Honor's Voice, A Tale of Self-Identity and Ethical Choices Part 4

In the third section of Douglas Wilson's Honor’s Voice, Lincoln's relationships with women are discussed. From the young age of seven until he was an adult, he was "unattracted" to girls. His grandmother is quoted as saying that Lincoln "was not very fond of girls..." (Wilson 110). Although others identified Lincoln as being a young man without a particular liking towards women, Lincoln didn't let it phase him. In fact, the main reason Lincoln lacked a strong liking for women was because with them, he couldn't display his social talents. Wilson writes about Lincoln saying, "He had...the inclination and ability to take center stage in social situations...but girls did not compete with boys in athletic contests, and most of his stories would probably not have been considered suitable for a mixed audience" (Wilson 114). By no means was it that Lincoln plainly disliked them or that was afraid of girls, he just liked the spotlight more.

Lincoln did, however, fall in love with a women by the name of Ann Rutledge. The two became lovers, she a tavernkeepers daughter and he a boarder. While Ms. Rutledge was in love with Lincoln, she was publicly engaged to a man named John McNeil. A neighbor who lived near the Rutledge farm recalled Lincoln's presence at the farm saying, "Mr. L. came over to see me & them every day or two. I did not know of any engagement or tender passages between Mr L & Miss R at the time" (129). The fact that Ann was already engaged to Mr. McNeil most likely allowed the neighbor to not suspect anything. Once she Ann died in 1834 though, the neighbor was very aware of the fact that there had been something between Lincoln and Miss Rutledge. According to Wilson, "his extraordinary emotions...accurately reflect what local residents came to believe and to remember about the aftermath of Ann's death, some of whom used words like 'crazy' and 'insanity' to describe Lincoln's condition" (Wilson 132). Lincoln took her death quite seriously, but he would move on. He would always find himself in the middle of social gatherings, but his love to do that never took him away from establishing deep relationships with others, even women.

Honor's Voice, A Tale of Self-Identity and Ethical Choices Part 3

In the fourth section of Honor's Voice, Wilson writes about Abraham Lincoln's journey into politics. Surprisingly, his physical build and athletic ability greatly helped him: "He could lift weights that were beyond the capacity of others; he could throw heavy objects, such as cannonballs, farther than his fellows...These were feats that were much admired by the men who constituted the electorate in Sangamon Country" (Wilson 141). Although these things probably helped him, he couldn't have become a leader without intellect, something he did not lack. Lincoln was able to ascend into a position in the state legislature. Before Lincoln had been elected to represent Sangamon County in the state legislature, he had begun to align himself with views contrary to those held by people living in the community. Wilson alludes to this: "Lincoln's back-country neighbors...were almost entirely Jackson men, but the young Lincoln, reportedly following Jones' example, resisted. He began to line up with the anti-Jackson forces and soon pronounced himself a follower of Henry Clay" (Wilson 150). Even though Lincoln didn't hold the same views as the community he lived in, he was still elected which means his community had some kind of faith in him.

Once he had served through one session, he became a leader in the legislature; he was recognized as the leader of the Whigs in the House. In his second session, he was two-faced in a way. On one side, he has been accused of logrolling which is essentially doing a favor for someone in exchange for another favor. In Lincoln's case, he was looking to make sure Springfield would be deemed capital of Illinois: "...Lincoln may have voted for and helped to put over patently bad or otherwise inadvisable measures, purely for the sake of securing the state capital for Springfield" (Wilson 163). Even if Lincoln went on to do great things, what he could have possibly done here is inadmissible. The measures Wilson talks about, but does not elaborate on, could have hurt individuals in the community they were passed for. There is nothing remotely right about what Lincoln did. On the other side of Lincoln's two faces, for the first time we see his anti-slavery views. Lincoln is seen with a colleague protesting on the house floor. The protest is described as "two lonely voices crying out in the wilderness against the evils of slavery" (Wilson 175). With Wilson's description, it is clear that although most people in Illinois were in agreement of slavery's evils, they were not going to stand up against it. Lincoln personally stood up against when others wouldn't.

Traitor or Whistle Blower?

In the film "On the Waterfront" the idea of being a traitor or a whistle blower is one of the foremost issues. In the film there are those at the head of the mob, those working for the mob and those looking to break the mob. Those looking to break the mob, namely the court and the priest, would generally refer to an individual as an informant on criminal activity. With the information given by informants, the court would have enough evidence to indict Johnny Friendly and thus end the practices of the mob. The priest would never look at someone as a stool pigeon and in this case, being an informant would be the right thing to do. On the other hand, figures of the mob like Johnny Friendly would refer to an individual as a stool pigeon. If one, as leader, were to see activity threatning to one's practice, the expected response would be negative. Those working under the mob outwardly show the same opinion as the leaders, but inwardly believe what is 'right.'

The issue of determining whether or not someone is being a tattle tale versus speaking out against improper behavior is sometimes difficult to determine. In my opinion, an individual is a tattle tale if they tattle for issues of little significance, if they tattle selfishly, or if they tattle to blatantly harm someone. One should speak out against improper behavior if what they define as improper behavior is harmful to someone or something. Everyone has their beliefs and anyone can define something as improper behavior, but speaking out against improper behavior can only be done by those who are strong. With that strength, one can diminish improper behavior

Society vs. Family

In the play "All My Sons," several characters act depending on whether it benefits their family or society. This is clearly seen in both Joe Keller and his son, Chris Keller. While Joe acts based on the needs of his family, Chris believes the needs of society should come first. In the midst of an emotional discussion between Kate and Joe, Kate argues that Joe had no excuse for not owning up to creating cracked cylinder heads. When Kate tells Joe that Chris believed there was something bigger than family, Joe responds, "Nothing is bigger...There's nothing he could do that I wouldn't forgive, because he's my son, because I'm his father and he's my son" (Miller 77). Its obvious that Joe Keller believed family was more important than society. He justifies the crime which caused the death of many men with the fact that he did it for his son; he did it so Chris would have a future. On the other hand, when Chris learns of what his father did, he is appalled, showing he believes the needs of society prevail over the needs of the family: "Is that as far as your mind can see, the business?...What the hell do you mean, you did it for me? Don't you have a country? Don't you live in the world? What the hell are you? You're not even an animal, no animal kills his own, what are you?" (Miller 70). Chris' opinion is very strong as he implies that if you act against the needs of society (in an extreme case), you're worse than an animal. He is disgusted at the fact that his father says he acted in his son's interest. After all, Chris is only one person in the entire society which is much more important.

The needs of the society should generally be put first, although there are occasions in which the needs of family must be put first. In a society that can generate happiness and one that has not forced an individual to be a part of it, individuals should always address the needs of the society before the needs of family. It is that society that provides the individual everything he or she has, besides giving life. The society sustains an individual's life much more so than a family can do; a family can provide happiness and joy, yes, but a family cannot keep someone alive without the tools the society has provided. If a society provides for the individual, the individual ought to provide for the society. If a society's values were 'wrong,' and if those values could cause harm to one's family, then the needs of the family would be more important than the needs of the society. But this would be rare as a society wouldn't want a value-set that would be harmful to the people it consists of. Although 'wrong' values may be the most harmful thing of all, it is not harmful in the sense that people would lack well being, something more important than values.

Honor's Voice, A Tale of Self-Identity and Ethical Decisions Part 2

In the second section of Honor's Voice, Wilson writes about Lincoln at the age of Twenty-Two as he arrives in New Salem, Illinois only a boat's ride away from his hometown of Springfield. At first glance, Wilson uses Lincoln's own words to describe Lincoln's appearance: "He was, he said later, 'a strange, friendless, uneducated, penniless boy, working on a flat boat - at then dollars per month'"(Wilson 56) Lincoln had come to the town to work, returning home after several months had passed. When he came back again for work, "his unrolled pants...were several inches too short. And even on the frontier, people judged by appearances, and the impression made by the young Abraham Lincoln was hardly favorable" (Wilson 64).

Yes, this was Lincoln's appearance, but to use the old expression, 'don't judge a book by its cover' wouldn't be inappropriate in Lincoln's case; "In his dress and physical appearance he was every inch a bumpkin, a yokel, a slightly eccentric example of a recognizable type" (Wilson 65). Through Lincoln, we see this classical example. One's appearance doesn't always tell you what one will be like in character. In fact, one's appearance may be completely misleading if either by purpose, like Jimmy in Thoroughly Modern Millie, or if by nature, like in Abraham Lincoln's case. It was what Lincoln experienced the first time in New Salem that led him on a course of self-education. He had no formal education so he resorted to teaching himself through poetry, history, and philosophy. Through philosophy and skeptic religious studies "he pursued a course of intellectual inquiry that challenged some of the most deeply held beliefs of his time and place" (Wilson 85). Choosing what he wished to study, Lincoln became educated in reason which led him to adopt ideas which were "against the grain" (Wilson 85). These ideas, and therefore his education, led him to make the ethical decisions of his presidency.

Honor's Voice, A Tale of Self-Identity and Ethical Decisions Part 1

Honor's voice, written by Douglas L. Wilson, is an auto-biography about Abraham Lincoln and the transformation he went through from an early age. Many people, when they think of Abraham Lincoln, think about the success of his presidency, his brown beard, or his tall top hat, but what is more interesting is the path Lincoln traveled in becoming a great president. Wilson stresses the importance of Lincoln's early life and the struggles he went through. He says, "Lincoln's early life and the circumstances that brought about his emergence as a man of consequence constitute an important part of the Lincoln story and, it can be argued, are in need of particular attention" (Wilson 4). For much of the lengthy introduction, Wilson makes this clear. From his repeating this, it becomes apparant to us that even if a person has achieved prestige or high-standing, there being in that position is not important. What is important is the path one takes to achieve that standing. What is important is what one endures on the road to bettering oneself. In Lincoln's case, his path wasn't as easy as it would seem: "He struggled with doubts and fears who he was and what he could become" (Wilson 14).


The first glimpse we get of Lincoln as a boy shows us how he may struggled with himself. When he was wrestling with a boy named Jack Armstrong, he finally decided to end the fight saying, "Jack let's quit. I can't throw you - you can't throw me" (Wilson 47). This does not directly tell us that Lincoln struggled at all, but as the author later explains, we see the fights significance. This was the first time in his life where he had dealt with a difficult situation. In the past, he had been unable to do so. According to Wilson, "Lincoln had even more difficulties to surmount then this...periods of deep depression...and moments of suicidal depression" (Wilson 51). From this, as I have not even begun to get into the meat of the story, I assume that Lincoln went through some rough patches. He did come out of, though. No matter how difficult something is, it is important to overcome those difficulties.

How Obama Lost

In a Newsweek article author John Alter lays out a potential scenario. Alter discusses a potential scenario that would leave McCain, not Obama, with the presidency. That seems unlikely as Obama is up five to ten points in polls around the nation. With the help of the media, it seems as if Obama has already locked up the election. However, 'it ain't over 'till the fat lady sings.' As history will tell, polls don't always accurately predict future outcomes. Also, numbers usually tighten up in the week before the election. On top of that, either candidate could make a major gaffe.

Interestingly enough, Alter doesn't include any of these facts in his scenario. He instead lists a multitude of reasons as to how Obama could lose. Hypothetically speaking, this is how he lost: As well as Obama did in bringing new voters to the table, what he couldn't do was bring in the LIVs or "low-information voters, the three fifths of the electorate that show up once every four years to vote for president but mostly hate politics. " Originally, they supported him, but in the end, they ended up voting for McCain partly because of legitimate reasons and partly because of race. Just as Obama wasn't able to bring in the LIVs, he was unable to bring in the independents who overwhelmingly supported McCain. When it came to the key states, Obama wasn't able to snag them either; He couldn't grab Ohio, a battleground state, which edged towards McCain; Florida and its older population went McCain's way; Colorado went to McCain with help from Sarah Palin and her frontier image; Virginia, which has a considerable African-American population also went to McCain due to overwhelming margins in the southern half of the state and; New Hampshire, who always liked the maverick, couldn't resist him. With all of these nightmares piling up in Obama's head, one more was added. He had done so well in getting them to vote during the primaries, but they were just "too busy." Most of the reasons as to why Obama lost were because he failed to do something, but when McCain finally pounded the issue of taxes and the possibility of a terrorist attack into the minds of voters, that was what did it.

\

The result of next Tuesday's election may be surprising or it may be completely expected, but whatever the case, one should be prepared for any outcome.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/165657

The Positive Effects of Motion Blur

Its incredibly frustrating to be photographing important images only to have them turn out blurry. There's nothing more irritating then taking a photo of something cool and then realizing the photo is going to come out blurry because someone nudged you. Its equally annoying when trying to balance on one foot in order to take a cool shot when you lose your balance just as you click the camera. It would be better off if little annoyances like this which result in motion blur didn't exist.

Although motion blur is usually the result of an accident and can result in disappointing images, motion blur, if used correctly, can incredibly enhance an image. In an article titled "Move Your Camera to Create Motion Blur," the author writers about some of motion blur's positive effects. He says, "[a] purposeful camera shake can actually give an image a sense of movement, excitement and energy." Generally, while taking photos, one would want a camera to be secured to either a tripod or a monopod in order to reduce movement and blur. However, as the author emphasizes, blur can significantly add to a photo's mood. Blur can give a sense of life to an otherwise lifeless image.

http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/move-your-camera-to-create-motion-blur/

A Wise Man

SNL Vice-Presidential Debate

On Thursday, October 2nd, Vice Presidential Candidates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin went toe-to-toe in a debate. During the debate, many important issues were discussed. Two days later, Saturday Night Live put together a skit of the two debating. Joe Biden and Sarah Palin were played by Jason Sudeikis and Tina Fey, respectively. Although, in my opinion, it was not as funny as the openers of the previous two weeks, it was good entertainment. In particular, instead of just tearing Sarah Palin apart, The SNL writers decided to poke fun at Senator Joe Biden as if they were mocking him. The writers had Sudeikis say, "I come from Scranton, Pa., as hard scrabble a place as there is. ... It's a hellhole, an absolute jerkwater of a town, you couldn't stand to spend a weekend there. It's just an awful, awful sad place." As this line was delivered it became clear that Biden spends too much time talking about the great city he came from. Sudeikis, impersonating Biden, also pointed out McCain's faults, but while doing so, he couldn't help but compliment McCain as a friend. He once talked about McCain saying, "...a raging maniac and a dear, dear friend." The writers also talked about Biden being a Washington insider. When it came to making fun of Palin, Tina Fey used the usual tricks: "Fey showed no mercy on Saturday night as she skewered Palin with her colloquialisms, gestures and northern accent." Overall, it was a pretty fun opener.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/05/snl-slices-dices-palin-biden-debate-send/

Omision, Deception, and Politics

In almost every presidential election since Jefferson v. Adams, political tactics have been used to advance one's cause in becoming president. Throughout the years, candidates have used omission and deception to get elected. Whether its an economic liberal avoiding the issue of taxes or a social conservative avoiding the issue of personal freedoms, the tactic of omission is popular...as long as the topic is never debated. It crucial that a candidate not do this because of the importance of every issue. Deception, one might say, is as dirty as it gets. When your competitor begins to falsely speak of your record, twist your words, and unfairly bring your personal affairs into the race, he/she is resorting to 'do anything, say anything politics.' It is a shame that a race can come down information that includes anything, but the most important, critical issues. Unfortunately, that's just human nature and it will never stop.

To relate those points to an article I recently read, Sarah Palin claimed, "Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes, and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction — 94 times." Although this is true, one must dig deeper to determine the truth of the statement. When one does dig deeper, he or she will find that about twenty percent of those ninety-four votes included tax-increases for some, but tax cuts for others. A great majority of the votes included votes on amendments that "could not have resulted by themselves in raising taxes, though many were clear statements of approval for increased taxes. Also, the total included duplications. This is an example of how politicians, be they running for president, governor, or mayor, will try to deceive the public. And by no means do these actions only occur on one side of the aisle.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/02/fact-check-94-times/#more-22199

Homer: Early Feminist or Old-Fashioned Sexist?

Although The Odyssey may sometimes hint at Homer being a sexist, he leans more closely to early feminism. A sexist would downplay the success of women whereas a feminist would emphasis a women's equality to men. Homer doesn't necesarily do either of these things, but by giving an important role to a female and by choosing to have females profoundly affect the plot, Homer doesn't show women to be inferior. When Odysseus washes up on the land of phaeacia, he is told to go to the king's residence, but he must be very careful in doing so as the phaeacians don't receive foreigners very well. Luckily, Athena serves as an aide to Odysseus and shrouds him in mist as he travels to meet the queen. In this scene, Athena, who is a goddess, is shown to be extremely helpful. She repeats the act of helpfulness throughout The Odyssey. If Homer were truly a sexist, he would do one of two things: Make Athena seem foolish or use a man to guide Odysseus safely to the king and queen's residence. Because he does not do this, he supports the female cause. Another example which helps to portray Homer as a feminist occurs throughout Odysseus' story of the hardships he went through during his time on the seas. Odysseus talks of how his men were turned into swine by Circe, how the Sirens had the power to hypnotize anyone with song, and how Calypso kept Odysseus on her island for a very long time. Each of these stories had to do with women or a woman who yielded a tremendous amount of power in their craftiness. Certainly beautiful song is not to be looked down upon and the ability to use magic for one's enjoyment is not a quality one would not want to desire. The fact that Homer gives women these astonishing powers indicates that he did not look down upon women. Women, in Homer's eyes, could have any power and any quality that would be desirable to all.

Just as Homer values women through their abilities and actions, he also shows his value for them through description. In The Odyssey when women are compared to men, they are never described as being inferior and are sometimes portrayed as being greater than men. As Odysseus was seeking a way to reach his home, he was told that the intelligent and influential Queen Arete had the ability to set wrongs to rights. For anyone, a description like that of Arete would be wished for. Not only does Homer speak of the queen's attributes, he talks about the great skill she possesses. To give a description like that shows Homer was not a sexist and valued the qualities of women. When Homer describes what Odysseus' wife, Penelope, is going through, it completely proves the point that Homer was not a sexist and can be considered a feminist. While Odysseus is away, Penelope remains devoted to her possibly dead husband. When it would have been very easy to marry one of the many suitors, she decides not to, longing for her husband. This shows that Homer believed that women could be committed to anything they set their mind to. It is quite obvious that Homer was definitely not a sexist, valued women, and was most likely an early feminist.

Ahmadinejad At It Again

While speaking before the United Nations General Assembly on September 23rd, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad criticized the US for its many actions in foreign countries.

His speech was centered around the idea of America nearing its empirical end and the world's problems being created by 'a few bullying powers.' When he says this, he clearly means the US is responsible for creating the world's problems. He makes a very sensible statement saying, "As long as the aggressors, because of their financial, political and propaganda powers, not only escape punishment, but even claim righteousness, and as long as wars are started and nations are enslaved in order to win votes in elections, not only will the problems of the global community remain unsolved, but they will be increasingly exacerbated." He went on to explain that the only way to solve this problem is for the American people to constantly question their government and for them to elect a leader that will responsibly change The United States' foreign policy.

He also went on to speak in favor of his country's nuclear activity, and, at the same time, speak against the US for being hypocrites. While the US imposes sanctions on Iran for having potentially dangerous uranium, they themselves have stockpiles of nuclear weapons which could be just as dangerous. Other than his arguments concerning world problems and nuclear activity, the Iranian leader went on to make several more interesting points including his opinion about Palestine and his stance on homosexuality.

Although I disagree with his main point, America nearing its empirical end, I strongly agree with many of Ahmadinejad's points. It may seem very anti-American, but if one really thinks about what he is saying, one will find he is completely correct. Many of the problems in world are because of the US. It would be best if the US didn't intervene with other nations...except when trading goods. If we didn't have troops occupying so many different and unessecary stations across the globe, the world wouldn't be as problematic as it is. In fact there is a statistic that proves this point. In summary, it states that in regions of the world where there are higher levels of US troops, there are higher numbers of terrorist-linked attacks. When the US went into Iraq, The Bush administration justified there presence by saying they were fighting Terrorist regimes. However, the number of terrorist attacks in the country increased by staggering percentages. Addressing the point of Iran's nuclear activity, they should be able to produce what they want without enduring sanctions. The only reason as to why one would oppose this resolution is because the US propaganda machine has brainwashed Americans into thinking the Iranians, a people with a lot of pride and a very diverse culture, are some sort of evil maniacs who seek to destroy the world. They have every right to use nuclear energy. Neither the Iranians, nor their extremely intelligent president are evil people and America should look to develop better a relationship with Iran.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/09/24/ahmadinejad.us.iran/index.html

My First Post

This is my first post. My second post will follow my first. It probably won't be as interesting, but I will try my best on every post after this one.