Response for H.W due 2/27

The Constitution is a rather short document consisting of seven articles that broadly lay out the powers and responsibilities of the government and its operation. You may have noticed The Declaration of Independence was not very long either. When we look at the speeches of Abraham Lincoln who delivered two of the greatest if not the greatest speeches in American history, they are also very short. When your aim is to persuade people often times keeping things short works much better than writing long volumes of text.

http://theamericanpoliticalsystem.blogspot.com/2012/06/th-67-constitution-and-federalist.html 

This passage is about the length of  the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Abraham Lincoln's two speeches. This passage points out how keeping things short and straight to the point are better than trying to get your point across through a protracted speech or writing. This passage states that although Abraham Lincoln's speech was not lengthy, people still admired and respected it because of it's significance.

I chose this passage because I do agree that keeping things "short and sweet" are often better than something being extensive or dragged out. Sometimes people can or choose to only focus or read something for a certain amount of time. If an individual is giving a speech, it would be hard to keep a crowd's attention for a lengthy period of time if they are just talking and not getting to the point. I would not want to sit through a thirty minute speech or read a 25 page document if there is a shorter version of it. Just because something is lengthy, does not always mean it is meaningful or rich in content. Today, we live in a world where people only like to watch 10-15 second videos on Vine or Snapchat and if the video seems too long or boring, we won't watch it. Listening to a long speech or reading something lengthy is not ideally what people prefer.

Response for H.W due 2/20

Let me begin my American impressions with two impressions I had before I went to America. One was an incident and the other an idea; and when taken together they illustrate the attitude I mean. The first principle is that nobody should be ashamed of thinking a thing funny because it is foreign; the second is that he should be ashamed of thinking it wrong because it is funny. The reaction of his senses and superficial habits of mind against something new, and to him abnormal, is a perfectly healthy reaction. But the mind which imagines that mere unfamiliarity can possibly prove anything about inferiority is a very inadequate mind. It is inadequate even in criticising things that may really be inferior to the things involved[Pg 3] here. It is far better to laugh at a negro for having a black face than to sneer at him for having a sloping skull. It is proportionally even more preferable to laugh rather than judge in dealing with highly civilised peoples. Therefore I put at the beginning two working examples of what I felt about America before I saw it; the sort of thing that a man has a right to enjoy as a joke, and the sort of thing he has a duty to understand and respect, because it is the explanation of the joke.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27250/27250-h/27250-h.htm#What_is_America

The book, "What I Saw in America" by G.K. Chesterton is about his experience with traveling to America. In the passage above, Chesterton is speaking about the perception and belief he had about America prior to traveling there. He points out how people find humor in the things that other countries find normal and that people should not feel remorseful for wanting to laugh or react to things they are not used to themselves. He believes that instead of people judging others and their customs, it is better to find amusement than to criticize.

I chose this passage because Chesterton pointed out some ideas that I ultimately agreed with. I have not been outside of the country yet but for example, if you are from New York City and you travel to a rural area, you come across people and norms that are totally different from your every day experiences. If you are from the city and travel to a very country area, it seems as though everyone is behind in technology, fashion, trends, etc. It's as if they are stuck in a bubble that has yet to pop. Sometimes these norms can be completely surprising and amusing at the same time. With that being said, Chesterton made an excellent point about how it is "healthy" to react a certain way when a person comes cross something that is "abnormal". Traveling to another country would probably amplify the humor found in people's everyday customs in comparison to America's. Chesterton states that people have a right to enjoy something as a joke but they have to comprehend that the true meaning of the joke has to be respected.

Response for H.W due 2/13

A majority of Americans (56%) believe that government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses, while 39% hold the view that government should do more to solve the nation's problems. Responses to this question have been quite fluid over the two decades in which Gallup has asked the question. In October 2001, in the aftermath of 9/11, 50% said government should do more to solve the country's problems -- the highest in Gallup's history of asking the question. Sentiment that government should do more was lowest in the 1995-1998 time frame, when only about a third held this view and about 6 in 10 said government was doing too much.

Republicans and Democrats respond to this question in extremely different ways, with 88% of Republicans saying the government is doing too much, while 66% of Democrats say the government should do more. Independents tilt toward the "too much" view. 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149741/despite-negativity-americans-mixed-ideal-role-gov.aspx

The meaning of this passage, is about how Americans feel towards about the amount of power and control the government has. This passage also states how the 3 different parties - Democrats, Republicans, and Independents - each feel about the government power/control. This passage is also about the negative views that the people of America have towards the government and how Americans feel that the government should have less of a say when it comes to their small businesses.

I chose this passage because people's negative opinions about the government seems to come up a great deal these days and this caught my attention. In this passage, it specifically brings up the aftermath of the tragedy that happened on September 11, 2001 and how Americans felt the government should have done more. What I've noticed about Americans and their views on the government is that they do not want the government sticking their noses in their businesses but when an extreme incident happens where they do not have the power to handle it, that is when everyone wants the government to do more. Individuals complain about the government being too controlling and not giving people enough freedom or power to manage their own businesses but cry for the government's help once they are stuck in a situation. I do agree that sometimes the government is a little bit too involved but what if there was no government at all? What kind of mess would this country be in? The government gives Americans and the economy a sort of structure and organization. Nothing will ever be absolutely perfect for Americans because we are all individuals with different wants, needs, and views.