American Politics are Hitting Rock Bottom

In the 2016 Presidential race, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have showed the American People first hand, the state of American Politics.  American Politics are broken because politicians continue to care about themselves rather than thinking about the country .

 American Politics are not as democratic as they should be in our government.  Affluent special interests play a much bigger role in our government then they should be.  For example, in this Presidential race Trump and Clinton are doing whatever is necessary to win.  They continue to take shots at each other and say things about their opponents that should never be mentioned in an election.  In our society, all politicians care about is winning and they will do whatever is necessary to succeed.  Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump continue to bring up their opponents scandals whether it be Clintons email scandals or Trumps various scandals involving women to help benefit their position in the race.  They do not care what they have to do to win because at the end of the day the political power that the White House holds is all they want. The power of being President matters much more to them than the well being of the country.  The power and greed of the few too often win out over the needs of the many.  It seems as if politicians now a days do what benefits them rather than what benefits the society.  Our two candidates do not care about who they have affected or what they have done to become President because if they win they will control all the power in American Politics.  American politics have become a place where strictly winning is the end goal and they will do anything to win.  They do not care if they have to change their views or ruin friendships.

 To change our political system for the better we need to find politicians who represent the American people rather than politicians who only care about bettering their position.  We do not need politicians who care strictly about winning, but ones who care about making our country better and getting it to the place we want it to be.

Not A True War Hero?

The ad “War Hero” was created by Clinton’s campaign team to promote Clinton and show Trump’s degrading comments. This ad reminds us of what Donald Trump said about Senator John McCain and ultimately about all POW’s, vets, and current servicemen and women. Trump said that McCain is “not a war hero” because he was captured. The ad shows a veteran (Joel Sollender) who was captured by the Nazi's during WW ll in 1944. “My war was 70 years ago, and yesterday.” This ad uses pathos when Joel shows us the effects war has on veterans, and how they can still be struggling 70 years later. Trump doesn’t understand what McCain or other POW's went through. Trump’s comments, I feel, just make these struggles worse for people like Joel.

This ad uses ethos, it shows Trump’s character and how he feels about what makes a true war hero. Trump said “I like people who weren’t captured, OK?” This shows his lack of respect for POW's and all servicemen and women and ultimately his character in general.

The music in the background represents sadness, anger and disappointment. This ad makes you feel sad that these comments were made towards our veterans, mad that Trump feels like he has the right to make those comments and lastly, disappointed at Trump and his childish and immature comments. Overall, this ad shows Trumps real feelings towards the military, and personally, this ad and Trump's comments make me sad.

Welcome!

Welcome to the weblog for our American Literature class. Here's the place we will be continuing conversations from class and starting new ones. We'll be discussing and debating current events, historical controversies, and literary conundrums. We might even see a little poetry.

So, what's a blog? And how will we be using it class? For information on blogging and how to join and post to our blog, see "All About Blogging."

We're looking forward to a great year.

Make sure you check your e-mail for your invitation to join the blog. Also – and this is very important – the first step you should take after you accept the invitation is to edit your user profile so that you control how your identity and your communication preferences.  Click on the pull-down menu next to your name in the upper right corner of the browser and click on “Blogger Profile.” Then click on “Edit Profile.”

You can fill out as much of it as you want, but the only requirement is -- under “Identity” -- make sure your “Display name” is your first name and last initial only -- so we provide some anonymity while still allowing your classmates and teacher to be able to identity who you are. For example, change “Bernie Heidkamp” to “Bernie H.”

Trumps Ad Hominem Campaign

Donald Trump has been changing the game of presidential elections since he first announced he was running back in 2015. Although he isn't the most politically correct candidate, the most liked, or the most qualified he still is leading in the polls. Leaving the question, how is he doing so well?

Trump has been employing logical fallacies to further his campaign since the beginning. A logical fallacy is when someone uses logic incorrectly to make a point, and the specific logical fallacy Trump is a master of is Ad Hominem. Ad Hominem is when during an argument one person decides to attack the other verbally, ignoring the argument.

Trump uses Ad Hominem very often, most notably with quotes like, "If Jeb Bush is president we will never be great again" said at the Las Vegas debate 2015 and “We have a president who doesn’t have a clue. I would say he’s incompetent, but I don’t want to do that because that’s not nice,” Targeted at president Obama. Trump understands that he is seen as a bad person to many Americans, therefore he uses Ad Hominem to seem like he is the lesser of the two evils. This is a genius campaign strategy, and it is working very well for Trump Who is still leading in the polls by a large majority. Trumps methods have gotten other candidates on his Ad Hominem bandwagon because they are noticing their effectiveness. Ted Cruz at the latest republican debate began with Ad Hominem poking fun at his fellow candidates and Trump alike,"Now, secondly, let me say I'm a maniac and everyone on this stage is stupid, fat, and ugly. And Ben, you're a terrible surgeon... Now that we've gotten the Donald Trump portion out of the way." but without a similar impact, only receiving an small awkward laugh from the audience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ66eG_aQZI

Trump's entire campaign has been unlike any other, with his use of logical fallacies being the foundation of his strength. This campaign strategy is extremely affective; moving forward it will be interesting to see how this will change future elections.

Loss of Heroes In a Postmodern World

Postmodernism a late-20th-century style and concept in the arts, architecture, and criticism that represents a departure from modernism and has at its heart a general distrust of grand theories and ideologies as well as a problematical relationship with any notion of “art.” Postmodernism has been steadily growing in popularity since its inception. If postmodernism works are really analyzed you can find a constant theme, heroes don't exist.

Heroes are key elements to most forms of storytelling. Most stories have a main hero who defeats evil and saves the day. In postmodern stories though, the hero seems to disappear. For example, in the book "A Visit From The Goon Squad" the reader follows a large roster of characters, but none of them are the "hero". All the characters are shown as flawed people trying to figure themselves out, whether it's the kleptomaniac, Sasha or if its the man trying to recapture is libido, Bennie. The characters all try to overcome their flaws, but fall too short.

Another example shows up in Quentin Tarantino's postmodern classic, Pulp Fiction, the idea of there being a hero is lost. The film follows three main characters;Vincent Vega, Jules Winnfield, and Butch Coolidge. All of these characters are criminals and murderers, and the supporting cast doesn't contribute a hero character either. Even a cop depicted in this film turned out to be a sadistic rapist. This only leaves one question, why can't there be a hero in a postmodern story?

The answer leads back to the definition of postmodernism. Postmodernism is many times seen as a critique of "modern" ideas, which explains why we can't have heroes. Although everyone likes to see the hero defeat evil and ride off into the sunset, we also like to blur the lines between good and evil. It has been a modern theme to embrace the dark heroes. American culture has been obsessed with the dark hero for quite some time, explaining why characters like Batman have a larger following than their clean cut counterparts like Superman. Critics say the dark hero appeals to the people more because they seem more human or relate able.


The point of a hero is to be larger than life, its part of what makes a person a hero, they aren't supposed to be relate able. The postmodernists see this and say, if the people want a flawed hero, then they don't truly want a hero. Therefore, erasing the hero from a postmodern world. This satirizes American stories and the direction the culture is going. A world without heroes.

Twenty One Pilots: The Violence of Silence

Twenty One Pilots is a relatively new hit band and they are becoming more and more of a household name with hits like "House of Gold" and "Stressed Out". One of their most loved songs is "Car Radio".

"Car Radio" at first glance is about a man whose car radio was stolen, but that simply isn’t the case when the lyrics are truly broken down. “I ponder of something great… I know it’s dire my time today, I have these thoughts, so often I ought to replace that slot with what I once bought cause somebody stole my car radio and now I just sit in silence”. The band is truly trying to shed light on a very serious problem in American society, suicide.

When Tyler Joseph, the band’s lead singer and songwriter, is talking about his car radio he really means it as a metaphor for the things in life you use to distract yourself from life’s big questions. “I hate this car that I'm driving there's no hiding for me…I ponder of something terrifying cause this time there's no sound to hide behind”, Joseph expresses the fear of dealing with life’s problems and how that now without his distractions there is nowhere to hide from these questions in life. A feeling that can be matched by almost any young person in America. “I could pull the steering wheel” this line reveals a sad truth how some might see suicide as a way out for these situations, a way out of the harsh reality.

Suicide has become more and more of a phenomenon in America. In 2000 the suicide rate in America was 10.4 people per 100,000 Suicide is now the 3rd leading cause of death among people ages 17- 12, and Joseph is showing how the hard questions in life can lead to those kind of thoughts.

Later in the song it is stated that “There are things we can do, but from the things that work there are only two, and from the two that we choose to do, peace will win and fear will lose, it is faith and there's sleep, we need to pick one please, because faith is to be awake, and to be awake is for us to think, and for us to think is to be alive, and I will try with every rhyme, to come across like I am dying, to let you know you need to try to think”.

Joseph is stating that faith represents life and sleep represents suicide or death. The point is made that life is important, but it isn’t easy. Life makes you ponder these decisions, makes you think, and when all your distractions are gone you need the faith that things will work out in the end.

Joseph uses this song to capture a snapshot in life that everyone goes through and tries to help guide them though this silent moment.

Feminist Critique: House of Cards

House of Cards is a Netflix original series based on political drama. It has received a Golden Globe for "Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series", and has been nominated for Emmy's several times. The series features a diverse cast including corrupt anti-hero, president Frank Underwood, his wife Claire Underwood, and a scattering of other affiliated characters. While one might assume that such a show would be overrun by male figures because of its political nature, the series portrays a plethora of strong women, who bask in the power of their agency.

Episode 34 of the series contains many prime examples of such agency. Claire has been appointed U.S ambassador to the UN and spends much of the episode "whipping" votes for a military intervention bill that she herself created. She does this completely autonomous from any male supervision. When a male UN delegate speaks condescendingly to her, she quickly disarms him by using a political strongarm, showing that she can be just as ruthless as her husband, or any other male politician. Claire exerts similar power throughout the series. Examples include creating a sexual assault bill and heading a humanitarian NGO. Claire completely breaks away from the stereotype of the "politician's wife". Although she serves to emotionally support her husband, she separates herself from him in the workplace, and occasionally even opposes him on certain political issues. Two other female characters that display similar agency are Heather Dunbar and Jackie Sharp. In the episode, Sharp conferences with Dunbar, who happens to be exercising at the time. The fact that it shows a woman working out is more feminist than not. Also, from a film perspective, there is never an instance of the male gaze, despite the situational opportunity. This scene also qualifies the episode to pass the Bechdel test, because the two women discuss campaign policy, not men. One of the only characters in the episode that is not completely feminist is a female reporter, who sleeps with a white house affiliate in hopes of gaining valuable information. Although she has other favorable, semi-feminist qualities, she fulfills the negative stereotype of the seductress.

With so many political dramas on the air that rarely show the female perspective, and even when they do it is done in a sexual manner, it is truly refreshing to watch a series that portrays the female characters not only as equals to the men, but at times even more powerful.  It seems strange that there are so few shows that display strong, political women, when 20% of the U.S Senate, and 19% of the U.S House of Representatives are female. Hopefully, House of Cards will spark a trend of increased number of strong female roles in film.

Is Three Kings a True War Story?

The Movie Three Kings, according to the criteria of author Tim O’brien, is both a true war story and not a true war story at the same time. This is because, according to O’brien,  a true war story is not about being brave but being a coward. throughout the movie, the soldiers are shown contemplating whether or not the war or particular battle is worthy of possibly dying for. O’brien also states that a true war story is unbelievable. There are many scenes in the film where simple scenery or complex dialogue seem so fake that it is almost humorous, making it a true war story. Lastly, according to O’brien, a true war story is not uplifting, yet the movie has a fairly happy and optimistic ending and specific scenes. Although O’brien's criteria for a true war story appears many places in the film, in many ways the film also strays from this criteria.

According to Tim O’brien, A true war story is about fighting the urge to be a coward and what it means to be a coward. The movie Three Kings In many ways addresses this topic truthfully and also shows the main characters struggling with this throughout. Almost all of the soldiers in the film are in their early twenties and are the college going age. They are very immature and in many cases unintelligent and uneducated as shown through the wording in dialogue of the movie. This in a way shows innocence and youth by showing how inexperienced these soldiers are. However, these young innocent men are forced to choose whether or not they are willing to die for a war they are confused about. On many occasions the character Troy Barlow says things like “I got a wife and kids”, showing that he is not willing to or is hesitant to kill himself for the battles in the film. In this way, throughout the movie, Troy and other soldiers battle the urge to commit cowardice, making Three Kings a true war story according to O’brien.

Furthermore, O’brien states that a true war story is unbelievable. In many scenes of the movie, the dramatic explosions and awe strikingly bleak landscapes of iraq are almost unbelievable to the eye, and evoke a sense of disbelief. More specifically, Troy Barlow is tortured and electrocuted by a man named Captain Said, in a scene that is probably the least believable of the whole movie. Before maliciously torturing him, Captain asks him “what is the problem with Michael Jackson?”. This comparatively innocent question about popular american culture is asked in the last placed you would ever expect it, a middle eastern torture chamber. Yet, it is events like these that O’brien refers to, and that make war so unbelievable, which is why he makes it a criteria for a true war story.

Lastly, Tim O’brien believes that a true war story is not uplifting. However, this movie is a fairly uplifting one. It has a happy ending, and the soldiers are often shown partying and rejoicing after battle, however, in reality it is more realistic that the men would be morning the men and innocent civilians lost at battle. Specifically, after a battle in Kuwait, the men chant in tandem “We liberated Kuwait!” to a nearby reporter and start singing patriotic tunes. The movie then shows the men in a disco-esque party singing and dancing. Even more obviously uplifting is the classic movie ending with the list of “what became of our heros”. Each men given an equally fitting career, future, family, and care-free lifestyle. However, in reality, a true war story is never uplifting and neither does it have an overarching moral or sense of optimism. In this way, Three Kings does not fit Tim O’brien’s criteria for a true war story.

Overall This movie was both a true war story and a false one for different reasons. Although the feelings of disbelief, immaturity, and fear seem to be very omnipresent tones in this movie, there is almost a fake quality as well. This is mainly due to the seemingly added uplifting ending to give you a reason why all the events just ensued even though there may not have been one. Or the also seemingly added in editorial scenes showing the men partying when they should have been pondering the magnitude of what just ensued.

Butch and Sundance: The Bad Guys

The film Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, directed by George Roy Hill, tells the story of two train robbing bandits in the wild west. The story follows the escapes of these two men as they as they live out their lives as bandits.

This film breaks the traditional ideology that protagonists of film must be good people. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid are two of the biggest thieves in the United States of America and Bolivia. In the United States, this troublesome duo lead their own gang that robbed trains by partially blowing them up, and in Bolivia, they robbed so many banks that they became known as "Los Banditos Yankees". Traditionally in film, the protagonist is a good hearted character who obeys the law and stops the bad guys. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid directly contradicts that ideology by having the main characters be two of the most famous outlaws in the americas.

At one point in the film, Butch and the Sundance Kid attempt to go straight by finding legitimate jobs, but when they are tempted by stealing gold they go back to their old ways of robbing people of their valuable possessions.

The character Butch Cassidy seems like he would not be a criminal by the way he talks his way out of a sticky situation by calming a man who thinks he has been cheated into not fighting his partner, the Sundance Kid, yet he is the leader of a gang. This notion of Butch being a kind hearted fellow is quickly dismissed by when he enters a knife fight to determine the leadership of his gang. Although the mere fact that he got into a knife fight for his gang is bad enough, he wins the knife fight by cheating and taking cheap shots on his opponent.

The Sundance Kid is an enigma of a character because very little is revealed about him, including his name. He is the right hand man of Butch Cassidy and has no moral dilemmas about killing men that get in his way.

Of these two men, it is clear that both of them are hardened criminals and that they break the ideology that protagonists of film must be good guys. Through cheating, killing, and robbing Butch and the Sundanc Kid are two protagonists that are unique for there immoral nature although they are the title characters of this film.

Native Son Review

Native Son is a play about a black man named Bigger in the 1930s. Bigger, living on the south side of Chicago with his family, he still struggles with handling racism. As he takes a job as a servant he is put into a hard position when the family's sweet heart little girl comes on to him. He accidentally kills her and now struggles to deal with hiding it. This play is one of a kind from my point of view, it kept me focused the whole way through which is not common when it comes to live theater.

The way the play kept me focused was the way they had you rooting for Bigger's side but as the play went on you start to see that Bigger is kinda losing his mind. When Bigger kills his wife I finally decided that he was the bad guy in this play but for me I still wanted him to survive and get away. It almost feels like you were in his head because all the bad things that he done you would still be on his side.

This play was also one of a kind because of a character that is never used in a play but is in this one. If you have ever seen the movie Fight Club which is my favorite movie, there is a character of the main character that is in his mind, almost like his conscious or a spiritual guide. This play had a character just like that, thinking with him and arguing. The way they had him and his mind talk as bigger was talking to some one was just one of a kind.

Defying Traditional War Movies

The recent World War II drama film "Defiance" does an unusually excellent job at conveying some of the "Truths" of war discussed by Tim O'Brien in "The Things They Carried". O'Brien, a proponent of telling true stories,  provides generalized criteria for both true and untrue war stories without the book. The criteria that I will be discussing is the following;

"You can tell a true war story if it embarrasses you. If you don't care for obscenity you don't care for the truth."(66)

Defiance wholeheartedly fulfills this requirement of a true war story. In Defiance, the dichotomy of beauty and obscenity is often a blurred line, in some cases the obscenity of it all becoming the true beauty of the story. One of the more striking examples of embarrassment or obscenity in the story is when one of the three protagonists (Spoiler Alert) murders in cold blood a woman and her two young boys. There are a plethora of events like these that lead the viewer to question the morality and "goodness" of the protagonists, something rare in typical "hero" type war movies, where the line between good and bad is clearly separated. I found this an extremely entertaining film to watch, and would strongly suggest it.

No Country for Reasonable Thought Process

The film No Country For Old Men, directed by Joel and Ethan Coen, is centered two characters who are both pursuing 2.1 million dollars in cash. One of them is willing to do anything to keep this treasure, while the other man is wanting to return it to the drug cartel from which it came, by any means necessary. No Country For Old Men perpetuates the ideology that all humans are consumed by a need for money.

This film supports the idea that people are powerless to refuse a large sum of money and that they will do anything to acquire it. For example, when Llewelyn, the film's protagonist, finds a couple million dollars in cash out in the desert at the gruesome scene of a shootout, instead of reporting the horrific massacre to the authorities, he is blinded by the money that he finds among the rotting carcasses and takes it for himself. The protagonist usually exemplifies the ideal hero that always does the right thing, but this is not the case in No Country For Old Men, where Llewelyn abandons reason for monetary gain, which reinforces the idea that no one can refuse money.

Later in the film, Llewelyn is hunted by the somewhat rightful owners of the money. After he is chased and wounded badly, he is given a chance to save his wife by surrendering the money to his pursuer, but Llewelyn declines this merciful deal because he is filled with greed and values the money more than he does the life of his own wife. Although he is the protagonist of the film, he is still poisoned by an unhealthy lust for money that is supported by the fact that he is willing to sacrifice the safety of his wife for money that, at this point, has nearly cost him his life.

From not reporting a mass shooting to the authorities, to abandoning your own wife, No Country For Old Men supports the ideology that people are consumed by money.

Good Cop, Bad Cop!

The Departed is a compelling movie about two men fighting for different sides of the law. Both are cops, but one is a mole for the police force, and the other is a mole for the mob. Each man is trying to uncover the true identity of the other, while one endeavors to protect himself, and the other endeavors to protect society at large. This movie depicts two fundamental stereotypes about law and crime and also contradicts these stereotypes. The Departed shows that some police officers are corrupt and some criminals serve the greater good.

As seen in places around our country like Ferguson, Missouri, the police sometimes do not act for the benefit of the people. The police represent the idea of the "Good Samaritan" type who watches out for others and protects the interests of the public. However, in The Departed a police officer, played by Matt Damon, is an informant for the infamous mob boss Frank Costello. Instead of using his position to protect the public he pursues his own self interest. Since he is actually protecting an enemy of the public he is using his position to gain things for himself. The movie demonstrates that even though he is a police officer, that doesn't exempt him from working for his own self interest, which breaks the stereotype that those there to protect us will actually do so.

The other police officer in the movie, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, infiltrates the same Irish gang that the other cop works for. To do this he must serve time and be branded a criminal, to prove himself to the boss. In his life as a criminal, he is considered as someone who looks out for only himself. The same is true for the other men in the "gang." For most criminals this is exactly how they are, but just as some cops are bad, some criminals are good. Criminals are typically branded wrong doers for their entire life because of one bad act in the eyes of the law. The Departed breaks this stereotype by showing that the character played by Leonardo Dicaprio works to help others rather then himself. He may be a cop, but his ties to the force quickly slip away.  He may be a criminal, but he never loses sight of the reason he joined the mob in the first place as he continues to work for the greater good.

The Departed is a movie that challenges stereotypes that are rooted in our society. It reflects that because something seems to be a certain way does not make it so. These stereotypes are important to discuss because they implicate events in our country like Ferguson, Missouri. The Departed demonstrates that in life, people are not necessarily what they appear to be.

Used Car Salesman: Good or Bad

One of the many main characters, in the T.V. show Under the Dome, Big Jim is a used car salesman and the secondary selectman of the town. He also has a side job of owning the largest crystal meth lab on the east coast. After the dome came down on the city, trapping everyone inside, Big Jim decided he was the man to lead the town through the rough time. The big question is, is Jim doing this for power or the good of the people. He always of course says that it is for the good of the people, but many of his actions say it is for his own personal interests. The town is truly split over why he is doing this, some believe it is his nature to be a liar because he is a used cars salesman and a politician, but the other half believe that he is the only one who can save the town. Now we have to figure out which side of the town is right. This is almost impossible to do though since everything he does seems to help the town, even if in the littlest way, and give him more power. A great example of this would be when he organized a make shift fire department. The whole town helped stop a fire that was getting to the point where if it spread to one more house crops would have been lost, but even though others volunteered to go help the man trapped in one the houses Jim said he was the only one that should go. He did save a mans life and food, but this also inflated his ego and how strong the believers that he was their savior, backed him up.