All Work and No Play

We work too hard. And for what? For money? For fame? For security? Though the reasons may vary some, people ultimately seem to want the same thing. Happiness. And yet, in America, it feels like few truly have it. Since its foundation, America was known as the land of opportunity. If someone was willing to work hard, they could find the happiness that one desires. At first, work was seen as a gift that could allow a person to grow and succeed. But unfortunately, Americans today have taken it to the extreme. If we work hard now, we can rest later. If we work hard now, we will be happy in the long run. But the long run never seems to come because we become so focused on working that we put off the here and now.

Stop Workin' so Hard

I want to abolish the idea of prioritizing work and financial gain over life experiences. Americans rarely take vacations and we work harder than most countries. However, we are also less happy and satisfied with our lives than other countries. Why? We just keep working so we can get ahead and we never stop to enjoy. So here's what I'm thinking.

Renaissance: This got the ball rolling with the power in possibilities. Men realized they could "change their stars" in a sense. The plague, exploration, humanism led to men creating and becoming!

Enlightenment: We learn to enjoy our liberty........Any ideas here?

Industrialization: This is actually where American's demanded a 5 day work week. But industrialization and new technology allowed for inventions and improvement. Suddenly, work could continue into the night with the invention of electricity and light bulbs. Not only that but people worked in the factory and went on to continue to work at home. Isms: Nationalism, imperialism, etc. drives the idea of us being better than others and that continued into our everyday lives. We need to be better than our neighbors.

20th Century/Age of Technology: Work now can come to the home with internet, email, and handheld devices. We can be working at any moment and we convince ourselves that a few more hours will lead to immense gain.


I plan on looking into the history of leisure and such but any ideas are great :)

Show me the money

My midterm call for change was on why we need to start paying certain college athletes. College athletics is a multi-million dollar industry. Universities that are part of a power 5 conferences make millions of dollars in t.v. revenue. Other sources of revenue includes tickets sales, jerseys and other merchandise. This is a sick and twisted business and something has to change. Here are some ways of how I think that some of principles that we've talked about connect with paying collegiate athletes.

• Conservatism- When college athletics was originally set up it was an opportunity for students to get some exercise and compete against other universities. Now, college athletics is so much more. It is now a billion dollar industry and a major source of entertainment for this country. Universities are making way too much money off these athletes and are unwilling to start paying athletes. They are stuck in their ways and a time for change seem unlikely. 

• Nationalism- It seems like since these athletes were kids they ad a sense of pride for a certain university. For example, Rudy was obsessed with Notre Dame football and the only way that he was going to be happy was if he got the chance to play for them. It's the same in our society. Parents, teachers and other opinion leaders brainwash these young kids into thinking that they will only be happy and successful if they play for certain universities. The pride factor plays a very important role in college athletics. 

• Utilitarianism- This is the current policy of the NCAA. The idea that not paying athletes is for the greater good of the game is simply a lie that the NCAA and the Universities are trying to convince everyone to believe. 

I am sure that there are more principles that I could tie into this topic and if you can think of any please leave a comment. I would love to hear your ideas. 

Why Society Began Controlling Labor Forces in the First Place

My midterm call for change reviewed alternative workplace systems (ways to be productive without following the 9 to 5 norm. There are a few ways that come to mind of how this issue connects to events in the historical periods following the Enlightenment: 

• Perhaps now with some companies starting to move away from the traditional system, there is a sort of return to the 1960s/1970s revolution for freedom to be and freedom from "the Man." Not sure this would work...? 
• 18th century established a concept of rationality, one of its later fruits was the 9 to 5. It became a very methodical, systematical way to unify the country's workforce and keep track of the boom of everyone who was working. 
• In the 19th century, the concept of nationalism could also relate to this idea that unifying everyone, or putting everyone into the same system created a bond among Americans.

All of them do relate to one another, but I think the biggest pattern I've seen is that history is starting to repeat itself. I feel that society is beginning again the cycle of freeing itself from the norms of tradition, and breaking out of the rational system that's been the norm since the Enlightenment. 

Logical Women's Suffrage

There is a reason why Susan B. Anthony is a symbol (if not the symbol) of the women's suffrage movement in America. Her speech was quite refreshing to read after reading Elizabeth Stanton's. Elizabeth seemed to appeal to passion and emotion, and as a man I felt almost attacked, rather than sympathetic towards her cause. Susan used much logic to defend her beliefs, and presented them in such a way that was quite persuasive to the mind. By appealing to things that the people in her time all held in common (like a belief in the constitution) she was able to use that to persuade others to her side of thinking. To do otherwise would be to reject those commonly held beliefs, or to contradict oneself.

We, The Women

This chick knew how to throw some shade!

I seriously love Susan B. Anthony. Girl, you are my hero.
As I was reading through her speech given on a tour to various cities following her arrest for voting in a presidential election, I couldn't help but feel like cheering her on. And a lot of it has to do with her A1 writing. Here's why:

She utilizes ethos, logos, and pathos like a boss. As Anthony goes throughout her speech she appeals to ethos, logos, and pathos in a chiasmic style.

Hear our sufferings, we are the suffragettes

Political climate is everything to a speech writer. The situation facing present day feminists has nothing to do with suffrage, and rhetoric has nearly done a 180. The rhetoric that shapes women's issues about equality are inherent in the name of the movement: equality. Rejecting the "man-hating" label often ascribed to modern feminists is common practice, but was the last of either of these women's worries.

Susan B. Anthony and Cady Stanton used primarily emotional and argumentative rhetoric, based on principles they considered common sense. They drove their audiences to action by drawing attention to obvious oversights in the rhetoric of the time – most notably the opening phrase of the constitution.  Anthony went as far as saying the United States as it functioned was not a democracy, but rather a "hateful oligarchy of sex."

Verbally painting injustice and humiliation was the inclination of Stanton. She spoke of stripping women of their rights, ignoring their strong tendencies, and trivializing legitimate emotional concerns. Stanton was sticking it to the man, with hopes of her own "I voted" sticker for the future.

To half of a nation that was unjustly disenfranchised this sort of rhetoric would be like throwing sparks on tinder, but for a more conservative group of women it may have seemed simply hysterical. The commentary included in the book implied that she set a fire ablaze.

"Chief Seattle's Speech" to Americans: Transliterating the Translation (30 Years After Delivery)

~This link is for Americans with an accurate sense of humor: Meaningful Native American Tribal Song~

  What is the criterion to call a literary work “historically accurate” (in good conscience)? For Dr. Henry Smith, a “pioneer who heard [Chief Seattle’s] speech but who waited until 1887, more than thirty years later, to publish it in the Sunday Seattle Star,” the criterion seems loose (to put it delicately). Smith, a Conservationist, supposedly transcribed a translation of Seattle’s powerful speech, which speech was delivered by Chief Seattle to “the white man.” This speech, in spite of being packed with admirable sentiments (sentiments that were likely shared, maybe even said, by Native American chieftains), contains a laughable amount of Anglo-American tropes and references that indicate an American appropriation of a culture, and/or speech, in order to fulfill its “white man’s burden” to the Native Americans. The concept of a “white man’s burden” has no grounding in reality (save to exist in the wake of racism and racial inequality). That which is human doesn't need to be humanized!