Is America Loosing It's Title as Superpower?

Zakaria tackles the issue of superpowers in his article The Last Superpower. He quotes, "There will surely be some slippage of America's position over the next few decades. This is not a political statement but a mathematical one. As other countries grow faster, America's relative economic weight will fall. But the decline need not be large-scale, rapid, or consequential, as long as the United States can adapt to new challenges as well as it adapted to those it confronted over the last century." Zakaria is saying that the United States is not exactly in decline but the rest of the world power is rising. I think Zakaria's idea makes a lot of sense and is very realistic.

The title The Last Superpower, is referring to the United States as being the last superpower in the world today. This has been so since around 1989, when the fall of the Berlin wall and the fall of the USSR. But now, we also are starting to fall. According to Zakaria there will no longer be "superpowers" in the future and countries will be somewhat equal. He introduces he idea of multipolarity. Multipolarity, in other words, means that multiple places in the world that have power. This goes back to Thomas Friedman's essay in which he says the world is flattening and we are on a more level playing field. As other countries rise we are slightly declining. The whole world is competing with each other and America needs to stay in the game.

In my opinion I think America is conceited. We think we are all that in a bag of chips because we are supposedly this big bad superpower. We have become full of ourselves. We need to get on the train with the rest of the world and learn how to keep up. Everyone else is rising, so we should be rising too. Instead, we are worried about keeping isolated from the rest of the world. We don't approve of immigrants, learning new languages, and change. America needs to stop making all other countries enemies of them and collaborating with the rest of the world about globalization. I agree with Zakaria in his idea about the world with multipolarity. He makes a strong and interestin point about the rest of the world rising and America "slipping." America, everyone is gaining on you why isolate yourself now?

How is the world becoming flat?

In his book The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman a columnist, writes "Clearly, it is now possible for more people than ever to collaborate and compete in real time with more other people on more different kinds of work from more different corners of the planet and on a more equal footing than at any previous time in the history of the world- using computers, e-mail, networks tele-conferencing, and dynamic new software." He says this to argue his statement that the world is flat. Friedman contrast himself to Columbus' journey. He travels to India and speaks to many citizens to come to a realization that the world is flat contrary to Columbus saying the world is round. However, Friedman does not really mean the world is actually flat.

Friedman is saying the playing field is leveling, and people are competing for jobs all across the world. Governments are working together in a globalization economy or a world market. Technology has interconnected the world so that countries at two different parts of the world can connect instantaneously. Other countries are growing and the US needs to keep up. Friedman is excited and dreadful at the same time about this flattening of the world. He is looking forward to the globalization.

When talking about globalization the question is: does globalization mean Americanization. Friedman found when he went to India that there is a huge change in the younger generation. The outsourcing of jobs is allowing young women and men to get jobs at call centers and get paid a decent amount of money. This is allowing young adults to go out and buy things and live more like Americans. The women of the generation are beginning to become more independent, rather then having to stay home and take care of their families and being married off to create their own families. There is more free-thinking generation in India and the older generation is being left behind in the technology world. Traditions are going to the back burner while the young generation tries to Americanize their lives and live in luxury. There is a difference in priorities in India today between the older generation and the younger generation. Is India the next America? Is the world becoming flatter as we speak?

Dowd's Weak Stats

Contrary to Bob Herbert, Alan W. Dowd says, "the declinist were wrong yesterday. And if their record-and America's- are any indication, they are just as wrong today." Dowd, reffers to anyone who thinks America is in decline as a declinist. Basically he is saying they are wrong and America is not in decline. They are exagerated ideas and there is a decline in declinism. As he is supporting his argument by using today's current economic statistics, he fails to represent all the information and explanations of the statistics.

Dowd says that the U.S. statis is okay because workers are more productive and 1/5 of the world economy represents America. Each year on average the U.S. is 2.7% more productive. He also compares our average income with China's. Ours being about 44,000 and China's around 20,000. He also mentions that major american companies are exported more than we recieve other countries major companies. Looking at this information he has presented you might be suprised.

This information looks to be promising but Dowd fails to mention some things. In this case, what is productive? Dowd doesn't define what productive is according to his statistics and doesn't address who is this productivity helping. Yes, the productivity is increasing each year in America, but is our wages increasing with productivity? No. We are doing more and more work for the same amount of pay. Dowd also doesn't mention anything about unemployment in this argument, which could affect how we look at some of these statistics. In the statistic comparing America and China's average income, there is a problem. America's wealthy earn most of the economies money. There is a dimishing middle class and the median average income for America is skewed. The mean is being pulled up by the large amount of money that the very few rich people are making. Finally, when talking about how we export our companies more than we recieve other countries companies. Who is the money going to and which economy is it supporting?

Dowd has a lot of flaws in his argument. He fails to mention facts, therefore, making his information look better than it really is. I think Dowd might be in denial and has a weak argument. He is falsely reprisenting information. Next time he writes an essay he should go deeper and explain the meanings of his statistics.

What is a "Fire in the Basement"?

The title of Bob Herbert's editorial, "A Fire in the Basement" is a metaphor for describing the state of America. In his editorial he addresses problems in America's society such as: partisanship, racism, failure to follow founding ideas, class struggle, and the indifference to abuses of power and social injustices. By "fire in the basement" Herbert is referring to the underlying problems of society that people can't see but are definitely there. The problems "burning" in the basement are a threat to bring the whole building down. The U.S. being the building. Fire in the foundation of the building affects everyone. So the underlying problems threaten to bring America down and affect all of it's citizens.

I think Herbert makes a good point and I agree with him. He talks about partisanship, which means the democrats and Republicans don't work together anymore. Before they used to be able to get stuff done but now they can't come to agreement on many things, weakening our country. Herbert also points out racism by talking about a story where a group of black men were wrongly accused because of their color. This is happening today and we are at a point in our country where we should be past racism but were not. Americans don't care about abuses of power and social injustices in our society. We are not informed enough of the governments mistakes and hypocrisy in our nation, but when we are informed Americans are indifferent and don't speak up. In the future this leads to more abuses of power and more social injustices. Also the diminishing middle class is posing a threat. In today's economy you are either rich or struggling.

Hidden Itellectualism

Gerald Graff argues in his essay Hidden Intellectualism that pop culture can be a subject for serious intellectual analysis. Graff says, "Real intellectuals turn any subject, however lightweight it may seem, into grist for their mill through the thoughtful questions they bring to it, whereas a dullard will find a way to drain the interest out of the richest subject." Graff is saying that intellectuals can make any subject into a serious intellectual argument through their insightful new ideas they bring to the table about the subject. Graff also explains, " the rudiments of the intellectual life: how to make an argument, weigh different kinds of evidence, move between particulars and generalizations, summarize the views of others, and enter a conversation about ideas." All these things are present in an intellectual argument.

In Antonia Peacocke's essay, Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, she presents an intellectual argument supporting the TV show Family Guy. If you have seen Family Guy the word intellectual is not the first word that comes to mind. Peacocke makes her argument intellectual by using Graff's advice. She provides the many view of family guy and summarizes arguments of many other authors opposing views. For example pages 262-263 are perfect ways Peacocke summarizes others beliefs. She brings her own ideas and thoughts to the table and explains why she stands on her beliefs. Peacock has written the "perfect essay" according to the book "They Say, I Say." She is in the they say, I say conversation, and makes a not-so intellectual show Family Guy into an intellectual, argumentative writing piece.

Rushkoff's Difficult Viewpoint

This might be how you are feeling when reading Rushkoff's essay


Douglas Rushkoff writes in his essay Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence, "The Simpsons is the closest thing in America to a national media literacy program." In this sentence Rushkoff is stating his view point, that the Simpsons is a good show because it teaches us to read the rest of media culture in America. The "they say" in this argument would be those who oppose the satire and somewhat offensive jokes in the show. The first time I read this essay, I was under the impression that Rushkoff was "bashing" the Simpsons. The reason that this might occur when other peers read it, is because although the Simpsons is directed towards young people, Rushkoff directs his essay towards a more intellectual individual. Rushkoff's essay is more on a high academic level, because of the complex ideas and vocabulary he uses. He is trying to show highly intelligent people that the Simpsons is not a "dumb" and offensive cartoon.





However, if Rushkoff were to write his essay geared toward the audience of the viewers of show he would have to change his tone, language, and arguments. He could first start of by using less complex of a vocabulary. In his essay, as it is now, requires a dictionary at hand for me to read. The tone of his essay would have to be more casual and attention catching to appeal to the teens of today. He might argue in his new essay for the reasons why we should be watching the Simpsons. Rushkoff could explain the deeper meanings behind the show, and how they are getting us to read the rest of media culture. Example's of this would have to be used in the essay. Overall his goal would be to write this essay and make it to where a younger individual would want to sit down, read it, and be interested in what he's saying.

Technology Takes Attension (blog 10)

Sherry Turkle addresses in her article, "Can You Hear Me Now?" how technology alienates you. It takes your attention from others around you and from yourself. She also mentions that it is bad for children to have cell phones, because they are always connected to their parents and don't get out in the real world by themselves. I agree with Turkle on the point that technology alienates us from our surroundings and somewhat ourselves, however I disagree that it is negative for children to own cell phones.

Turkle uses the reference of the PDA the Blackberry often in her article. As a Blackberry owner I have experience in being alienated from society. The Blackberry can receive your facebook and myspace updates, text messages, emails from all accounts you have, instant messages, and phone calls. Your phone is constantly chiming in with your new information. In most of the technology today they have phones that have all these and more features in your cell phone. This always gives people something to do in the technology world, you can check everything anywhere. I myself don't know what i would do without my cell phone. Turkle writes in her essay how technology like these can be addicting, and she is absolutely right. I myself have even had friends and relatives who spend all their time on their phones and text while your talking to them. I have gotten the "huh" and head nods a lot from friends not paying attention lost deep in their cell phones. Cell phones have disconnected us from society and ourselves.

Although I agree that technology is alienating, Turkle fails to support the opposition that we need these technologies to and extent. Turkle says in her article that children and teens these days should not have cell phones because it allows them to always be connected to their parents, not experience the real world, and not learn to fend for themselves. I disagree with this thought. The world has gone to crap. You are constantly hearing news stories of the increasing violence, kidnappings, homicides, and disasters. Do you want to be able to get a hold of your child in case they become a victim of the world's evil? We need these technologies to stay connected to our children and informed of whats going on around us in the world. Isn't that what parents are for anyways, protecting and being there for their children?

Yes technology is distracting, alienating, and disconnecting, but think where would we be without it. We need our cell phones, email, Internet, and other forms of communication to an extent. It all comes down to today's society, and how we have abused the technology given to us. Technology has made us rude. Next time your in class, having a conversation with a friend, or driving, put your phone down and have some respect.