors are acting. They see that the government is committing an evil, and it is their responsibility to put an end to it before it gets any worse.

There are many other moral and ethical implications attributed to the use of drones. For example, they reduce the value of human life. The act of firing a missile behind a monitor screen is no different than picking up a controller to a game console and killing virtual enemies in a video game. Even more unsettling is the similarities between how a drone operator can inflict harm on someone half-way around the world with no direct repercussions as compared to a person participating in the torture of a helpless victim at no risk to themselves.

UAV-Predator 6

There are of course benefits associated with drones. For instance, they can perform missions that are too dangerous for ground troops. They provide surveillance twenty four hours a day and up to the minute information to keep soldiers out of harm’s way. They are also cost effective. An average combat drone costs approximately $4.5 million to build and operate while a F-22 fighter jet costs $150 million plus an ample amount of technical experience to operate. Although these are very good reasons, there are just too many complications to justify their use. The fact that they cannot distinguish between the enemy and civilians is a big enough reason. If we continue to let our government use drones, we are letting them get away with murder, and nothing can justify that. Until this problem is resolved, the use of drones should be condemned.

The number of drone missions performed has grown exponentially over the past few years. In the eight year Bush administration, there were a mere forty-five drone operations.  The current administration is reportedly responsible for 118 missions in 2010 alone. Our government is committing a crime right before our eyes and it must be stopped. I applaud the thirty-eight individuals on their efforts to expose the issue. Now, we as the public must continue their push and prevent our government from continuing to commit this crime.

Ideas for Publication

I want to write about combat drones that are being flown over Afghanistan from the New York Air National Guard Base in Syracuse. Drones are unmanned fighter jets that are flown my remote control. Last April, thirty eight protestors were arrested outside of the base because they were participating in a “die-in”. They argued that drones were killing innocent civilians in Middle Eastern countries. However, the problem is that I am not sure if I want to support the protestors or support the use of drones. There are very good reasons to be for or against their use.

If I was to support drones I would make the following points:

-          They can perform missions that are otherwise too dangerous for ground troops

-          The only risk involved is losing the aircraft

-          They provide surveillance 24/7 to keep ground troops out of harm’s way

-          They are cost effective. Drones cost approximately $4.5 million while an average fighter jet costs around $150 million. This would help to reduce the military budget

-          One setback for using drones is that it is very difficult to distinguish between civilians and terrorists. However technology is improving everyday and this problem can be resolved.

If I was going to agree with the protestors I would make these points:

-          As I mentioned earlier, drones cannot distinguish between the enemy and civilians. Killing innocent civilians is a violation of international human right laws. So…the US is committing a crime by using drones. One of the protestors compares the use of drones to the Jewish Holocaust. I can quote her in the publication.

-      I can use moral & ethical arguments: For example, I can say that drones devalue human life: firing missiles from a drone from behind a computer monitor is the same is playing a violent video game

"Inside Job"

This is the official trailer for the 2010 documentary, “Inside Job”, by Charles Ferguson. The purpose of this film was to explore the reasons behind the financial meltdown of 2008. When I first heard about this movie, I thought it was going to be cut and dry stuff, but in fact, it’s beautifully shot and well edited. It’s thrilling to watch Ferguson grill government and private sector officials, as he exposes who and what plunged our financial system into a standstill.

Many people don’t really know the causes behind the recession. I’ll do my best to explain it here:

Charles Ferguson, as well as many other economists believe that the root cause of the recession was the deregulation of banks. This began in the 1980s during Ronald Regan’s presidency. Regan was not a fan of government intervention in open credit markets. With his support, deregulation became popular among policy makers. In 1987, Regan appointed Alan Greenspan as the chairman of the US Federal Reserve. Greenspan spearheaded the liberalization of banks from government control. He helped to alleviate a number of regulations to give banks more independence. In 2000, Senator Phil Gramm of Texas wrote up a 262 page to an appropriations bill to deregulate derivatives trading and other complicated financial tools like collateral debt obligations. This was a nail in the coffin for the Glass-Steagall Act that was passed in 1933. The act put in place a number of banking regulations and created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to increase investor’s confidence in the economy. This act was passed during Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency to prevent a repeat of the Great Depression.

Without government supervision, the banks were free to do almost anything they pleased. This was most evident in the housing market. In late 2001, the housing market began to pick up. As each year passed, we saw dramatic increases in home values which made homeownership very attractive. However, many people were denied normal bank loans because they had bad credit. This is where some banks became clever and introduced the subprime mortgage industry. This was basically a large group of banks that allowed financing to people regardless of their credit or inability to prove income. These companies gave away loans at high interest rates and ridiculous closing cost with payments to double after two years. Billion dollar investment banking firms such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers began buying this mortgage debt because the returns were almost double the investments. These companies knew that the people borrowing from them would not be able to pay them back. They insured themselves against bad debts with credit default swaps, which is basically an insurance policy for banks. The banks now had a vested interest in selling insanely risky products, as they themselves were lavishly insured with these swaps. When people could not pay their mortgages or take out a second mortgage to refinance, the banks began foreclosing to the point where they put themselves out of business. Bankers from these companies walked away with fat pockets from their insurance policies while many ordinary people lost their homes and jobs.

Occupy Wall Street cartoon depicting bankers on Wall Street

One of the reasons that this film was so successful was that it appeals to the ordinary American. The actions of these rich bankers have caused millions to lose their life savings and millions of others to lose their jobs. The film exposes just how corrupt Wall Streeters and our government really are. In his review of "Inside Job", Peter Bradshaw of "Guardian", interprets the meaning of the term "inside job". He says, "There is a revolving door between the banks and the higher reaches of government...Bank CEOs become government officials, creating laws convenient for their once and future employers". Bradshaw is saying that government officials are just puppets of big business. They are paid off by rich businessmen to support policies that would be beneficial for business. The interviews in the film show just how carefree these bankers are. One person was asked if he had any regrets regarding his involvement in the crisis. He replied, “I have no comments…uh, no regrets”. These people have committed a great crime and our government has let them get away with it. It is clearly evident that we need some serious reform in our economic system.

Wealth Distribution in the US

I found this cartoon on a list called “Top TenOccupy Wall Street Cartoons”. This cartoon really depicts the unfair wealth distribution in the United States really well. The man sitting in “the rich” chair represents the wealthy business class in the US. He is sitting in front of about 90% of the pie labeled US Wealth, while the middle class receives about a tenth, and the poor just receives crumbs. On top of getting most of the pie, the man is being offered whipped cream from a bowl labeled US taxes cuts. The elephant waiter obviously represents the US government. This also shows how much influence big business has over the government.



It is very easy to understand the anger and frustration of the Occupy Wall Street protestors. The United States is seen as the “land of opportunity” or a fluid society where one can improve their economic status if they tried. This dream has become harder and harder to accomplish over the past few years especially with the recent recession. Many of the protestors are students who are frustrated because they are sitting on massive student loans and have no means to pay them off. There are also many small business owners among the protestors. With the recession many small businesses have failed because they were unable to get loans and went bankrupt. So the only people that are able to stay in business are the very rich who are able to finance themselves.

The cartoon and the graphs are also implying a major flaw within capitalism. Since there is little to no government regulation, there is no limit to how much wealth a person can accumulate. This is what leads to unequal wealth distribution. If we look at a list of the wealthiest Americans, we see that many are associated with marketing and business in one way or another. They make almost all of their money through investments. They use their returns to make further investments in a never ending cycle. Majority of Americans work for set wages, which helps them to just get by. The only way they can accumulate wealth is through saving and we all know that with current wages and inflation rates, saving is out of the question. As a result of this, the gap between the rich and the poor has skyrocketed over the past few years.

One can argue that although the wealth distribution is skewed, we cannot blame the rich. However, we have to dig deeper and see how some of these members of the upper class are obtaining their wealth. There was a lot of manipulation and fraudulent activities involved which ultimately led to the 2008 recession. I’ll let the documentary “InsideJob” explain this. I will write more on this topic on my next blog.

21st Century College Culture

Here is an editorial from The Daily Orange defending modern university culture:

College students these days don't have late-night, philosophical conversations like they used to. So said James M. Lang, an associate professor of English at Assumption College in Massachusetts, in an opinion article published in The Chronicle of Higher Education last week.

"Almost every academic I know has fond memories of late-night dorm-room bull sessions about the meaning of life," Lang said. Lang points to several anthropological studies that confirm such philosophical conversations are absent among today's college students. But the cause for such changes in 21st century college culture lies not in some inherent defect in Generation Y, but in the changing and expanding nature of higher education.

Syracuse University provides a perfect example of the changes to higher education in the past several decades, changes away from the traditional, liberal-arts-centered model to profession-driven, practical training. Secondly, people now satiate their existential curiosity on the Internet, through a myriad of online forums and public blogs previously unavailable to inquisitive college students.

Vigorous, open-ended discussions in today's classrooms still leave students pondering and chatting afterward. But those classes leave students hanging on to different questions than before, questions that are less tied to the theoretical humanities and more to practical applications.

Is one era of college culture better than the other? Are college students of the 21st century somehow handicapped because they all cannot intelligently discuss Henry David Thoreau's Walden experiment? The answer is no. As long as college students aim to use their studies — whether in the classics and humanities or in computer science and marketing — to be productive and honest members of society, then who cares what they're talking about late at night.

Here is my version:

Many people believe that college culture has changed dramatically in the past few decades. For example, the past generation believes that the current generation does not hold philosophical conversations or discuss the “meaning of life”. This is not true. There are many occasions where there are high levels of intellectual conversations between college students. In current college campuses this might not happen in “late night conversations” as James Lang puts it. It happens on the Internet through social media. College students express their thoughts about current issues on their blogs, Facebook and Twitter accounts.

The Occupy WallStreet movement is a good example of how our generation is very similar to the way our parents protested the Vietnam War. Despite all of the criticism it has received, it is a movement similar to how our parents protested the Vietnam War.

I really don’t see much difference on how our generation differs from our parent’s generation. The only difference is

what we are having our conversations about. Ours is more about technical and practical issues. The reason for this can be attributed to the change in the structure of the college curriculum. The global economy now has a significant impact on college campuses. Colleges now put a lot of stress on technical fields such as engineering, technology, medicine, and business because these are the fields that draw the most investments and create the most jobs.