Book-Length Review

The book I read was Just How Stupid Are We? by Rick Shenkman. The book starts off with a quote by John F. Kennedy that states, "The enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth - persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." The rest of the book the author tries to reveal the myths that have been shown to the American public. One such myth was the "Bush messed up everything" myth. Most Americans believe that George Bush did everything wrong that messed up America, e.g. Katrina and Saddam. But the truth is you can't stop natural disasters and we have been involved in Iraq since the OPEC crisis. Rick Shenkman believes that Americans are spoon fed lies and half truths therefore he thinks Americans should be tested in order to vote. That is how the book ties into my topic - Voting Rights.

My favorite section in the book is the second chapter about the American voter's stupidity. Shenkman pulls out an article from the Associated Press from March 2006 to start the chapter that says, "About 1 in four Americans can name more than one of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment... but more than half of Americans can name two members of the Simpson family" (Associated Press 13). Shenkman continues on listing scientific result after scientific result each one getting more and more depressing. Shenkman believes, "The defining characteristics of stupidity are ignorance, negligence, wooden-headedness, shortsightedness, and bone-headedness" (Shenkman 14). I personally think that Americans are a mixture between ignorance and negligence with an extra hint of hypocrisy. Americans don't care about the news (ignorance), don't vote (negligence), and when confronted about both they become defensive (hypocrisy). Americans choose to believe only what they want to hear and everything else (otherwise known as the truth) is tossed out the window or seen as a threat. One truth that Americans can't face is that they really don't have a clue what's going on.

What if I told you that you were stupid? You would be enraged and try to convince me that it isn't true. But what if Americans could see their faults such as being too stupid? Then we would all be responsible for the actions done in this country. But if the first step to recovery is to admit your wrong, then the second step is to turn away and try to fix your fault. That means Americans should step up their game and educate themselves to the point that they aren't stupid. What would life in Intellegent America be like? You can either dream about the utopia of Intelligent America and disregard my question as useless jargon; or you can step up and make the utopia come true. It's your call America. Be stupid or not.

Shenkman, Rick. Just How Stupid Are We?. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2008. Print.

5th Critical Review on Small Source

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,844510,00.html

I decided to look at a different view of voting rights such as what affects people to vote, and if it determines how they vote. As I was thinking about this topic, one reoccurring theme kept showing up - it was the US polling system. This thought is not totally stupid so just hear me out. At the web address shown above is a TIME magazine article discussing how polls affect the voter's psyche on election day. Keep listening, most Americans won't admit this ever but Americans vote to win. That means, if a poll tells them one person is a 70% favorite, then they will vote for them just because they will win. Just like at the race course you want to place your money on the winner not the loser. It makes sense if you really think about it. But, the thing is most polls are liars. Yeah, they lie. People will say anything, aka make up polls to make you vote for their candidate. Sad and depressing I know; but, it is life. Live with it or don't. But there are still questions to ask like, "Do their samplings really reflect public opinion or create it? Are they scientists or self-fulfilling prophets? Do they enhance democracy or menace it?"(TIME May 1968).

I want to focus on the last question in the quote "Do they enhance democracy or menace it?" Well, I am most certainly not an expert, but I can tell you that when one group of people is lying about a topic as important as our next president then it is definitely hurting every ones voting rights. One group's personal opinions should not affect a whole group of uneducated peoples vote. At the start of this blog there was a poll in the margin that stated "Who should be Allowed to Vote". I used to answer that blog with the answer choice of 'Everyone"; but, after this project my answer has become "Only the Educated Few". People are too easily swayed by other peoples opinions and false information to be able to vote "educatedly". Even if people try to educate themselves they are met with false information such as the polling system. So, in conclusion, average Americans, that are uneducated, tend to be hindered by the polling system. Therefore, the polling system intrudes upon the right to vote. To sum it up, polling systems are unconstitutional.

"Do Polls Help Democracy?." TIME 18 May 1968: n. pag. Web. 21 Apr 2010. .

2nd Multimedia

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm


"I Have a Dream Speech" by Martin Luther King Jr. is the greatest speech ever read on social equality but is the most moving speech ever heard as well. The website I went to listed the words as well as the video of the speech. The speech discusses the inequality of African-Americans after the Emacipation Proclamation, and how rights should not be awarded "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." The speech goes on to discuss the racial predjudices that black people have faced and the trials that they have over come.

I personally love this speech more than any other speech in history. The "check of justice" is held in everyone's hand and should always be checked in time of unfairness. But you ask me, how does this deal with "voting rights" and I tell you that without people like MLKJ with thier ability to always search for the quest for an equal life then that is voting. Voting is expressing your opinion for a certain change and MLKJ achieved this without having to sign a voter registration form. He achieved his "vote" when the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was passed and allowed everyone the ability to vote. Martin Luther King Jr. voiced his opinion through words which eventually led him to the ability to cast a real vote. You can marvel at the words he uses, the analogies he throws in, and even his voice tone but words are only words until someone takes them to heart.

"Martin Luther King Speech." American Rhetoric. Web. 15 Apr 2010.

4th Critical Review Small Source

http://grammar.about.com/od/classicessays/a/sbanthonyspeech.htm

Susan B. Anthony had a speech titled "On Women's right to Vote" that discussed the unfairness of women's inability to vote. Susan brought up that "in thus voting, I not only committed no crime, but, instead, simply exercised my citizen's rights, guaranteed to me and all United States citizens by the National Constitution, beyond the power of any state to deny." The speech goes on to discuss the validity of voting being determined by sex. The speech then calls all women to go vote and to stand up for themselves. I believe I am in love with Susan B. Anthony.

I enjoyed reading the speech. I enjoyed reading Susan's (and yes we are already on a first name basis) rhetorical, retarded, and sarcastic questions such as "Are women people?". Susan B. Anthony not only was a fiery speaker but also a believer in the "Black and White" world. What I mean by that is that she believes that there needs to be one standard for equal rights, such as no rights or everyone has rights. There is no in between, aka "Gray", like only one person can vote and sometimes another person if they like that person. I vote the speech as one of the most moving articles that I have placed my eyes upon. The speech made me want to stand up and express myself by the way of a vote..... I only wish she talked about lowering the voting age to 17 so I could vote.

Anthony, Susan B. ""On Women's Right to Vote"." about.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr 2010.

Multimedia Review One

I decided to do my first critical review on the women suffragist movement. The video is called Equality but is quite humorous and bias towards men's rights. The video states that "any attempt of man to gain power is (perceived through woman's eyes) at the expensive of women." Can one group's quest for voting rights lead to another groups voting right demise?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d25esQeBoU

In the video, it clearly states that anyone that (in England) could vote as long as they owned land, not based off of race or sex. But women believed that they should get the right to vote even though they didn't own land. There wasn't a property less MAN quest for voting rights so they got left out of the original voting amendment. The narrator can't remember when growing up in school that he was taught about Man's inability to vote, only woman's fight for vote. I am not a anti-feminist person but I agree with the narrator, sometimes when you focus on just one certain topic you tend to miss the big picture. If we just gave everyone the right to vote we wouldn't have had to deal with two huge movements (Civil Rights and Feminist) at two separate times. In a few years we will have an illegal Mexican Rights act and they also will want the right to vote. So its a perpetual cycle that seems to never end. Give the vote to all or let no one vote. That simple.

"Equality." Youtube. Web. 8 Apr 2010. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d25esQeBoU.

Paul Cuffe Story

Paul Cuffe by Arthur Diamond is a biography on Paul Cuffe's life. Paul Cuffe was a wealthy African-American that strived for equal rights for black people. He built the first nonsegregated schoolhouse in 1797 mainly for his own children and close friends of the family. Paul Cuffe's dad was a slave brought straight from Africa and his mother was a Native American. Both of his parents worked hard for their money but never had the ability to voice their opinion, via vote. Before Paul was born his dad became a free slave, so Paul was free as well. Paul learned to read and write by himself, therefore Paul had the ability to make money. Paul became invested in a merchant ship and soon became very wealthy. With his wealth and influence Paul fought for the African-American right to vote. After a while of fighting for the right to vote Paul decided he should just move back to Africa where he had equal rights. Once back to Africa he wasn't welcomed well and never achieved a happy life.

Since Paul was an free African American he believed he deserved the right to vote like any other "free" person. Paul's main complaint was that people taxed him for owning land but he couldn't pay taxes as observed on page 28, "We being of African extraction are not allowed the privilege of freemen of the state, having no vote or influence in the election that chose to tax us"(Diamond 28). Paul Cuffe deserved the right to vote because of his wealth and prestige that he had built up, but, nonetheless wasn't allowed because of his race. Race is just a color or a physical feature not what a person's character is about. After reading Paul Cuffe I am enraged that one race thinks it can rule another. It just doesn't have anything to back it up. A person's character should be the only thing looked at when evaluated for the right to vote.

Diamond, Arthur. Paul Cuffe. New York: Chealse House publishers, Print.