Christmas in CGS

Christmas time is here
Happiness and cheer
Fun for all that students call
their favorite time of the year

Teacher s gives them gifts

In the form of tests

With the passing bell

As excuses grow like shopping list

Teachers are on break

Students have headaches

When they see their homework load

Over their Christmas break

Presents are exchanged

Some things never change

When it’s Christmas time in CGS

 We are all like children on Christmas Day

 In the week leading up to Christmas an aura of trepidation fills the singular hallway that is CGS. Teacher plan last minute activities as students are pulled out from class to practice for the upcoming concert. We here the administrations angst from all the holiday cheer as if they can control the joy of Christmas. We become lax and anxious as we wait to hear that 12:45 bell meaning that we can leave for the retreat of our families. Our holiday to do list seems to grow but in the end we are ok. Since it Christmas what can go wrong?

Just about everything and anything.   

Merry Christmas.

David A. Kai (inspired by a Charlie Brown Christmas and Ms. Parham's prompt.)

Comic

我不知道，如果丽莎想今晚去吃饭。我应该叫她找出来。

您好丽莎。

您好迈克尔。

你怎么样？

我很好。你是如何。

我很好的感谢。

你今晚忙吗？

号为什么要问？

我想知道，如果你想和我一起去吃饭？

当然可以。我很想去。你什么时候接我吗？

5:30

好吧，我会看到你。

在餐厅。

请问您喜欢吃什么？他们包饺子，曹将军的鸡肉，海鲜和素食。

我想订购一些蔬菜饺子糖醋鱼。

这听起来非常健康，我们应该记住，要求他们不添加任何味精。

晚饭后。

你认为什么晚宴？

我觉得食物很美味，我们应该再次来到这里。

好吧，我会今晚晚餐支付。

谢谢您。

没有问题，我很高兴你能和我一起。

哦，不。

什么错了？

我的钱，我必须花了。

不用担心，我会支付。

谢谢

没有问题的

中国 晚餐

一-烤香蒜鸡与天使头发面食和法国面包

二－鸡Stroganoff抛沙拉和意大利面包

三－勃艮第牛肉与鸡蛋面

四－在伏特加酒汁长通粉抛沙拉和意大利面包

五－面包馅和奶油玉米焗猪扒

六－香辣虾和西兰花与赖斯

七－罗尔斯与红新月鸡饭砂锅

Churchill vs. Hirohito

World War Two, Churchill, and Hirohito: What could possibly go wrong?

            With the Germans on the rise to ultimate European power. Having taken down country after country for Nazi Germany Hitler seemed nearly unstoppable. What he did not expect was the energy and caliber of the new British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. Despite a lukewarm reception he stands to deliver one of the greatest calls-to-arms in history.  In the same way at the end of World War Two after Japan had been devastated by the first nuclear bombing in history Emperor Hirohito makes a magnificent surrender speech both honorable and empowering. These two dynamic speeches are separated by time, situation, speaker and perspectives, yet are united in their purpose; to send a message that would inspire a nation and show the world the strength of their words.

            Churchill's call to arms speech has been called one of the greatest speeches ever given in history, but why is it? The language is powerful, accepting the gravity of the situation and his actions, and direct in his tone.  Phrases like, “for without victory, there is no survival”, “victory in spite of all terror”, and “It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us” Churchill uses pathos to show the importance of answering his call. He also gives his audience the benefit that they are fully capable to understand the gravity of their situation that he does not need to sugar coat. In other words he gives them their vegetables plain and simple. No faulty logic or far-fetched propaganda. Churchill, does this beautifully when he says, “We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering.” His strength, “buoyancy”, and caliber portrayed in his first speech dissolve his early perceptions.

            Emperor Hirohito was faced with a daring challenge; the honorable surrender of the Japanese people after the devastating bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.  He also gives great credit to the mental capacity of his “loyal subjects.” He amazingly says that the people of Japan are surrendering without saying the phrase, We Surrender. He addresses his military in a tone of thanks and honor when he says, “Despite the best that has been done by everyone,” The war has not ended in Japan’s favor.  He explains the gravity of their situation when he writes; “Should we continue to fight” it would result in the obliteration of the Japan and human civilization.by taking this approach he makes the Japanese people martyrs of the world who will have to suffer for the wellbeing of human existence. This is why this speech is known as one of the best surrender speech in History. He does this with grace and humility whilst portraying America as the homicidal villain and Japan the martyr of the world.

Who has the better argument: The Prince or Civil Disobedience?

Machiavelli, the 1513 author of The Prince, and Thoreau, The 1849 author of Civil Disobedience, share and differ on ideas concerning government and how it should govern people as well as the best form of response. Due to their different time periods the ideas articulated would have huge consequences if read out of context. Machiavelli’s essay was written for the wealthy of society on how to govern a people whilst remaining in power.  But he lived in a society where the majority couldn’t read so he was safe from retribution from angry commoners. Thoreau voices the opinion of the majority under such a rule described by Machiavelli. What it all comes down to is how should we let ourselves be governed?

            Thoreau believes that the American government is a necessary evil for "the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have." Yet in his opinion it has been most effective when it was idle. To Thoreau the government doesn’t deserve the credit we give it for it was by the drive and pride of the American people that those achievements were made.  Machiavelli talks about how to portray yourself publicly one way and act the exact opposite, “for there’s such a difference between the way we really live and the way we ought to live that the man who neglects the real to study the ideal will learn how to accomplish his ruin not his salvation.”   Here Machiavelli sums up his entire piece because a man who completely understands how to navigate the real whilst entertaining his subjects ideal reality he can retain his power.   

            Machiavelli also explains the difference between being loved or feared by your subjects. To Machiavelli, “to be feared is much safer than to be loved.” He believes this because as humans beings we are ungrateful, “fickle, liars and deceivers, fearful of danger and greedy for gain.” Thoreau supports this claim when he talks about how easily we are pleased for, “He who gives himself entirely to his fellow-men appears to them useless and selfish; but he who gives himself partially to them is pronounced a benefactor and philanthropist.”  And still he calls up to stand against this unjust system that keeps us trapped in cages of fear and reverie. We are “happy robots” not thinking, living, or questioning, but simply existing. We should not and will not stand for this tyranny that the Machiavellian political system has made.

             It all depends on where you sit on the social ladder. If you are on the lower half Thoreau is your champion of equality and fairness. But if you’re on the upper half Machiavelli is your guidebook to success but you must always be aware when the vultures are circling for when you fall they will feed.  

Inclusion vs. economic equality: a Toulmin analysis of “The Paradox of the New Elite”

Alexander Stille, a professor of international journalism at Columbia, began his Op-Ed, in the New York Times, like any other classical argument. He begins with an introduction where he sets the stage for his argument as well as sets up the subjects of his claim; original socially unwanted of America, blacks, women, gays. In his third paragraph Stille lays out his claim−that despite America’s recent social acceptance of the originally unwanted; economically   we have become an unimaginably inclusive which in turn makes social mobility difficult.   This claim is supported by several reasons and other minor claims made in his Op- Ed in order to present his argument logically and succinctly  so that the reader is able to follow his logic and as it builds up to his peroratio.

  Stille supports his claims with reasons, evidence and backing. The reasons he makes to support his major claim are as stated…

·       There is a tradeoff between inclusion and equality.

·       That the movement toward meritocracy in America has made social mobility difficult to maneuver.

            Stille presents his argument in 3 parts: an introduction to the issue, an analysis of the issue through both an economic view with quotes from Professor Gary Becker, and the social perspective with quotes from Professor Jerome Karabel, finally a look at the meritocratic system   after years of discrimination.  The evidence provided by Professor Becker shows the profitability of inclusion by explaining the top one percent melancholy attitude towards social issues like gay marriage when they controlled seventy five percent of the country’s economic growth between the years of 2002 and 2006.  Becker gives the reader a new perspective that states that the new elite are “more diverse” than their predecessors.  Mr. Shamus Khan states beautifully that despite the diversity of the elite they still control a majority of the country’s wealth.   I also like Professor Karabel‘s statement that, “Inequality and inclusion are both as American as apple pie.”   With every generation over the last two hundred years there has been a group of people who were shut out of the social circle.

            The  one down side of the argument is that Stille does not at any time come close to qualifying his claim of that inclusion has caused economic stratification or warranting them. Stille believes that the Occupy Wall Street Movement has brought up issue of economic equality in today's society which might be harder to create than to talk about because with social equality there has to be something that sets people apart from each other. In this case its economics.

Stille establishes his ethos as well as logos with the multiple references to professors. His logos is supported by the many historical references which are hard to argue against. In retrospect his argument is clear and well supported though the warrants for his claims are at times questionable he bring up strong and relevant points. He introduces some pathos by playing off the rising minorities in America.

Occupy Wall Street

 

 Roger is Occupying Wall Street

           Over the last few weeks the media has fed with frenzy over the Occupy Wall Street movement.  Beginning on September 17th many believed as with the uprising and protests in the Middle East that they would fizzle out. Despite early skeptics this movement did not die but has continued to grow in magnitude demographically and in political diversity, but interestingly with no articulated direction.  The mere fact that they don’t have a unified thesis and that it has not s fizzled out has caught the attention of people around the world to do the same. Currently there are thousands of demonstrations currently going on worldwide.  Originally based in Zuccotti Park on Wall Street protesters from all back rounds have gathered to protest. 

       They have no set leader but still their voice remains gaining strength with every passing day. Some claim that they protest social and economic inequality, corporate greed, as well as the power and influence of corporations, particularly from the financial service sector, and lobbyists over government.  Some believe that they are just a group of disgruntled citizens.

             When people think of Wall Street, is it of the great financial district, the ever changing stock market, which with a single point can bring a country to its knees? Is it of a bronze Minotaur prepared to gore any threat to the world of changing business?  From one side it’s wrong to be such a nuisance can’t you simply take the normal response and makes your complaints in a courtroom where you can face us without public scandal.

             Or is Wall Street the enemy? A great monument that was the root cause of the Financial Crisis of 2008 that sent the world into an unimaginable tailspin.  Not because of a death or a great heist, but because of the greed of a few.  Goldman Sacs whose capital greed infiltrated the economy and sold fake loans and took out the housing industry costing people their homes, jobs, and their financial livelihood.

I believe that Wall Street needs to be taught a lesson.  After the first surplus in 20 years during the Clinton Era the American people became lax and thought that after the election of the Bush Administration what was there to worry about. Then After 9/11 we were sent into a tail spin. The involvement in two wars, the down turn in the housing market and Financial Crisis of 2008.   It was wrong of the American people to not take a greater action in their politics and economics as millions of job were sent overseas. But it is wrong for Wall Street to take advantage of the economy and should be held accountable for their role in its destruction.  This is our country and we will win it back.   Something this severe needs the consideration of both sides to come together and discuss the issues and complaints. Those on Wall Street need to be held responsible for forfeiting thousands of American jobs in an already unstable environment.

Disney and Gap or Dolce and Gabbana

Disney and Gap or Dolce and Gabbana- David Kai           

Kid fashion has always been open to new ideas, style and statements.  Interestingly what I understand about fashion and style doesn’t come from a degree in psychology and fashion. My experience comes from my own observations of 16 years during hours and hours spent wandering the malls  of America as well as reading up on the latest fashion trends in GQ, Teen Vouge, and InStyle. But over time what was once considered inappropriate has transformed. 

            Kids enjoy wearing things that are bright, cool and sometimes far more mature then they are ready for.  Sometimes parents who are busy with paying the bills, working don’t notice how quickly their kid’s style changes from cute and adorable preteen. Many times it’s difficult for parents to find age appropriate clothes that will last more than one season, especially with a sprouting child.  Inadvertently parents are forced to change their child’s whims and fancies in order to accommodate new clothes.  The most versatile and hardest to accommodate for is girl fashion.

            The girl apparel market is a versatile and popular one. It offers the trendiest and latest designs in the apparel market. It’s an ever-growing market, with a lot of scope for creativity and expansion. Skirts to jeans, pants to spaghettis, classical gowns to midis and graceful frocks, shorts to denim, wraparounds to sarong, swimsuits and bikinis to warm woolen and leather, there so many varieties a girl can choose from. But if you walk into Abercrombie, American Eagle Kids, H&M Kids, you will see how  their clothes are  just simply smaller version of the adult and teen brands.   With little or no regard for the image of beauty and style that they are portraying and encouraging.

            The true issue in kid fashion is  that we as a community, society and culture are trying to encourage our children to follow that natural intuition to want to grow up quickly instead of  cherishing the  beauty of being a child.  Where will it end ? Three and five year olds  walking into school  looking like an army of rap stars and pop singers.   we as a  society need tto send a clear message to the fashion industry. If public opinion change on what they want to see for  their  children the industry will adapt. That is the beauty of fashion. Like society, ever changing, shifting  and repeating.