Alger Today

After trying to research a detailed report on Horatio Alger in today’s society I obviously came to the end where it isn’t going to be that simple. But it seems that he isn’t at all forgotten. He is mentioned in two news articles I found, focusing on the celebrity life of America.

The first was an article involving Jay-Z’s beginning in life and before his career spectacularly shot into our world. The news article only mentions Alger once:

“And the basic outlines of his Horatio Alger story are well known: his childhood in Bed-Stuy during the crack epidemic; his father's departure from the family, leaving him "a kid torn apart"; his career as a dealer, "tryin' to come up/in the game and add a couple of dollar signs to my name"; his debut album, "Reasonable Doubt," in 1996; his ascent as a rap star, followed by his success as a producer, an entrepreneur and a chief executive ("I'm not a businessman/I'm a business, man.").”

The second article was focusing on the recent book of Portia De Rossi, and the downfall of celebrity’s effect on people who follow them:

“In her new memoir, Unbearable Lightness, de Rossi kicks up the wormy underbelly of a Hollywood Horatio Alger story: Aussie moves to L.A., finds fame on TV, happily marries the most prominent lesbian in Hollywood, Ellen DeGeneres. But the reality was far grimmer.”

Both assume that the reader understands the term “Horatio Alger story”. The rags-to-riches (or rags-to-respectability that was mentioned in our lecture) story is still around today. But the point both articles actually make is that the story is never simple. And this is exactly what Alger was trying to point out to the adult readers of “Ragged Dick”. These tricky situations that Dick first encountered still happen today but in an obvious more 21^st century way. Instead of children living on the streets (although, of course that does still happen), people need to be aware of drugs, eating disorders and self-harm.

But then, as noted in our lecture, and in the lives of Jay-Z and Portia De Rossi, who have to be open to chance. Jay-Z nor Portia would be where they are if the first event didn’t trigger the rest.

Alger’s respectability is still well known today and even though his fame came after his death, it seems that America uses it as a bases to route they can go through. They can place themselves on the line of one of his characters and use it to travel through the success.

But as the second article is from a Canadian news post, it isn’t just American’s that are familiar and use Horatio in their lives.

Jay-Z: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20101128/ENT03/11290304/1028/ENT/Jay-Z-explores-life-in-Decoded-

Portia: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/style/thinness---and-female-unhappiness---is-big-business/article1804150/

NRA vs Handgun Control battle it out over Gun Control.

This week, I have chosen two websites, one is the official American NRA website, the other is Handgun Control official website. Obviously these two have very opposing opinions on gun control in America!

Pro-Gun.
The website for the NRA, is very official, linking you to many different projects the NRA back. There is a link on how to join, how to contribute to the website and association. It also has a link to the Legislation's and Policy issues, all about gun control. This website is clearly backing gun control. There are many programmes on gun control, such as safety issues and competitive shooting. The NRA is very clear on responsible gun control, and obviously is proud to teach people how to use guns, and get certain gun laws passed. On the homepage of the website it has links to NRA's top stories, NRA in the media and Legislative alerts to do with gun control. Though the one thing I have noticed in comparison with the other website, is the lack of people depicted on their website. Surely it would come across better, if there were pictures of people using guns safely, instead of no pictures of people, and the first image that pops into your head when you think of the NRA is a gun. Its kind of got bad connotations in a way. Though in the corner of the website there is a picture of the American Eagle on the American Flag, which is safe to say pretty cliche when it comes to America. If you are part of the NRA, you are an American. Which in short is saying if you have a gun, you are an American.

Source.

Anti-Gun
The Anti-Gun website I found was Handgun Control. Right from the very beginning, there is the American colours of red, white and blue. This is clearly to say if you support Handgun Control, you are a good American. What also sticks out is the constant news feed of gun related news, such as one of the headlines is "Gun Control Supporters From Both Parties Win Senate Seats." This is clearly bad news for Handgun Control, and inspires the people of Handgun Control to rally against this. Something interesting I found was how to join Handgun Control. Its very in your face on the front page, unlike the NRA where you have to click through some links to get there. This is clearly wanting people to join immediately with their cause to get rid of guns, or at least limit their abilities drastically. But I think the most important thing on the website itself is in the top right hand corner, It has a counter of people shot in America this year so far, and people who have been shot today. These numbers are quite scary if you look at them for the first time. Its obviously trying to provoke you to join their cause, and to stop this amount of people dying from guns. Its got a clear message that guns are bad, and America can do without them. To back this up as well, is a link to Victims and Advocates. This is showing the more personal side to gun control, seeing as these people have lost, or have been shot by people with guns. Its an emotional back up for their main message. In a way this is a very clever tactic.

Source.

Gun Control (Pro vs. Anti)

Brief Argument for Gun Control

In the above video Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign, gives statistics that provide reason to beleive that the activity of guns should at least be controlled, if not banned completely. The fact that an American is stating such facts is somewhat refreshing as there seems to be a general assumption that all Americans are in support of their so-called 'gun culture'. It should thus be noted that not all Americans feel it is necessary to have a gun as part of their 'freedom'.

Website Arguing against Gun Control
On the other hand, the usual argument that the Constitution allows, in 'the introductory clause "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"' can be seen as just as valid: Even though the clause is subject to interpretation in regards to its meaning, the fact that such a proposition hade been put forward such a long time ago gives it a little more standing.

Personally the figures of how many casualities there are in America due to the regulations concerning guns and their handling/usage, the argument for gun control is more convincing. When looking at lives, of which cannot be replaced once taken, the usage of guns is evidently not being taken as seriously as it should. Furthermore learning that guns are now produced especially for children, in 'kid-size' version, is even more frightening as children cannot fully understand what they hold in their hands when in possession of such a device.
A gun does have the potential to bring about freedom as it can ultimateky eliminate danger. However, this is/will/can be done only by taking life, and life is something that humans cannot duplicate, but only replace with another. In addition it seems that their attitude towards gun violence, for example the war in Iraq, is taken somewhat lightly in comparison to the rest of the world, and could easily be extended to more hazardous devices, such as nuclear bombs as displayed in the Cold War. This slightly contradicts America's portryed ideology that every individual is important when in search of that all important 'American Dream', as guns do not discriminate between individuals but rather bring anonymity to its victim - life cannot be duplicated, but a gunshot easily can.

Gun Control

Anti-gun Control
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is committed to preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I found a very interesting page on this website where there is a list of National Organisations and there was well over 150 across the United States. In many instances, these organizations lent their name in support specific campaigns to pass anti-gun legislation's. Many of these organisations were listed as "Campaign Partners," for having pledged to fight any efforts to repeal the Brady Act and the Clinton "assault weapons" ban. All have officially endorsed anti-gun positions. Following, there is a list of Celebrities and national figures speaking out for anti-gun legislation and providing a voice for anti-gun organisations and causes.

The home page for this website is very official and has many advertisements to try and get you involved in anti-gun campaigns. The other aspect that strikes me is that there is merchandise that can be purchased such as baseball caps and T-Shirts. This is a very typical American image of American attire.

http://www.nraila.org/

Pro-Gun Control
One of the most obvious things i noticed about this website was the fact that there is a huge American flag with a large gun over the top of it followed by the second amendment. What struck me as interesting was the fact that when you put the cursor over a category it came up with a picture a bullet. This gives a clear indication of the ideals of this website.

I was not surprised to see that many of the advertisements are promoted by the Tea Party and other organisations that are Pro gun ownership.

To the left of the homepage there is a a short slide show which is very powerful in my opinion. The words say "Don;t forget what happened". Following these words there are a series of pictures from the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers and people dead or seriously injured. This is a clear indication that guns are needed to protect yourself, your homes and your families from any outside threat.

At the very bottom of the page there is a small picture of a pink gun. As it is a Pro gun website for women it is quite fitting that they use a stereotypical "girls colour" to show the femininity and in a way to show that women can be seen as looking good with a gun.

http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/

Gun Control

Anti-Gun Control

Armed Females of America

The first thing you see when looking at this website is the American flag used as a banner with a females eye, an AK47 and the 2nd Amendment. This gives us an insight as to the websites ideologies just by looking at this banner, we can assume that the website is a Female run Anti-Gun control website. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, is a representative of the Texas State Legislature and she wrote the introduction for this website. She met the Executive Director of AFA, Carma Lewis, who had lost her son through being shot. Yet she tells of how Carma felt that American females should carry guns in order to protect their families. This website is clearly appealing to mothers of American families to support the right to bear arms, it is interesting how they use the second amendment and dotted all over the website are talks of liberty and freedom, so this shows us how they are using old American ideals to try and justify the allowance of guns. "OUR HUMAN RIGHTS are worth fighting for -- specifically, our right to keep and bear arms, and we're prepared to fight to our death to preserve those rights. We always seek peaceful solutions first, but never underestimate the aim of . . .Armed Females". This is quite a threatening statement made and found on the mission tab on the website, this shows us quite a strong attitude that is upheld by those who do not want to lose their right to bear arms. One of the other tabs on the page, is the links page and on this page there are many different links to sites described as being; education and safety, women's gun rights activists among others, but most interestingly is the links to 'Anti-Freedom Organisations' or otherwise known as Pro-Gun Control.

http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/

Pro-Gun Control

Women Against Gun Violence

The opening banner on this website is a lot more striking as it reads '8 kids a day are too many...Our goal is 0' this of course referring to the statistics that 8 children are killed a day in America by gun fire. The organisation set out to prevent gun related murder by raising awareness of the danger to the public and the financial problems they provide. Many Anti- Gun Control groups criticise those Pro-Gun Control organisations of trying to take away their freedom as American citizens, but the WAGV cleverly use the right of freedom in saying that they are free to want rid of gun violence as of the dangers that go with it. This website also uses the technique of fear to get their opinions across, however they do so by offering statistics about how dangerous owning a gun can be, "A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. (Kellermann, AL et al., "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." Both websites offer strong sides to the Gun Control debate and both appear to be quite aggressive in doing so, by trying to play on American ideals such as Freedom and Liberty.

http://www.wagv.org/index.php

Brady vs PSAC

ANTI

The website I have found is not in favour of banning guns completely, but rather having significantly more restrictions and rules about who can own a gun, and how guns are sold and treated in America. Rather than the out right banning of guns, which would cause endless legal wrangling and anger all over the US, the move to promote safety and a sensible attitude towards guns is one I think is a very positive step. The Brady Campaign is also involved in helping victims of gun crime, as well as helping to organise vigils for victims and getting involved with the families of the injured or deceased victims - in cases such as the Virginia Tech shooting of 2007, they often strive to use these big news stories as platforms for their anti-gun message, and have become instrumental in supporting many candidates in elections.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/


PRO

The Pro Second Amendment Committee is somewhat less well thought out and prepared than the Brady Campaign site, but its aims are still clear. The group believe that anyone in any position of political power than opposes the 2nd Amendment is not doing their job properly by not honouring their oath to 'uphold the constitution'. It seems as though the issue for the PSAC not the dangers of guns or the facts based on the amount of deaths they cause, but actually more on the nature of it being a right as an American.

http://www.prosecond.org/index.html

Having read through the arguments that both websites have and seeing their list of supporters and their reasoning, I am more inclined to agree with the Brady Campaign. As I'm sure many other English and European people may agree, the idea of owning a gun, of wanting to own a gun is quite bizzare, and seemingly quite needless. The PSAC group seems to be more keen on promoting the constituion and continuing to support the right of American people rather than explaining the dangers that guns pose to society. This follows on from the lecture on Monday that discussed what it is about American laws and ideology that makes their rhetoric so fantastical. The idea of opposing the 2nd Amdendment seems almost anti-American, and in a way paints the PSAC to have quite the isolationist view of American poltics. This is countered of course by the facts section on the Brady Canpaign site where it is implied that Americans should be more European in their approach to guns and realise that guns are not as integral to one's happiness as many might imagine.

Gun Control.

I have found two very different webpages, each looking at one side of gun control argument. Both websites are personal sites, being managed by what seems one person for each.

Anti-Gun Control: Lest Darkness Fall

http://www.lestdarknessfall.com/Pages/gun_rights.htm

The opening sentence to this website is “expression of personal freedom designed to interest, entertain and educate people interested in exploring the meaning and importance of freedom”. It is very much a place for the writer to vent about whatever they decide. The webpage itself is quite dark, with black background and various cartoons of shootings and murders.

I felt that the writer of this page was quite aggressive and very much believed they were right in every sense and their mind would never change.

Pro-Gun Control: Asahi-Net

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm

This website is run by a guy called Jason; who uses it as well to post about the situations he decides to. He graduated University with an English & East Asia Studies degree (thus he now lives in Japan) and also went to Harvard.

Comparison

Regarding the information that each person put into their post; there are very similar sections. The first would be that both mentioned the Constitution, in particular the second Amendment; "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Lest Darkness Fall (LDF) took this statement very literal. Believing that every person in America between the ages of 18 and 49 was included in this “well-regulated militia”, whereas Jason disagreed. LDF believed this article allowed each person own a gun, because that is what it states. Jason looked beneath the statement and thinks that each right that Americans hold have boundaries. Sometimes a person’s right contradicts another.

Both use murders in their posts, again pointing out different aspects of it. LDF use the well-known line of being able to protect yourself in your home or in a public area (agreeing to state laws of course). He believes, that taking away a criminals gun, will just make them pick up another weapon, which he links to England and our rise in knife crime.

Jason agrees with this and understands that a certain amount of people will just pick up something else. But that is only one type of murders in America. Another type which is mentioned, are those that shoot out of a “heat of the moment” situation. The gun is there and they’re angry; it’s the solution they see. And if guns were banned, this statistic would decrease.

LDF uses various statistics to back up the opinions stated, and frankly, was the only section of the post that I could acknowledge and like of it. It states that 6,000 crimes are stopped per day by pointing a gun at would-be rapists, thieves, murderers etc. I also believed that he made a valid point in that criminals, who are out with the motive to cause a murder or robbery, already discard the law so a new piece of legislation surely wouldn’t stop them either.

With being able to convince people one way or the other, I think my English views push me towards the pro-gun control. But still, discarding my English-ness, I like the fact that Jason recognised that banning guns is quite unrealistic, so controlling them was a better idea for the moment. He created his own points that could help with controlling murders and gun crime in America.

As opposed to LDF who disagrees with everything about gun-control. He is unable to acknowledge that sometimes in the hands of the public, guns can be a negative.

Tea Party Song

This video is a prime example of how Americans crave to live in the ideal. The video constantly refers to the past when politics in America was supposedly 'correct'.
The parts of the video that refer to the present day criticize the current ruling body, especially President Obama and his current reforms. Negative emphasis is put especially on handouts from the state and the health care system that Obama wants to implement.

Essentially the video encourages the viewer to join a tea party in order to help promote the efforts of gaining the tea party an influential position in the US government. The fact that it encourages the viwer to join any tea party displays that that even though the tea party has many different branches and sub-divisions, they portray a united front, as this will ulimately presumeably be more beneficial for their campaign to become a prominent part of US government.

We're havin' a tea party

The video I've found is, like the Huck Chuck facts of last week, is very short.

It advertises a national tour that was undertaken by supporters of the Tea Party in August/September this year, and as there aren't many ideas expressed in the video in terms of support, I'll be focusing more on the creative choices that have been made in the making of this promo.

Firstly, the narrator. Blessed with a deep, rumbling timbre, he wouldn't be out of place advertising the new Die Hard at your local cinema. He is very American, very masculine, and very Tea Party. I think there is a certain significance in his voice - the fact that he sounds like a voice over at the movies is indicative of what the Tea Party think they are, of how their presence is a serious issue, that they should be taken seriously.

Secondly, in the opening 15 seconds, the aim of the advert and who it is supposed to appeal to is outlined. The promo is listed as being for anyone tired of 'out of control spending' 'bailouts' 'higher taxes' 'a spiralling national debt' and 'big government liberalism' and its rhetoric is very firmly rooted in American ideals and patriotic sentiment. This is mirrored by the background of fireworks (a reference of course to Independence Day, a day many wistful Tea Partiers would consider their favourite holiday) and the demonised images of Obama and conservative America's favorite punch bag Nancy Pelosi, who is currently Speaker for congress, the implication being that these are the people who represent all the ills of American politics.

The idea of the Tea Party Express bus, which was used to drive across America to stage numerous tea parties, is a very strange one for an organisation as skewed and disorganised at the Tea Party, especially when one considers it isn't even a real party.

Bill Maher + The Tea Party.

This week, I chose this video of Bill Maher, on 23rd April 2010, seemingly destroying the Tea Party. I say destroying, I do mean he is utterly making a fool of them. I saw a tiny clip of this from the Documentary we watched in the lecture on Monday and thought it was quite a powerful clip.

He puts on a so called "Teabagger" hat, teabags included. This is a clear sign on him mocking the way they have organised their party by distinguishing themselves as "Founding Fathers". He does agree to one of their statements of decreasing the National Debt. Which in a way, is a pretty fair demand. Yet he goes onto say that the Tea Party "want money for nothing and chicks for free." which is a way of saying that they want to deregulate the free markets and keep their jobs, guaranteed health coverage, regardless of pre-existing conditions, yet without a government mandate. Maher is clearly stating the Tea Party's demands, yet they are contradicting themselves, as they are getting a health care reform, one that they would want, but with this Government mandate they are refusing it. It seems that the Tea Party want this grand schemes to help America, yet do not want to comply with the current government and pay the necessary taxes.

Bill Maher also likens America to a family, who need to cut spending, yet do not want to. He says, that the mother still goes on shopping sprees, and the dad pays for this "big stupid boat". This is in direct reference to the military spending, where he completely criticises it, saying that the weapons being researched and built are not needed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Bill Maher clearly puts the Tea Party into their place, by generally picking out their arguments and routinely making fun of them and correcting them.

For some reason the video did not work again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aet6nMLGOeU&feature=related

Sarah Palin

Tea Party Rally Song

For this weeks Blog task I have chosen to show a video of the Tea Party's Rally Song by J Robbie. Robbie wrote this song about the government giving "our America away".