Rise from Poverty

Right now, the debate over raising the minimum-wage is sweeping the nation. New York Times writer, Steven Greenhouse, explores how parents across America are finding it almost impossible to support their families on the minimum wage in his article: Low-Wage Workers Are Finding Poverty Harder to Escape.

In Chattanooga, Tennessee one woman relies on food stamps and other financial aid in order to support her son and daughter on her $9 an hour salary at a nursing home.  A divorced man, had to quit school and pick up a $9 an hour restaurant job in order to support his daughter, while living in his parent's basement. These families and many more constantly rely on public aid, but not by choice. Though they want to make better lives for themselves they are burdened by the scarcity of opportunities to do so.

"Poverty, Inc." showcased the negative effects that constant donations and handouts had on third world countries and their economies. For example, it closes businesses, disrupts work ethic, and even dehumanizes people because "no one wants to be a beggar for life." We have a similar- though not so extreme- case here in America. Sure, we have many forms of public aid available to border line poverty citizens. However, are we truly fixing the problem, or just making it worse? Maybe a rise in minimum wage truly is the answer? Or maybe it's something more?

Families that border the poverty line usually don't have the same opportunities as others. Therefore, instead of more public aid and raising the minimum, we should give these people more accessible opportunities at education. Most minimum wage workers don't have a college degree. Instead of investing money into raising the minimum and sustaining these low-wage jobs, the government should be investing money into education. So that people can obtain better jobs and make a living on their own. After all, an increase in wage could actually put more employees out of jobs because a company has to pay its employees more.

Like in "Poverty, Inc." we need to help people rise from poverty and create better lives, not continue their lives of eternal begging.

Wanted: Great Leader

Chaos was unleashed last night not only in Ferguson, but also in major cities across America like Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and New York City, after a grand jury decided not to charge Officer Darren Wilson for the death of Michael Brown. The decision sparked anger and frustration in many people that spread like wildfire throughout America, initiating protests and riots. Though “in most places the demonstrations were peaceful,” in Ferguson, Missouri: “Shops were looted and burned on Ferguson’s main street. There were smoke bombs, tear gas, thrown rocks and random gunshots. In Ferguson, the aftermath of the shooting death of Michael Brown was almost as bitter and hollow as his killing itself.”

John Eligon of The New York Times tells all about these protests in his recent article In Protests from Midwest to Both Coasts, Fury Boils Over. Eligon provides commentary from many protestors, rioters, or witnesses to the spectacle that happened. Many claimed it wasn’t about it looting or expression of ideas, but it was to demand fairness in a powerful way. One man said, “This is not about vandalizing, this is about fighting a police organization that doesn’t care about the lives they serve.” They all had one thing in common: they felt the demonstrations and they themselves were a part of something longer. One man interestingly added, “The Selma marches, and Martin Luther King, and the civil rights activists, but now, this is life. This is history. I’m just out here really as a witness.”

Could this decision really provoke the need for change in the system and therefore make history, like the man suggests? But the even more pressing question is if so, what great leader will do so? Jackie Robinson, Martin Luther King Jr., and Rosa Parks are not only examples of hard working activists who had the courage to speak out and act against the injustice of discrimination, but also models of pure greatness. The disruptive and destructive protests that took place last night caused much controversy throughout the country and it seems as though this tactic might not prove to be the most effective. What is needed is a leader. A leader with the courage to take on this factious topic and the drive to persevere through the obstacles that lay ahead. A leader that has clear, moral goals and productive means of reaching them. What is needed is someone great. If this problem persists, someone will need to rise above the rest. Who will be the modern day Martin Luther King Jr., or Jackie Robinson, or Rosa Parks? Who will show the qualities of greatness?

Service and Greatness part 2

Last Thursday was my final scheduled date of volunteering at St. Margaret of Scotland, and I have to say I’m a bit heartbroken that I have to leave those lighthearted kids.  In the time spent with them, I discovered many aspects of greatness, but a select few stood out to me.

I’m sure that at one point or another we have all heard the saying, “With great power, comes great responsibility.” My experience at St. Margaret proved this saying to be completely accurate. By tutoring the children, they developed a sort of dependability on me. I was the one to help them solve that complex math problem or pronounce that difficult word, not their classmate or teacher- but me. This showed me that greatness comes not only with a sense of responsibility, but also selflessness. A great person needs to recognize how important and influential they are in others’ eyes and then devote themselves wholeheartedly into setting an example for others to follow. The kids at St. Margaret were absolutely fascinated by us “high school” kids; they wanted to know where we went to school, how old we were, what sports they played, what music we liked, what subjects we liked, etc. I could tell they truly looked up to us and we were role models to them. I felt it was my obligation and responsibility to be a good role model to them in every way possible because everything I did influenced them in some sort of way.

I also recognized that a great person needs to be selfless. Yes, there were days I was crunched for time due to overflowing homework and a long soccer practice, but I made time for the kids. I always made time for them because they depended on me, and I was not going to let them down. If that meant sacrificing twitter time, or refraining from watching the next episode of Gossip Girl-then so be it. A great person needs to be able to put aside their own wants and needs, for the needs of others and the common good. Every time I left, a few kids would look at me with sad little puppy eyes and ask if I’d be back. This always left me with such a rewarding feeling-a feeling of value, of purpose. It felt so good knowing that someone depended on me and I was genuinely happy that I could make a person feel that way.

My experience perfectly exhibits that even the littlest actions can make a significant impact. This experience left me with a desire to do more, to continue to help my community. Because being great is not a one and done thing. Being great is not doing one colossal deed then sinking back into normal life. Being great is consistently seeking to push yourself- bettering yourself and those around you. Being great is never resting on your laurels. Being great, is simply, being a better you. You don’t need to be great to millions; you only need to be great to a few because I guarantee that your actions will continually affect more people than you think. Being great doesn’t have to be large scale, as long as it betters someone or something. There are countless ways to bring greatness into your ordinary lives, and change them into extraordinary lives. Stop making excuses. Stop waiting. Make it happen. How will you be great today?

Civil Disobedience and The Nobel Peace Prize

Between the deadly Ebola virus and the controversy in the Middle East, the world finally received some uplifting news Friday morning, when the Nobel Peace Prize winners were announced. Malala Yousafzai and Kailash Satyarthi are this year’s honorees, and ironically, they are from rival countries-Pakistan and India. The two activists serve as a beacon of hope in today’s corrupt society and prove that one person truly can make a difference.

Dashiell Bennett, of The Atlantic, commends the two on their impressive achievements in his recent articlePakistan and India Share the Nobel Peace Prize . Satyarthi, founder of the Global March Against Child Labor, consistently works to rescue children from forced labor and ensures that they receive an education. Yousafzai, miraculous survivor of an attempted assassination by the Taliban, serves as an international spokesperson for childhood education and contender of Islamic extremism. The two were honored because of “their struggle against the suppression of children and young people and for the right of all children to education."

The two can be called heroes, role models, and idols; however, they can also be rebels. But why are they not seen under this negative connotation? Well, it’s just as Henry David Thoreau puts it from his article "Civil Disobedience", “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.” The two were fighting against injustice in their countries, and even though they may have resisted their governments, their actions were recognized by many as befitting. In the eyes of Thoreau and Emerson, the two are considered nonconformists, or rebels. Thoreau believes in fighting against unjust laws enforced by corrupt governments and that’s exactly what the two did. And look how much of an impact they made on the world! The two had the courage to take a stand against popular belief, like Emerson calls us to do, and the effects are truly great.

Malala Yousafzai and Kailash Satyarthi justify the nonconformist claims of Emerson and Thoreau. They function as examples to us all to follow our own beliefs. But more importantly they show us that one’s “unpopular” belief may be shared by many more. There just has to be one person to stand up first. Will you be that person?

Service and Greatness

For my service project, I chose to help out at St. Margaret of Scotland. I have always loved kids and being around them because they bring a fresh energy and playful attitude to life. Therefore, I knew this experience would not only fulfill the requirement, but also be enjoyable.

When I first pulled up to the school I felt a little nervous and somewhat overwhelmed. I met the principal and he introduced us to a lady who ran the after school programs. Immediately she put us to work passing out snacks, helping with homework, and occupying the children. Honestly, I was a little shy at first and yes, I was even worried if the children would like me or not. However, I quickly learned how welcoming all the people there were and realized an important aspect of greatness-confidence. Great people don't let fear hold them back from intimidating situations, but rather they remain calm and assertive in times of chaos. In doing so, people are drawn to their bold presence.

I was assigned to help the children in first and second grade with homework. I hoped that I would be able to help them understand and teach them effectively. Well I must have been doing good because before long I found myself sitting amongst them sharing a cookie with a boy I helped with spelling. It was such a warming feeling seeing their little eyes light up when they finally understood a math problem or they finally pronounced that difficult word after stumbling over it or they finally spelled all of there spelling words right. It was a great feeling to know that I contributed to their success, that I was able to help them and make them feel so good about themselves. It showed me that greatness does not have to be achieved on large scale levels. Even little things can be considered great as long as they help a person in some way.

After they all finished their homework, we were able to play games and just converse with them. Talking with them I learned about their hobbies, their favorite movies, and even expanded my knowledge about The Ninja Turtles. Talking with them was the best part because they are so honest and frank. They always speak their mind and don't care what other people think. This reminded me of the Emerson reading from class about being a nonconformist. The children have not experienced the judgment of society yet and therefore do not fear consistency like we do. It was inspiring to see how someone so small could be so independent and confident.

Before leaving, I received numerous hugs and "Don't go's" or "Please stay's". It was a good feeling to know that in such a short time I made an impact on their lives, no matter how small that impact was. I can't wait to return next week and experience that happiness again.

Religion and Greatness

George Washington led a struggling nation to freedom and posterity, William Wilberforce fought to abolish the slave trade in England, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer jeopardized his life to defy the Nazis. What do these three great men have in common? Faith. And politics. These extraordinary men combined complete trust in God, selflessness, and diligence in order to achieve remarkable and seemingly impossible political goals that exemplify the meaning of greatness.

But what happened to the strong and effective role of religion in public life? More importantly, how do Americans today feel about the lack of faith? Emma Green, of "The Atlantic", answers this pressing question in her recent article: Americans Want More Faith in Public Life .  According to the article, "41 percent of Americans say there has been 'too little expression of religious faith by political leaders.'" Many Americans appeal to politicians that have some sort of concrete faith, especially Republicans, while others "aren't particular about what exactly their politicians believe", as long as they believe in something. Green's article concludes from the data that "Even as traditional forms of religious worship decline or take on new forms, people are apparently still able to recognize the value of religious insights."

Like Eric Metaxas, author of Seven Men, Americans who hold faith high disagree with the ungodly behavior of some politicians and believe that faith needs to be a more prominent factor in controversial decision making. Metaxas gives exquisite examples, like the three men mentioned above, to illustrate the noteworthy effect that reliance on God can have on a society. Metaxas believes greatness comes from God; therefore a stronger influence of faith on politics should create better results than America has been seeing lately.

Scotland Awaits Fate

http://time.com/3399631/scotland-independence-referendum-2/

Benjamin Franklin once said, "Where liberty dwells, there is my country," and today, the people of Scotland have the right to choose liberty or to remain unified with England. The historic referendum sparks hope into the eyes of those yearning for independence, yet strikes caution into those who fear the economic and social outcomes of this possibly life-changing event. The topic has been vigorously debated in schools and stores, restaurants and pubs, but the vote remains close to a 50/50 split, with 'no' surprisingly taking the narrow lead.

Those fervently in favor of independence argue that fear remains the underlying cause for Scotland's delay of independence. One man says, “People aren’t supposed to be scared. They’re supposed to have a country they believe in.” Franklin fought for the split from oppressive Britain so many years ago just as the Scots are doing now. After 307 years of Britain holding Scotland's hand, many believe it is time for them to govern themselves and accept the responsibilities that come with it.

However, many individuals remain loyal to the union with Britain and argue that: "it's not about fear; it's about pragmatism." They don't believe Scotland is ready to undertake the enormous duties that come with an independent government. One woman says, “I wouldn’t gamble with my business or my home or my parents’ pensions — let alone with a whole country’s businesses, homes or pensions.” How can Scotland, after being governed so long by Britain, be confident in its decisions and actions as a free country?

Franklin would even argue, "Any society that will give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and gain both." Since the country appears so split, there looms a great deal of mistrust about the matter. Therefore, should Scotland even take the risk if it will only fail? How will failure affect the citizens and the future of the country? Or should liberty reign over Scotland once and for all?

AP ENGLISH III-Post 1

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/world/middleeast/white-house-invites-congress-to-approve-isis-strikes-but-says-it-isnt-necessary.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

Given that today is the 13th anniversary of the September 11th bombings, I find it appropriate to write about the recent events involving the newly exposed ISIS group. Currently the very controversial topic being highly debated is whether or not the U.S. will launch air strikes in Syria and Iraq. President Obama gave a speech about the hot topic Wednesday, and his answer has only raised more controversy about the situation. 

The New York Times writer, Charlie Savage, presents both sides of the argument in his recent article on September 10, 2014. The Obama administration announced Wednesday that "it needed no new approval from Congress to launch an open-ended air war in both Syria and Iraq”. They claim "the campaign is covered by the existing authorization to use military force against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists attacks-that is, Al Qaeda". As expected, this statement raises one contentious question, does the authorization to use military force, known as the A.U.M.F., cover ISIS? 

Though ISIS originated from Al Qaeda, the two groups disputed over strategy and control. The original leader of Al Qaeda even "excommunicated ISIS". Therefore some argue that ISIS is not included in this authorization because, "The Islamic State was an Al Qaeda affiliate, and it is not anymore. So technically, the A.U.M.F. would not cover the Islamic State." 

On the other hand some express that "the authorization allows the president to determine who was involved in the 9/11 attacks." According to this piece of information, Obama could rightfully include ISIS in the authorization. They argue that although ISIS may not be an explicit affiliate of Al Qaeda, they do come under A.U.M.F.

Even though both sides share conflicting views of the situation, their opinions may not matter, because Obama proclaims that he has the sole power to the decision. However, Obama has invited Congress to grant approval for an ISIS air strike campaign saying, "I believe we are strongest as a nation when the president and Congress work together. So I welcome congressional…" Now the real question is will Obama listen to the people on this one, or go with his own instinct?

This relates to the civic and community values that Ben Franklin stood for. Franklin believed in a united American front against Britain, working together to better America and the image of an American. If Franklin was alive today I think he would argue against Obama having full control of the situation. Franklin fought for representation in government, and Congress not having a say in this popular controversy go against his stance completely. Congress represents the people and because this issue affects many people, Franklin would argue that the Congress's decision should be the deciding factor and not Obama's decision alone. 

By:Ashley Smialek