http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2fGl9587X8
Immigration is a process that has been happening since our country began. Since the Pilgrims first landed on Plymouth Rock, there have been people from other nations seeking prosperity in America. And since then, there has always been controversy about it. When the country was mostly English descendants, there was an uproar against the influx of Irish immigrants coming to the States. Later it was Italians and Pollacks. Now in the twenty-first century, the overwhelming majority of immigrants are from Mexico or Latin America.
Functionalist:
Throughout American history, there have been fears that this new class of immigrants was going to drain the economy, change the culture for the worse, and ruin the country. Yet after wave upon wave of immigrants, the nation is still standing. Immigrants often help solve labor shortages, taking jobs that many normal citizens would not want or simply do not have the manpower to fill. Besides, America is the great Melting Pot, where people from all over the world can come to live and chase down the American Dream. Just because immigrants bring different culture to the country does not mean that they are hurting it. Would anybody argue that the country is worse because of all of the Irish and Italian immigrants that came in the 1800s and early 1900s? No, but at the time they were derided. Similarly to Hispanic immigrants today, they take low ranking jobs that nobody wants, and those that work hard can get ahead.
Conflict:
Whites, having always been a strong majority possessing the dominant ideology traditionally are opposed to many forms of immigration to the country. Those who are in power strive to keep things the same. Over time, these new immigrants will fight their way out of the lower class and begin fighting for middle and upper class jobs from more tenured citizens. There are only so many good jobs to go around, and there is also competition for other resources such as education and housing and even tax dollars. As unpleasant as it may sound, it is survival of the fittest, and those in power in society will fight to keep the finite resources that exist.
Sources: http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=649
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=b328194d3e88d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=b328194d3e88d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Evolution in the Classroom: When Science and Faith Collide
Evolution is not a 100% for sure fact. There is a possibility, whatever the size that it could be incorrect. Therefore, some people claim that Creationism aka Intelligent Design should be taught in the classroom as a viable alternative to evolution. Evolution is not a perfect theory by any means, and we have many questions to answer about the topic. However, Creationism, is not a scientific theory. Not that it is incorrect entirely, there may be an Intelligent God in charge of the universe, but that is not a scientific solution to the questions asked by science.
Empirical science is focused only on those things which can be proven by scientific observation. Fossils left behind tons of concrete evidence, and carbon dating helps to confirm the age of the fossils.
Regardless of how accurate Evolution is, Creationism has no place being taught in public schools. It is based on religious belief, not scientific data, and therefore belongs in the private sector.
For many people, the two are not mutually exclusive. I know many people firsthand who believe in God and Evolution. The people with the biggest problem with Evolution being taught in schools historically are Christian Fundamentalists, who believe the Bible on a literal, word for word level.
Out of all of the Western societies, the United States has the second lowest belief in evolution, at about 14% saying it is “totally true”. This is heavily a result of fundamentalist Protestants who make up a significant portion of our country. Pro-life, conservative Republicans were the group most highly associated with Evolutionary skepticism. Ronald Reagan summed up this position best when he stated “I have no chimpanzees in my family”. Legally speaking, it is totally acceptable to discuss Creationism in a Theology class, or a related discussion, but to discuss it on the same level of scientific merit as the theory of evolution or relativity or gravity would be misleading. It has been ruled unconstitutional to teach Creationism as fact in public schools, and it also has been declared unconstitutional to restrict the teaching of evolution to avoid offending students.
As it stands, evolution has its rightful place in the classroom, and creationism its rightful place in church or at home.
Sources: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution_2.html
http://www.adl.org/religion_ps_2004/evolution.asp
Empirical science is focused only on those things which can be proven by scientific observation. Fossils left behind tons of concrete evidence, and carbon dating helps to confirm the age of the fossils.
Regardless of how accurate Evolution is, Creationism has no place being taught in public schools. It is based on religious belief, not scientific data, and therefore belongs in the private sector.
For many people, the two are not mutually exclusive. I know many people firsthand who believe in God and Evolution. The people with the biggest problem with Evolution being taught in schools historically are Christian Fundamentalists, who believe the Bible on a literal, word for word level.
Out of all of the Western societies, the United States has the second lowest belief in evolution, at about 14% saying it is “totally true”. This is heavily a result of fundamentalist Protestants who make up a significant portion of our country. Pro-life, conservative Republicans were the group most highly associated with Evolutionary skepticism. Ronald Reagan summed up this position best when he stated “I have no chimpanzees in my family”. Legally speaking, it is totally acceptable to discuss Creationism in a Theology class, or a related discussion, but to discuss it on the same level of scientific merit as the theory of evolution or relativity or gravity would be misleading. It has been ruled unconstitutional to teach Creationism as fact in public schools, and it also has been declared unconstitutional to restrict the teaching of evolution to avoid offending students.
As it stands, evolution has its rightful place in the classroom, and creationism its rightful place in church or at home.
Sources: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution_2.html
http://www.adl.org/religion_ps_2004/evolution.asp
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Point-Counterpoint: Infant Mortality Rates in the U.S.
P:
The infant mortality rate is the average number of infants that will die out of every thousand births. The United States, being a heavily industrialized country should be number one, right? Nope, that would be Iceland (2.9). Well, at least they’d be in the top ten, right? Nope. Top 25? Keep going.
The United States ranks a pitiful 33rd in infant mortality rates at 6.3 infant deaths per 1000 births. Now this is far from the rates of the middle ages and even a great improvement from a hundred years ago, but compared to modern countries, the USA just doesn’t stack up. We are behind the following countries: Singapore, Slovenia, Cuba, Cypress, and New Caldonia.
Iceland is number one. I can’t remember Iceland winning anything against the US since Mighty Ducks 2, and even then the US team beat them in the rematch. Emilio Estevez and knucklepucks aside, we need to look at why so many babies are dying in the U.S.
The main difference in the U.S. from the other countries is healthcare. The U.S. and South Africa are the only industrialized nations without national healthcare. This has resulted in poor people, especially minorities, having much higher infant mortality rates. While most people would agree that poor people don’t have the right to rich people’s money, they should be allowed adequate access to medical care, especially when pregnant. Beat that, Counterpoint!
CP:
Point, Point, Point.
You have your data correct, but your analysis is so flawed. Sure, the health care system is not perfect, but hospitals already are bound and equipped to do all they can to help a mother and child. The United States has the best trained doctors, nurses, and medical equipment in the world. The problem is not with our brilliant delivery room personnel, but with our overambitious fertility experts and would-be moms and dads, who are willing to push the limits of science in order to have a biological baby.
We must first examine the definitions of “live birth”. Miscarriages do not count. But, if a baby is born extremely premature, takes one breath outside of its mother and dies, it counts as a live birth. With extremely advanced technologies, doctors can reasonably save these extreme preemies, and in many other countries these babies are left for dead and not counted as live births. So based on that, the US actually saves more desparate cases than other countries. Additionally, mothers are experiencing more multiple births because of fertility treatments. Triplets, quads, and so-on are much more common in the US and all of them carry significant health risks.
Sorry Singapore, but I'll have my baby born in the States.
Sources: http://baby.families.com/blog/why-the-us-infant-mortality-rate-is-so-high
http://baby.families.com/blog/why-the-us-infant-mortality-rate-is-so-high
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
The infant mortality rate is the average number of infants that will die out of every thousand births. The United States, being a heavily industrialized country should be number one, right? Nope, that would be Iceland (2.9). Well, at least they’d be in the top ten, right? Nope. Top 25? Keep going.
The United States ranks a pitiful 33rd in infant mortality rates at 6.3 infant deaths per 1000 births. Now this is far from the rates of the middle ages and even a great improvement from a hundred years ago, but compared to modern countries, the USA just doesn’t stack up. We are behind the following countries: Singapore, Slovenia, Cuba, Cypress, and New Caldonia.
Iceland is number one. I can’t remember Iceland winning anything against the US since Mighty Ducks 2, and even then the US team beat them in the rematch. Emilio Estevez and knucklepucks aside, we need to look at why so many babies are dying in the U.S.
The main difference in the U.S. from the other countries is healthcare. The U.S. and South Africa are the only industrialized nations without national healthcare. This has resulted in poor people, especially minorities, having much higher infant mortality rates. While most people would agree that poor people don’t have the right to rich people’s money, they should be allowed adequate access to medical care, especially when pregnant. Beat that, Counterpoint!
CP:
Point, Point, Point.
You have your data correct, but your analysis is so flawed. Sure, the health care system is not perfect, but hospitals already are bound and equipped to do all they can to help a mother and child. The United States has the best trained doctors, nurses, and medical equipment in the world. The problem is not with our brilliant delivery room personnel, but with our overambitious fertility experts and would-be moms and dads, who are willing to push the limits of science in order to have a biological baby.
We must first examine the definitions of “live birth”. Miscarriages do not count. But, if a baby is born extremely premature, takes one breath outside of its mother and dies, it counts as a live birth. With extremely advanced technologies, doctors can reasonably save these extreme preemies, and in many other countries these babies are left for dead and not counted as live births. So based on that, the US actually saves more desparate cases than other countries. Additionally, mothers are experiencing more multiple births because of fertility treatments. Triplets, quads, and so-on are much more common in the US and all of them carry significant health risks.
Sorry Singapore, but I'll have my baby born in the States.
Sources: http://baby.families.com/blog/why-the-us-infant-mortality-rate-is-so-high
http://baby.families.com/blog/why-the-us-infant-mortality-rate-is-so-high
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
U.S. Life Expectancy Rates and Obesity
When it comes to life expectancy, the U.S. is the best in the world, right?
Wrong.
We’re 44th.
44th!
That is how bad our country is at taking care of its citizens. Granted, most people would be happy with 78.14 years of life, but the United States is supposed to be #1. Why, oh why, are this country’s people dying at a faster rate than 43 other countries in the world?
One answer would have to be our lifestyles. Spending forty hours a week at a desk job, followed by another forty in front of the TV is not good for the old circulatory system. And have you seen the fast food menus these days? Hardee’s sells a thousand-plus calorie burrito -- FOR BREAKFAST!!! Macaroni Grill has a twelve hundred calorie salad. Don’t worry, it has to be good for you, it’s a salad right? As long as you run a marathon after you eat it.
Now I’m not the type of person to recommend suing McDonald’s for your ballooning waistline, nobody forced you to eat there eight times a week. What I am calling for is a return to common sense. Temperance is a virtue that is seldom used these days. So you had a Big Mac for lunch? Go hit the gym! It is time Americans take responsiblity for their own health. For the first time in years, our current generation of children may not live as long as their parents. This is unheard of, almost a devolution of sorts. Our society is plagued with a disease that we can fight but choose not to: our own appetites. Our hardworking doctors and nurses are already stretched to the limit fighting cancer and meningitis and a myriad of diseases, and here is our greatest killer, our own laziness.
Wake up, there is not going to be some magic pill which is going to let you eat all you want and stay healthy. It takes work. Previous generations had the drought and famine of the dust bowl, polio, and smallpox.
Our generation’s biggest threat is the Great Plenty…or at least the Good ‘n’ Plenty.
Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
Wrong.
We’re 44th.
44th!
That is how bad our country is at taking care of its citizens. Granted, most people would be happy with 78.14 years of life, but the United States is supposed to be #1. Why, oh why, are this country’s people dying at a faster rate than 43 other countries in the world?
One answer would have to be our lifestyles. Spending forty hours a week at a desk job, followed by another forty in front of the TV is not good for the old circulatory system. And have you seen the fast food menus these days? Hardee’s sells a thousand-plus calorie burrito -- FOR BREAKFAST!!! Macaroni Grill has a twelve hundred calorie salad. Don’t worry, it has to be good for you, it’s a salad right? As long as you run a marathon after you eat it.
Now I’m not the type of person to recommend suing McDonald’s for your ballooning waistline, nobody forced you to eat there eight times a week. What I am calling for is a return to common sense. Temperance is a virtue that is seldom used these days. So you had a Big Mac for lunch? Go hit the gym! It is time Americans take responsiblity for their own health. For the first time in years, our current generation of children may not live as long as their parents. This is unheard of, almost a devolution of sorts. Our society is plagued with a disease that we can fight but choose not to: our own appetites. Our hardworking doctors and nurses are already stretched to the limit fighting cancer and meningitis and a myriad of diseases, and here is our greatest killer, our own laziness.
Wake up, there is not going to be some magic pill which is going to let you eat all you want and stay healthy. It takes work. Previous generations had the drought and famine of the dust bowl, polio, and smallpox.
Our generation’s biggest threat is the Great Plenty…or at least the Good ‘n’ Plenty.
Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
A Functionalist View of College: Manifest and Latent Functions
The functionalist perspective of sociology emphasises on the way that different aspects of society operate in order to maintain social stability. Colleges and universities across the United States attract millions of high school graduates each year, promising a great education for the next four years. The manifest funciton of a University is to broaden a student’s educational horizons and to certify thier knowledge in a concrete and verifyable manner. This is often manifested by a degree, cumulative grade point average, and other academic honors.
These are the main reasons that colleges exist, but what are the latent funcions of colleges and universities?
Why do so many students really shell out twenty thousand dollars a year or more?
One of the most readily given answers for why students go to college is the promise of a better job when they graduate with their degree. This function of college is so obvious that it may not even be able to qualify as a latent function. If, as many college students say, they attend college for the job they get upon graduating, then getting a good job would be its manifest function from the perspective of the student. Only if the student studied a topic for the sake of learning would the education be the main function of college, and that is most likely not the case for a majority of students.
One of the main latent functions of college is the social aspect. College is widely seen in popular culture as a nonstop party where students can make lifelong friends and have casual sexual encounters without consequence. For many students, college is a period of extended adolescence which is not allowed by the alternative lifestyle of beginning work immediately after high school. Many students also use college as a way to meet a long term mate from among people in the same social economic class. Many people may not admit to going to college to find a future spouse but this is often the end result.
The question is, if students weigh colleges by so many non-academic qualities, is this the best way to go about choosing an expensive institution of education? If not, maybe students should pick their school based on education alone and look outward for social fulfullment. If so, should colleges focus less on the marketing of their academics and more on the social, athletic, and other functions to potential students?
Source: http://www.newfoundations.com/EGR/Mission.html
These are the main reasons that colleges exist, but what are the latent funcions of colleges and universities?
Why do so many students really shell out twenty thousand dollars a year or more?
One of the most readily given answers for why students go to college is the promise of a better job when they graduate with their degree. This function of college is so obvious that it may not even be able to qualify as a latent function. If, as many college students say, they attend college for the job they get upon graduating, then getting a good job would be its manifest function from the perspective of the student. Only if the student studied a topic for the sake of learning would the education be the main function of college, and that is most likely not the case for a majority of students.
One of the main latent functions of college is the social aspect. College is widely seen in popular culture as a nonstop party where students can make lifelong friends and have casual sexual encounters without consequence. For many students, college is a period of extended adolescence which is not allowed by the alternative lifestyle of beginning work immediately after high school. Many students also use college as a way to meet a long term mate from among people in the same social economic class. Many people may not admit to going to college to find a future spouse but this is often the end result.
The question is, if students weigh colleges by so many non-academic qualities, is this the best way to go about choosing an expensive institution of education? If not, maybe students should pick their school based on education alone and look outward for social fulfullment. If so, should colleges focus less on the marketing of their academics and more on the social, athletic, and other functions to potential students?
Source: http://www.newfoundations.com/EGR/Mission.html
Culture Lag II: Prosecuting the MySpace Suicide Case
In June of 2006, a thirteen year old Missouri girl named Megan Meier got a message from a boy named Josh Evans on her MySpace page. The two sent messages back and forth for about a month as they exchanged information and got to know each other better. Then suddenly, the relationship changed. Josh told Megan that he didn’t want to speak to her again because she was mean to her friends and that “the world would be better off without” her. The next day she was dead, having hung herself in her closet. In actuality, there was no Josh. He was the invention of an embittered former friend and her mother, Lori Drew.
The legal and social ramifications of such a case can not be understated. The Saint Charles County prosecutor could not find any laws on the books to even charge Ms. Drew. However, nearly two years later a Federal grand jury indicted the mother with conspiracy and accessing protected computers without authorization. This was the first conviction of its kind. Since the invention of social networking sites, there has been ambiguity of what is legal and what crosses the line to harassment. In the history of human society, the concept of online personas is a relatively new idea. This case study brought up many questions.
How responsible is the mother in the girl’s suicide? Should it be a factor that the girl was undergoing treatment for depression and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder?
How much of the blame rests upon Megan’s mother who did not monitor her daughter, and allowed her to join such a social networking site with a minimum age of fourteen?
Society often sets norms at a slower pace than technology advances, but in this case, a line in the sand has been drawn and those who manipulate others into doing bad things over the internet are guilty, in a similar way that Charles Manson is guilty of convincing others to do heinous acts without actually doing them himself. Society has stated that the internet, like the outside world is not a consequence free land ruled by anarchy, and it needs rules and regulations too.
Sources: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312018,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24652422/
The legal and social ramifications of such a case can not be understated. The Saint Charles County prosecutor could not find any laws on the books to even charge Ms. Drew. However, nearly two years later a Federal grand jury indicted the mother with conspiracy and accessing protected computers without authorization. This was the first conviction of its kind. Since the invention of social networking sites, there has been ambiguity of what is legal and what crosses the line to harassment. In the history of human society, the concept of online personas is a relatively new idea. This case study brought up many questions.
How responsible is the mother in the girl’s suicide? Should it be a factor that the girl was undergoing treatment for depression and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder?
How much of the blame rests upon Megan’s mother who did not monitor her daughter, and allowed her to join such a social networking site with a minimum age of fourteen?
Society often sets norms at a slower pace than technology advances, but in this case, a line in the sand has been drawn and those who manipulate others into doing bad things over the internet are guilty, in a similar way that Charles Manson is guilty of convincing others to do heinous acts without actually doing them himself. Society has stated that the internet, like the outside world is not a consequence free land ruled by anarchy, and it needs rules and regulations too.
Sources: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312018,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24652422/
Culture Lag: The New Ambiguities and Crimes on the Internet
"Make no mistake: this kind of harassment can be as frightening
and as real as being followed and watched in your neighborhood or
in your home."
--Former Vice President Al Gore
Cyberstalking. It is a new type of harassment popular in today’s world of social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace. Al Gore, ever the internet pioneer, saw its potential hazards when he gave the above quote back in 1999. Our culture has taken some time to react to the immense changes brought on by the internet. Often times there is a lot of personal information about a person which can be found over the internet, which an online stalker may use against them. Often cyberstalking is perpetrated by someone who has had some contact with the victim, although it occasionally can be a total stranger. Part of the reason online stalking and harassment are so common is that is is far less confrontational of a method than actually physically stalking the person or harassing them over the telephone, so a potential stalker will often feel more brave and invulnerable.
One of the earliest convictions of a cyberstalker was the case of a fifty year old security guard in California, who after being rejected in his attempts to date a 28 year old acquantance. The man impersonated her online in various chatrooms and forums, and gave away her address, telling strangers that she wanted to have random sexual encounters at her house and how to disarm her security system. He even went so far as to tell the men that she had a fantasy of being raped so that the men would be aggressive when they arrived. Six men showed up at the woman’s house on different occasions.
The man plead guilty in April 1999 and faces a maximum of six years in prison.
Since that first conviction, many states have begun writing anti-harassment laws specifically for the internet. There is still some culture lag, however, as many law enforcement facilities are scrambling to train detectives with the skills necessary to investigate and prosecute these offenders. This is a difficult task, because the online stalkers are often cloaked in a shroud of anonymity that can be difficult to penetrate.
Source: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cyberstalking.htm
and as real as being followed and watched in your neighborhood or
in your home."
--Former Vice President Al Gore
Cyberstalking. It is a new type of harassment popular in today’s world of social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace. Al Gore, ever the internet pioneer, saw its potential hazards when he gave the above quote back in 1999. Our culture has taken some time to react to the immense changes brought on by the internet. Often times there is a lot of personal information about a person which can be found over the internet, which an online stalker may use against them. Often cyberstalking is perpetrated by someone who has had some contact with the victim, although it occasionally can be a total stranger. Part of the reason online stalking and harassment are so common is that is is far less confrontational of a method than actually physically stalking the person or harassing them over the telephone, so a potential stalker will often feel more brave and invulnerable.
One of the earliest convictions of a cyberstalker was the case of a fifty year old security guard in California, who after being rejected in his attempts to date a 28 year old acquantance. The man impersonated her online in various chatrooms and forums, and gave away her address, telling strangers that she wanted to have random sexual encounters at her house and how to disarm her security system. He even went so far as to tell the men that she had a fantasy of being raped so that the men would be aggressive when they arrived. Six men showed up at the woman’s house on different occasions.
The man plead guilty in April 1999 and faces a maximum of six years in prison.
Since that first conviction, many states have begun writing anti-harassment laws specifically for the internet. There is still some culture lag, however, as many law enforcement facilities are scrambling to train detectives with the skills necessary to investigate and prosecute these offenders. This is a difficult task, because the online stalkers are often cloaked in a shroud of anonymity that can be difficult to penetrate.
Source: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cyberstalking.htm
Gay Marriage and Conflict Theory
In the news recently, there have been several stories regarding gay marriage and its legal, moral, and societal ramifications. Recently, California voters passed a proposition that banned same sex marriages in the state. Although many citizens of the United States feel that homosexuality is immoral, there is much less controversy over the idea of homosexual couples engaging in civil unions. In the vice presidential debates this year, both Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin voiced their beliefs in same sex couples having the right to form civil unions, but both were not in favor of gay marriage. This position is what is generally the legal standard across the country. In most of America, it is okay for same sex couples to live together, share finances, and have a civil ceremony, but if you try to call this ceremony a “marriage”, people will flip out.
The dominant ideology in our country is that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, therefore, two men or two women can not be married. The majority of the people in this country, heterosexuals, control the majority of the votes and therefore the laws. For some reason, they feel that the idea of gay marriage conflicts with their idea of marriage; that somehow Harry and Sal getting hitched in Santa Monica will somehow make the marriage of Harry and Sally less official.
Race relations have come a long way in America over the past fifty years, from
When interracial dating and marriage was outlawed, to the present when the President-Elect is the result of one of these interracial marriages. Just as with interracial dating, the people in power felt they had something to lose. That allowing blacks and whites to intermarry would overturn society and marriage as we know it. Well, we’re still standing. There are pleanty of examples of successful people from interracial relationships, and if the homosexual community fights long enough they will gain the opportunity to show that they are not so different. As long as the majority of the population act in fear of marriage being corrupted, the dominant ideology will not change.
Source:
http://www.laweekly.com/2008-02-28/news/the-marrying-kind/
The dominant ideology in our country is that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, therefore, two men or two women can not be married. The majority of the people in this country, heterosexuals, control the majority of the votes and therefore the laws. For some reason, they feel that the idea of gay marriage conflicts with their idea of marriage; that somehow Harry and Sal getting hitched in Santa Monica will somehow make the marriage of Harry and Sally less official.
Race relations have come a long way in America over the past fifty years, from
When interracial dating and marriage was outlawed, to the present when the President-Elect is the result of one of these interracial marriages. Just as with interracial dating, the people in power felt they had something to lose. That allowing blacks and whites to intermarry would overturn society and marriage as we know it. Well, we’re still standing. There are pleanty of examples of successful people from interracial relationships, and if the homosexual community fights long enough they will gain the opportunity to show that they are not so different. As long as the majority of the population act in fear of marriage being corrupted, the dominant ideology will not change.
Source:
http://www.laweekly.com/2008-02-28/news/the-marrying-kind/
Charismatic Authority and Obama
“Yes we can! Yes we can!”
A crowd of fervent supporters chants following a speech. You would think they had just seen a rock star perform up there. In fact, the speaker was a Junior Senator from Illinois by the name of Barack Obama. How could one man, a relative unknown rile up the masses so effectively and ride this wave of enthusiasm and hope into the White House? The answer: charismatic authority. Sociologists define it as “power made legitimate by a leader’s exceptional personal or emotional appeal to his or her followers”. President-Elect Obama was able to mobilize the nation in a way that has rarely been seen in this country’s history. This year’s election saw the greatest increase in first-time voters, who overwhelmingly voted for Obama.
Throughout history, there have been many figures who have had this type of charisma, a sort of automatic hold over people. Jesus was a charismatic man who was able to gain millions of followers without any sort of legal authority or political office. Martin Luther King Jr. was able to fuel the civil rights movement with his fiery and passionate public speaking. Conversely, leaders like Hitler and Mussolini were also great orators who were able to get great public support through their charisma. Depending on who you ask, Obama may be either Jesus or Hitler, but whatever your opinion of the man, he represents the same things that almost all charismatic leaders have fought for: change. Charismatic leaders almost always fight to break some established institution and advocate dramatic change from current scenarios.
In the 2008 presidential elections, Barack Obama was able to consistently work up a passionate response from his followers through public speeches. He was able to connect with many Americans on an emotional level, and convince them that he was the person who could change the country and cure all of its ills. Whether you like him or not, Obama has captured support with his charisma more than any presidential candidate since John F. Kennedy. As Time magazine put it:
“He hit the American scene like a thunderclap, upended our politics, shattered decades of conventional wisdom and overcame centuries of the social pecking order.”
Only time will tell if it was change for the better. Charisma does not neccessarily equate to political success, but in the case of Obama many Americans are hoping it will.
Sources: http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/12/and-times-perso.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3582291.ece
http://atheism.about.com/od/religiousauthority/a/types_2.htm
A crowd of fervent supporters chants following a speech. You would think they had just seen a rock star perform up there. In fact, the speaker was a Junior Senator from Illinois by the name of Barack Obama. How could one man, a relative unknown rile up the masses so effectively and ride this wave of enthusiasm and hope into the White House? The answer: charismatic authority. Sociologists define it as “power made legitimate by a leader’s exceptional personal or emotional appeal to his or her followers”. President-Elect Obama was able to mobilize the nation in a way that has rarely been seen in this country’s history. This year’s election saw the greatest increase in first-time voters, who overwhelmingly voted for Obama.
Throughout history, there have been many figures who have had this type of charisma, a sort of automatic hold over people. Jesus was a charismatic man who was able to gain millions of followers without any sort of legal authority or political office. Martin Luther King Jr. was able to fuel the civil rights movement with his fiery and passionate public speaking. Conversely, leaders like Hitler and Mussolini were also great orators who were able to get great public support through their charisma. Depending on who you ask, Obama may be either Jesus or Hitler, but whatever your opinion of the man, he represents the same things that almost all charismatic leaders have fought for: change. Charismatic leaders almost always fight to break some established institution and advocate dramatic change from current scenarios.
In the 2008 presidential elections, Barack Obama was able to consistently work up a passionate response from his followers through public speeches. He was able to connect with many Americans on an emotional level, and convince them that he was the person who could change the country and cure all of its ills. Whether you like him or not, Obama has captured support with his charisma more than any presidential candidate since John F. Kennedy. As Time magazine put it:
“He hit the American scene like a thunderclap, upended our politics, shattered decades of conventional wisdom and overcame centuries of the social pecking order.”
Only time will tell if it was change for the better. Charisma does not neccessarily equate to political success, but in the case of Obama many Americans are hoping it will.
Sources: http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/12/and-times-perso.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3582291.ece
http://atheism.about.com/od/religiousauthority/a/types_2.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)