WW2: Time to get moving

In reading three WW2-era speeches from some of the most powerful people in the world, one can draw a few parallels in what they have to say. Whether it be Churchill of Britain, Hirohito of Japan, or Goebbels of Germany, there is a distinct message in the collection that if the country doesn't move into action, or out in Hirohito's case, then the end of the world is nigh. All use all sorts of hyperbole to illustrate that if their words are not heeded, then their country, and therefore civilization as a whole, shall come to a screeching halt. Fallacy aside, I find it funny how this statement works in each of these speeches, as it comes from completely different places in each situation.

The odd one out, Hirohito, proposes surrender in his speech. In fact, he's already made the call that they are surrendering, and simply is letting his people know. However, he still lets people know that they have to follow suit, and not go around killing the POW's they have, or else they could encourage the enemy to go even further as to take over Japan, effectively ending their society. Churchill, on the other hand, takes a far more solemn approach. He makes the same claim, but instead of saying they have all the power in the world, he lets his people know that blood will be shed. He levels with them, thus making his rallying call at the end, in which he makes his claim, all the more powerful. Finally, we have Goebbels, who was simply obsessed with convincing the German public that their actions were right, regardless of what the other nations of Europe believe. He almost victimizes Germany, putting them against the entirety of the world. He convokes so much pride in the people of Germany that his call to action, his statement that the world will end, throws them into a frenzy. Goebbels employed the same tactic as the other two leaders, but their position made the situation so much more passionate.

The men all used the same idea to move their people, but that's not what makes the situation so unique. What does do that is the background from which the statements came. If not for the varying histories of these countries, this connection would be so much more commonplace. Especially because motivating a country to go to/leave a war requires some level of public-speaking expertise, this connection is quite interesting. 

A Comparison of Machiavelli and Thoreau

Two drastically different philosophers have entered my life in the last week: Niccolo Machiavelli, the Italian political theorist, and Henry David Thoreau, the American Transcendentalist. In the two readings my class was given, Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” and Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, the word “man” seems to have a one meaning for one man and another for the other.

First and foremost, there is a clear difference in the meaning of the word “man” to Machiavelli and Thoreau. In “Civil Disobedience”, the government is blamed for being “inexpedient”, and is therefore putting the rights of man in jeopardy. Off the bat you see that Thoreau has a view of man that is one of freedom; that man deserves to be treated right. He says a man should have the ability to take what he sees as right to the government as opposed to voting, which Thoreau sees as a game. Machiavelli, on the other hand, sees man as nothing more than a subject. That is made clear alone in the tone he has when he speaks of citizens who his hypothetical prince must govern. Although “man” is not the focus of his writing, Machiavelli occasionally explains the negative impact that a successful prince has on his people, thus making his thoughts on what man is clear. Machiavelli wants the reader to know that his ruling, if done right, will make “men” into subjects, or slaves even. This creates a clear contrast between the two philosophers: one is clearly more concerned with equal rights and the fair treatment of all, and the other with earning, and more importantly keeping, power over the people. Now does this mean that one is worse than the other? Not necessarily in my eyes.

Machiavelli, the supposed “worse” of the two thinkers, came from a time of turmoil. He was in prison for treason when he wrote “The Prince” as a result of the Medici rule returning to Florence, his hometown. Machiavelli writes to explain to Medici how to do it better in his second go at ruling the city, and knows that Medici will need fear in order to fully control his people. He is not throwing “man” under the bus so much as he is simply trying to help out his new leader. Thoreau, on the other hand, was angry at his supposedly oppressive government and thus illustrated man as a free entity, not as a “machine” like those in the government are. Instead of having some sort of resentment towards Machiavelli for making man a subject and praising Thoreau for making man seem like a caged bird, vying to be free, I think that they both have very valid views on society, as they were both a product of their times.

“Man” is whatever one makes of it, whether it be free, or subjugated by a fear-mongering tyrant. Thoreau and Machiavelli make it perfectly clear with their thoughts combined that one’s perception of “man” is simply a matter of when and where one is.

Dear Owner of The Goodwives Shopping Center,

          You are a smart individual, so you'd know what I'm talking about when I say that one's image is crucial in capitalism. If you don't look good, you don't make money. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you do not look good. Your shopping center is offensively named, and it takes away from your ability to profit. I'm only trying to help you when I say that the Goodwives Shopping Center has to undergo a name change in order to bring in the real money.

          When you allow the Goodwives Shopping Center to have a name as sexually insensitive as this one, you are opening yourself up to lose profits. Your image is tarnished by this name, and nothing good can come out of keeping it. I've most often heard the argument that the name should not be changed because it's named after the river that runs behind it, but the name of the Goodwives river was given to it by the Native Americans praising the kindness of the housewives of the pilgrims. A quick Google search allowed me to find that out, and I'm surprised that even the landmark's name has yet to be changed. The name is too offensive to too many people, and therefore it must be changed. I suggest giving its old name, the Darien Shopping Center, back to it. It could be another name, as long as it changes. If image is everything, and you can't make money without a good image, then yours needs to be changed.

Sincerely,

Brian  James

Alright, so as we know, the name of Darien's strip mall, Goodwives Shopping Center, is a problem. It creates a bad  name for the town by making us sound like we are promoting a certain behavior of the women in the area that belittles them, and that simply isn't acceptable. Problems have to be fixed. If they are not they continue to build up and get worse until eventually there is nothing to be done about it. Thus, the Goodwives Shopping Center must have a name change. People in Darien are obsessed with their image, and to have such a name for a town landmark is quite detrimental to it. The problem in our small town seems very similar to the problem in the NFL regarding the Washington Redskins. Their name has come to be known as offensive and detrimental to the image of the franchise. Since then, people have started moving to change the name, and seem to be making solid progress in doing so.  Just recently even, the FCC told sources that they will be considering punishing broadcasters who use the term "Redskins." If that doesn't move the team to finally change their name, I don't know what will. Meanwhile, though the group of people (myself and a few friends to my knowledge) may be considerably smaller, people are realizing that the Goodwives Shopping Center is an offensive name, saying that it is bad for the image of the town. The scale may be considerably smaller in this case, yet the effect of the name is no different than that of the Redskins. We can't do anything to punish people for using the name Goodwives Shopping Center, like the FCC did with the broadcasters of the NFL, but the point is that they are punishing themselves for allowing it to be the name. The Goodwives Shopping Center carries a name that should no longer be accepted in society, though it should be. The name of the strip mall was given to it all the way back in the 60's. This time wasn't exactly known for how P.C. it was. In fact, we were experiencing some of the most extreme social changes the country has ever known. If this is the name we are okay with in 2014, almost fifty years later and millennia of social advancement later, then we are accepting the idea that no real change has been made to society. I'm just looking at the facts here, and it looks like the town hasn't been following suit for a while. 

Darien seems to be obsessed with their image. Every which way you see people wearing the latest Versace jeans (I’m not a fashion kind of guy so that could potentially not be a thing), carrying their pumpkin spice latte from Starbucks (that is a thing though, it’s kind of a big deal), and just generally stressing about looks. If that is the case, then why is one of the most frequently visited shopping centers in town called Goodwives Shopping Center?  How can Darien of all places allow such a name to be accepted into our society? The misogyny presented by such a title is unacceptable, especially in a town where image is everything. Can you imagine someone walking into town from, I don’t know, let’s say Iowa or something, and they see that this town is really nice. Then they see the Goodwives Shopping Center and immediately realize that this is one of THOSE towns. They then go back to their hometown and share stories of this horribly sexist town where gender profiling is alive and well. What does this do to the image of Darien? It certainly doesn’t do anything good, I can tell you that for sure. One can argue that the history aspect of the name, but the history itself is pretty bad. A woman (ironic) in Wilton coined the name to go with the river right behind the center in 1966. The river itself was named “From the Indians because the wives of the early settlers were kind in many ways to the Indians during those difficult times.” I pulled that quote off a newspaper article from December 7, 1966, and let me just say, the inclusion of the term “Indians” just drives the point even further home. If that doesn’t scream “outdated” to you, then I don’t know what will. This “tribute to the women of the area” seems to be more like a command than a commendation, saying that you must be a good wife in order to properly fit into society. The image created by that notion is awful for the town, and needs to get fixed.

What’s going on in Egypt? I’ve been asked this quite a few times by teachers, fellow students, and even parents. I feel as though the revolution that has been taking place for the past couple years in that country has not been given enough attention in out classes, on the news, or just in daily life. What began as protests to make the Egyptian President, Mubarak, to step down from his seat of power has exploded into enormous riots on the streets of Cairo and other large cities, killings of presidential supporters, and general chaos in government.

What appears to be the biggest challenge facing Egypt at the moment is the fact that the Presidents that step up to power always seem to have the wrong idea in mind when it comes to aiding the country. Morsi, the President elected into power after Mubarak stepped down, knew that his country was in danger of falling apart, but his actions to prevent such a tragedy were misguided and ultimately resulted in even more controversy. He was brought down by the government, and a new leader, Adly Monsour, took reign over a collapsing country. With people protesting over the removal  of Morsi from presidency, Monsour had no real power in his position, and declared a state of emergency. These events were all brought upon the country because people believed they knew what would help the country, but as it turns out, it only made things worse. This is the primary challenge in Egypt.

The latest new regarding the U.S. involvement in Egypt was that President Obama condemned the actions that the Egyptian government has been allowing to happen, yet he decided not to cancel the $1.3 billion annual provision for military aid. Seeing as we have just recently gotten ourselves into this ISIS debacle in Syria and Iraq, it seems wrong to prolong our involvement in just about anything. What this means is that Obama should pull our country out of Egypt. They have been making decisions that have been generally detrimental to the state of their country since the revolution began, and yet we still decide to help them out. This should no longer continue, as it is clear that there will be no differences in the actions of Egypt in the  near future, and our involvement elsewhere is more important.

The natural reaction of the media in the U.S. is almost always to show just how victimized the people of a country in turmoil are. In the case of Egypt, it is no different. Whenever a bit on Egypt is shown in the news, it almost always shows protesters who are justified in their actions because the big bad government wronged them. I believe the situation described in the media is true, but they make it seem so much more dramatic than it actually is. The media makes the people seem horribly, irrevocably victimized by the government, yet in reality, the severity is much less than the media makes it seem.

WHERE ARE YOU FROM?

Where am I from?

So many possible answers.

Well, two really.

Am I from London,

Home of the fish and chips

Home of the tea and crumpets,

Or am I from Darien,

The home of nothing special, 

but the people there will say there's plenty?

Is my calling more towards soccer (sorry, football)

Or more towards lacrosse?

Would I rather go on to be a professor,

Or study history or something classical,

Or would I rather go on to be a stock broker,

Taking part in the rat race that with million others

Every single day?

Am I from the Eye, from Ben, or from the river

(We all know the one)

Or from the Sport Shop, the Social, the Pond?

Was I raised to believe that all who try

Deserve a chance

Or was I raised to believe that those who are less fortunate

Deserve nothing?

Would I rather be known as the worldly fellow,

Who can understand the views of the masses,

Or would I rather be the boy in the bubble,

As outsiders call those in this town?

Is it possible to be from both?

Is it possible to be both aware

and beautifully, hopelessly oblivious

to all things around me?

I guess being both couldn't be bad,

A dual citizenship is pretty neat, I guess,

Even though I most certainly

Do not have an accent

(Wouldn't that be cool though?).

So if you ask me where I'm from,

Please be aware that for me,

That is a difficult question to answer.