Saturday, November 15, 2003
This Week's Post, Part II
1. What is the difference in "being" and "performing"? Matt says we shouldn't gauge citizenship by actions. What are the alternatives?
I've no pertinent comment. Sorry. It has to do with the nature of the first question.
2. How do you reconcile the inequities that exist (both in America and in the world) with "The American Dream" and our relatively recent assertion that "all men [sic] are created equal?
I think the American dream states that if anyone works hard enough, they can be anything, and this is a logical conclusion from the assertion that all people are created equal. However, as the quote goes, "some are more equal than others." People are born with different mental and physical capacities, differernt personalities, and with various spoons in their mouths. From day one, some people just have an extra "umph" when they come out. :)
Still, no position or object will be denied to any person simply because they aren't smart or strong or attractive enough. And although many things will be deprived because of money, money is one of the aforementioned objects not deprived. I.e.- you can, in theory, get your gruby little hands on anything you set your heart or crowbar to.
I think a big overlooked term in the American Dream (TM) is the phrase " if you work hard enough". Pure brute force doesn't buy much in this world (if you don't believe me, try moving furniture for a few months.), meaning the aquisition of many things isn't quite that simple. If you look at most of the rags to riches stories, the people who got what they wanted were just really damned clever or lucky. So, when properly inclined, i'd say it's entirely truthful that anyone can obtain any degree of accomplishment they desire (this is more material things, not like happiness and all that jazz). But by "can" i mean that there's nothing specifically set in their way to stop them.
3. How do these questions (and the answers thereto) affect the reality of job searching?
I think it means you've got to try hard. I suppose job searching is one of those "me me me!" times. Each person must strive to find an advantage they have over most others and try to get employed. I think that's what they call the infamous "rat race". I dunno, there's 6 billion people sitting around here on this planet. I would imagine we have use for each. If not, we'd had better get to sending out those little cards that say "While we appreciate your interest being a part of planet Earth, we regret to inform you...."
~Olaf Prot (Sounds old-worldish. That outta get me hired.)
1. What is the difference in "being" and "performing"? Matt says we shouldn't gauge citizenship by actions. What are the alternatives?
I've no pertinent comment. Sorry. It has to do with the nature of the first question.
2. How do you reconcile the inequities that exist (both in America and in the world) with "The American Dream" and our relatively recent assertion that "all men [sic] are created equal?
I think the American dream states that if anyone works hard enough, they can be anything, and this is a logical conclusion from the assertion that all people are created equal. However, as the quote goes, "some are more equal than others." People are born with different mental and physical capacities, differernt personalities, and with various spoons in their mouths. From day one, some people just have an extra "umph" when they come out. :)
Still, no position or object will be denied to any person simply because they aren't smart or strong or attractive enough. And although many things will be deprived because of money, money is one of the aforementioned objects not deprived. I.e.- you can, in theory, get your gruby little hands on anything you set your heart or crowbar to.
I think a big overlooked term in the American Dream (TM) is the phrase " if you work hard enough". Pure brute force doesn't buy much in this world (if you don't believe me, try moving furniture for a few months.), meaning the aquisition of many things isn't quite that simple. If you look at most of the rags to riches stories, the people who got what they wanted were just really damned clever or lucky. So, when properly inclined, i'd say it's entirely truthful that anyone can obtain any degree of accomplishment they desire (this is more material things, not like happiness and all that jazz). But by "can" i mean that there's nothing specifically set in their way to stop them.
3. How do these questions (and the answers thereto) affect the reality of job searching?
I think it means you've got to try hard. I suppose job searching is one of those "me me me!" times. Each person must strive to find an advantage they have over most others and try to get employed. I think that's what they call the infamous "rat race". I dunno, there's 6 billion people sitting around here on this planet. I would imagine we have use for each. If not, we'd had better get to sending out those little cards that say "While we appreciate your interest being a part of planet Earth, we regret to inform you...."
~Olaf Prot (Sounds old-worldish. That outta get me hired.)
I've always been fairly amazed that my body puts up with me. I drag it through all sorts of horrid weather, various drugs, and only but ever so often reward it with sleep. Still, all those organs and cells and whatnots, all the way down to the tiniest DNA polymerase, are for some reason compelled to work together to get tripp to classes every day, and maybe even provoke the illusion or rational thought while they're at it.
I decided some time ago that it was more practical to picture the US government as a living, growing, motivated organism. The same could be said for Spain or Walmart or anything along those lines. People seem to have some sort of compulsion to belong to a larger body (a government), and as a result work together just like your kidneys or golgi apparati or whathaveyous work for you. I guess that's where my competive model comes in. All living things compete and strive to perpetuate, which is most certainly true of our government and Walmart.
From this, i gauge my citizenship as bad, simply because i ask myself the question i'd hope my cells ask themselves every day before they get to work helping a larger organism:
Do i really care?
I have a feeling most cells and people don't ask themselves that.
Another view of government i have is that it's a tool for the people to use. It maintains general order, it keeps the roads paved, it organizes a war if it's really needed, etc. It's simultaneously a method of doing things and the instrument by which it's done, kinda like a lawn mower and mowing pattern in one. If it works well it's worthwhile, if it doesn't it should be scrapped. I would then conjecture that to form an emotion for a method of cutting grass is illogical, but one should simply map out the best procedure and keep it in working order. I think that's basically a weird way of saying i agree with Locke.
Anyway, from that i'm a bad citizen, in that a good one would keep its instrument of government in working order. I don't really do that because i recognize that my ideal government (small) isn't what most people want. Then again, i imagine a higher citizenship would involve subjecting yourself to the government requested by the majority.
Either way, i don't take it too seriously. That would make me sadder than it's worth.
~tripp i mean..... ~"Snake"
I decided some time ago that it was more practical to picture the US government as a living, growing, motivated organism. The same could be said for Spain or Walmart or anything along those lines. People seem to have some sort of compulsion to belong to a larger body (a government), and as a result work together just like your kidneys or golgi apparati or whathaveyous work for you. I guess that's where my competive model comes in. All living things compete and strive to perpetuate, which is most certainly true of our government and Walmart.
From this, i gauge my citizenship as bad, simply because i ask myself the question i'd hope my cells ask themselves every day before they get to work helping a larger organism:
Do i really care?
I have a feeling most cells and people don't ask themselves that.
Another view of government i have is that it's a tool for the people to use. It maintains general order, it keeps the roads paved, it organizes a war if it's really needed, etc. It's simultaneously a method of doing things and the instrument by which it's done, kinda like a lawn mower and mowing pattern in one. If it works well it's worthwhile, if it doesn't it should be scrapped. I would then conjecture that to form an emotion for a method of cutting grass is illogical, but one should simply map out the best procedure and keep it in working order. I think that's basically a weird way of saying i agree with Locke.
Anyway, from that i'm a bad citizen, in that a good one would keep its instrument of government in working order. I don't really do that because i recognize that my ideal government (small) isn't what most people want. Then again, i imagine a higher citizenship would involve subjecting yourself to the government requested by the majority.
Either way, i don't take it too seriously. That would make me sadder than it's worth.
~tripp i mean..... ~"Snake"
Thursday, November 13, 2003
The difference between "being" and "performing" lies in motive. A person who performs some service for a community in the hopes of being recognized or rewarded would not seem to qualify as a good citizen, but then again you can't fault a person for finding away to help himself and others at the same time. I'm sure almost every member of our class has done some sort of community service because it would somehow benefit us as well. We can put it on the college application, scholarship applications, grad school, resumes...the list goes on. That being said, I would like to reiterate my belief that we can't scale or guage citizenship in that way to begin with. The only one who can truly know the motive behind an action is that person so it really shouldn't be our concern. The results of the action are what's important.
The basis behind "The American Dream" is not the equality of all men, it is, instead, an equality of opportunity. Different people in this country are born into different circumstances and people who come here from other countries arrive with different circumstances. The principle that governs our country is not that all these people should be the same, but that all these people, no matter race, gender, wealth, or social status, should be given the same opportunities to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. This doesn't mean it always works out this way (we all know it doesn't), but that does not change the underlying principle. There will always be inequities because we live in an imperfect world filled with imperfect people -- all we can do is try to promote opportunities that might reconcile some of the inequities.
To relate this all to job searching, it would seem that each person should have the same opportunity to obtain the position of their choice. Some may have to work harder than others to reach the point that qualifies them for the postion, but, in general, the opportunity is there. I am, however, aware of the saying that my Dad always advised me with: "Its not WHAT you know, its WHO you know." I'd like to think that this isn't always the case, but I know it certainly rings true in several situations. Despite this knowledge, I'm going to opt for a more optimistic view and offer that, in most situations, the opportunity is there if the will and the effort are behind it -- I guess that's what we call hope. Anyway, thats it for me because my head is spinning in circles right now so I hope you all have a great weekend!
The basis behind "The American Dream" is not the equality of all men, it is, instead, an equality of opportunity. Different people in this country are born into different circumstances and people who come here from other countries arrive with different circumstances. The principle that governs our country is not that all these people should be the same, but that all these people, no matter race, gender, wealth, or social status, should be given the same opportunities to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. This doesn't mean it always works out this way (we all know it doesn't), but that does not change the underlying principle. There will always be inequities because we live in an imperfect world filled with imperfect people -- all we can do is try to promote opportunities that might reconcile some of the inequities.
To relate this all to job searching, it would seem that each person should have the same opportunity to obtain the position of their choice. Some may have to work harder than others to reach the point that qualifies them for the postion, but, in general, the opportunity is there. I am, however, aware of the saying that my Dad always advised me with: "Its not WHAT you know, its WHO you know." I'd like to think that this isn't always the case, but I know it certainly rings true in several situations. Despite this knowledge, I'm going to opt for a more optimistic view and offer that, in most situations, the opportunity is there if the will and the effort are behind it -- I guess that's what we call hope. Anyway, thats it for me because my head is spinning in circles right now so I hope you all have a great weekend!
Ok -- so now I am responding to Dr. Yancey's response to my response concerning the definition of a good citizen. To address the Robin Hood analogy first, I have to say that I think it is somewhat of an extreme analogy given our previous discussions. If a society was put through those conditions today, good citizenship would not be a concern. Revolution would be the order of the day. However, I would say that Robin Hood was, indeed, a good citizen. While he was not acting within the limits of the law, he was taking action to better his world and, in the end, this was recognized as service to his country.
As far as putting this theory into practice, I think our society already does things to support good citizenship. We give awards, we offer scholarships for community service, we create purely service oriented organizations, and we make charitable contributions tax deductable (I'm sure there are other ways as well, but I will stop here for the sake of brevity). Granted, these methods do not always work, but then again, operating under the definition of a good citizen that I proposed earlier, a true good citizen would not need such rewards to inspire him to take action. I agree that this is very idealistic, but given the choice I'd rather be idealistic than cynical. We do what we can, when we can, and when we need to.
As far as putting this theory into practice, I think our society already does things to support good citizenship. We give awards, we offer scholarships for community service, we create purely service oriented organizations, and we make charitable contributions tax deductable (I'm sure there are other ways as well, but I will stop here for the sake of brevity). Granted, these methods do not always work, but then again, operating under the definition of a good citizen that I proposed earlier, a true good citizen would not need such rewards to inspire him to take action. I agree that this is very idealistic, but given the choice I'd rather be idealistic than cynical. We do what we can, when we can, and when we need to.
I agree with Paul that a "good citizen" is someone who makes the most of their position in life. I think a "good citizen" will contribute as much as possible to making this nation better, either by entering the world of politics or simply educating yourself as a voter. The most important thing is for a person to be concerned with the state of our nation and to attempt to live so that they aren't harming it. This would be like following the laws, paying your taxes, teaching your children how to be involved or to simply care about the state of the union. I agree with Anne, a "good citizen" would be a person that is concerned. Plain and simple, no matter if you have the means to be active or not, if you care about our country and yourself, you will take the actions necessary to live a productive life.
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
You all have been writing such interesting stuff that I haven't wanted to interrupt you but it's time to post the next questions which are designed to connect both to the current discussion and to our job-searching activities. These posts can be made in groups or individually, but regardless of how you post, I would encourage you to explore the topics with each other before posting.
1. What is the difference in "being" and "performing"? Matt says we shouldn't gauge citizenship by actions. What are the alternatives?
2. How do you reconcile the inequities that exist (both in America and in the world) with "The American Dream" and our relatively recent assertion that "all men [sic] are created equal?
3. How do these questions (and the answers thereto) affect the reality of job searching?
Keep up the good work. I'm enjoying reading what you're writing.
1. What is the difference in "being" and "performing"? Matt says we shouldn't gauge citizenship by actions. What are the alternatives?
2. How do you reconcile the inequities that exist (both in America and in the world) with "The American Dream" and our relatively recent assertion that "all men [sic] are created equal?
3. How do these questions (and the answers thereto) affect the reality of job searching?
Keep up the good work. I'm enjoying reading what you're writing.
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Actions can be a means by which to gauge whether or not someone "may" be a good a citizen, but in no way does it define what a good citizen is. One does not necessarily have to perform a certain set of actions in order to be a good citizen, even though these actions may cause the person to be viewed as a good citizen. This does not mean that actions are not important, and in terms of "being a good citizen" they should be thought of more as using opportunities available. The opposite of this also seems to hold true. While performing actions that may increase one's "good citizen" label, omitting certain actions may decrease one's "good citizen" label. So it may seem that commission and omission are important considerations when determining whether or not society labels someone a good citizen. Though overall, good and bad are very opinionated, so in general, a good citizen is society's view would simply be what the majority of the people agree that a good citizen is.
Actions should be determined by the individual. Since we live in a society that allows you to choose your level of participation it is hard to imagine having to serve in the military in order to become a citizen and eventually have children. Everyone values their citizenship and civic responsibilities differently. I don't think anyone is responsible for voting, which may be considered the minimal requirements for citisenship by some. I vote and I think everyone should at least register to vote but it is each person's decision. If that were not the case why do we not havce 100% voter turnouts. A rating over 65% is considered incredible. For example, we have several students in our class who choose not to vote for their own personal reasons. Does this mean they do not deserve citizenship?
In reponse to Jessica, I completely disagree. What kind of country are we fighting for if we are forced to join the military, certainly not one that I am willing to give my life for. I don't think by being required to experience miltary combat you will take more interest in how your country is run. Think about what you are suggesting: Only military personnel are allowed to vote. So all are political decision will be made by one segment of the population, the military. What kind of society would this be? U.S. citizens don't react well to combat requirmenets. Remeber the draft last time?
In reponse to Jessica, I completely disagree. What kind of country are we fighting for if we are forced to join the military, certainly not one that I am willing to give my life for. I don't think by being required to experience miltary combat you will take more interest in how your country is run. Think about what you are suggesting: Only military personnel are allowed to vote. So all are political decision will be made by one segment of the population, the military. What kind of society would this be? U.S. citizens don't react well to combat requirmenets. Remeber the draft last time?
I think these "actions" include voting (definitely) in addition to other acts that would contribute to their community. In other words a good citizen should be an asset to their community. I think some of these actions could include voting and working for a candidate and could go as far as maybe even running for a position. But I do not think that the actions have to be this great. These actions should be all the time though if possible. I think a good citizen should be concerned and act on those concerns.
Monday, November 10, 2003
Action! It is very important and on a scale of 0-10 (zero being the lowest and ten being the highest) I think that action should be rated as a 6. Slightly above the average because when it comes to being a citizen everyone cannot not contribute a large amount everyday, but in a fair sense everyone can do the small things. I think that the smaller actions are actually more important than the bigger actions because more people get to participate in the smaller actions compared to the larger ones. A good example of a smaller action would be voting. Everyone has the opportunity to vote and when a mass amount of people participate in this small action it can deliver big results. Although, it is probably not feasible for people to be citizens who stay in action all the time it is possible for people to do their part every now and then. I think that a little action from everyone is needed. If everyone puts out a little bit of action than it can contribute to big results. The bigger the action the less often it would have to be done in order to produce the action of citizenship.
I do believe that you can scale citizenship. I don't think that there are necessarily good and bad citizens, but I do think that there is such a thing as a better or a worse citizen. If you are not active in the running and developement of the country in which you reside you are not being a very good citizen. I believe that you must take some action in order to try and help to make the country better, whether this be by voting, military service, picking up litter, or anyother action which contributes to the betterment of society. While some of you may think this is rather extreme I think that it would n ot be a horrible idea to have a country which was run in a way similar to starship troopers. That is, in order to have children, vote, or hold political office one must have military service. I firmly believe that if you have made the choice that you are willing to give up your life to serve the country you live in than you will be more invested in how that country is ran care more and ultimately work harder to make sure that it is a better place for everyone. That is not to say that military service is the only way that one can be a good citizen, but I do think that is a pretty novel and intriguing idea. Also, I am not trying to say that I am a better citizen than anyone else because I am in the military so please no one take offense and think that's what I'm saying. Especially considered I'm not even registered to vote.
Well, I see I raised some good questions! Please note that I'm only abstracting from what some of you all said: that's one. Two is that I want to raise these questions myself, not because they necessarily are what I believe, but because through thinking about some of these issues, we can clarify what we do think.
k
k
I agree with Katie... how can we quantify citizenship and rank the peformance of a country's inhabitants? Some people are in better positions to "contribute" to society than others, after all. Can we really say that the janitor who dutifully performs his daily tasks at the public high school is a worse citizen than the senator's son who follows his mother into politics? A "good citizen," to me, is someone who makes the most of their position in life. For example, parents who raise their children to be responsible participants in society (as Kelly noted), employees who contribute productively to their company, and public servants who pursue the best interests of their constituents. However, I don't believe these "good" behaviors can be necessarily mandated... they can be encouraged, however, through the peer pressure of cultural norms... and "bad' behaviors (such as stealing) can be discouraged through civil sanctions. Our ultimate goal, of course, is a society where children mature (through family and education) into responsible adults who contribute to the greater good of the country. If we expect the end product (responsible adults), we as a country must be willing to make the investment (good education and committed families). When those two institutions are in such disarray in our country, why are we surprised that so many people are indifferent citizens?
Sunday, November 09, 2003
I don't think that good citizenship can be scaled. I think that it is unfair to say that someone is not as good a citizen just because they don't do as much as another person. I'm not even sure that you can say that someone is a bad citizen unless they actually hurt their country on purpose. And then the next question would be, isn't it hurting your country if you don't participate? I think that to some degree people should know what is going on in their country. Whether or not they care is a choice that is given to us as a citizen and being judged, even on how good a citizen you are, is not right. I agree with Kelly when he said there can't be "the perfect citizen." Who would define the bottom of the scale between being a bad citizen and being a good citizen? As far as contributing in order to be a good citizen, I believe that people will get out what they put in. The people who care about what goes on in the country will often be the ones who get things changed their way. I don't know if it makes them better citizens, more like concerned citizens. I think it would be better to think of citizens in that way, with some citizens being more concerned.
