Zylberberg--> Silverberg--> Silver

In class, we talked a lot about what people do, or feel they must do, in order to become an American. We discussed how part of becoming an American is giving up a lot of one's culture. Immigrants are often forced to give up certain things about them in order to assimilate into society. One interesting thing to study is how immigrants often changed their names in order to assimilate easier.

My dad's father and his brother were Jewish immigrants who came to America after World War II. Their names were Fivel and Harry Zylberberg. When they arrived in America, both decided it was best to translate their name to a more English version- Silverberg. It is interesting, however, the different choice these two made next.

My grandpa kept his name Fivel Silverberg; he realized that although he lost the European culture in his name, he would maintain the Jewish part of it.
My great uncle Harry, however, decided to drop the Jewish culture in his name. His name became Harry Silver instead of Silverberg. He did not do this because he wished to abandon his religious background, but only did it because he believed it would help him become more successful in America.

This is just one example of people who felt the need to give up parts of their culture in hopes of achieving greater success in America.

Is Iran REALLY in the same boat?

As we study the situation in Iran closely, I, like most of the world, are mistrustful of Iran. Iran will not allow the I.A.E.A. to inspect its nuclear program, and Ahmadinejad has stated openly that he wishes to destroy the country of Israel. In all of the research I did about Iran, the country seems to have only one argument as to why it should be able to construct a nuclear program. Iran argues that it has this right, as the U.S., Russia, France, China, Great Britain, and Israel all have their own nuclear weapons program. This idea makes these countries, especially the U.S., seem very hypocritical. This seems like a valid argument to make initially, but in the end, it is erroneous. Iran is trying to strengthen its argument by putting itself in the same category as all of those world powers, but is Iran REALLY in the same boat as them?

In an article from The Washington Post that was written this month, the author discusses how America has protected and even helped supply Israel's nuclear program for over 40 years. Now, a lot of debate is going around regarding whether or not it is time to take away support of Israel's nuke program in order to shut down Iran's. This effort has been made many times, but Israel constantly refutes the idea. Two years ago, the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert justified this by stating, "Israel is a democracy, Israel doesn't threaten any country with anything, never did. The most that we tried to get for ourselves is to try to live without terror, but we never threaten another nation with annihilation. Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they [Iran] are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?"

I think this is a valid point, and really checks Iran about the idea presented above regarding the category that the country is in. There is a lot of truth in the Prime Minister's statement when he says that Israel is a country that does not aim to attack or destroy other countries. Israel is, and always has been, forced to fight off aggressors. It, therefore, feels that it needs nukes only for defensive purposes. What other alternative does Israel have if Iran, which may already have nuclear weaponry, has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the earth? Israel simply is not a country that intends to use its weaponry or bring war and destruction upon any nation; it, therefore, has the right to put itself in the same category as the U.S. Iran has openly stated, however, its intent to destroy Israel and is constructing its nuclear program without complying with the I.A.E.A. Hmmm...Something just tells me that I don't think Iran would fit in too well with the foreign nuclear powers. I believe it is only fair and intelligent to convince Iran to stop its nuclear program, and THEN ask Israel to stop theirs.

Article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/06/america-has-protected-israeli-nuke-program-for-40-/

Solving the Issue

As we prepare for our simulation next Friday dealing with how to react and respond to the conflict in Iran, I discovered there is quite a lot of information to talk about. I decided to do some additional research online about Iran and came across some very interesting political cartoons that represent two key points that I had read in the various packets we received. One cartoon criticizes Iran for lying about its nuclear program and the other cartoon criticizes the U.S. and other foreign powers for exercising hypocritical behavior towards Iran. This is what will make the simulation so interesting; there is always two sides to every argument, especially in war.

Cartoon #1 shown above is judgmental towards Iran in regards to the idea that the country is secretly operating a nuclear program to construct nuclear bombs, and covers it up by saying that their nuclear program is simply for domestic energy purposes. This political cartoon captures the usual point of argument in this conflict, which is that Iran cannot be trusted in any way shape or form and are a threat because of it. This is the more dominant opinion of Iran today and is definitely a valid point.

Cartoon #2 takes the opposing side of the dominant criticism and shows that part of the problem is the hypocritical behavior of the world powers. The cartoon depicts the U.S., France, Russia, China, and Great Britain as the possessors of nuclear bombs. The words, "Do as we say! Not as we do" are very significant because they effectively bring up a point that is important to consider while dealing with the conflict of Iran. The U.S. and these other world powers have all created nuclear programs in which they produced a large amount of nuclear bombs. Now, as Iran is suspected of doing the same thing, these countries say that Iran cannot do it. This introduces, therefore, an argument that opposes the idea that Iran cannot be trusted, for how can Iran trust these world powers in the first place if they all did what Iran is doing now.

Aside from all the facts, interviews, and cartoons that I have used in my research, I have and probably always will have one bias opinion towards this matter; I do not think Iran can be trusted in the first place, and cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. Although my stance has not changed, I now have much more information regarding all aspects of the conflict of Iran. Getting all the information can indeed cause someone to change positions in an argument, but it is most important for figuring out the best way to solve the issue. I guess that is what this whole simulation is about; understanding both sides, therefore, is a key part of learning how to react and respond to all of the problems we face in this world.

Super Hero or Super Villain?

A few weeks ago I saw the movie Watchmen. The movie was pretty good, but what I really enjoyed about it was the way they integrated history into the movie. The movie takes place in 1985 and the United States revolves around the period of tension we are leaning about now in AS; this period is known as the Cold War, a nuclear arms race against Soviet Russia. There are a great amount of historical references such as Vietnam, civil rights, etc., but what I really want to comment on is the decision making put into using weapons of mass destruction in the story.

Towards the end of the movie, the character Ozymandias, one of the super heroes, activates his major secret plan and sets off a weapon of mass destruction in New York City killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. His old companions are in horrible shock as they learn what he has done; they do not understand how/why he could do this. You want to view Ozymandias as a villain immediately, but this is where the movie's brilliance shines...

Right before this bomb is set off, tensions were high between Russia and the U.S. The type of bomb that Ozymandias set off was not an atom bomb, however, but created from the energy that Dr. Manhattan is made of, a super hero who is composed of nuclear energy. After the world realized that this WMD set off in New York was the energy Dr. Manhattan uses, the U.S. and Russia blame Dr. Manhattan. Within a matter of hours, the tension between the U.S. and Russia dropped and they halted their arms race once and for all as they joined in peace to rebuild the horror that struck the world that day. Ozymandias' plan the whole time was to frame Dr. Manhattan in order to bring peace between these two destructive world powers.

This was a very interesting idea that the movie presented; in order to bring peace to the world, one man thought the only option was to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. I'm so glad I saw Watchmen because I will always look back to this movie when we begin discussing the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in class. The movie raises a lot of questions that can be raised directly to the parallel decision making put into dropping the atom bomb on Japan. Was it the best option? Was it the only option? Are we heroes or are we villains?

The Trickle Effect

During these difficult economic times, people start to blame each other for their own problems; some blame the government, some blame the rich, and some blame the poor. Accusing each other has so far proved to do nothing, however, and maybe it is time to work together to solve the country's problems. If we do not support each other and fuel the economy, we will only sink deeper into this hole, for we have begun to truly experience what many like to call "the trickle effect."

I read an article in the New York Times titled "Who Gets Hit When the Wealthy Cut Back." The article discusses how the affluent are suffering economically now, and as a result, the lower working class is as well. This article mainly talks about the landscapers who work for the wealthy, and how they are having a hard time finding work now.

We have discussed one way to potentially solve an economic crisis is to put money back into the market by spending. Unfortunately, the wealthy are doing quite the opposite. Some are cutting back on the amount of people they have tending to their homes, while others are completely getting rid of their workers.
Yes, it may seem like the right decision for each individual homeowner to make in order to save money, but it is not helping the country as a whole. These landscapers are a large part of the economy and they are completely dependent on the wealthy class for work.

The wealthy need to support the economy by supporting the lower working class. By hiring and spending money on landscapers again, the lower working class will have more jobs available, they will be able to spend money again, the economy will begin to refuel, and the wealthy can then be refueled by the rising market.

We cannot blame each other during this time of economic crisis. We need to think more about what is best for our country than what is best for the individual. Reverse "the trickle effect!"

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/your-money/04wealth.html?pagewanted=1&8dpc

Reverse Our Ways!

An idea we've explored much in our current unit deals with how to fix the economy during difficult times. There is not a simple answer, and there never will be. After browsing through a few articles in the New York Times which talk about our economy's current situation, nearly all of them seem to convey the same plan to fix it. Americans need to reverse the way in which they are responding to this depression.
One article titled "A Downturn Wraps a City in Hesitance" focuses on one location, Portland, where everything is going wrong. Falling house prices, weak consumer spending, and falling investment are really taking a hold of this city. The article only suggests that by acting this way, Portland will only fall deeper into this spiral of depression. It can only be solved by acting in the exact opposite way. Housing values need to rise, people need to put money into the economy, and the stock market should must be refueled.
Portland is described as a place that, "has long attracted investment and talented minds with its curbs on urban sprawl, thriving culinary scene and life in proximity to the Pacific Coast and the snow-capped peaks of the Cascades" (Goodman 1). Large companies like Nike and Intel employed tens of thousands of Americans in Portland and finding a job in this innovative city never proved to be an issue. The city seems have to have completely shut down in this respect, however, as unemployment rose from 4.8% to 9.8% from 2007-2009. The reason a city that always thrived so efficiently is now falling into a deep hole is because psychologically, the city is not acting like its usual self.
No one knows exactly how to solve the economy, but several articles suggest that at this time, the best thing we can do is reverse our ways. Everyone is afraid, and things will only get worse, ironically. America needs to start spending, and housing prices and the stock market need to level off. It seems as if the only thing we can do to save the economy is face our fears and act inversely to what our heads tell us to do.

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/business/economy/27portland.html?fta=y

The Eternal Search

After reading the first chapter of F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel, The Great Gatsby, I noticed a particular passage that really spoke to me. The protagonist, Nick, describes his friend Tom as, "one of those men who reach such an acute limited excellence at twenty-one that everything afterward savors of anticlimax" (Fitzgerald 6). In college, Tom had been an outstanding football player and belonged to very wealthy family. He was seen as a "national figure" by others; those were his glory days, per say, and he will never forget them. Yet, Nick continues to describe his feelings towards Tom and feels that, "Tom would drift on forever seeking, a little wistfully, for the dramatic turbulence of some irrecoverable football game" (6). Nick brings up a very important life lesson here.

Tom is very wealthy, has a beautiful wife, and has all the material products he could ever wish for. Nick is able to discover, however, that Tom simply is not satisfied with his life, and he decides that Tom will be searching for that same happiness he USED to have for the rest of his life, never being able to find it.
This point that Nick brings up (most likely Fitzgerald's thoughts as well) applies a lot to my own life. I am in a particular position where I am about to finish high school and move on to a completely different part of my life. I will be going to college, become a full adult, get married, have kids, etc. The point is, each step of my life is a completely new stage of experience; each one is just as significant as the rest. We often are afraid of moving on to new stages in our lives; we tend to focus on one thing to accomplish in life. As a junior in high school, many kids bank their happiness on getting into the best college, winning a state championship, or getting a certain girl/boy to go out with them. People think that if they accomplish these goals, they are set for life and will be happy forever. The world just does not work this way. We cannot look back at our "glory days," as Tom does; we must find happiness in every new stage of our lives.

The theme Fitzgerald is trying to communicate about Americans during the 1920s, as well as today, is that people cannot expect to find eternal true happiness once wealth and material goods are aquired. Many people who are rich beyond belief and own everything they want are, in fact, some of the most depressed people in the world. As I prepare to move on to the many new stages of my life, I will not look forward to finding happiness in one of those areas, but in all of them.